text
stringlengths 39
745k
|
|---|
---
abstract: 'The Health and Retirement Study is a longitudinal study of US adults enrolled at age 50 and older. We were interested in investigating the effect of a sudden large decline in wealth on the cognitive score of subjects. Our analysis was complicated by the lack of randomization, confounding by indication, and a substantial fraction of the sample and population will die during follow-up leading to some of our outcomes being censored. Common methods to handle these problems for example marginal structural models, may not be appropriate because it upweights subjects who are more likely to die to obtain a population that over time resembles that would have been obtained in the absence of death. We propose a refined approach by comparing the treatment effect among subjects who would survive under both sets of treatment regimes being considered. We do so by viewing this as a large missing data problem and impute the survival status and outcomes of the counterfactual. To improve the robustness of our imputation, we used a modified version of the penalized spline of propensity methods in treatment comparisons approach. We found that our proposed method worked well in various simulation scenarios and our data analysis.'
author:
- |
Yaoyuan V. Tan[^1]\
Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Rutgers University\
and\
Carol A.C. Flannagan\
Transportation Research Institute, University of Michigan\
Lindsay R. Pool\
Department of Preventive Medicine, Northwestern University\
and\
Michael R. Elliott\
Department of Biostatistics, University of Michigan
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
title: Accounting for selection bias due to death in estimating the effect of wealth shock on cognition for the Health and Retirement Study
---
[**Keywords:**]{} Bayesian additive regression trees; Causal inference; Confounding by indication; Longitudinal Study; Missing data; Penalized spline of propensity methods in treatment comparisons.
Introduction
============
Late middle age adults commonly experience chronic health conditions like high blood pressure or diabetes as well as declining cognitive abilities. Factors known to be associated with accelerated decrease in cognitive abilities include smoking, high alcohol consumption, physical inactivity, high dietary intake of sodium and saturated fats, low dietary intake of fruits and vegetables [@lee_back; @stuck]; hypertension, elevated serum cholesterol, diabetes, obesity, cerebrovascular and cardiovascular disease [@plassman]; depression, lower socioeconomic status, and exposure to acute stressful life events and chronic perceived stress [@krieger]. In particular, the acute stress of a sudden decrease in wealth – “a negative wealth shock” – may have a negative impact on the cognitive ability of late middle aged adults. Because income typically exceeds consumption at this stage in life, sudden decreases in wealth during this period not only decrease the amount of wealth saved for retirement, but there are fewer remaining years left to replenish the lost wealth [@butrica]. The stress of losing substantial wealth during the savings period of the life cycle coupled with the pressure to replenish the lost wealth can lead to stress-related health conditions which in turn reduces the cognitive ability of an individual [@shrira]. In addition, individuals who have received a negative wealth shock may have to reduce consumption of health-enhancing goods and services which in turn leads to poor management of existing chronic conditions, further reducing cognitive abilities [@friedman_con].
Three issues arise when trying to estimate the causal effect of a negative wealth shock on cognitive ability. The first of these is the lack of randomization: negative wealth shocks are not randomly distributed in the population, but rather are confounded by factors such as gender and socio-economic status. The second issue is confounding by indication: the risk of the wealth shock at any point in time may depend on the prior cognitive ability up to the point. Finally, a sufficiently large fraction of the sample and the population will die during our follow-up, leading to “censoring by death”. Those observed to have survived a negative wealth shock include those who would survive under either condition together with those that would survive only if they experienced a negative wealth shock (if any), while those observed to have survived in the absence of a negative wealth shock include those that would survive under either condition together with those that would survive only in the absence of a negative wealth shock. These “missing values” associated with cognition among the deceased are different from the measure of cognition being “missing” due to dropout, where the cognitive ability measure exists but is unobserved. As with wealth shock, death is not a random occurrence, and is positively associated with demographic measures that increase the risk of a negative wealth shock, increased cognitive ability decline, and the experience of a negative wealth shock. Hence, the measure for cognitive ability may be confounded by death if not considered appropriately.
Methods have been developed to deal with these barriers to causal inference. To deal with the lack of randomization, we might hope that, conditional on available covariates, negative wealth shocks would truly be random. In this case, conditioning on the probability of receiving a negative wealth shock as a function of these covariates – the propensity scores [@rosenbaum] – can be used to remove the effect of confounding, either by regression, matching, or weighting [@imbens_rubin]. For the second issue – confounding by indication – marginal structural models [MSM, @msm] and more recently, penalized spline of propensity methods in treatment comparisons [PENCOMP, @zhou_t], have been used to account for confounding by the time-dependence association of the cognitive measures, either by weighting using the inverse probability of treatment actually received based on the previous values of the time-varying covariates and outcomes (MSM), or by imputation of the missing counterfactual values (PENCOMP). For censoring by death, MSMs have typically been extended by multiplying the treatment assignment weights with the inverse of the predicted probability of death [@weuve]. The issue with this approach – perhaps under appreciated – is that the resulting pseudo-population is not only balanced with respect to exposure “assignment”, but also “immortal”, in the sense that those more likely to die are upweighted so that the population over time resembles that would have been obtained in the absence of death up till time $t$ [@chaix]. This is arguably not a sensible population for inference, at least from a policy and public health perspective.
A more refined approach would be to compare the difference in the effect of negative wealth shock on cognitive ability among subjects who would have survived whether they experienced a negative wealth shock or not. This approach is consistent with the potential outcomes approach of [@neyman] and [@rubin_po], which defines causal effects as the within-subject difference of an outcome at a particular time under different exposure or treatment regimen, averaged over the population. This idea is not new [@elliott_bio] and can be viewed as a specific example of the principal stratification (PS) method discussed in [@frangakis]. Our innovation here is to embed this in a longitudinal setting where confounding by indication is present. We view this as a large missing data problem where survival status and, among survivors, unobserved outcomes under a given treatment pattern, are imputed. We extend the method proposed in Example 3 of [@elliott], which provides a Bayesian MSM approach to compare two treatments at two time points. This approach was further extended by PENCOMP in [@zhou_t] which, like augmented inverse probability weighting [AIPWT, @rrz], has a doubly-robust property in that if either the mean or propensity model is correctly specified, consistent estimates of the causal effect will be obtained. We modified PENCOMP slightly using Bayesian additive regression trees (BART), a flexible model to ease the burden of model specification by the researcher, and apply this to our proposed method.
We organize our paper as follows. We set up the framework for our problem, and provide a brief review of of MSM, PENCOMP, and Bayesian additive regression trees (BART) in Section 2. We develop our proposed method in Section 3. We then explore some of the empirical properties of our proposed method compared to a naïve method and MSM using a simulation study in Section 4. Section 5 describes the HRS data and the results of our negative wealth shock analysis. Section 6 concludes with a discussion of the implication of our results as well as future work.
Review of Relevant Methods {#chap3:review}
==========================
Setup and notation
------------------
Let $V=\{V_1,V_2,\ldots,V_p\}$ be $p$ baseline covariates, $Z_t$ be the treatment allocation at time $t=1,\ldots,T$ where $Z_t=1$ indicates a subject receiving a negative wealth shock at $t$ and $Z_t=0$ indicates no negative wealth shock, and $W_t=\{W_{1t},W_{2t},\ldots,W_{qt}\}$ be $q$ covariates that may vary with time, but are unaffected by a given treatment regimen. For example, fixed covariates by definition would belong to this class. Let $Y_{Z_1,\ldots,Z_t}$ be the potential outcome under treatments $Z_1,\ldots,Z_t$ and $X_{Z_1,\ldots,Z_t}=\{X_{Z_1,\ldots,Z_t,1},X_{Z_1,\ldots,Z_t,2},\ldots,X_{Z_1,\ldots,Z_t,r}\}$ be the time-varying covariates affected by treatments $Z_1,\ldots,Z_t$. Similarly, we define the potential survival indicator $S_{Z_1,\ldots,Z_{t-1}}$, for survival at time $t$. The survival outcome at $t$ measures whether a subject would survive after being exposed to treatment $Z_1,\ldots,Z_{t-1}$; hence, the lagged notation for the potential survival outcome, $S_{Z_1,\ldots,Z_{t-1}}$. $v$, $z_t$, $w_t$, $y_{z_1,\ldots,z_t}$, $x_{z_1,\ldots,z_t}$, and $s_{z_1,\ldots,z_t}$ indicate the observed baseline, treatment allocation, time varying covariates unaffected by a given treatment regimen, outcome, time-varying covariates affected by a given treatment regime, and survival status variables respectively. As in [@pool], we assume that a negative wealth shock is an “absorbing state” so that once a subject receives a negative wealth shock at time $t$, i.e. $Z_t=1$, the subject is “forever” shocked, i.e. $Z_{t+1}=\ldots=Z_T=1$. Note that this need not be the case for a more general set up where we could have $Z_t=0$ when $Z_j=1$ for any $j=1,\ldots,t-1$. In our context, the potential outcomes for time $t=2$ are then $Y_{Z_1=0,Z_2=0}=Y_{00}$, $Y_{Z_1=0,Z_2=1}=Y_{01}$, and $Y_{Z_1=1,Z_2=1}=Y_{11}$; similarly, $X_{Z_1=0,Z_2=0}=X_{00}$, $X_{Z_1=0,Z_2=1}=X_{01}$, and $X_{Z_1=1,Z_2=1}=X_{11}$ for time-varying covariates under the various treatment regimes; and $S_{Z_1=0}=S_0$, $S_{Z_1=1}=S_1$ for survival states. Subjects who die at time $t$ have structurally missing data for outcomes and covariates i.e., $S_0=0$ implies that $Y_{00}=Y_{01}=NA$ and $X_{00}=X_{01}=NA$, while $S_1=0$ implies that $Y_{11}=NA$ and $X_{11}=NA$, where ‘NA’ indicates a structurally missing observation.
Marginal structural model \[chap3:msm\]
---------------------------------------
To estimate the causal effect for confounding by indication and censoring by death problems, MSM makes the following assumptions. First, MSM assumes that $$\label{chap3:surv_mod}
P(S_{z_1,\ldots,z_{t-1}}|z_1,\ldots,z_{t-1},y_{z_1},\ldots,y_{z_1,\ldots,z_{t-1}},x_{z_1},\ldots,x_{z_1,\ldots,z_{t-1}},w_1,\ldots,w_{t-1},v)>0.$$ and $$\label{chap3:treat_mod}
P(Z_t|z_1,\ldots,z_{t-1},y_{z_1},\ldots,y_{z_1,\ldots,z_{t-1}},x_{z_1},\ldots,x_{z_1,\ldots,z_{t-1}},w_1,\ldots,w_{t-1},v)>0$$ for any $z_t$ i.e. the probability of survival under treatment profile $z_1,\ldots,z_{t-1}$ and the probability of treatment allocation for time $t$ is bounded away from 0. This is an extension of the standard positivity assumption to allow that at least some subjects will survive under a given treatment regimen. Second, MSM assumes that there is no interference between subjects i.e. the potential outcome of subject $i$, $Y_{i,Z_1,\ldots,Z_t}=Y_{i,z_1,\ldots,z_t}$, is independent of whatever treatment regimen subject $j$ is allocated to $i\neq j$. Third, MSM assumes no unmeasured confounding and sequential randomization condition $$Y_{Z_1,\ldots,Z_t}\bot Z_t|z_1,\ldots,z_{t-1},y_{z_1,\ldots,z_{t-1}},\ldots,y_{z_1},x_{z_1,\ldots,z_{t-1}},\ldots,x_{z_1},w_1,\ldots,w_{t-1},v.$$ Finally, MSM assumes that the model specifications for Equations \[chap3:surv\_mod\], \[chap3:treat\_mod\], and $$Y_{z_1,\ldots,z_t}|z_1,\ldots,z_{t},y_{z_1,\ldots,z_{t-1}},\ldots,y_{z_1},x_{z_1,\ldots,z_{t-1}},\ldots,x_{z_1},w_1,\ldots,w_{t-1},v$$ are correct.
With these assumptions in place, $E[Y_{z_1,\ldots,z_t}-Y_{z'_1,\ldots,z'_t}]$ (note that this estimand is not conditioned on the survival status) is obtained by maximizing the weighted likelihood of $$\prod_{i=1}^n f(Y_{i;z_1,\ldots,z_t}|\mathbf{\theta}_{it})^{w_{it}},$$ where $i$ indexes the subjects and $\mathbf{\theta}_{it}$ are the parameters involved in the model for $Y_{i;z_1,\ldots,z_t}$ and $$\label{chap3:w_treat}
\small
w_{it}=[\prod_{j=1}^tP(Z_{ij}=z_{ij}|z_{i1},\ldots,z_{i,j-1},y_{i1},\ldots,y_{i,j-1},x_{i1},\ldots,x_{i,j-1},w_{i1},\ldots,w_{i,j-1},v_i;\mathbf{\tau}_j)]^{-1}.$$ By weighting using the inverse probability of receiving the observed treatment regime given all covariates and previous treatments, the association between treatment and all observed confounders, including confounding by indication, are broken. Under these four assumptions, inference about the treatment effects under a pseudo-population in which treatment is randomized can then be obtained.
Similarly, this weighting method can be used to remove bias due to dropout. Let $R_i=1$ indicate that the subject’s cognitive score is observed and $R_i=0$ indicate that the subject’s cognitive score is missing. The weight used to account for missing cognitive score is $$\label{chap3:w_miss}
\scriptsize
w_{it}^r=[\prod_{j=1}^tP(R_{ij}=r_{ij}|r_{i1},\ldots,r_{i,j-1},z_{i1},\ldots,z_{i,j-1},y_{i1},\ldots,y_{i,j-1},x_{i1},\ldots,x_{i,j-1},w_{i1},\ldots,w_{i,j-1},v_i;\mathbf{\gamma}_j)]^{-1}.$$
Finally, death is typically treated as equivalent to dropout in MSM [@do; @pool]. Let $D_{it}=1$ indicate that subject $i$ is dead at time $t$ and $D_{it}=0$ indicate that the subject survived at time $t$ (thus $D_{it}=1-S_{it}$). The weight for death censoring is then $$\label{chap3:w_death}
\small
w_{it}^d=[\prod_{j=1}^tP(D_{ij}=d_{ij}|z_{i1},\ldots,z_{i,j-1},y_{i1},\ldots,y_{i,j-1},x_{i1},\ldots,x_{i,j-1},w_{i1},\ldots,w_{i,j-1},v_i;\mathbf{\lambda}_j)]^{-1}.$$
Assuming that these three weights are independent of each other, the final weight that we used becomes $w_{it}^f=w_{it}w_{it}^dw_{it}^r$. To stabilize the weights, the numerators of Equations \[chap3:w\_treat\], \[chap3:w\_miss\], and \[chap3:w\_death\] are replaced by the marginal probabilities of treatment, dropout, and death at baseline given by $$\prod_{j=1}^tP(Z_{ij}=z_{ij}|z_{i1},\ldots,z_{i,j-1},v_i;\mathbf{\tau}_j'),$$ $$\prod_{j=1}^tP(R_{ij}=r_{ij}|r_{i1},\ldots,r_{i,j-1},v_i;\mathbf{\gamma}_j'),$$ and $$\prod_{j=1}^tP(D_{ij}=d_{ij}|v_i;\mathbf{\lambda}_j')$$ respectively. We use the stabilized weights in our simulations and analysis.
Penalized Spline of Propensity Methods for Treatment Comparison
---------------------------------------------------------------
PENCOMP uses the same four assumptions made by MSM excluding Equation \[chap3:surv\_mod\] for confounding by indication problems. Full details of PENCOMP can be found in [@zhou_t]. We briefly describe the algorithm for PENCOMP using multiple imputation (MI) with longitudinal treatment assignments here. Without loss of generality, we assume no time-varying covariates in the data.
1. For $b=1,\dots,B$, generate a bootstrap sample $S^{(b)}$ from the original data $S$ by sampling units with replacement, stratified on treatment group. For each sample $b$, carry out steps 2-7.
2. Estimate a logistic regression model for the distribution of $Z_1$ given baseline covariates $V$ with regression parameters $\gamma_{z_1}$. Estimate the propensity to be assigned treatment $Z_1=z_1$ as $\hat{P}_{z_1}(V)=Pr(Z_1=z_1|V;\hat{\gamma}_{z_1}^b)$, where $\hat{\gamma}_{z_1}^b$ is the maximum likelihood (ML) estimate of $\gamma_{z_1}$. Define $\hat{P}^*_{z_1}=\log[\frac{\hat{P}_{z_1}(V)}{1-\hat{P}_{z_1}(V)}]$.
3. Using the cases assigned to treatment group $Z_1=z_1$, estimate a normal linear regression of $Y_{z_1}$ on $V$, with mean $$\label{chap3:pencomp}
E(Y_{z_1}|V,Z_1=z_1,\theta_{z_1},\beta_{z_1})=s(\hat{P}^*_{z_1}|\theta_{z_1})+g_{z_1}(\hat{P}^*_{z_1},V;\beta_{z_1}),$$ where $s(\hat{P}*_{z_1}|\theta_{z_1})$ denotes a penalized spline with fixed knots and parameters $\theta_{z_1}$ and $g_{z_1}(.)$ represents a parametric function of other predictors of the outcome, indexed by parameters $\beta_{z_1}$. One of the covariates might be omitted to avoid collinearity in the covariates in Equation \[chap3:pencomp\].
4. For $z_1=0,1$, impute the values of $Y_{z_1}$ for subjects in treatment group $1-z_1$ in the original data with draws from the predictive distribution of $Y_{z_1}$ given $V$ from the regression in Step 3, with the ML estimates $\hat{\theta}_{z_1}^{(b)},\hat{\beta}_{z_1}^{(b)}$ substituted for the parameters $\theta_{z_1}^{(b)},\beta_{z_1}^{(b)}$.
5. Estimate a logistic regression model for the distribution of $Z_2$ given $V,Z_1,(Y_0,Y_1)$, with regression parameters $\gamma_{z_2}$ and missing values of $(Y_0,Y_1)$ imputed from Step 4. Estimate the propensity to be assigned treatment $Z_2=z_2$ given $Z_1$, $Y_{Z_1}$, and $V$ as $\hat{P}_{z_2}(Z_1,Y_{Z_1},V)=Pr(Z_2=z_2|Z_1=z_1,Y_{z_1},V;\hat{\gamma}_{z_2}^{(b)})$, where $\hat{\gamma}_{z_2}^{(b)}$ is the ML estimate of $\gamma_{z_2}$. The probability of treatment regimen $(Z_1=z_1,Z_2=z_2)$ is denoted as $\hat{P}_{z_1z_2}=\hat{P}_{z_1}(V)\hat{P}_{z_2}(Z_1,Y_{Z_1},V)$, and define $\hat{P}^*_{z_1,z_2}=\log[\frac{\hat{P}_{z_1z_2}}{1-\hat{P}_{z_1z_2}}]$.
6. Using the cases assigned to treatment group $(z_1,z_2)$, estimate a normal linear regression of $Y_{z_1,z_2}$ on $Z_2$, $Z_1$, $Y_{Z_1}$, and $V$ with mean [ $$\label{chap3:pencomp2}
E(Y_{z_1,z_2}|V,Y_{z_1},Z_1=z_1,Z_1=z_2,\theta_{z_1,z_2},\beta_{z_1,z_2})=s(\hat{P}^*_{z_1,z_2}|\theta_{z_1,z_2})+g_{z_1,z_2}(\hat{P}^*_{z_1,z_2},Z_2,Z_1,Y_{Z_1},V;\beta_{z_1,z_2}).$$ ]{}
7. For each combination of $(z_1,z_2)$ impute the values of $Y_{z_1,z_2}$ for subjects not assigned this treatment combination in the original data with draws from the predictive distribution of $Y_{z_1,z_2}$ in Step 6, with ML estimates $\hat{\theta}_{z_1,z_2}^{(b)},\hat{\beta}_{z_1,z_2}^{(b)}$ substituted for the parameters $\theta_{z_1,z_2}^{(b)},\beta_{z_1,z_2}^{(b)}$. Let $\hat{\Delta}_{01,00}^{(b)}=E[Y_{01}-Y_{00}]$, $\hat{\Delta}_{11,00}^{(b)}=E[Y_{11}-Y_{00}]$, and $\hat{\Delta}_{11,01}^{(b)}=E[Y_{11}-Y_{01}]$ denote the average treatment effects, $\hat{\Delta}_{jk,lm}^{(b)}$, with associated pooled variance estimates $W_{jk,lm}^{(b)}$, based on the observed and imputed values of $Y$ for each treatment regimen.
8. The MI estimate of $\Delta_{jk,lm}$ is then $\bar{\Delta}_{jk,lm,B}=\sum_{b=1}^B\hat{\Delta}_{jk,lm}^{(b)}$, and the MI estimate of the variance of $\bar{\Delta}_{jk,lm}$ is $T_B=\bar{W}_{jk,lm,B}+(1+1/B)D_{jk,lm,B}$, where $\bar{W}_{jk,lm,B}=\sum_{b=1}^BW_{jk,lm}^{(b)}/B$, $D_{jk,lm,B}=\sum_{b=1}^B\frac{(\hat{\Delta}_{jk,lm}^{(b)}-\bar{\Delta}_{jk,lm,B})^2}{B-1}$. The estimate $\Delta_{jk,lm}$ follows a $t$ distribution with degree of freedom $\nu$, $\frac{\Delta_{jk,lm}-\bar{\Delta}_{jk,lm,B}}{\sqrt{T_B}}\sim t_{\nu}$, where $\nu=(B-1)(1+\frac{\bar{W}_{jk,lm,B}}{D_{jk,lm,B}(B+1)})^2$.
Bayesian additive regression trees
----------------------------------
BART [@chipman_bart] is a flexible estimation technique for any arbitrary function. Suppose we have a continuous outcome $Y$ and corresponding $p$ predictors $X=(X_1,\ldots,X_p)$. Suppose $Y$ is related to $X$ via $$Y=f(X)+e$$ where $f(.)$ is any arbitrary function which could involve complicated non-linear and multiple-way interactions and $e\sim N(0,\sigma^2)$. Formally, BART is written as $$\label{chap3:bart_eq}
Y=\sum_{j=1}^mg(X,T_j,M_j)+e$$ where $(T_j,M_j)$ is the joint distribution of the $j^{\text{th}}$ binary tree structure $T_j$ with its corresponding $b_j$ terminal node parameters $M_j=(\mu_{1j},\ldots,\mu_{b_jj})$. $m$ is the number of regression trees used to estimate $f(X)$ and it is usually fixed at 200.
BART is able to model multiple-way interactions by using regression trees. In essence, a binary regression tree in BART may be viewed as a penalized form of an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model. When the binary regression tree only splits on one variable for the whole tree, a main effects model is obtained. When the regression tree involve splits on many different variables, a multiple-way interaction model is obtained. BART combines all $m$ regression trees together in an additive manner to obtain non-linear estimates of the main and interaction effects. This additive procedure is done by first ‘breaking’ $Y$ into $m$ equal ‘pieces’ and fitting a regression tree to each piece. Subsequently, the regression tree in each $m$ piece is then estimated by looking at the residual produced by the other $m-1$ most updated regression trees. MCMC procedures are then used to obtain the posterior distribution of $f(X)$. When the default priors of BART suggested by [@chipman_bart] are assumed, the MCMC ensures that the eventual distribution of the the sum of regression trees is concentrated around the true distribution of the model [@rockova].
For binary outcomes, BART uses a probit link where $$\label{chap3:bin_bart_eq}
P(Y=1|X)=\Phi(\sum_{j=1}^mg[X,T_j,M_j])$$ where $\Phi(.)$ is the cdf of a standard normal distribution. Estimation of the posterior distribution is similar to that of continuous outcomes but with the use of data augmentation methods, i.e. draw a continuous latent variable based on whether $Y=1$ or $Y=0$ and then run the BART algorithm on the drawn latent variables.
[@kapelner_miss] suggested a procedure to allow the BART algorithm to include covariates that might contain missing values. In brief, the missingness in the covariates are not imputed but instead, viewed as a ‘value level’ in the MCMC algorithm. The MCMC algorithm then ‘sends’ missing data to terminal nodes in the regression trees that would maximize the likelihood. This is termed as “Missing Incorporated in Attributes” [MIA, @twala Section 2]. [@kapelner_miss] showed using simulation examples that incorporating MIA within BART allows the appropriate handling of different types of missing mechanism, MCAR, MAR, and NMAR, for each covariate. We utilize this approach to accommodate the missingness in our covariates for the data analysis.
Dealing with Censoring by Death {#chap3:method}
===============================
Determining the principal strata
--------------------------------
To determine the principal strata definition, we first investigated what the data for our problem could potentially look like. We constructed Table \[chap3:eg2\_1\] for $t=3$, $p=1$, and no time-varying covariates without loss of generality. In this table, ‘x’ indicates an observed value, ‘?’ represent a missing observation which needs to be imputed, and ‘NA’ indicates a structurally missing observation. For the potential survival outcomes, we did not indicate whether they were missing or observed because we wanted to use Table \[chap3:eg2\_1\] to help us decide how we should be stratifying our subjects once our proposed method imputes the counterfactual survival status.
From Table \[chap3:eg2\_1\], we can see that the goal of our analysis is to provide inference about $E[Y_{Z_1,\ldots,Z_t}-Y_{Z'_1,\ldots,Z'_t}|S_{Z_1,\ldots,Z_{t-1}}=S_{Z'_1,\ldots,Z'_{t-1}}=1]$, where $Z_l\neq Z'_l$ for at least one $l$ with $l=1,\ldots,t$ i.e. we condition on subjects who would potentially survive under two different treatment regimes $Z_1,\ldots,Z_{t-1}$ and $Z'_1,\ldots,Z'_{t-1}$. Thus, the distribution of $(S_{Z_1,\ldots,Z_{t-1}},S_{Z'_1,\ldots,Z'_{t-1}})$ form our principal strata and meaningful contrasts are defined only in the stratum where $S_{Z_1,\ldots,Z_{t-1}}=S_{Z'_1,\ldots,Z'_{t-1}}=1$ since the potential outcomes for the two different treatment regimes exist only in this stratum. For example, if we want to estimate the effect for a negative wealth shock at $t=2$ versus no negative wealth shock by $t=2$ that is $E[Y_{01}-Y_{00}|S_0=1]$, we restrict to subjects who survive if they did not receive a negative wealth shock at $t=1$ i.e. subjects with $S_0=1$ (Subjects 1-12 in Table \[chap3:eg2\_1\]). Note that the definition, $E[Y_{Z_1,\ldots,Z_t}-Y_{Z'_1,\ldots,Z'_t}|S_{Z_1,\ldots,Z_{t-1}}=S_{Z'_1,\ldots,Z'_{t-1}}=1]$, is different from the parameter MSM estimates which is $E[Y_{Z_1,\ldots,Z_t}-Y_{Z'_1,\ldots,Z'_t}]$.
Proposed method {#chap3:prop_meth}
---------------
We make the same four assumptions used by MSM (See Section \[chap3:msm\]). We impose a further fifth assumption of strict monotonicity in that $$\label{monotonicity}
\text{If}\,Z_1\leq Z'_1,Z_2\leq Z'_2,\ldots,Z_{t-1}\leq Z'_{t-1},\,Z_i\neq Z'_i\,\text{for any }i,\,\text{then}\,S_{Z_1,\ldots,Z_{t-1}}\geq S_{Z'_1,\ldots,Z'_{t-1}}.$$ As a consequence, we have for example, when $t=2$, if $S_0=0$ then $S_1=0$ and if $S_1=1$ then $S_0=1$. This means that we rule out the possibility of a subject who does not receive a negative wealth shock and dies but would survive if having received a neagtive wealth shock. Conversely, if a subject survives after having received a negative wealth shock, we rule out the possibility that this same subject would die if he or she did not receive a negative wealth shock.
Our proposed method then estimates $E[Y_{Z_1,\ldots,Z_t}-Y_{Z'_1,\ldots,Z'_t}|S_{Z_1,\ldots,Z_{t-1}}=S_{Z'_1,\ldots,Z'_{t-1}}=1]$ by imputing the survival status of each subject at the current time $t$ and then combine the imputed counterfactual survival status together with the observed survival status to determine which principal stratum a subject belongs to. We then use a slightly modified PENCOMP to impute the counterfactual outcomes among the potentially surviving subjects to account for the bias due to confounding by indication. This approach is doubly robust and reduces the burden of model specification by the researcher. Subsequently, the average difference in the treatment effect within the desired principal strata is calculated. Variance is estimated using Rubin’s combine rule to account for the imputation uncertainty [@heitjan]. Detailed steps for our method are given below.
1. Generate a bootstrap sample $b$ from the data by sampling the units with replacement.
2. Estimate the model $X_{z_1^{(b)}}^{(b)}|Z_1^{(b)}=z_1^{(b)},W_1^{(b)},V^{(b)}$. Use this model to compute the counterfactual of $X_{z_1^{(b)}}^{(b)}$ for bootstrap sample $b$.
3. Estimate the distribution of $Z_1^{(b)}|W_1^{(b)},V^{(b)}$. Use this model to estimate the propensity to be assigned treatment $Z_1^{(b)}=z_1^{(b)}$ as $P^*_{z_1^{(b)}}=Pr(Z_1^{(b)}=z_1^{(b)}|W_1^{(b)},V^{(b)})$. Note that we did not perform a logit transformation to obtain $P^*_{z_1^{(b)}}$ (See PENCOMP Steps 2 and 5). This is because by using PENCOMP modified with BART to predict the outcomes, the non-linear effect of the propensity of assigned treatment will be handled automatically. Hence, any non-linear transformation on the propensity of assigned treatment would not be needed.
4. Estimate the model $Y_{z_1^{(b)}}^{(b)}|P^*_{z_1^{(b)}},Z_1^{(b)}=z_1^{(b)},X_{z_1^{(b)}}^{(b)},W_1^{(b)},V^{(b)}$. As mentioned, we used PENCOMP modified with BART to estimate this model. The advantage of using BART is the researcher no longer needs to specify the model. BART automatically takes care of any linear or non-linear main effects as well as linear or non-linear interactions. If we observe Equations \[chap3:pencomp\] and \[chap3:pencomp2\], we can see that these two equations are constructed using a non-linear spline specification on the propensity of assigned treatment combined with possible linear interactions between the propensity of assigned treatment and remaining covariates. This fits well with the type of estimation problems that BART was designed to solve. We then use the model produced by BART-modified PENCOMP to compute the counterfactual of $Y_{z_1^{(b)}}^{(b)}$ for bootstrap sample $b$.
5. Estimate the distribution for $S_{z_1^{(b)}}^{(b)}|Z_1^{(b)}=z_1^{(b)},Y_{z_1^{(b)}}^{(b)},X_{z_1^{(b)}}^{(b)},W_1^{(b)},V^{(b)}$ at $t=2$. Use this model to generate a survival status for the counterfactual of $S_{z_1^b}^{(b)}$ taking into account the assumption of monotonicity in Equation (\[monotonicity\]) i.e. if $S_0$ is observed and $S_0=0$ then $S_1=0$. Similarly, if $S_1$ is observed and $S_1=1$ then $S_0=1$.
6. Estimate the model $X_{z_1^{(b)},z_2^{(b)}}^{(b)}|Z_1^{(b)}=z_1^{(b)},Z_2^{(b)}=z_2^{(b)},Y_{z_1^{(b)}}^{(b)},X_{z_1^{(b)}}^{(b)},W_1^{(b)},W_2^{(b)},V^{(b)}$. Use the respective models to impute the counterfactual of $X_{z_1^{(b)},z_2^{(b)}}^{(b)}$, using any previously imputed values for the unobserved treatment regimes and restricting to the subjects that are observed and predicted to survive under the given treatment regimen of interest at $t=1$.
7. Estimate the distribution of $Z_2^{(b)}|Z_1^{(b)}=z_1^{(b)},Y_{z_1^{(b)}}^{(b)},X_{z_1^{(b)}}^{(b)},W_1^{(b)},W_2^{(b)},V^{(b)}$. Use this model to estimate the propensity to be assigned treatment $Z_2^{(b)}=z_2^{(b)}$ as $P_{z_2^{(b)}}=Pr(Z_1^{(b)}=z_1^{(b)}|X_{z_1^{(b)}}^{(b)},Z_1^{(b)}=z_1^{(b)},W_1^{(b)},V^{(b)})$. The probability of treatment regimen $(Z_1^{(b)}=z_1^{(b)},Z_2^{(b)}=z_2^{(b)})$ is denoted as $P^*_{z_2^{(b)}}=P_{z_2^{(b)}}P^*_{z_1^{(b)}}$.
8. Estimate the model $$Y_{z_1^{(b)},z_2^{(b)}}^{(b)}|P^*_{z_2^{(b)}},Z_1^{(b)}=z_1^{(b)},Z_2^{(b)}=z_2^{(b)},Y_{z_1^{(b)}}^{(b)},X_{z_1^{(b)}}^{(b)},X_{z_1^{(b)},z_2^{(b)}}^{(b)},W_1^{(b)},W_2^{(b)},V^{(b)}$$ again restricting to subjects that are observed and predicted to survive under the treatment regimes of interest at $t=2$. Use the respective models to impute the counterfactual of $Y_{z_1^{(b)},z_2^{(b)}}^{(b)}$.
9. Using a similar procedure for steps 5-8 with the restriction determined by $S_{z_1^{(b)},\ldots,z_{t-1}^{(b)}}^{(b)}=S_{z_1^{'(b)},\ldots,z_{t-1}^{'(b)}}^{(b)}=1$ for time $t$ where at least one $z_t^{(b)}\neq z_t^{'(b)}$, extend the estimation until the desired time point $t=T$.
10. Repeat Steps 1-9 to obtain $B$ bootstrap values for $$\hat{\Delta}_{z_1^{(b)},\ldots,z_{t-1}^{(b)},z_1^{'(b)},\ldots,z_{t-1}^{'(b)}}^{(b)}=E[Y_{z_1^{(b)},\ldots,z_{t-1}^{(b)}}^{(b)}-Y_{z_1^{'(b)},\ldots,z_{t-1}^{'(b)}}^{(b)}|S_{z_1^{(b)},\ldots,z_{t-1}^{(b)}}^{(b)}=S_{z_1^{'(b)},\ldots,z_{t-1}^{'(b)}}^{(b)}=1].$$ with associated pooled variance $W_{z_1^{(b)},\ldots,z_{t-1}^{(b)},z_1^{'(b)},\ldots,z_{t-1}^{'(b)}}^{(b)}$.
11. The estimate of $$\Delta_{Z_1,\ldots,Z_t,Z'_1,\ldots,Z'_t}=E[Y_{Z_1,\ldots,Z_t}-Y_{Z'_1,\ldots,Z'_t}|S_{Z_1,\ldots,Z_{t-1}}=S_{Z'_1,\ldots,Z'_{t-1}}=1]$$ is then $$\bar{\Delta}_{z_1,\ldots,z_t,z'_1,\ldots,z'_t,B}=\sum_{b=1}^B(\hat{\Delta}_{z_1^{(b)},\ldots,z_{t-1}^{(b)},z_1^{'(b)},\ldots,z_{t-1}^{'(b)}}^{(b)})/B,$$ and the estimate of the variance of $\bar{\Delta}_{z_1,\ldots,z_t,z'_1,\ldots,z'_t,B}$ is $$T_B=\bar{W}_{z_1,\ldots,z_t,z'_1,\ldots,z'_t,B}+(1+1/B)D_{z_1,\ldots,z_t,z'_1,\ldots,z'_t,B},$$ where $$\bar{W}_{z_1,\ldots,z_t,z'_1,\ldots,z'_t,B}=\sum_{b=1}^B(W_{z_1^{(b)},\ldots,z_{t-1}^{(b)},z_1^{'(b)},\ldots,z_{t-1}^{'(b)}}^{(b)})/B$$ and $$D_{z_1,\ldots,z_t,z'_1,\ldots,z'_t,B}=\sum_{b=1}^B\frac{(\hat{\Delta}_{z_1^{(b)},\ldots,z_{t-1}^{(b)},z_1^{'(b)},\ldots,z_{t-1}^{'(b)}}^{(b)}-\bar{\Delta}_{z_1,\ldots,z_t,z'_1,\ldots,z'_t,B})^2}{B-1}.$$ The estimate $\Delta_{Z_1,\ldots,Z_t,Z'_1,\ldots,Z'_t}$ follows a $t$ distribution with degree of freedom $\nu$, $$\frac{\Delta_{Z_1,\ldots,Z_t,Z'_1,\ldots,Z'_t}-\bar{\Delta}_{z_1,\ldots,z_t,z'_1,\ldots,z'_t,B}}{\sqrt{T_B}}\sim t_{\nu},$$ where $\nu=(B-1)(1+\frac{\bar{W}_{z_1,\ldots,z_t,z'_1,\ldots,z'_t,B}}{D_{z_1,\ldots,z_t,z'_1,\ldots,z'_t,B}(B+1)})^2$.
*Remark*. The idea of including the BART estimated propensity score within BART as a predictor in Steps 4 and 8 is not new. [@hahn] showed that including a BART estimated propensity score as a predictor within BART improved the estimation of heterogenous treatment effects for observational studies. [@tan] also reported that the inclusion of the BART estimated propensity score as a predictor within BART to impute missing data, under the missing at random assumption, worked well in situations where the non-linear main and interaction effects are complex for the mean and propensity model. For situations with simpler non-linear effects like a quadratic relationship, using BART to estimate the propensity score and imputing the missing values using penalized splines of propensity prediction [@zhang_little PENCOMP version for missing data] worked better. Using PENCOMP with a BART estimated propensity score for Steps 4 and 8 would be an interesting alternative. However, our aim of Steps 4 and 8 was to ease the implementation burden on the researcher. Hence, we suggest the use of PENCOMP with a BART estimated propensity score for Steps 4 and 8 only if the researcher is certain that the non-linear effect has a simple form for example, a quadratic or cubic relationship.
Simulation
==========
We conducted a simulation study to determine how well our proposed method would perform compared to the naïve method and MSM in three scenarios: 1) where there is low association between treatment allocation and confounder as well as treatment and survival status; 2) where there is a strong association between treatment and confounder as well as treatment and survival status; and finally 3) where there is a strong association between treatment and confounder, treatment and survival status, and an interaction between treatment, confounder, and survival status. We expect all three methods to perform well in the first scenario because there is little to no confounding. For the second scenario, we expect MSM and our proposed method to perform well because there is no difference in the treatment effect between the principal strata, and other stratification groups. The naïve method should not perform well due to the strong association between treatment and confounder as well as treatment and survival status. Finally, for scenario three, we expect only our proposed method to perform well because an association between the treatment effect and principal strata, $S_{Z_1,\ldots,Z_{t-1}}=S_{Z'_1,\ldots,Z'_{t-1}}=1$, is induced by the stronger interaction effect between treatment, confounder, and survival status. We fit standard linear and logistic regression models rather than BART and PENCOMP with BART since our focus is not on model misspecification but rather, the effect of confounding by indication and censoring by death.
Setup
-----
To set up our simulation study, we set the size of our target population as 1 million. We then generate a single baseline variable $V$ from a normal distribution. We set $T=3$ and model our treatment allocation, $Z_1$, as $$\label{chap3:ztime1}
logit[P(Z_1=1|V)]=\gamma_0+\gamma_1V.$$ For the potential outcome at $t=1$, $Y_{Z_1}$, we model it as $$\label{chap3:ytime1}
Y_{Z_1}=\beta_0+\beta_ZI\{Z_1=1\}+\beta_VV+\beta_{VZ}VI\{Z_1=1\}+e,$$ where $e\sim N(0,1)$.
We model the potential survival status at $t=2$, $S_{Z_1}$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{chap3:stime2}
logit(P[S_{Z_1}=1|V,Y_{Z_1}])&=\alpha_0+\alpha_{Y_1}Y_1I\{Z_1=1\}+\alpha_{Y_0}Y_0[1-I\{Z_1=1\}] \nonumber\\
&\quad+\alpha_ZI\{Z_1=1\}+\alpha_VV+\alpha_{VZ}VI\{Z_1=1\}.\end{aligned}$$ Monotonicity is imposed by setting $S_0=1$ if $S_1=1$. Because a negative wealth shock is an absorbing state, if $Z_1=1$, then $Z_2=1$. So when $Z_1=0$, we have $$\label{chap3:ztime2}
logit(P[Z_2=1|V,Y_0])=\gamma_0+\gamma_{Y_0,2}Y_0+\gamma_2V.$$ We model the potential outcome at $t=2$, $Y_{Z_1,Z_2}$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{chap3:ytime2}
Y_{Z_1,Z_2}&=\beta_0+\beta_{Z_{01}}I\{Z_1=0,Z_2=1\}+\beta_{Z_{11}}I\{Z_1=1,Z_2=1\}\nonumber\\
&\quad+\beta_{Y_0Z_{00}}Y_0I\{Z_1=0,Z_2=0\}+\beta_{Y_0Z_{01}}Y_0I\{Z_1=0,Z_2=1\}\nonumber\\
&\quad+\beta_{Y_1Z_{11}}Y_1I\{Z_1=1,Z_2=1\}+\beta_VV+\beta_{VZ_{01}}VI\{Z_1=0,Z_2=1\}\nonumber\\
&\quad+\beta_{VZ_{11}}VI\{Z_1=1,Z_2=1\}+e,\end{aligned}$$ where $e\sim N(0,1)$.
For the potential survival status at $t=3$, $S_{Z_1,Z_2}$, if $S_{Z_1}=0$, then $S_{Z_1,Z_2}=0$. When $S_{Z_1}=1$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{chap3:stime3}
logit(P[S_{Z_1,Z_2}=1|X,Y_{Z_1,Z_2},S_{Z_1}=1])&=\alpha_0+\alpha_{Z_{01}}I\{Z_1=0,Z_2=1\}\nonumber\\
&\quad+\alpha_{Z_{11}}I\{Z_1=1,Z_2=1\}\nonumber\\
&\quad+\alpha_{Y_{00}Z_{00}}Y_{00}I\{Z_1=0,Z_2=0\}\nonumber\\
&\quad+\alpha_{Y_{01}Z_{01}}Y_{01}I\{Z_1=0,Z_2=1\}\nonumber\\
&\quad+\alpha_{Y_{11}Z_{11}}Y_{11}I\{Z_1=1,Z_2=1\}\nonumber\\
&\quad+\alpha_VV+\alpha_{VZ_{01}}VI\{Z_1=0,Z_2=1\}\nonumber\\
&\quad+\alpha_{VZ_{11}}VI\{Z_1=1,Z_2=1\}.\end{aligned}$$ Again, we impose monotonicity by setting $S_{00}=S_{01}=1$ if $S_{11}=1$ and $S_{00}=1$ if $S_{01}=1$. For the treatment allocation at $t=3$, $Z_3$, if $Z_1=Z_2=0$, we have $$\label{chap3:ztime3}
logit(P[Z_3=1|X,Y_{00}])=\gamma_0+\gamma_{Y_{00}}Y_{00}+\gamma_{Y_{0,3}}Y_0+\gamma_3V.$$ For the potential outcome at $t=3$, $Y_{Z_1,Z_2,Z_3}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{chap3:ytime3}
Y_{Z_1,Z_2,Z_3}&=\beta_0+\beta_{Z_{001}}I\{Z_1=0,Z_2=0,Z_3=1\}+\beta_{Z_{011}}I\{Z_1=0,Z_2=1,Z_3=1\}\nonumber\\
&\quad+\beta_{Z_{111}}I\{Z_1=1,Z_2=1,Z_3=1\}+\beta_{Y_{00}Z_{000}}Y_{00}I\{Z_1=0,Z_2=0,Z_3=0\}\nonumber\\
&\quad+\beta_{Y_{00}Z_{001}}Y_{00}I\{Z_1=0,Z_2=0,Z_3=1\}\nonumber\\
&\quad+\beta_{Y_{01}Z_{011}}Y_{01}I\{Z_1=0,Z_2=1,Z_3=1\}\nonumber\\
&\quad+\beta_{Y_{11}Z_{111}}Y_{11}I\{Z_1=1,Z_2=1,Z_3=1\}+\beta_{Y_0Z_0}Y_0I\{Z_1=0\}\nonumber\\
&\quad+\beta_{Y_1Z_1}Y_1I\{Z_1=1\}+\beta_VV+\beta_{VZ_{001}}VI\{Z_1=0,Z_2=0,Z_3=1\}\nonumber\\
&\quad+\beta_{VZ_{011}}VI\{Z_1=0,Z_2=1,Z_3=1\}\nonumber\\
&\quad+\beta_{VZ_{111}}VI\{Z_1=1,Z_2=1,Z_3=1\}+e.\end{aligned}$$
Table \[chap3:sim\_para1\] shows the parameters we used to achieve the three different simulation scenarios. Scenario 1 is achieved by setting $\gamma_1$, $\alpha_Z$, $\gamma_2$, $\gamma_{Y_0,2}$, $\alpha_{Z_{01}}$, $\alpha_{Z_{11}}$, $\gamma_3$, $\gamma_{Y_0,3}$, and $\gamma_{Y_{00}}$ to be about 10 times smaller than the values in Scenarios 2 and 3. The rest of the differences between Scenario 1 versus 2 and 3 were to ensure the resulting simulated population would have enough deaths and subjects in the various different treatment regimes for the assumptions used by MSM and our proposed method to be valid. The difference between Scenario 2 versus 3 lie in $\beta_{VZ}$, $\alpha_{Y_1}$, $\alpha_{Y_0}$, $\beta_{Y_0Z_{00}}$, $\beta_{Y_0Z_{01}}$, $\beta_{Y_1Z_{11}}$, $\alpha_{Y_0Z_{00}}$, $\alpha_{Y_0Z_{01}}$, $\alpha_{Y_1Z_{11}}$, $\beta_{Y_{00}Z_{000}}$, $\beta_{Y_{00}Z_{001}}$, $\beta_{Y_{01}Z_{011}}$, and $\beta_{Y_{11}Z_{111}}$ where the values for Scenario 2 is about 10 times smaller compared to Scenario 3.
To calculate the true parameters, we used the generated population data (size 1 million), and then took:
1. $\Delta_{1,0}=\bar{Y}_1-\bar{Y}_0$;
2. $\Delta_{01,00}=\bar{Y}_{01}-\bar{Y}_{00}$ given $S_0=1$;
3. $\Delta_{11,00}=\bar{Y}_{11}-\bar{Y}_{00}$ given $S_0=S_1=1$;
4. $\Delta_{11,01}=\bar{Y}_{11}-\bar{Y}_{01}$ given $S_0=S_1=1$;
5. $\Delta_{001,000}=\bar{Y}_{001}-\bar{Y}_{000}$ given $S_{00}=1$;
6. $\Delta_{011,000}=\bar{Y}_{011}-\bar{Y}_{000}$ given $S_{00}=S_{01}=1$;
7. $\Delta_{111,000}=\bar{Y}_{111}-\bar{Y}_{000}$ given $S_{00}=S_{11}=1$;
8. $\Delta_{011,001}=\bar{Y}_{011}-\bar{Y}_{001}$ given $S_{00}=S_{01}=1$;
9. $\Delta_{111,001}=\bar{Y}_{111}-\bar{Y}_{001}$ given $S_{00}=S_{11}=1$; and
10. $\Delta_{111,011}=\bar{Y}_{111}-\bar{Y}_{011}$ given $S_{01}=S_{11}=1$.
We measured performance using the empirical bias, root mean squared error (RMSE), 95% coverage, and the average 95% Confidence Interval (CI) length (AIL). 1000 simulations were used to estimate these quantities. Under each simulation, a simple random sample of 4,000 or 8,000 subjects was drawn from the target population data. All methods were then implemented on the sampled data to obtain the effect estimates. For MSM and our proposed method, the models were specified using Equations \[chap3:ztime1\] to \[chap3:ytime3\] respectively. For our proposed method, because our focus is not on model misspecification but rather, confounding by indication and censoring by death, we chose to implement a simpler version of our method by skipping Steps 3 and 7 of our algorithm and using $Y_{z_1^{(b)}}^{(b)}|Z_1^{(b)}=z_1^{(b)},X_{z_1^{(b)}}^{(b)},W_1^{(b)},V^{(b)}$ and $Y_{z_1^{(b)},z_2^{(b)}}^{(b)}|Z_1^{(b)}=z_1^{(b)},Z_2^{(b)}=z_2^{(b)},Y_{z_1^{(b)}}^{(b)},X_{z_1^{(b)}}^{(b)},X_{z_1^{(b)},z_2^{(b)}}^{(b)},W_1^{(b)},W_2^{(b)},V^{(b)}$ for Steps 4 and 8 respectively. We also simplified the prediction of the potential outcomes and survival status by using linear and logistic regression instead of BART.
Results
-------
Table \[chap3:sim\_res1\] shows the simulation results for sample size of 4,000. As expected, under Scenario 1, all three methods were relatively unbiased with all three methods achieving similar RMSE. MSM and our proposed method reported slightly greater than nominal coverage due to the wider AIL. Under Scenario 2, the absolute bias of the naïve method was always larger than MSM and our proposed method. RMSE was larger as well in comparison and coverage was often far below the nominal 95% value. For this scenario MSM produced the less conservative coverage while our proposed method suggested better bias performance and reduced RMSE. Finally, under Scenario 3, the naïve method was clearly biased with poor RMSE and coverage. MSM performed slightly better compared to the naïve method but absolute bias clearly increased compared to Scenario 2. Coverage for some treatment effects were poor as well. Our proposed method remained unbiased, produced a lower RMSE compared to the other two methods, and reached nominal coverage under Scenario 3. All methods behaved as expected under these three scenarios.
Table \[chap3:sim\_res2\] shows the results with the sample size increased to 8,000, approximately the sample size in our application. The simulation results for all three methods under Scenario 1 remained relatively similar. Under Scenario 2, an increase in sample size did not affect the absolute bias of all three methods but, the coverage of the naïve method was clearly affected with huge decreases in the coverage for all parameters. Coverage for MSM and our proposed method remained fairly similar. Finally, under Scenario 3, we observe once again that the amount of bias for the three methods remained the same but, coverage for the naïve method and MSM decreased for most of the treatment effects when the sample size increased to 8,000. Coverage for our proposed method remained relatively similar to the results observed for the sample size of 4,000. In summary, bias for the three methods was rather stable when the sample size changed. However, if the method is poor in the estimation of the particular treatment effect, increasing the sample size can cause large decreases in coverage.
Determining the effect of a negative wealth shock on cognitive score for Health and Retirement Study subjects
=============================================================================================================
Health and Retirement Study
---------------------------
To investigate the association between negative wealth shock and cognitive ability in late middle aged US adults, we used data from the Health and Retirement Study (HRS). HRS is a longitudinal study of US adults, enrolled at age 50 and older. These individuals have been surveyed biennially since 1992 with detailed modules on financial status and health [@sonnega].
We use HRS data collected from 1996 to 2002 for our analysis. Subjects were obtained from the original HRS cohort, born in the years 1931-1941. Although data collection began in 1992, consistent collection of a subject’s cognitive ability only began in 1996. Hence, we excluded the data collected before 1996 and treated the variables collected in 1996 as the baseline for our analysis. We excluded subjects who did not have longitudinal measurements for net worth because we were unable to distinguish whether they have already experienced a negative wealth shock. Subjects with zero or negative net worth at baseline were excluded since we did not know if these subjects have lifelong asset poverty or experienced a negative wealth shock prior to study entry. We also removed subjects who experienced a negative wealth shock and death between 1992 to 1996. These subjects were removed because they were no longer at risk for a negative wealth shock or death. There were 9,750 participants in the original HRS cohort, and of these, 7,106 participants (72.9%) were eligible for this analysis. These participants consists of a representative sample of the 1996 US population aged 55 to 65 who had not experienced a negative wealth shock in the previous five years.
### Determining negative wealth shock
To determine whether a subject experienced a negative wealth shock from the previous follow-up period to the current follow-up period, we first obtained data from the module assessing net worth administered at every wave of HRS. Measured assets include housing value, net value of businesses, individual retirement accounts, checking/savings accounts, certificates of deposits and savings bonds, investment holdings, net value of vehicles, and the value of any other substantial assets. From this asset total, debts were subtracted, including home mortgages, other home equity loans, and unsecured debt values, like credit card balances, student loans, and medical debts. Missing values for wealth were imputed at the level of each asset or debt, using an unfolding bracket imputation method [@juster]. Wealth data were not imputed for those who do not participate in a given wave. Negative wealth shock was measured and then dichotomized (yes or no) for each time point. Loss of 75% or more of total wealth between two consecutive waves was used as the cut-point for negative wealth shock [@pool2]. Subjects were considered at risk for negative wealth shock until they have experienced a negative wealth shock or reached age 65.
### Cognitive ability
The cognitive ability of a subject is assessed in HRS using the Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status (TICS). Unfortunately, the full HRS cognitive battery is not available for participants under 65. Hence, we used an abbreviated measure that included questions about episodic memory (Immediate Word recall \[10 points\] and Delayed Word recall \[10 points\]) and mental status (Serial 7’s \[5 points\], backwards counting from 20 \[2 points\]) [@crimmins]. All responses were combined to create a composite score ranging from 0 to 27, with a higher score indicating higher cognitive ability. Some of these measures may be imputed implying that the cognitive summary score may include one or more imputed scores [@fisher]. We treated this measure as continuous and normally distributed.
### Descriptive statistics at baseline
Tables \[chap3:des\_stat1\] to \[chap3:des\_stat2\] show the descriptive statistics of the subjects at baseline by whether or not they experienced a negative wealth shock over the next six years regardless of survival status. At baseline, aside from whether the subject eventually survived until 2002 and health conditions like whether the subject ever had heart problems, high blood pressure, and stroke, all the other variables in Tables \[chap3:des\_stat1\] to \[chap3:des\_stat2\] were significantly associated with experiencing a negative wealth shock. A typical subject who would eventually experience a wealth shock would have a lower cognitive score at baseline; slightly higher BMI; lower opinion about his or her health; lower word recall score; likely still smoking; not insured; have depression; slightly lower income; either working, unemployed, or disabled; divorced or never married; lower wealth rank; have diabetes and/or psychological problems; younger; lesser years of education; and likely non-White.
Table \[chap3:cog\_score\_ts\] shows the change in unadjusted mean cognitive score between consecutive waves for subjects who did not receive a wealth shock versus those who ever received a negative wealth shock. Follow-up surveys occurred at years 2, 4, and 6. We can see that for a subject who ever got shocked, the largest observed decline in cognitive score occurs from Baseline to Wave 1. Subsequently, the decline in cognitive score is no longer as large between waves. Similarly, the bulk of our subjects were shocked at Wave 1 (second year of follow up). In later waves, the proportion of new subjects who received a negative wealth shock decreases.
Analysis
--------
We were interested in how a negative wealth shock would affect the cognitive ability of late middle aged adults in the HRS during the six years of follow-up as well as how the duration of a negative wealth shock affects cognitive ability accounting for missingness in the cognitive outcome as well as censoring by death. We employed four different methods to estimate this effect and make inference. The four methods were the naïve method, where all subjects who died under their observed negative wealth shock status were removed from analysis; baseline adjusted method, where similar to the naïve method, all subjects who died were removed from analysis but the mean cognitive score was adjusted using a model that included all baseline covariates; MSM, where negative wealth shock allocation, missingness, and censoring by death were accounted for by inverse probability weighting; and our proposed method including the PENCOMP modification described in Subsection \[chap3:prop\_meth\]. We assumed that depression was the time-varying covariate that depends on the negative wealth shock status ($X_{Z_1,\ldots,Z_t}$ in Section \[chap3:review\]) and the rest of the time-varying covariates are: self-reported health status, whether subject was insured, labor force status of subject, income, level of alcohol consumption, current smoking status, and number of health conditions ($W_t$ in Section \[chap3:method\]). We also assumed that the cognitive score is missing at random given the baseline variables presented in Tables \[chap3:des\_stat1\] to \[chap3:des\_stat2\], past negative wealth shock status, time-varying covariates, and cognitive score. For MSM, we accounted for this missingness by modeling the propensity of response while for our proposed method, we imputed the missing cognitive score by using the modified version of PENCOMP discussed in Subsection \[chap3:prop\_meth\]. All our models (baseline adjusted, MSM, and our proposed method) were specified using BART. For the naïve, baseline adjusted, and MSM method, we employed 1,000 bootstrap samples to calculate the mean and the 95% Confidence Interval (CI). The 95% CI was determined by taking the $2.5$ and $97.5$ percentile. For our proposed method, we estimated the effect and accounted for our uncertainty using our algorithm described in Subsection \[chap3:prop\_meth\].
Results
-------
Table \[chap3:anal\_res\] shows the adjusted effect estimate of a negative wealth shock on cognitive score depending on the duration of the shock for late middle aged adults in the original HRS cohort from 1996 to 2002. In general, the naïve and baseline adjusted method suggests that experiencing a negative wealth shock has a much larger negative effect on the cognitive score of subjects in our sample compared to the adjusted estimates reported by MSM and our proposed method. The naïve and baseline adjusted method produced very similar results suggesting low association between cognitive score and the baseline covariates. The effect for subjects who experienced a negative wealth shock within the first 2 years of follow up versus no shock (6 years vs. no shock), subjects who experienced a negative wealth shock within the first 2 years of follow up versus subjects who experienced a negative wealth shock between the second and fourth year of follow up (6 years vs. 2 years), and subjects who experienced a negative wealth shock within the first 2 years of follow up versus subjects who experienced a negative wealth shock between the fourth and sixth year of follow up (6 years vs. no shock), were significantly larger than 0 under the naïve and baseline adjusted method. For MSM and our proposed method all effects were reported to be not significant.
Discussion
==========
In this paper, we were interested in how a negative wealth shock affects the cognitive ability of late middle aged Americans participating in the HRS from 1996 to 2002. The main difficulty we faced was the presence of death in some subjects causing their cognitive score to be censored. Under situations where we believe death does not depend on the cognitive ability or whether a subject received a negative wealth shock, removing subjects who have died from our analysis would yield an unbiased estimate of the effect of negative wealth shock on cognitive ability as our simulation results suggest. Unfortunately, it is very possible that subjects with lower cognitive ability and/or have experienced a negative wealth shock would have a higher risk of death. In this situation, accounting for the censoring by death would be needed. This is because without randomization, there is a high likelihood that the proportion of deaths between subjects who did not receive a negative wealth shock versus those who received a wealth shock, would be imbalanced. In addition, subjects who die are more likely to have a lower cognition score. As a result, if we remove the subjects who died from our analysis, the effect of the negative wealth shock on cognitive ability that we measure would be confounded by death. Although MSM is commonly employed to weight the subjects who survived, this approach is arguably not sensible and would likely produce biased estimates when the effect depends on the principal strata as well as when adjustments on the weights have to be employed in order to stabilize the MSM estimate. To overcome these issues, we propose a new method to estimate the effect by imputing the counterfactual survival status of each subject in order to compare outcomes among individuals who would survive only under both sets of treatments being considered. Our method remained unbiased for all the simulation scenarios we tried and produced reasonable coverage. When applied to the HRS dataset, our method suggested that the effect of a negative wealth shock on the cognitive ability is close to null whereas the naïve method and MSM suggested an estimate with a slightly larger effect.
One shortcoming of our approach is our failure to incorporate the HRS sample design, in particular the sampling weights, in our inference. Given that a key use of weights in regression-type analysis is to reduce the effect of model misspecification [@korn], we hope that our use of BART will minimize the degree of model misspecification. We leave the incorporation of such features in a general approach to future work. Another aspect of our method which could be improved is to allow our method to be applicable to studies where the follow-up time is not fixed. In such a situation, Cox based survival models would have to be employed and time would have to be included as a covariate in the survival and outcome models. The difficulty in this extension would be how to develop a systematic way, applicable to all subjects, to determine the relation in time between the allocation of the treatment, measuring the outcome, and death.
$V$ $Z_1$ $Y_1$ $Y_0$ $S_1$ $S_0$ $Z_2$ $Y_{00}$ $Y_{01}$ $Y_{11}$ $S_{00}$ $S_{01}$ $S_{11}$ $Z_3$ $Y_{000}$ $Y_{001}$ $Y_{011}$ $Y_{111}$
------------ ----- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- --
Subject 1 x 1 x ? 1 1 1 ? ? x 1 1 1 1 ? ? ? x
Subject 2 x 0 ? x 1 1 1 ? x ? 1 1 1 1 ? ? x ?
Subject 3 x 1 x ? 1 1 1 ? ? x 1 1 0 NA ? ? ? NA
Subject 4 x 0 ? x 1 1 1 ? x ? 1 1 0 1 ? ? x NA
Subject 5 x 0 ? x 1 1 0 x ? ? 1 0 1 0 x ? NA ?
Subject 6 x 0 ? x 1 1 0 x ? ? 0 1 1 NA NA NA ? ?
Subject 7 x 0 ? x 1 1 0 x ? ? 0 1 1 NA NA NA ? ?
Subject 8 x 0 ? x 1 1 0 x ? ? 1 0 0 0 x ? NA NA
Subject 9 x 1 x ? 0 1 NA ? ? NA 1 1 0 NA ? ? ? NA
Subject 10 x 1 x ? 0 1 NA ? ? NA 0 1 0 NA NA NA ? NA
Subject 11 x 0 ? x 0 1 1 ? x NA 0 1 0 1 NA NA x NA
Subject 12 x 0 ? x 0 1 0 x ? NA 0 1 0 NA NA NA ? NA
Subject 13 x 1 x ? 1 0 1 NA NA x 0 0 1 1 NA NA NA x
Subject 14 x 0 ? x 1 0 NA NA NA ? 0 0 1 NA NA NA NA ?
: Sample example of a censoring by death dataset until $t=3$ where $Z_t=1$ indicates a subject having experienced a negative wealth shock and $Z_t=0$ indicates a subject have not experienced any negative wealth shock till time $t$ \[chap3:eg2\_1\]
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3
------------------------- ------------ ------------- -------------
$V$ $N(0,2^2)$ $N(17,2^2)$ $N(17,2^2)$
$\gamma_0$ 0 2 2
$\gamma_1$ -0.02 -0.2 -0.2
$\beta_0$ 0 5.3 5.3
$\beta_Z$ -1.5 -1.5 -1.5
$\beta_V$ 0.015 0.15 0.2
$\beta_{VZ}$ -0.005 -0.11 -0.05
$\alpha_0$ 0 1 0
$\alpha_{Y_1}$ 0.005 0.00625 0.0625
$\alpha_{Y_0}$ 0.01 0.0125 0.125
$\alpha_Z$ -0.01 -0.2 -0.2
$\alpha_V$ 0.002 0.02 0.02
$\alpha_{VZ}$ -0.002 -0.02 -0.02
$\gamma_2$ -0.002 -0.02 -0.02
$\gamma_{Y_0,2}$ -0.02 -0.2 -0.2
$\beta_{Z_{01}}$ -1.5 -1.5 -1.5
$\beta_{Z_{11}}$ -1 -1 -1
$\beta_{Y_0Z_{00}}$ 0.015 0.02 0.3
$\beta_{Y_0Z_{01}}$ 0.01 0.015 0.2
$\beta_{Y_1Z_{11}}$ 0.005 0.01 0.1
$\beta_{VZ_{01}}$ -0.00011 -0.011 -0.011
$\beta_{VZ_{11}}$ -0.00005 -0.005 -0.005
$\alpha_{Z_{01}}$ -0.01 -0.2 -0.2
$\alpha_{Z_{11}}$ -0.015 -0.1 -0.1
$\alpha_{Y_0Z_{00}}$ 0.01 0.0125 0.125
$\alpha_{Y_0Z_{01}}$ 0.005 0.00625 0.0625
$\alpha_{Y_1Z_{11}}$ 0.0025 0.003125 0.03125
$\alpha_{VZ_{01}}$ -0.0001 -0.02 -0.02
$\alpha_{VZ_{11}}$ -0.0005 -0.05 -0.05
$\gamma_3$ -0.0002 -0.002 -0.002
$\gamma_{Y_0,3}$ -0.002 -0.02 -0.02
$\gamma_{Y_{00}}$ -0.02 -0.2 -0.2
$\beta_{Z_{001}}$ -1.5 -1.5 -1.5
$\beta_{Z_{011}}$ -1 -1 -1
$\beta_{Z_{111}}$ -0.5 -0.5 -0.5
$\beta_{Y_{00}Z_{000}}$ 0.015 0.02 0.3
$\beta_{Y_{00}Z_{001}}$ 0.01 0.015 0.2
$\beta_{Y_{01}Z_{011}}$ 0.005 0.01 0.1
$\beta_{Y_{11}Z_{111}}$ 0.0025 0.005 0.05
$\beta_{Y_0Z_0}$ 0.0008 0.08 0.08
$\beta_{Y_1Z_1}$ 0.0003 0.03 0.03
$\beta_{VZ_{001}}$ -0.00011 -0.011 -0.011
$\beta_{VZ_{011}}$ -0.00005 -0.005 -0.005
$\beta_{VZ_{111}}$ -0.00003 -0.003 -0.003
: Table of parameters for simulation \[chap3:sim\_para1\]
-------------------- ------------ --------- ------- -------------- ------- --------- ------- -------------- ------- --------- ------- -------------- -------
Parameter True value Bias RMSE 95% Coverage AIL Bias RMSE 95% Coverage AIL Bias RMSE 95% Coverage AIL
$\Delta_{1,0}$ -1.497 -0.001 0.032 95.4 0.123 -0.0002 0.032 95.1 0.123 -0.0001 0.032 97.0 0.143
$\Delta_{01,00}$ -1.499 -0.003 0.050 95.3 0.202 -0.003 0.050 95.3 0.202 -0.003 0.050 95.7 0.214
$\Delta_{11,00}$ -1.005 -0.003 0.049 95.0 0.189 -0.001 0.049 94.7 0.189 -0.001 0.049 99.2 0.262
$\Delta_{11,01}$ 0.493 0.002 0.048 94.4 0.189 0.003 0.048 94.5 0.189 0.002 0.049 99.1 0.262
$\Delta_{001,000}$ -1.502 0.005 0.081 93.9 0.314 0.005 0.081 98.9 0.411 0.005 0.082 94.6 0.333
$\Delta_{011,000}$ -1.008 0.004 0.074 94.8 0.284 0.004 0.074 99.0 0.370 0.004 0.075 97.8 0.350
$\Delta_{111,000}$ -0.504 0.006 0.072 95.2 0.284 0.007 0.072 99.4 0.371 0.007 0.074 100.0 0.529
$\Delta_{011,001}$ 0.495 -0.001 0.071 95.0 0.284 -0.0001 0.072 99.1 0.370 -0.0009 0.072 97.8 0.348
$\Delta_{111,001}$ 1.000 -0.0001 0.072 95.6 0.284 0.001 0.072 99.0 0.371 0.001 0.074 99.9 0.528
$\Delta_{111,011}$ 0.502 0.003 0.065 94.3 0.250 0.005 0.065 98.9 0.325 0.005 0.067 99.9 0.440
Parameter True value Bias RMSE 95% Coverage AIL Bias RMSE 95% Coverage AIL Bias RMSE 95% Coverage AIL
$\Delta_{1,0}$ -3.367 -0.047 0.061 78.5 0.154 0.002 0.041 93.8 0.160 0.002 0.041 96.1 0.177
$\Delta_{01,00}$ -1.727 -0.037 0.054 83.2 0.149 -0.032 0.051 86.9 0.150 -0.002 0.037 96.4 0.161
$\Delta_{11,00}$ -1.199 -0.136 0.146 24.5 0.202 -0.020 0.057 92.5 0.204 -0.004 0.053 96.5 0.229
$\Delta_{11,01}$ 0.528 -0.098 0.111 49.2 0.199 0.013 0.054 93.7 0.201 -0.001 0.053 97.0 0.226
$\Delta_{001,000}$ -1.727 -0.029 0.062 91.9 0.220 -0.023 0.060 94.8 0.240 0.001 0.053 96.1 0.227
$\Delta_{011,000}$ -1.183 -0.065 0.082 75.0 0.199 -0.047 0.069 87.5 0.217 0.0004 0.048 97.8 0.220
$\Delta_{111,000}$ -1.169 -0.167 0.181 33.8 0.273 -0.042 0.084 93.2 0.305 -0.004 0.071 98.7 0.350
$\Delta_{011,001}$ 0.544 -0.036 0.059 88.0 0.185 -0.024 0.053 94.4 0.202 -0.002 0.045 96.7 0.206
$\Delta_{111,001}$ 0.558 -0.139 0.153 45.7 0.264 -0.019 0.071 96.3 0.294 -0.007 0.067 98.4 0.331
$\Delta_{111,011}$ 0.013 -0.101 0.119 62.9 0.246 0.007 0.065 96.1 0.276 -0.002 0.063 98.1 0.299
Parameter True value Bias RMSE 95% Coverage AIL Bias RMSE 95% Coverage AIL Bias RMSE 95% Coverage AIL
$\Delta_{1,0}$ -2.347 -0.123 0.130 14.5 0.160 0.002 0.042 94.0 0.160 0.002 0.042 95.9 0.177
$\Delta_{01,00}$ -2.559 -0.114 0.122 23.9 0.165 -0.060 0.074 70.2 0.164 -0.001 0.038 96.4 0.163
$\Delta_{11,00}$ -3.062 -0.231 0.239 2.8 0.232 -0.033 0.068 89.9 0.226 -0.004 0.058 97.0 0.260
$\Delta_{11,01}$ -0.502 -0.118 0.132 48.9 0.233 0.026 0.065 92.2 0.227 -0.003 0.059 96.7 0.260
$\Delta_{001,000}$ -2.820 -0.125 0.139 47.9 0.242 -0.062 0.087 88.7 0.273 -0.0004 0.054 95.9 0.224
$\Delta_{011,000}$ -3.605 -0.143 0.152 19.6 0.198 -0.087 0.101 69.2 0.225 -0.006 0.045 96.4 0.202
$\Delta_{111,000}$ -4.032 -0.290 0.301 5.2 0.319 -0.082 0.117 89.4 0.376 -0.009 0.080 98.6 0.400
$\Delta_{011,001}$ -0.785 -0.019 0.060 93.3 0.225 -0.026 0.063 95.0 0.256 -0.006 0.052 96.7 0.226
$\Delta_{111,001}$ -1.217 -0.160 0.181 54.4 0.336 -0.015 0.087 97.2 0.396 -0.009 0.083 99.3 0.442
$\Delta_{111,011}$ -0.432 -0.141 0.160 54.9 0.306 0.011 0.080 97.4 0.363 -0.006 0.075 98.7 0.373
-------------------- ------------ --------- ------- -------------- ------- --------- ------- -------------- ------- --------- ------- -------------- -------
: Simulation results for sample size 4,000 \[chap3:sim\_res1\]
-------------------- ------------ -------- ------- -------------- ------- --------- ------- -------------- ------- --------- ------- -------------- -------
Parameter True value Bias RMSE 95% Coverage AIL Bias RMSE 95% Coverage AIL Bias RMSE 95% Coverage AIL
$\Delta_{1,0}$ -1.497 -0.001 0.023 94.2 0.087 0.0003 0.023 94.0 0.087 0.0003 0.023 96.2 0.100
$\Delta_{01,00}$ -1.499 -0.002 0.036 95.3 0.143 -0.001 0.036 94.8 0.143 -0.001 0.037 95.5 0.151
$\Delta_{11,00}$ -1.005 -0.002 0.034 94.8 0.134 -0.0007 0.034 95.1 0.134 -0.001 0.035 98.7 0.183
$\Delta_{11,01}$ 0.493 0.001 0.034 94.6 0.134 0.002 0.034 94.4 0.134 0.002 0.035 98.6 0.184
$\Delta_{001,000}$ -1.502 0.005 0.057 95.0 0.222 0.005 0.057 99.0 0.289 0.005 0.058 95.4 0.235
$\Delta_{011,000}$ -1.008 0.004 0.051 94.5 0.201 0.004 0.051 98.4 0.260 0.004 0.052 97.1 0.246
$\Delta_{111,000}$ -0.504 0.005 0.051 95.1 0.201 0.007 0.052 98.3 0.261 0.006 0.053 99.7 0.369
$\Delta_{011,001}$ 0.495 -0.002 0.051 94.6 0.200 -0.002 0.051 99.1 0.260 -0.002 0.052 97.8 0.247
$\Delta_{111,001}$ 1.000 -0.001 0.052 94.2 0.201 0.0001 0.052 98.7 0.261 -0.0005 0.054 99.8 0.369
$\Delta_{111,011}$ 0.502 0.003 0.046 93.8 0.177 0.004 0.047 98.4 0.229 0.004 0.048 99.8 0.308
Parameter True value Bias RMSE 95% Coverage AIL Bias RMSE 95% Coverage AIL Bias RMSE 95% Coverage AIL
$\Delta_{1,0}$ -3.367 -0.047 0.055 59.6 0.109 0.002 0.029 94.0 0.113 0.003 0.029 95.9 0.125
$\Delta_{01,00}$ -1.727 -0.036 0.045 73.4 0.105 -0.031 0.041 78.8 0.106 -0.001 0.026 96.1 0.113
$\Delta_{11,00}$ -1.199 -0.134 0.139 4.0 0.142 -0.018 0.041 92.4 0.144 -0.001 0.036 96.9 0.161
$\Delta_{11,01}$ 0.528 -0.098 0.105 21.9 0.140 0.013 0.038 94.0 0.142 -0.001 0.036 97.4 0.158
$\Delta_{001,000}$ -1.727 -0.029 0.049 87.9 0.156 -0.024 0.047 93.2 0.170 0.0001 0.038 96.2 0.160
$\Delta_{011,000}$ -1.183 -0.066 0.075 54.3 0.141 -0.048 0.060 77.7 0.153 -0.001 0.036 97.7 0.156
$\Delta_{111,000}$ -1.169 -0.166 0.173 7.8 0.193 -0.040 0.065 90.4 0.215 -0.003 0.049 98.9 0.246
$\Delta_{011,001}$ 0.544 -0.038 0.050 81.5 0.131 -0.025 0.042 92.1 0.142 -0.002 0.032 97.2 0.145
$\Delta_{111,001}$ 0.558 -0.137 0.145 17.3 0.186 -0.017 0.050 96.7 0.208 -0.005 0.046 98.7 0.233
$\Delta_{111,011}$ 0.013 -0.098 0.108 38.0 0.174 0.010 0.046 96.4 0.194 0.0004 0.044 98.2 0.210
Parameter True value Bias RMSE 95% Coverage AIL Bias RMSE 95% Coverage AIL Bias RMSE 95% Coverage AIL
$\Delta_{1,0}$ -2.347 -0.123 0.126 1.5 0.113 0.002 0.029 94.5 0.113 0.003 0.029 95.7 0.124
$\Delta_{01,00}$ -2.559 -0.114 0.118 3.4 0.117 -0.060 0.067 49.3 0.113 -0.001 0.028 96.1 0.115
$\Delta_{11,00}$ -3.062 -0.230 0.234 0.1 0.164 -0.032 0.052 86.5 0.159 -0.004 0.040 97.3 0.183
$\Delta_{11,01}$ -0.502 -0.118 0.125 19.4 0.164 0.026 0.048 91.0 0.160 -0.003 0.040 98.2 0.184
$\Delta_{001,000}$ -2.820 -0.125 0.133 16.6 0.171 -0.063 0.076 78.3 0.192 -0.002 0.039 95.6 0.157
$\Delta_{011,000}$ -3.605 -0.143 0.147 2.2 0.140 -0.087 0.093 40.8 0.159 -0.007 0.032 96.7 0.142
$\Delta_{111,000}$ -4.032 -0.290 0.296 0.1 0.225 -0.081 0.099 81.5 0.265 -0.010 0.057 98.7 0.282
$\Delta_{011,001}$ -0.785 -0.018 0.044 93.4 0.159 -0.024 0.047 94.7 0.181 -0.005 0.037 97.0 0.161
$\Delta_{111,001}$ -1.217 -0.160 0.171 22.4 0.238 -0.013 0.062 97.1 0.278 -0.008 0.059 98.7 0.311
$\Delta_{111,011}$ -0.432 -0.142 0.152 26.4 0.216 0.011 0.056 97.9 0.255 -0.006 0.052 98.7 0.264
-------------------- ------------ -------- ------- -------------- ------- --------- ------- -------------- ------- --------- ------- -------------- -------
: Simulation results for sample size 8,000 \[chap3:sim\_res2\]
---------------------------- ------------------------- ------------------------- -----------
No wealth shock Ever wealth shock
Variables Mean/Frequency (S.E./%) Mean/Frequency (S.E./%) $p$-value
Eventually survived?: 0.57
$\quad$ Yes 6,207 (94.7) 516 (94.0)
$\quad$ No 350 (5.3) 33 (6.0)
Cognitive score 17.07 (4.07) 16.26 (4.35) $<0.01$
BMI 27.21 (4.84) 27.73 (5.40) 0.03
Self-reported health $<0.01$
$\quad$ Excellent 1,207 (19.9) 83 (15.7)
$\quad$ Very Good 2,126 (35.0) 128 (24.3)
$\quad$ Good 1,715 (28.2) 163 (30.9)
$\quad$ Fair 763 (12.6) 103 (19.5)
$\quad$ Poor 261 (4.3) 50 (9.5)
Current Smoking status: $<0.01$
$\quad$ Never 2,353 (40.0) 166 (32.4)
$\quad$ Former 2,410 (41.0) 187 (36.5)
$\quad$ Current 1,116 (19.0) 159 (31.1)
Alcohol consumption: $<0.01$
$\quad$ Never 3,799 (62.9) 347 (66.1)
$\quad$ Moderate 1,686 (27.9) 116 (22.1)
$\quad$ Heavy 555 (9.2) 62 (11.8)
Insured?: $<0.01$
$\quad$ No 1,014 (15.5) 120 (21.9)
$\quad$ Yes 5,543 (84.5) 429 (78.1)
Depression?: $<0.01$
$\quad$ No 4,922 (85.5) 361 (73.1)
$\quad$ Yes 832 (14.5) 133 (26.9)
Income (log transformed) 10.48 (1.21) 10.18 (1.45) $<0.01$
Labor force status: $<0.01$
$\quad$ Working 3,111 (51.2) 314 (59.6)
$\quad$ Unemployed 96 (1.6) 13 (2.5)
$\quad$ Retired 2,178 (35.9) 104 (19.7)
$\quad$ Disabled 143 (2.4) 43 (8.2)
$\quad$ Not in labor force 547 (9.0) 53 (10.1)
Martial status: $<0.01$
$\quad$ Married 4,897 (80.8) 373 (70.8)
$\quad$ Divorced 591 (9.7) 90 (17.1)
$\quad$ Widowed 426 (7.0) 42 (8.0)
$\quad$ Never Married 149 (2.5) 22 (4.2)
Wealth rank in tertiles: $<0.01$
$\quad$ 0 1,728 (26.4) 326 (59.4)
$\quad$ 1 2,360 (36.0) 124 (22.6)
$\quad$ 2 2,469 (37.7) 99 (18.0)
Gender: 0.08
$\quad$ Male 3,113 (47.5) 239 (43.5)
$\quad$ Female 3,444 (52.5) 310 (56.5)
---------------------------- ------------------------- ------------------------- -----------
: Descriptive statistics of 1996 Health and Retirement Study (baseline), part 1 \[chap3:des\_stat1\]
------------------------------------ ------------------------- ------------------------- -----------
No wealth shock Ever wealth shock
Variables Mean/Frequency (S.E./%) Mean/Frequency (S.E./%) $p$-value
Ever had diabetes?: $<0.01$
$\quad$ No 5,474 (90.2) 451 (85.6)
$\quad$ Yes 596 (9.8) 76 (14.4)
Ever had heart problems?: 0.43
$\quad$ No 5,343 (88.0) 457 (86.7)
$\quad$ Yes 730 (12.0) 70 (13.3)
Ever had HBP?: 0.07
$\quad$ No 3,888 (64.0) 316 (60.0)
$\quad$ Yes 2,183 (36.0) 211 (40.0)
Ever had psych problems?: $<0.01$
$\quad$ No 5,691 (93.7) 469 (89.2)
$\quad$ Yes 380 (6.3) 57 (10.8)
Ever had stroke?: 0.1
$\quad$ No 5,912 (97.3) 506 (96.0)
$\quad$ Yes 161 (2.7) 21 (4.0)
Age 59.73 (3.19) 57.26 (2.18) $<0.01$
Number of education years centered 0.52 (2.93) -0.17 (3.32) $<0.01$
Race: $<0.01$
$\quad$ Non-hispanic White 5,236 (79.9) 342 (62.3)
$\quad$ Non-hispanic Black 759 (11.6) 120 (21.9)
$\quad$ Hispanic 449 (6.8) 70 (12.8)
$\quad$ Other 113 (1.7) 17 (3.1)
------------------------------------ ------------------------- ------------------------- -----------
: Descriptive statistics of 1996 Health and Retirement Study (baseline), part 2 \[chap3:des\_stat2\]
Never shocked Ever shocked Change in proportion shocked
-------------------- --------------- -------------- ------------------------------
Baseline to Wave 1 0.19 -1.61 3.5%
Wave 1 to Wave 2 -0.55 0.06 2.1%
Wave 2 to Wave 3 -0.05 -0.10 1.3%
: Change in unadjusted cognitive score between consecutive waves stratified by negative wealth shock status\[chap3:cog\_score\_ts\]
---------------------- ---------- ---------------- ---------- --------------- ---------- --------------- ---------- ---------------
Estimate 95% CI Estimate 95% CI Estimate 95% CI Estimate 95% CI
2 years vs. no shock -0.51 (-1.45, 0.35) -0.51 (-1.37, 0.3) -0.01 (-1.18, 1.07) -0.13 (-0.83, 0.58)
4 years vs. no shock -0.69 (-1.45, 0.05) -0.7 (-1.4, 0.03) -0.31 (-1.23, 0.58) 0.18 (-0.73, 1.09)
6 years vs. no shock -1.95 (-2.62, -1.25) -1.94 (-2.6, -1.26) -0.12 (-1.12, 0.89) -0.18 (-0.87, 0.51)
4 years vs. 2 years -0.18 (-1.33, 1.04) -0.19 (-1.26, 0.94) -0.3 (-1.78, 1.15) 0.31 (-0.58, 1.20)
6 years vs. 2 years -1.45 (-2.54, -0.38) -1.43 (-2.46, -0.4) -0.1 (-1.61, 1.36) -0.03 (-0.83, 0.78)
6 years vs. 4 years -1.26 (-2.27, -0.2) -1.24 (-2.2, -0.24) 0.19 (-1.11, 1.61) -0.38 (-1.36, 0.61)
---------------------- ---------- ---------------- ---------- --------------- ---------- --------------- ---------- ---------------
: Effect estimate of negative wealth shock on cognitive score for late middle aged adults in original Health Retirment Study cohort from 1996 to 2002. \[chap3:anal\_res\]
Adjusted by gender, education category, race, cognitive score, BMI, self-reported health status, alcohol consumption, insurance status, depression status, income, labor force status, marital status, age, smoking status, diabetes status, heart condition, HBP status, psychological problem status, and stroke status at baseline as well as time-varying self-reported health status, alcohol consumption, insurance status, income, labor force status, smoking status, number of health conditions, and depression.
$\dagger$Adjusted by gender, education category, race, cognitive score, BMI, self-reported health status, alcohol consumption, insurance status, depression status, income, labor force status, marital status, age, smoking status, diabetes status, heart condition, HBP status, psychological problem status, and stroke status at baseline.
[^1]: (e-mail: yvt4@sph.rutgers.edu)
|
---
bibliography:
- 'eddy\_clean.bib'
title: 'Quantifying the eddy-jet feedback strength of the annular mode in an idealized GCM and reanalysis data'
---
Introduction
============
The annular mode is a dominant mode of variability of the extratropical circulation in both hemispheres on intraseasonal to interannual timescales [@Kidson1988; @Thompson1998; @Gong1999; @Thompson2000]. The annular mode corresponds to the leading empirical orthogonal function (EOF) of zonal mean zonal wind, which features an equivalent barotropic dipolar structure and represents latitudinal shifts of the eddy-driven midlatitude jet [@Nigam1990; @Hartmann1998; @Thompson2014; @Thompson2015]. The zonal index, the time series associated with the annular mode, is essentially the same concept as that discussed in the pioneering studies of the variability of the general circulation [@Rossby1939; @Namias1950; @Wallace1985]. The annular mode in the Northern Hemisphere is often considered in recent studies as the hemispheric manifestation of the North Atlantic Oscillation [e.g., @Wallace2000; @Vallis2004]. The annular mode is characterized by temporal persistence [@Baldwin2003; @Gerber2008a; @Gerber2008b], for which it has been suggested that a positive feedback between anomalous zonal flow and eddy fluxes is responsible [e.g., @Feldstein1998; @Robinson2000; @Gerber2006; @Lorenz2001 hereafter, LH01]. For example, @Robinson2000 suggested that at the latitudes of a positive anomaly of barotropic zonal wind, while surface drag tends to slow down low-level westerlies, it also enhances baroclinicity, which leads to stronger eddy generation. When the eddies propagate away, in the upper troposphere, from the latitudes where they are generated, the associated anomalies of eddy momentum flux reinforce the original zonal wind anomaly. As another example, @Gerber2006 argued that anomalous baroclinicity is not necessarily required for a positive eddy-jet feedback, as the mean flow anomaly can change the position of the critical latitudes for wave breaking and influence the eddy momentum flux convergence.
Quantifying the strength of eddy-jet feedback is important for understanding both internal variability and response to external forcing. One common issue with the current GCMs is that the simulated annular mode is too persistent compared to observations [@Gerber2008a], which not only indicates biases of jet variability, but also suggests overestimation of changes in the extratropical circulation in response to anthropogenic forcing in the models. According to the fluctuation-dissipation theorem [@Leith1975], the magnitude of the forced response is positively related to the timescale of the unforced variability, a relationship that has been confirmed qualitatively in some atmospheric models [e.g., @Ring2008; @Chen2009].
Based on the assumption that the mean-state-independent eddy forcing does not have long-term memory, LH01 and @Simpson2013b [hereafter, S13] attributed positive values of lagged correlations between the zonal index and the eddy forcing, when the zonal index leads eddy forcing by a few days, to a positive feedback, and proposed statistical methods to quantify the strength of eddy-jet feedback in observations and simulations to improve understanding of the persistence of the jet. [Even though]{} S13 validated their method using synthetic time series generated by a second-order autoregressive process, [their]{} statistical method[, as well as the statistical method proposed by LH01, would benefit from an assessment]{} with more realistic time series of zonal index and eddy forcing. Due to the chaotic nature of eddies, the mean-state-dependent eddy forcing cannot be separated from the mean-state-independent part in the reanalysis data, and as a result, it is difficult to validate the assumptions of these statistical methods. Furthermore, a recent study showed that the existence of an internal eddy feedback cannot be distinguished from the presence of external interannual forcing using only the statistical methods (Byrne et al. 2016).
In the present study a linear response function (LRF), following @Pedram2016a, is used to identify the anomalous eddy fluxes in response to mean state anomalies that match the spatial pattern of annular mode in an idealized GCM. This provides the “ground truth" in the idealized GCM, and serves as a benchmark against which one can assess the statistical methods. The LRF will be briefly explained in Section 2, along with model configuration and the reanalysis data. In Section 3, the annular mode and a simple model of eddy-jet feedback will be introduced, followed by quantification of the feedback strength using different methods in Section 4. Discussions and a brief summary are presented in Section 5.
Methodology
===========
For the numerical simulations, we use the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory dry dynamical core, which solves the primitive equations with Held-Suarez forcing [@Held1994]. Temperature is relaxed to an equinoctial radiative-equilibrium state with an equator-to-pole temperature difference of 60 K. Similar setups have been widely used to study the midlatitude circulation and its low-frequency variability [e.g., @Gerber2008b; @Chen2009; @Hassanzadeh2014; @Hassanzadeh2015; @McGraw2016]. Each simulation is integrated for 45000 days at the T63 resolution (horizontal spacing of around 200 km) with 40 vertical levels and 6-hourly outputs, and the first 500 days are discarded. Ten ensemble simulations are conducted for the control (CTL) and an experiment (EXP). In EXP, a zonally symmetric time-invariant forcing is applied to zonal wind and temperature, so that the difference of the equilibrium mean states between EXP and CTL matches the pattern of the annular mode in CTL. This external forcing is calculated using the LRF found by @Pedram2016a, and EXP is essentially the same as Test 3 in their article. The LRF ($\mathbf{L}$ in Equation 1) relates anomalous state vector $\mathbf{x}$ to its temporal tendency and an external forcing $\mathbf{f}$ as,
$$\renewcommand{\theequation}{1}
\frac{d\mathbf{x}}{dt} = \mathbf{L} \mathbf{x} + \mathbf{f},$$
in which $\mathbf{x}$ consists of $[\mathbf{u}]$ and $[\mathbf{T}]$, zonally averaged (denoted by square brackets) zonal wind and temperature anomalies from the mean state of CTL. Assuming that eddies are in statistical equilibrium with the mean flow in the long-term integrations, Equation 1 is valid for weak external forcings (see Hassanzadeh and Kuang 2016a for more details). With $\mathbf{x}_{o}$ denoting the anomalous state vector associated with the annular mode, the particular external forcing for EXP is $\mathbf{f}_{o} = -\mathbf{L} \mathbf{x}_{o}$.
[It is worth mentioning that Hassanzadeh and Kuang (2016a) have shown that the leading EOF of \[u\] and \[T\] strongly resembles the singular vector of the LRF that has the smallest singular number]{} [the so-called neutral vector, see @Goodman2002], [which confirms that the annular mode is indeed a dynamical mode, rather than a statistical artifact, in the idealized GCM. They further argued that given the similarities between the annular mode in the real atmosphere and the one simulated in the idealized GCM, it is plausible that the annular mode is also the neutral vector and hence a real dynamical mode of the real atmosphere (and atmospheres modeled with more complex GCMs), which can explain the ubiquity of annular-mode-like responses in the forced atmospheric circulations.]{}
For the observational analysis, National Centers for Environmental Prediction reanalysis 2.5$^\circ$ latitude $\times$ 2.5$^\circ$ longitude 6-hourly wind and temperature from 1951 to 2014 are used. Anomalies are calculated by removing the annual average and the first four Fourier harmonics as in LH01. Following @Baldwin2009, spatial weighting is applied to EOF analysis and projections of spatial patterns to compensate for the uneven distribution of grids in both model outputs and reanalysis data. For spectral analyses, input data is divided into 1024-day segments unless otherwise noted.
[Here, we emphasize that 6-hourly data, rather than daily data, is used in the present study in order to capture the medium-scale waves]{} [@Sato2000]. [It has been shown that the medium-scale waves, which have timescales shorter than 2 days, play an important role in the annular mode dynamics despite their weak climatological amplitudes]{} [@Kuroda2011].
Annular mode and eddy-jet feedback
==================================
Jet climatology and annular mode structure
------------------------------------------
[We]{} will be focusing on the Southern annular mode in the reanalysis data [for simplicity, considering the longitudinal symmetry in the Southern Hemisphere]{}. There are two separate jets in the Southern Hemisphere [climatology]{} (Figure 1a), namely, the subtropical jet centering around 35$^\circ$S and the midlatitude jet at around 50$^\circ$S. [Strictly following LH01, the zonal index is defined as the leading principal component (PC) of $\langle [\mathbf{u}]\rangle$, in which the angle brackets denote vertical average. The leading EOF of $\langle [\mathbf{u}]\rangle$ explains 40$\%$ of the total variance, while the second EOF explains 20$\%$. Here the zonal index is normalized so that its standard deviation is one. The latitude-pressure pattern of $[\mathbf{u}]$ and $[\mathbf{T}]$ associated with the annular mode in the reanalysis data can be seen by regressing $[\mathbf{u}]$ and $[\mathbf{T}]$ on the zonal index at zero-day lag (Figures 1bc). Note that the correlation between the zonal index and the leading PC of $[\mathbf{u}]$ is 0.995, so Figure 1b is essentially equivalent to the leading EOF of $ [\mathbf{u}]$.]{} The anomalous zonal mean zonal wind associated with the annular mode is characterized by an equivalent barotropic dipole, which is, as expected, in thermal wind balance with the zonal mean temperature anomaly. Variations in the zonal index represent [north-south]{} vacillations of the eddy-driven jet [e.g., @Hartmann1998].
{width="\textwidth"}
For model outputs, both hemispheres are analyzed, but the Northern Hemisphere is flipped and plotted as the Southern Hemisphere, as the model is symmetric about the equator. The climatology in the simulations with the same model configuration has been well documented [e.g., @Held1994]. In brief, a confined midlatitude jet centering around 40$^\circ$S, 10$^\circ$ equatorward to the eddy-driven jet in the reanalysis data, is produced in the CTL (Figure 2a). The zonal index is again calculated as the leading PC of $\langle [\mathbf{u}]\rangle$. The leading EOF of $\langle [\mathbf{u}]\rangle$ explains 50$\%$ of the total variance in the model, while the second EOF explains 18$\%$. Despite the idealized nature of the GCM, [the tropospheric dipolar]{} pattern of zonal wind of the annular mode produced in the model compares reasonably well with the Southern annular mode in the reanalysis data (Figures 2bc).
{width="\textwidth"}
Simple model of feedback
------------------------
[In their seminal work]{}, LH01 introduced a simple model of the eddy-jet feedback, which will be briefly explained in this section. With the same notations as in LH01, $z(t)$ indicates the zonal index, and $m(t)$ denotes the time series of eddy forcing on the annular mode, which is defined as the projection of the anomalous eddy momentum convergence onto the leading EOF of $\langle [\mathbf{u}]\rangle$. As discussed in LH01, the tendency of $z$ is formulated as, $$\renewcommand{\theequation}{2a}
dz/dt = m - z/\tau,$$
in which $\tau$ is the damping timescale. Equation 2a can be interpreted as the zonally and vertically averaged zonal momentum equation (LH01), $$%\renewcommand{\theequation}{}
\frac{\partial \langle[u]\rangle}{\partial t} = \frac{1}{\cos^2 \phi} \frac{\partial(\langle[u'v']\rangle \cos^2 \phi)}{a \partial \phi} - F,$$ [where $u'$ and $v'$ are deviations of zonal wind and meridional wind from their respective zonal means, $\phi$ is the latitude, $a$ is the Earth’s radius, and $F$ includes the effects of surface drag and secondary circulation.]{}
With capital letters denoting the Fourier transform of the corresponding lower case variables and $\omega$ denoting [angular]{} frequency, Equation 2a can be written as,
$$\renewcommand{\theequation}{2b}
i\omega Z = M - {Z}/{\tau}$$
Figure 3a shows the power spectrum of the zonal index in the reanalysis data, with a lowest resolved frequency of 1/1024 cycles per day (cpd). The zonal index features increasing power with decreasing frequency. At intraseasonal and shorter timescales, where the dominant balance of Equation 2b is between $i\omega Z$ and $M$, the power spectrum of zonal index can be interpreted, to the first order, as reddening of the power spectrum of eddy forcing (Figure 3b). The broad peak at synoptic timescale in the power spectrum of eddy forcing (Figure 3c) is an intrinsic characteristic of the mean-state-independent eddies (LH01). At timescales longer than around 50 days, a positive eddy-jet feedback is suggested to be responsible for the high power of both of the zonal index and eddy forcing, where the dominant balance of Equation 2b is between $Z/\tau$ and $M$. [A linear feedback model for]{} $M$ (e.g., Hasselmann 1976; LH01) can be [written as]{},
$$\renewcommand{\theequation}{3}
M = \tilde{M} + bZ,$$
where $\tilde{M}$ is the mean-state-independent eddy forcing, and $b$ is the strength of the eddy-jet feedback. In equilibrium, $b$ must be smaller than $1/\tau$ in both GCMs and the realistic atmosphere, otherwise the zonal index grows unboundedly. Plugging Equation 3 into Equation 2b returns,
$$\renewcommand{\theequation}{4}
i\omega Z = \tilde{M} + (b - 1/{\tau})Z$$
If we consider $\tilde{M}$ as [white noise at low frequencies]{}, the amplitude of $Z$ is inversely proportional to the difference between $1/\tau$ and $b$ at the low-frequency limit (i.e., neglecting the left hand side of Equation 4). The stronger the eddy feedback is (i.e., the closer $b$ is to $1/\tau$), the higher power $Z$ has at intraseasonal and longer timescales. Note that if $b=0$, the amplitude of $Z$ is inversely proportional to $1/\tau$ at the low-frequency limit, and at intraseasonal to interannual timescales the zonal index will still have increasing power with decreasing frequency [@Hasselmann1976], although the annular mode will be less persistent than that with a positive eddy feedback.
{width="\textwidth"}
The autocorrelation function of the zonal index decreases more slowly with lag time than that of the eddy forcing (Figure 3cd). The negative autocorrelations of eddy forcing at small lag time indicates the quasi-oscillatory nature of the eddies (Figure 3d), which is consistent with the broad maximum in the power spectrum at 7-15 days. The cross-correlation of $m$ and $z$ peaks at around 0.53, when the zonal index lags eddy forcing by 1-2 days as the zonal index is driven by the eddy forcing (Figure 4). Negative cross-correlations when the zonal index leads eddy forcing by a fews days result from the oscillatory behavior of eddy forcing, and positive values at large lags suggest a positive eddy-jet feedback according to LH01.
{width="50.00000%"}
Despite some biases, the CTL is able to capture the general features of the system as in the reanalysis data described above (Figure 5). The broad peak of eddy forcing at synoptic timescales in the power spectrum is more pronounced in the model, which indicates that the eddy forcing is more oscillatory in the idealized GCM. @Chen2009 argued that the shoulders in the autocorrelation function of the zonal index at around $\pm$4-day lag can be attributed to the strong oscillatory nature of eddy forcing in the idealized GCM. Also, the annular mode is more persistent in this GCM, as the cross-correlation between $m$ and $z$ decays more slowly compared to that in the reanalysis data (Figures 4 and 6), or equivalently, the simulated zonal index has higher power at intraseasonal and longer timescales compared to that in the reanalysis data. Note that this is not just a bias of this idealized GCM. Too persistent annular modes are seen in GCMs of varying degrees of complexity, the cause of which is unknown and remains an important topic of research [@Gerber2008a; @Gerber2008b; @Nie2014].
{width="\textwidth"}
{width="50.00000%"}
Eddy-jet feedback strength
==========================
The LRF will first be used to calculate the “ground truth" of the eddy-jet feedback strength associated with the leading EOF of $\langle [u] \rangle$ (i.e., the annular mode), as well as the second EOF, in the idealized GCM. Three different statistical methods, namely, fitting cross-correlation functions (LH01), lag regression (S13) and regression using low-pass filtered data (introduced in the present study), will be used to estimate the eddy feedback strength of the annular mode in the idealized GCM, and evaluated against the result from the LRF. Then we will apply the statistical methods to investigate the eddy feedback associated with the annular mode in the reanalysis data.
Linear response function
------------------------
With a zonally symmetric time-invariant forcing, the deviations of mean state in EXP from that in CTL (Figures 7ab) are nearly identical to the pattern of the annular mode (Figures 2bc)[, with a pattern correlation of 0.995]{}. Note that the changes in the mean state from CTL to EXP are caused by the imposed external forcing and are long term averages so that the eddies are in statistical equilibrium with the mean state. The changes of eddy fluxes from CTL to EXP are the response to the mean state changes, rather than the cause of the deviation of the mean state. The anomalous eddy fluxes are shown in Figures 7cd, the pattern of which largely agrees with LH01. In the region of positive zonal wind anomalies (around 50$^\circ$), meridional temperature gradient increases at low levels (Figures 7ab), leading to enhanced baroclinic wave generation and stronger eddy heat flux (Figure 7d). Correspondingly, the equatorward propagation of waves enhances the poleward eddy momentum flux at around 45$^\circ$, which reinforces the zonal wind anomaly (Figure 7c). The strength of the eddy feedback can be calculated by projecting the anomalous eddy momentum flux convergence onto the anomalous zonal wind (see Baldwin et al. 2009 for details about projection of data with spatial weighting). The averaged feedback strength of the 10 ensemble simulations (referred to as $b_{LRF}$ hereafter) is around 0.137 day$^{-1}$, which is denoted by the red solid line in Figure 8. The red dashed lines in Figure 8 show the 95$\%$ confidence intervals of $b_{LRF}$, indicating little spread across the ensemble members. $b_{LRF}$ is considered as the ground truth in the idealized GCM.
{width="\textwidth"}
{width="\textwidth"}
The mean-state-independent eddy forcing is not directly observable and cannot be separated from the mean-state-dependent eddy forcing in the reanalysis data, but can be computed in the idealized GCM as $\tilde{M} = M - b_{LRF}Z$. The power spectrum of the mean-state-independent eddy forcing is shown in Figure 9. At timescales shorter than around 50 days, the mean-state-independent eddy forcing dominates the total eddy forcing. In particular, it is confirmed that the mean-state-independent eddy forcing is responsible for the broad peak of total eddy forcing at synoptic timescales. At timescales longer than 50 days, the strength of the mean-state-independent eddy forcing decreases with decreasing frequency, while the strength of the total eddy forcing rises as frequency decreases.
{width="22pc"}
[At intraseasonal to interannual timescales, the total eddy forcing is dominated by mean-state-dependent eddy forcing. Here, the role of the medium-scale waves, whose period is shorter than 2 days, in the annular mode dynamics is emphasized. It has been shown that the amplitude of the medium-scale waves, which is weak in the climatology, is strongly modified by the annular mode, and the fluxes resulting from these waves have a substantial contribution to the annular mode dynamics]{} [@Kuroda2011]. At interannual timescales, the total eddy forcing calculated from daily wind anomalies captures less than half of the total eddy forcing calculated from 6-hourly wind anomalies in the idealized GCM (Figure 10a). The results suggest that the eddy-jet feedback will be strongly underestimated without accounting for medium-scale waves. In fact, with daily model outputs, $b_{LRF}$ is around 0.083 day$^{-1}$, 40$\%$ weaker than that calculated using 6-hourly model outputs.
{width="\textwidth"}
[Although the focus of the present work is on the annular mode (i.e., the leading EOF of the zonal mean zonal wind), we also apply the LRF framework to the second EOF, which is characterized by a tripolar pattern of zonal wind anomalies and corresponds to the fluctuations of the amplitude of the jet (Figure 11a). With a stronger midlatitude jet, temperature gradient is enhanced between 30$^\circ$S-40$^\circ$S below around 300 hPa (Figure 11b). Poleward eddy heat flux is strengthened due to sharper temperature gradient (Figure 11d), and the anomalous eddy momentum flux associated with second EOF tends to export momentum out of the jet (Figure 11c). Using another ensemble of 10 simulations with an external forcing calculated for the second EOF, it is found that the eddy feedback associated with the second EOF is negative, and the strength of the feedback is -0.264 day$^{-1}$. This is consistent with the findings of LH01, who inferred from a lag-regression analysis that the feedback is negative. LH01 also argued that the anomalous eddy momentum flux associated with the second EOF tend to weaken the jet as a result of increased barotropic shear, i.e. the barotropic governor effect]{} [@James1987].
{width="\textwidth"}
Fitting cross-correlation functions (LH01)
------------------------------------------
In a pioneering study, LH01 inferred the existence of a positive eddy-jet feedback in the annular mode dynamics from the reanalysis data and based on the the assumption that the mean-state-independent eddy forcing has short memory (i.e., the time series of $\tilde{m}$ has a short decorrelation timescale), and proposed the following method to quantify the strength of the feedback by fitting the covariance functions. If $b$ = 0, Equation 4 becomes,
$$\renewcommand{\theequation}{5}
i\omega \tilde{Z} = \tilde{M} - \tilde{Z}/{\tau},$$
where $\tilde{Z}$ denotes the zonal index in a system without eddy-jet feedback. The covariance between $\tilde{z}$ and $\tilde{m}$ must be close to zero when $\tilde{z}$ leads $\tilde{m}$ by a period longer than the decorrelation timescale of the mean-state-independent eddies. It has been shown that the covariance between $\tilde{z}$ and $\tilde{m}$ is a function of $b$ and the covariance between ${z}$ and ${m}$ (see LH01 for details), and $b$ can be estimated by minimizing the mean squared cross-correlations at lags longer than a particular decorrelation timescale. For instance, assuming a decorrelation time of 7 days, the estimated strength of eddy-jet feedback (hereafter $b_{LH}$) is around 0.13 day$^{-1}$, and the red curve in Figure 6 shows the corresponding cross-correlations between $\tilde{z}$ and $\tilde{m}$. Bootstrap confidence intervals (at 95$\%$ confidence levels) are plotted to indicate errors (black dashed curves in Figure 8a). A bootstrap ensemble of 5000 members is constructed by resampling from the original time series. Feedback strength is calculated for each of the bootstrap ensemble member, which provides the probability density function of $b_{LH}$ and thus the confidence intervals. $b_{LH}$ varies with the choices of decorrelation time. Note that it is difficult to determine an optimal decorrelation time [*a priori* due to the quasi-oscillatory behavior of $\tilde{m}$]{}, especially when the decorrelation timescale varies by season [e.g., @Sheshadri2016].
Lag regressions
---------------
Lag regression is applied to find the feedback strength following S13. Denote the auto-covariance function of $z$ with lag $l$ as $\gamma_z (l)$, and write the cross-covariance function between $z$ and $m$ as $\gamma_{zm} (l)$ when $z$ leads $m$ by $l$ days. Consider the lag regression model $m(t) = \beta(l)z(t-l) $, the lag regression coefficient $\beta$ is, $$\renewcommand{\theequation}{6}
\beta(l) = \frac{\gamma_{zm}(l)}{\gamma_{z}(0)}$$
With Equation 3, the right hand side of Equation 6 can be decomposed into two parts: $$\renewcommand{\theequation}{7}
\beta(l) = \frac{\gamma_{z\tilde{m}}(l)}{\gamma_{z}(0)} +b\frac{\gamma_{z}(l)}{\gamma_{z}(0)},$$ in which the first term on the right hand side [is negligible]{} if $z$ is decorrelated with $\tilde{m}$ beyond lag $l$ days, and therefore the feedback strength can be estimated as,
$$\renewcommand{\theequation}{8}
b_{S} = \beta(l) \frac{\gamma_{z}(0)} {\gamma_{z}(l)}$$
Figure 8b shows the strength of eddy-jet feedback calculated using Equation 8, with 95$\%$ confidence intervals estimated with bootstrapping as in Section 4b. While the margin of error grows with lag time, the strength of eddy-jet feedback is largely underestimated, and the bias results from the quasi-oscillatory nature of the eddy forcing. Using lag regression, we are also able to estimate the pattern of anomalous eddy fluxes associated with the annular mode. The pressure-latitude distribution of eddy flux anomaly generally agrees with the results from LRF, with a pattern correlation over 0.9 through a wide range of lag days (figures not shown).
Low-pass filtering
------------------
The bias with lag regression suggests that the correlation between $\tilde{m}$ and $z$ is not negligible [relative to the correlation between $m$ and $z$]{} at a lag as long as 30 days (Figure 8b). One can expect that at longer lag timescales, $\tilde{m}$ and $z$ eventually become decorrelated and thus Equation 8 will be valid, but it can also be expected that with such long lag time, the margin of error will be large so that the estimation is uninformative. Inspired by the observation that the strength of the mean-state-independent eddy forcing vanishes at the low-frequency limit (Figure 9), here we propose a new method to bypass this issue. Multiplied by ${Z^{*}}/{(ZZ^{*})}$ on both sides, where $Z^{*}$ denotes the conjugate of $Z$, Equation 3 becomes:
$$\renewcommand{\theequation}{9}
\frac{MZ^*}{ZZ^*} = \frac{\tilde{M}Z^*}{ZZ^*} + b$$
Using the LRF, the real component of the first term on the right hand side can be explicitly calculated and is found to be negligible at the low-frequency limit (Figure 12). As a result, the feedback strength equals the real component of the left hand side of Equation 9 at the lowest frequencies, which can be calculated as the regression coefficient of low-pass filtered $m$ on low-pass filtered $z$. [In practice, Lanczos filtering is applied with the number of weights covering the length of four times of the cut-off periods.]{} The estimated feedback strength (denoted as $b_{FIL}$) is plotted in Figure 8c. When timescales longer than 200 days are used for the low-pass filtering, this method yields remarkably accurate results. [$b_{FIL}$ is calculated for each hemisphere of the 10 ensemble members of CTL, and 95$\%$ confidence intervals are then calculated assuming these samples follow Gaussian distribution. ]{} The pressure-latitude pattern of eddy flux anomaly associated with the annular mode is also constructed by regressing low-pass filtered eddy fluxes onto the low-pass filtered zonal index, and the results compares well with those from LRF, with a pattern correlation exceeding 0.9.
{width="50.00000%"}
Application to the reanalysis data
----------------------------------
The above three statistical methods are applied to estimate the strength of eddy-jet feedback in the reanalysis data, and the results are summarized in Figure 13.
{width="\textwidth"}
By minimizing the mean squared cross-correlations at lags longer than certain number of days as illustrated in Figure 4, $b_{LH}$ spans a range of values from around $0.06$ to $0.12$ day$^{-1}$ with the choices of decorrelation timescales of 5-20 days. The estimation for the reanalysis data is more sensitive to the choices of decorrelation and has larger margin of error compared to that of the idealized GCM (Figure 13a), which may partly be attributed to the shorter temporal length of the reanalysis data. Using lag regression, the estimated feedback strength is a function of lag days, and the margin of error grows with increasing lag (Figure 13b). Also, $b_{S}$ is more sensitive to the choices of lag days and has larger uncertainties than its counterpart with model outputs.
Although there is no “ground truth" for the reanalysis data, the result obtained from regression with low-pass filtered data seems encouraging (Figure 13c). $b_{FIL}$ converges to around 0.121 day$^{-1}$ at low-frequency limit, which matches well with $b_{LH}$ with the decorrelation time of around 2 weeks. [There is also a significant contribution of medium-scales waves to total eddy forcing at intreaseasonal to interannual timescales in the reanalysis data (Figure 10b), and with daily data, $b_{FIL}$ is only around 0.053 day$^{-1}$.]{} The pattern of anomalous eddy fluxes associated with the annular mode is also calculated by regressing low-pass filtered time series (Figure 14). As expected, anomalous eddy flux converges zonal momentum into 60$^\circ$S-70$^\circ$S in the upper troposphere, and reinforces the anomalous zonal wind. Eddy anomalies originate from 60$^\circ$S-75$^\circ$S near the surface, where eddy heat flux is strengthened due to increased baroclinicity.
{width="\textwidth"}
While we do not have the LRF to separate out the mean-state-independent eddy forcing in the reanalysis, the low-pass filtering method only assumes that the mean-state-independent eddy forcing is sufficiently weak at the low-frequency limit so that the first term on the right hand side of Equation 9 is substantially smaller than the feedback factor $b$. Given that eddies are mostly generated at synoptic timescales, this seems a rather reasonable assumption. [A caveat of this assumption is that in the presence of an external low-frequency forcing (for example, due to stratospheric variability), the mean-state-independent eddy forcing might not be small at low frequencies (see an illustrative example in]{} @Byrne2016 [and more discussions in the next section).]{}
Discussions and summary
=======================
The temporal persistence of the atmospheric annular mode has long been attributed to a positive eddy-jet feedback (e.g., Feldstein and Lee 1998; Robinson 2000; LH01), and statistical methods have been used to quantify the strength of the eddy feedback (LH01; S13). However, a recent study argues that one cannot discern the difference between the presence of an internal eddy feedback and external interrannual forcing using only the statistical methods [@Byrne2016]. Due to the stochastic nature of eddies, it is indeed impossible to separate the mean-state-dependent eddy flux from the mean-state-independent eddy flux and infer causality in the reanalysis data. In the present study, an LRF is used to identify the eddy response to anomalous mean flow associated with the annular mode in an idealized GCM, in which a positive eddy-jet feedback is confirmed unequivocally. With little spread across ten 44500-day integrations, EXP yields an eddy feedback strength of around 0.137 day$^{-1}$. [When the LRF is applied to the second EOF of zonal mean zonal wind, it yields a negative eddy feedback of -0.264 day$^{-1}$, consistent with the findings of LH01 who inferred the existence of a negative feedback in the second EOF of the observed Southern annular mode and attributed it to the barotropic governor effect (James 1987)]{}.
Using the LRF, the present study is able to provide a reasonably accurate estimation of the mean-state-independent eddy forcing. It is found that the spectral peak at synoptic timescales in the power spectrum of total eddy forcing ($m$) is dominated by the mean-state-independent eddy forcing ($\tilde{m}$). At intraseasonal and longer timescales, the amplitude of the mean-state-independent eddy forcing decreases with decreasing frequency[, and the total eddy forcing is dominated by mean-state-dependent eddy forcing. The role of the medium-scale waves on the annular mode is emphasized in the present study, which shows that less than half of the total eddy forcing can be captured using daily wind anomalies at interannual timescales as reported before in Kuroda and Mukougawa (2011). Without accounting for the medium-scales waves, the eddy feedback strength is underestimated by around 40$\%$.]{}
The present study focuses on an equinoctial mean state in the idealized GCM. While a number of previous studies [e.g., @Barnes2010; @Byrne2016; @Sheshadri2016] have brought attention to the seasonality of the annular mode. Seasonal variations of the persistence of the annular mode and eddy-jet feedback will be explored using the present methodology in a future study.
The statistical methods proposed by LH01 and S13 are evaluated against the result from the LRF. By fitting the cross-correlations between the zonal index and eddy forcing as in LH01, the estimated feedback strength is fairly close to the result from the LRF, but it is difficult to determine *a priori* an optimal value of decorrelation timescales, a parameter needed to calculate the best-fit. Following S13, the output from lag-regression varies with lag days, and the feedback strength is largely underestimated, which suggests that the estimator is biased, and the assumption of S13 that the zonal index is decorrelated with the mean-state-independent eddy forcing beyond a lag time of a few days is not valid. To be specific, the correlation between $\tilde{m}$ and $z$ cannot be neglected with a lag time spanning from a few days to as long as 30 days, as the mean-state-independent eddy forcing is quasi-oscillatory, with a broad peak in the power spectrum at synoptic timescale.
To reduce the interference from the spectral peak of eddy forcing at synoptic timescales, we applied regressions on low-pass filtered eddy forcing and zonal index. The results converge to the value produced by the LRF when timescales longer than 200 days are used for the low-pass filtering. Given that the left hand side of Equation 4 is negligible at the low frequency limit, the fact that the power of the mean-state-independent eddy forcing is low at low frequencies implies that $b$ and $1/\tau$ are close to each other. The difference between $1/\tau$ and $b$, denoted as $1/\tau_{e}$, is constrained by examining $|Z / \tilde{M}|$, which can be derived from Equation 4:
$$\renewcommand{\theequation}{10}
\big|\frac{Z}{\tilde{M}} \big|= \big|\frac{1}{i\omega - 1/\tau_{e}}\big| = \frac{1}{\sqrt {\omega^2 + 1/\tau_{e}^2}}$$
Taking advantage of the length of CTL, spectral analysis is conducted at very fine spectral resolution, i.e., 1/10000 cpd as in Figure 15. At intraseasonal and shorter timescales, when $1/\tau_e$ is small compared to $\omega$, $|Z / \tilde{M}|$ is close to the $1/\omega$ curve (Figure 15). At the lowest frequencies, $|Z / \tilde{M}|$ is limited by $\tau_e$. The best-fit value of $\tau_e$ is 91 days from least squares fitting. The difference between $1/\tau$ and $b$ is smaller than 0.011 day$^{-1}$. The result is robust as $1/\tau_e$ ranges from 0.009 to 0.014 day$^{-1}$ when we applied least squares fitting to the ten ensemble members of CTL. It leaves an intriguing question as to what physical processes determine the difference between $1/\tau$ and $b$, as $1/\tau$ and $b$ are connected, for example, via surface friction [@Chen2009].
{width="25pc"}
When the statistical methods are applied to the reanalysis data, the performance of the methods proposed by LH01 and S13 is [influenced by the mean-state-independent eddy forcing]{}. For the reanalysis data, $b_{LH}$ and $b_{S}$ are more sensitive to the choices of parameters compared to their counterparts with model results. When the synoptic spectral peak is filtered out by low-pass filtering, with timescales longer than 200 days used for the low-pass filtering, $b_{FIL}$ converges to around 0.121 day$^{-1}$, which is close to the strength of eddy feedback in the idealized GCM.
Although we cannot deny the presence of external eddy forcing at interannual timescale in the reanalysis data and its contribution to the persistence of the annular mode as suggested by @Byrne2016, the present study confirms the importance of a positive eddy-jet feedback to the persistence of the annular mode in an idealized GCM. The annular mode in this GCM compares well with that in reanalysis data, in terms of the spatial pattern of the leading EOF and the statistics of the zonal index and eddy forcing. The resemblance between the simulated annular mode and that in the reanalysis data suggests that the dry dynamical core with Held-Suarez physics, despite its idealized nature, is able to capture the essential dynamics of the annular mode. However, it should also be highlighted that the idealized model indeed produces a too persistent annular mode compared to the reanalysis. The eddy feedback is too strong in the idealized GCM, and it can be inferred that the difference between $1/\tau$ and $b$ is too small in the model. To what extent the results of the idealized GCM connect to the real atmosphere requires further research using observational data and a hierarchy of models.
In addition, the present article provides another application of the LRF [@Hassanzadeh2015; @Pedram2016a; @Pedram2016b]. To quantify the strength of the eddy-jet feedback, one must be able to separate the anomalous eddies in response to a mean flow anomaly from the anomalous eddies that leads to the mean flow anomaly, which is difficult to do with statistical methods alone. Here the LRF is used to untangle the causal relationship in this eddy-jet feedback system, and provides the “ground truth” in the idealized GCM. Statistical methods are evaluated using model outputs, and then applied to the reanalysis data. The LRF can be calculated for GCMs of varying complexities, and the paradigm can be applied to a variety of problems involving identification of internal feedbacks.
This work is supported by NSF grants AGS-1062016 and AGS-1552385. The simulations are conducted on Harvard Odyssey cluster. Sincere thanks go to Nicholas Byrne for sharing analysis scripts and pointing out an important issue in an earlier draft of the manuscript that led us to realize the significance of using 6-hourly data. The authors thank Nicholas Byrne, Dennis Hartmann and Aditi Sheshadri for very constructive reviews and Martin Singh for discussions and comments on the manuscript.
|
---
abstract: 'It is shown that the endpoint of the first order transition line which merges into a crossover regime in the phase diagram of the Nambu–Jona-Lasinio model, extended to include the six-quark ’t Hooft and eight-quark interaction Lagrangians, is pushed towards vanishing chemical potential and higher temperatures with increasing strength of the OZI-violating eight-quark interactions. We clarify the connection between the location of the endpoint in the phase diagram and the mechanism of chiral symmetry breaking at the quark level. We show how the $8q$ interactions affect the number of effective quark degrees of freedom. We are able to obtain the correct asymptotics for this number at large temperatures by using the Pauli-Villars regularization.'
author:
- 'B. Hiller, J. Moreira, A. A. Osipov[^1], A. H. Blin'
title: '**The phase diagram for the Nambu–Jona-Lasinio model with ’t Hooft and eight-quark interactions**'
---
Introduction
============
The last two decades have witnessed great efforts towards the understanding of the QCD phase diagram, in terms of effective low energy theories paralleled by QCD lattice calculations, see e.g. the recent reviews [@Wilczek:2001]-[@Fukushima:2008], or the paper [@Weise:2006]. The domain of small to moderate baryonic chemical potential $0<\mu <400$ MeV and temperatures $0<T < 200$ MeV, is of specific relevance for relativistic heavy ion collisions. Of fundamental importance in the study of the phase diagram are chiral symmetry and confinement, however the finite size ($m_u, m_d, m_s\neq 0$) as well as the difference in the bare quark masses ($m_u\neq m_d\neq m_s$) pose major problems both from the calculational point of view and in the implications due to deviations from the ideal situations, where the chiral condensate and the Polyakov loop are known to be the appropriate order parameters to characterize the phase state of the quark-gluon system.
The present study focuses on the chiral symmetry breaking aspects related to non-zero current quark mass values. Our arguments will be based on the successful model of Nambu–Jona-Lasinio (NJL) [@Nambu:1961], combined with the $U_A(1)$ breaking $2N_f$ flavor determinant of ’t Hooft [@Hooft:1976]-[@Reinhardt:1988] (NJLH). Moreover the most general $U(3)_L\otimes U(3)_R$ chiral invariant non derivative eight-quark ($8q$) interactions [@Osipov:2005b] are included. These terms were proven to render the effective potential of the NJLH model globally stable, and their effect has been thoroughly studied in low energy characteristics of pseudoscalar and scalar mesons [@Osipov:2006a], at finite temperature [@Osipov:2007b; @Osipov:2008] and in presence of a constant magnetic field [@Osipov:2007c]. These studies have lead at instances to sizeable and unforeseen effects. Of particular importance for the present work is that the strength of the $8q$ coupling is strongly correlated with the temperature and slope at which the crossover occurs and that it can be regulated together with the four-quark coupling, leaving the meson spectra at $T=0$ unaffected (with exception of the scalar $\sigma$ meson mass which decreases with increasing $8q$ coupling) [@Osipov:2008]. As a result the symmetry breaking for large $8q$ couplings is induced by the $6q$ ’t Hooft coupling strength, as opposed to the case with small $8q$ coupling, where the dynamical breaking of symmetry is controlled by the $4q$ coupling strength [@Osipov:2006a]. We would like to comment on a natural question which arises here, namely, can higher order many-quark interactions be also important? With regard to this, explicit argumets of A. A. Andrianov and V. A. Andrianov are known [@Andrianov:1993], which show that the structure of the QCD-motivated models at low energies with effective multi-fermion interactions and a finite cut-off in the chiral symmetry-breaking regime should contain only the vertices with four, six and eight-fermion interactions in four dimensions. This result explains partly the approximation used in our work.
Thus, in this paper we give a quantitative account of local multi-fermion forces on the phase diagram in the $(T,\mu )$ plane, by comparing the results for two sets of parameters, in the small and large coupling regimes of the $8q$ strengths, corresponding to the two above mentioned alternative mechanisms of chiral symmetry breaking.
Throughout the paper we work for simplicity in the isospin limit $m_u=m_d
\ne m_s$, breaking explicitly the chiral $SU(3)_L\otimes SU(3)_R$ symmetry to the $SU(2)_I\otimes U(1)_Y$ (isospin-hypercharge) subgroup, and take the same baryonic chemical potential $\mu$ for all quark species. Generalizations to take into account the nonzero isospin chemical potential can be implemented as for instace in [@Klimenko:2006].
Effective Lagrangian
====================
The explicit form of the multi-quark Lagrangian considered is presented in [@Osipov:2005b; @Osipov:2006a] $$\label{efflag}
{\cal L}_{\mathrm{eff}}=\bar{q}(i\gamma^\mu\partial_\mu - m)q
+{\cal L}_{4q} + {\cal L}_{6q}
+{\cal L}_{8q}^{(1)}+{\cal L}_{8q}^{(2)}.$$ Quark fields $q$ have color $(N_c=3)$ and flavor $(N_f=3)$ indices which are suppressed, $\mu =0,1,2,3$. Here $$\begin{aligned}
\label{L4q}
{\cal L}_{4q} &\!\! =\!\! & \frac{G}{2}\left[(\bar{q}\lambda_aq)^2+
(\bar{q}i\gamma_5\lambda_aq)^2\right], \\
\label{Ldet}
{\cal L}_{6q} &\!\! =\!\! & \kappa (\mbox{det}\ \bar{q}P_Lq
+ \mbox{det}\ \bar{q}P_Rq), \\
{\cal L}_{8q}^{(1)}&\!\! = \!\! &
8g_1\left[ (\bar q_iP_Rq_m)(\bar q_mP_Lq_i) \right]^2, \\
{\cal L}_{8q}^{(2)}&\!\! = \!\!&
16 g_2\left[ (\bar q_iP_Rq_m)(\bar q_mP_Lq_j)
(\bar q_jP_Rq_k)(\bar q_kP_Lq_i) \right]. \end{aligned}$$ The matrices acting in flavor space, $\lambda_a,\ a=0,1,\ldots ,8,$ are normalized such that $\mbox{tr} (\lambda_a \lambda_b )=2\delta_{ab}$; $\lambda_0=\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}\, 1$, and $\lambda_k,\ k=1,2,\ldots ,8$ are the standard $SU(3)$ Gell-Mann matrices; $P_{L,R}=(1\mp\gamma_5)/2$ are chiral projectors and the determinant is over flavor indices. The large $N_c$ behaviour of the model is reflected in the dimensionful coupling constants, $[G]=M^{-2},\, [\kappa ]=M^{-5},\, [g_1]=[g_2]=M^{-8}$, which count as $G\sim 1/N_c$, $\kappa\sim 1/N_c^{N_f}$, and $g_1,g_2\sim 1/N_c^4$ or less. As a result the NJL interaction (\[L4q\]) dominates over ${\cal L}_{6q}$ at large $N_c$, as one would expect, because Zweig’s rule is exact at $N_c =
\infty$. Let us note that the $8q$-interaction ${\cal L}_{8q}^{(1)}$ breaks Zweig’s rule as well.
Since the coupling constants $G, \kappa, g_1, g_2$ are dimensionful, the model is not renormalizable. We use the cut-off $\Lambda$ to render quark loops finite. The global chiral $SU(3)_L\times SU(3)_R$ symmetry of the Lagrangian (\[efflag\]) at $m=0$ is spontaneously broken to the $SU(3)$ group, showing the dynamical instability of the fully symmetric solutions of the theory. In addition, the current quark mass $m$, being a diagonal matrix in flavor space with elements $\mbox{diag} (m_u, m_d, m_s)$, explicitly breaks this symmetry down, retaining only the reduced $SU(2)_I\times U(1)_Y$ symmetries of isospin and hypercharge conservation, if $m_u = m_d \neq m_s$.
The model has been bosonized in the framework of functional integrals in the stationary phase approximation leading to the following effective mesonic Lagrangian ${\cal L}_{{\rm bos}}$ at $T=\mu=0$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{bos}
&&{\cal L}_{\mathrm{eff}}\to {\cal L}_{{\rm bos}}={\cal L}_{{{\mathrm{st}}}}+{\cal L}_{{\rm ql}},
\qquad
{\cal L}_{{{\mathrm{st}}}}=h_a\sigma_a+\frac{1}{2} h_{ab}^{(1)}
\sigma_a\sigma_b+\frac{1}{2} h_{ab}^{(2)}
\phi_a\phi_b +{\cal O}({\mbox{f\mbox{}ield}}^3),
\nonumber\\
&&W_{{\rm ql}}(\sigma,\phi )=\frac{1}{2}\mbox{ln}|{{\mathrm{det}}}D^{\dagger}_E D_E|=-\!\int\!
\frac{{\mathrm{d}}^4 x_E}{32 \pi^2}
\sum_{i=0}^\infty I_{i-1}\mbox{tr}(b_i)=\int\!{\mathrm{d}}^4 x_E
{\cal L}_{{\rm ql}},
\nonumber\\
&&b_0 =1,\hspace{0.2cm} b_1=-Y,
\hspace{0.2cm} b_2=\frac{Y^2}{2}
+\frac{\Delta_{us}}{\sqrt{3}}\lambda_8
Y, \hspace{0.2cm} \ldots ,
\nonumber\\
&&Y=i\gamma_{\alpha}(\partial_{\alpha}\sigma
+i\gamma_5\partial_{\alpha}\phi )
+\sigma^2+\{{\cal M},\sigma\}+\phi^2
+i\gamma_5[\sigma+{\cal M},\phi ]\end{aligned}$$ written in terms of the scalar, $\sigma=\lambda_a\sigma_a$, and pseudoscalar, $\phi=\lambda_a\phi_a$, nonet valued quantum fields. The result of the stationary phase integration at leading order, ${\cal L}_{{\mathrm{st}}}$, is shown here as a series in growing powers of $\sigma$ and $\phi$. The result of the remaining Gaussian integration over the quark fields is given by $W_{\rm ql}$. Here the Laplacian in euclidean space-time ${D^{\dagger}_E D}_E={\cal M}^2-
\partial_\alpha^2+Y$ is associated with the euclidean Dirac operator $D_E=i
\gamma_\alpha\partial_\alpha -{\cal M}-\sigma -i\gamma_5\phi$ (the $\gamma_\alpha,
\,\alpha =1,2,3,4$ are antihermitian and obey $\{\gamma_\alpha,\gamma_\beta\}=-2
\delta_{\alpha\beta}$); ${\cal M}=\mbox{diag}(M_u,M_d,M_s)$ is the constituent quark mass matrix (to explore the properties of the spontaneously broken theory, we define quantum fields $\sigma_a, \phi_a$ as having vanishing vacuum expectation values in the asymmetric phase).
The expression for the one-quark-loop action $W_{\rm ql}$ has been obtained by using a modified inverse mass expansion of the heat kernel associated to the given Laplacian [@Osipov:2001]. The procedure takes into account the differences $\Delta_{us}=M_u^2-M_s^2$ in the nonstrange and strange constituent quark masses in a chiral invariant way at each order of the expansion, $b_i$ being the generalized Seeley–DeWitt coefficients of the new series. This modification distinguishes our calculation from the one made in [@Ebert:1986]. In fact we consider the series up to and including the order $b_2$ that corresponds to the first nontrivial step in the expansion of the induced effective hadron Lagrangian at long distances. At this stage meson fields obtain their kinetic terms, but are still considered to be elementary objects. The information about their quark-antiquark origin enters only through the coefficients such as the average $$\label{I-i}
I_i=\frac{1}{3}\left[J_i(M_u^2)+J_i(M_d^2)+J_i(M_s^2)\right]$$ over the 1-loop euclidean momentum integrals $J_i$ with $i+1$ vertices ($i=0,1,\ldots$) $$\label{Ji}
J_i(M^2)=16\pi^2\Gamma (i+1)\!\int \frac{{\mathrm{d}}^4p_E}{(2\pi)^4}\,\hat\rho_\Lambda
\frac{1}{(p_E^2+M^2)^{i+1}}.$$ For the explicit evaluation of $J_i(M^2)$ we use the Pauli–Villars regularization method with two subtractions in the integrand. The procedure is fully defined by the insertion of the particular operator $$\label{reg-2}
\hat\rho_\Lambda =1-\left(1-\Lambda^2\frac{\partial}{\partial M^2}
\right) \exp\left(\Lambda^2\frac{\partial}{\partial M^2}\right).$$ Here the covariant cut-off $\Lambda$ is a free dimensionful parameter which characterizes the scale of the chiral symmetry breaking in the effective model considered. To the order of the heat kernel series truncated, only the integrals $J_0,J_1$ are needed. These are quadratic and logarithmic divergent respectively with $\Lambda\to\infty$, all other $J_i$ are finite. Note that the recurrence relation $$\label{rec}
J_{i+1}(M^2)=-\frac{\partial}{\partial M^2} J_i(M^2)$$ is fulfilled. If $J_i$ is known for one value of $i$, then the function may be computed for other values of $i$ by successive applications of the relation.
In ${\cal L}_{{{\mathrm{st}}}}$ the $h_a$ are determined via the stationary phase conditions. These conditions and the pattern of explicit symmetry breaking show that in general $h_a$ can have only three non-zero components at most with indices $a=0,3,8$, i.e. $h_a\lambda_a=\mbox{diag} (h_u,h_d,h_s)$, which can be found from a system of three independent equations $$\label{SPA}
\left\{ \begin{array}{l}
\vspace{0.2cm}
Gh_u + \Delta_u +\displaystyle\frac{\kappa}{16}\ h_dh_s
+\displaystyle\frac{g_1}{4}\ h_u(h_u^2+h_d^2+h_s^2)
+\displaystyle\frac{g_2}{2}\ h_u^3=0, \\
\vspace{0.2cm}
Gh_d + \Delta_d +\displaystyle\frac{\kappa}{16}\ h_uh_s
+\displaystyle\frac{g_1}{4}\ h_d(h_u^2+h_d^2+h_s^2)
+\displaystyle\frac{g_2}{2}\ h_d^3=0, \\
\vspace{0.2cm}
Gh_s + \Delta_s +\displaystyle\frac{\kappa}{16}\ h_uh_d
+\displaystyle\frac{g_1}{4}\ h_s(h_u^2+h_d^2+h_s^2)
+\displaystyle\frac{g_2}{2}\ h_s^3=0.
\end{array} \right.$$ Here $\Delta_f=M_f-m_f$, $f=u,d,s$. The matrix valued constants of higher order, like for instance $h_{ab}^{(1,2)}$ in ${\cal L}_{{\mathrm{st}}}$, are uniquely determined once the $h_f$ are known [@Osipov:2004a; @Osipov:2006a]. The stability of the effective potential is guaranteed if the system (\[SPA\]) has only one real solution. For that the couplings must fulfill the inequalities [@Osipov:2005b]: $g_1>0,\, g_1+3g_2>0,\,
Gg_1>(\kappa/16)^2$.
[TABLE I. Parameters of the model: $m_u=m_d,\, m_s$ (MeV), $G$ (GeV$^{-2}$), $\Lambda$ (MeV), $\kappa$ (GeV$^{-5}$), $g_1,\, g_2$ (GeV$^{-8}$). We also show the corresponding values of constituent quark masses $M_u=M_d$ and $M_s$ (MeV). ]{}
$\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ m_u$ $\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ m_s$ $\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ M_u$ $\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ M_s$ $\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \Lambda$ $\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ G$ $\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ -\kappa$ $\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ g_1$ $\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ -g_2\ \ $
---- --------------------------------- ----------------------------- --------------------------- --------------------------- ------------------------------- ----------------------- --------------------------- ---------------------------- ------------------------------ -- --
a 5.9 186 359 554 851 10.92 1001 $\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 1000^*$ $\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 47\ \ $
b 5.9 186 359 554 851 7.03 1001 $\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 8000^*$ $\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 47\ \ $
[TABLE II. The masses, weak decay constants of light pseudoscalars (in MeV), the singlet-octet mixing angle $\theta_p$ (in degrees), and the quark condensates $\langle\bar uu\rangle =\langle\bar dd\rangle, \langle\bar ss\rangle$ expressed as usual by positive combinations in MeV. ]{}
$\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ m_\pi$ $\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ m_K$ $\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ m_\eta$ $\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ m_{\eta'}$ $\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ f_\pi$ $\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ f_K$ $\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \theta_p$ $\ \ \ \ \ \ \ -\langle\bar uu\rangle^{\frac{1}{3}}$ $\ \ \ \ \ \ \ -\langle\bar ss\rangle^{\frac{1}{3}}$
---- ----------------------------------- --------------------------- -------------------------- ------------------------------- --------------------------- --------------------------- ------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------ --
a $\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 138^*$ $\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 494^*$ $\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 477$ $\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 958^*$ $\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 92^*$ $\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 117^*$ $\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ -14$ $\ \ \ \ \ \ \ 235$ $\ \ \ \ \ \ \ 187\ \ $
b $\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 138^*$ $\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 494^*$ $\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 477$ $\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 958^*$ $\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 92^*$ $\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 117^*$ $\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ -14$ $\ \ \ \ \ \ \ 235$ $\ \ \ \ \ \ \ 187\ \ $
[TABLE III. The masses of the scalar nonet (in MeV), and the corresponding singlet-octet mixing angle $\theta_s$ (in degrees). ]{}
$\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ m_{a_0(980)}$ $\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ m_{K_0^*(800)}$ $\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ m_{f_0(600)}$ $\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ m_{f_0(1370)}$ $\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \theta_s\ $
---- -------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------
a $\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 980^*$ $\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 1201$ $\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 691$ $\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 1368$ $\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 23\ \ \ \ $
b $\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 980^*$ $\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 1201$ $\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 463$ $\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 1350$ $\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 19\ \ \ \ $
In this paper we use the two parameter sets of Table I, which differ only in the choice of the $4q$ coupling $G$ and the $8q$ strength $g_1$. Set (b) is the same as in [@Osipov:2008] (there was a misprint in the value for the constituent strange quark mass, which we corrected). Tables II-III display the numerical fits at $T=\mu=0$ (input is denoted by a \*). The only difference in the observables of the two sets occurs in the singlet-octet flavor mixing channel of the scalars, mainly in the $\sigma$-meson (i.e. $f_0(600)$) mass. The model parameters are kept unchanged in the calculation of the $T$ and $\mu$ dependent solutions of the gap equations (see next sections).
It is worthwhile to stress that there is an essential difference between the two alternative ground states chosen here as the configurations on top of which the $T\neq 0$ and $\mu\neq 0$ effects are studied: Case (a) corresponds to the standard picture of the NJL hadronic vacuum. In this picture chiral symmetry is spontaneously broken at $T=\mu =0$ when $G>G_{crit}$. Case (b) corresponds to a new alternative, related to the pattern where $G<G_{crit}$. In this case chiral symmetry can be broken only due to the six-quark interactions, when $|\kappa |$ exceeds some critical value (the $8q$-interactions could in principle also induce symmetry breaking, however the mass spectra are then not well reproduced). One can hardly distinguish between the two cases at $T=\mu=0$, the spectra of $0^{-+}$ and $0^{++}$ low-lying mesons do not show much difference: the model parameters are the same, except for the correlated $G$ and $g_1$ values. The larger value of $g_1$ in the case (b) is a signal of the increasing role played by the eight-quark OZI-violating interactions, but this does not affect the value of the mixing angle $\theta_p$, and only slightly diminishes $\theta_s$. Such insensitivity follows from the observation that the stationary phase equations (\[SPA\]) and mass formulae of the light $0^{-+}$ and $0^{++}$ states [@Osipov:2006a] only depend on the couplings $G$ and $g_1$ through the linear combination $\xi=G+
g_1(h_u^2+h_d^2+h_s^2)/4$, except for the $00,\, 08$ and $88$ states inside the scalar nonet. However as soon as $T$ or $\mu$ are finite, the $h_f$ start to change due to their intrinsic $T,\mu$ dependence, acquired through the coupling to the quark loop integrals in the gap equations, eqs. (\[gap\]) below. The $T,\mu$ dependence of the combination $\xi$ above is steered by the strength $g_1$. This is the main reason why the $8q$-interactions may strongly affect the thermodynamic observables, without changing the spectra at $T=\mu=0$.
Thermodynamic potential
=======================
Case of vanishing temperarure and chemical potential
----------------------------------------------------
Before addressing the thermodynamical potential it is instructive to briefly discuss the effective potential of the model at $T=\mu=0$. Using standard techniques [@Osipov:2004a], we obtain from the gap-equations $$\label{gap}
h_f + \frac{N_c}{2\pi^2} M_f J_0(M_f^2)=0$$ the effective potential $V(M_f)$ as a function of three independent variables $M_f=\{M_u,M_d,M_s\}$. If the parameters of the model are fixed in such a way that eqs. (\[SPA\]) have only one real solution, the effective potential is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{effpot1}
V(M_f)&\!\! =\!\!&-\frac{1}{2}\int_0^{M_f}\!\!\sum_{f=u,d,s}h_f {\mathrm{d}}M_f
-\frac{N_c}{4\pi^2}\int_0^{M_f}\!\!\sum_{f=u,d,s}M_fJ_0(M_f^2){\mathrm{d}}M_f
\nonumber \\
&\!\! = \!\!&\frac{1}{16}\left.\left(4Gh_f^2+\kappa h_uh_dh_s
+\frac{3g_1}{2}\left(h_f^2\right)^2+3g_2h_f^4\right)\right|^{M_f}_0
+\frac{N_c}{8\pi^2}\sum_{f=u,d,s}\! J_{-1}(M_f^2),\end{aligned}$$ where $h_f^2=h_u^2+h_d^2+h_s^2, \,\, h_f^4=h_u^4+h_d^4+h_s^4$, and we extend definition (\[I-i\]) for index $i=-1$ with $$\label{J_1}
J_{-1}(M^2)=-\int_0^{M^2}\!\! J_0(M^2){\mathrm{d}}M^2
=-\frac{1}{2}\left(M^2J_0(M^2)+\Lambda^4\ln
\left(1+\frac{M^2}{\Lambda^2}\right)\right).$$ Here $J_0$ has the explicit form $$J_0(M^2)=\Lambda^2 -M^2\ln\left(1+\frac{\Lambda^2}{M^2}\right)$$ for the given choice of regulator.
The first integral in (\[effpot1\]) accounts for the leading order stationary phase contribution. The second integral describes the quark one-loop part. Since both integrands in (\[effpot1\]) are exact differentials, the line integrals depend only on the end points. The low limit of the integrals is adjusted so that $V(0)=0$ (to understand this, it is enough to notice that the power-series expansion of $V(M_f)$ at small $M_f$ starts from $V(0)$; this term does not depend on $M_f$ and, therefore, does not affect the physical content of the theory; so we simply subtract it, calculating the potential energy of the system with regard to the energy of the symmetric vacuum in the imaginary world of massless quarks).
Case of finite temperature and chemical potential
-------------------------------------------------
The extension to finite $T$ and $\mu$ of the bosonized Lagrangian (\[bos\]) is effected through the quark loop integrals $J_i$ (see eq.(\[Ji\])). Due to the recurrence relation (\[rec\]) it is sufficient to get it just for one of them, $J_0$, by introducing the Matsubara frequencies, $\omega_n$, and the chemical potential, $\mu$, through the substitutions [@Kapusta] $$\label{subst}
\int\!{\mathrm{d}}p_{0E}\to 2\pi T\!\!\!\sum_{n=-\infty}^\infty,
\quad p_{0E}\to\omega_n-i\mu,\quad\omega_n= \pi T (2n+1).$$ Inserting (\[subst\]) into $J_0$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
J_0(M^2)&\!\!\to\!\! &J_0(M^2,T,\mu )=16\pi^2 T\int
\frac{{\mathrm{d}}^3\vec{p}_E}{(2\pi )^3}\hat{\rho}_\Lambda
\sum_{n=-\infty}^{+\infty}\frac{1}{C_n-2i\mu\pi T(2n+1)}
\nonumber\\
C_n&\!\! =\!\!&E_p^2+\pi^2 T^2 \left(2n+1\right)^2 -\mu^2, \quad
E_p = \sqrt{M^2+\vec{p}^{\, 2}_E}.\end{aligned}$$ The sum over $n$ is evaluated to give $$\sum_{n=-\infty}^{+\infty}\frac{1}{C_n-i2\mu\omega_n}
=\frac{1}{(2\pi T)^2}\sum^{+\infty}_{n=-\infty}\frac{1}{(n+a)(n+b)}
=\frac{1}{4TE_p}\left(\tanh\frac{\mu +E_p}{2T}-\tanh \frac{\mu
-E_p}{2T}\right)$$ where we use the abbreviations $a=\frac{1}{2}+\frac{i}{2\pi T}\left(E_p-\mu
\right)$ and $b=\frac{1}{2}-\frac{i}{2\pi T}\left(E_p+\mu\right)$. Thus we have $$\label{J0t}
J_0(M^2,T,\mu )=4\int_0^\infty{\mathrm{d}}|\vec{p}_E| |\vec{p}_E|^2
\hat{\rho}_\Lambda\frac{1}{E_p}\left(1-n_{q}-n_{\overline{q}}\right)
=J_0(M^2)- 4\int_0^\infty{\mathrm{d}}|\vec{p}_E| |\vec{p}_E|^2
\hat{\rho}_\Lambda\frac{n_{q}+n_{\overline{q}}}{E_p}$$ where the quark, anti-quark occupation numbers are given by $$\label{n-occup}
n_{q}=\frac{1}{1+e^{\frac{E_p-\mu}{T}}}, \quad
n_{\overline{q}}=\frac{1}{1+e^{\frac{E_p+\mu}{T}}}.$$ Notice that $J_0(M^2,0,0)=J_0(M^2)$, therefore the vacuum piece is well isolated from the matter part. The remaining integral containing the quark number occupation densities $n_q, n_{\bar q}$ is strictly finite, the $\Lambda$ dependent terms being a remnant of the Pauli–Villars regularization scheme. At small $T$ and $M\neq 0$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{J0-asymp}
\int_0^\infty\!{\mathrm{d}}|\vec{p}_E| |\vec{p}_E|^2\frac{n_{q}}{E_p}
&\!\!\simeq\!\!&
\int_0^\infty\!{\mathrm{d}}|\vec{p}_E| \frac{|\vec{p}_E|^2}{E_p}e^{-\frac{E_p}{T}}
=T\sqrt{2TM}e^{-\frac{M}{T}}\int_0^\infty\!{\mathrm{d}}x\sqrt{x}e^{-x}\sqrt{1
+\frac{xT}{2M}} \nonumber \\
&\!\! =\!\!&\sqrt{\frac{\pi M}{2}}T^{\frac{3}{2}}e^{-\frac{M}{T}}
\left(1+\frac{3T}{8M}+\ldots \right).\end{aligned}$$ The special feature of this integral is that it vanishes exponentially with $T\to 0$.
Now we are ready to evaluate the thermodynamical potential. Indeed, the gap-equations at finite $T$ and $\mu$ are $$\label{gap-t}
h_f + \frac{N_c}{2\pi^2} M_f J_0(M_f^2,T,\mu )=0.$$ Consequently, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{effpot-t}
V(M_f,T,\mu )&\!\! =\!\!& -\frac{1}{2}\int_0^{M_f}\!\!\sum_{f=u,d,s}h_f{\mathrm{d}}M_f-\frac{N_c}{4\pi^2}\int_0^{M_f}\!\!\sum_{f=u,d,s}M_fJ_0(M_f^2,T,\mu ){\mathrm{d}}M_f + C(T,\mu )\nonumber \\
&\!\! = \!\!&\frac{1}{16}\left.\left(4Gh_f^2+\kappa h_uh_dh_s
+\frac{3g_1}{2}\left(h_f^2\right)^2+3g_2h_f^4\right)\right|_0^{M_f}
\!\! +\frac{N_c}{8\pi^2}\!\sum_{f=u,d,s}\!\! J_{-1}(M_f^2,T,\mu )
+ C(T,\mu ),\end{aligned}$$ where the function $C(T,\mu )$ does not depend on $M$, and therefore cannot be determined from the gap equation; it will be found from other arguments in the end of this section, but obviously $C(0,0)=0$. The integral $J_{-1}(M^2,T,\mu )$ is the immediate generalization of the $T=\mu =0$ case (\[J\_1\]) $$\label{J-1}
J_{-1}(M^2,T,\mu )=-\int_0^{M^2}\!\!\! J_0(M^2,T,\mu ){\mathrm{d}}M^2
=J_{-1}(M^2)+J^{\mathrm{med}}_{-1}(M^2,T,\mu ),$$ where the medium contribution to $J_{-1}(M^2,T,\mu )$ is $$\begin{aligned}
J_{-1}^{\mathrm{med}}(M^2,T,\mu )&\!\! =\!\!& 4\int_0^{M^2}\!\!\!{\mathrm{d}}M^2
\int^\infty_0\!{\mathrm{d}}|\vec{p}_E||\vec{p}_E|^2 \hat{\rho}_{\Lambda}
\frac{n_{q}+n_{\overline{q}}}{E_p} =
4\int^\infty_0\!{\mathrm{d}}|\vec{p}_E||\vec{p}_E|^2\hat{\rho}_{\Lambda\vec{p}_E}
\int^{M^2}_0\!\!\!{\mathrm{d}}M^2\,\frac{n_{q}+n_{\overline{q}}}{E_p}
\nonumber\\
&\!\! =\!\!&8\int^\infty_0\!{\mathrm{d}}|\vec{p}_E||\vec{p}_E|^2
\hat{\rho}_{\Lambda\vec{p}_E}\left(2\left(E_p(M)-E_p(0)\right)
+T\ln\frac{n_{q M}n_{\overline{q} M}}{n_{q 0}n_{\overline{q} 0}}\right)
\nonumber\\
&\!\! =\!\!&8T\int^\infty_0\!{\mathrm{d}}|\vec{p}_E||\vec{p}_E|^2
\hat{\rho}_{\Lambda\vec{p}_E}\ln\frac{\left(1+e^{-\frac{E_p(0)-\mu}{T}}\right)
\left(1+e^{-\frac{E_p(0)+\mu}{T}}\right)}{\left(1+e^{-\frac{E_p(M)-\mu}{T}}
\right)\left(1+e^{-\frac{E_p(M)+\mu}{T}}\right)}\end{aligned}$$ with $n_{q0}, n_{\overline{q}0}$ and $n_{qM}, n_{\overline{q}M}$ referring to the occupation numbers for massless and massive particles correspondingly, $E_p(M)
=\sqrt{M^2+\vec{p}^{\, 2}_E}$, $E_p(0)=|\vec{p}_E|$. In spite of the fact that the integral $J_{-1}^{\mathrm{med}}(M^2,T,\mu )$ is convergent, we still keep the regularization $\hat{\rho}_\Lambda$ to be consistent. Note that the action of the operator $\hat{\rho}_\Lambda$ (see eq. (\[reg-2\])) on any smooth function, depending on $M^2$ through the energy, $f(E_p(M))$, can also be expressed in terms of momentum as $\hat{\rho}_\Lambda f(E_p)=
\hat{\rho}_{\Lambda\vec{p}_E}f(E_p)$, where $$\hat{\rho}_{\Lambda\vec{p}_E}
=1-\left(1-\Lambda^2 \frac{\partial}{\partial \vec{p}_E^{\, 2}}\right)
\exp\left(\Lambda^2\frac{\partial}{\partial\vec{p}_E^{\, 2}}\right).$$
Then, noting that, for instance, $$\begin{aligned}
&&\int^\infty_0\!{\mathrm{d}}|\vec{p}_E||\vec{p}_E|^2
\hat{\rho}_{\Lambda\vec{p}_E}\ln\left(1+e^{-\frac{E_p(M)-\mu}{T}}\right)
\nonumber\\
&\!\! =\!\!&\hat{\rho}_{\Lambda}\left(\left.\frac{|\vec{p}_E|^3}{3}\ln
\left(1+e^{-\frac{E_p(M)-\mu}{T}}\right)\right|^{\infty}_0\right)
-\hat{\rho}_{\Lambda}\int^\infty_0\!{\mathrm{d}}|\vec{p}_E|\frac{|\vec{p}_E|^3}{3}
\frac{\partial}{\partial |\vec{p}_E|}\ln
\left(1+e^{-\frac{E_p(M)-\mu}{T}}\right)
\nonumber\\
&\!\! =\!\!&\hat{\rho}_\Lambda\int^\infty_0\!{\mathrm{d}}|\vec{p}_E|
\frac{|\vec{p}_E|^4n_{qM}}{3TE_p(M)}=\frac{1}{3T}\int^\infty_0\!{\mathrm{d}}|\vec{p}_E||\vec{p}_E|^4\hat{\rho}_{\Lambda\vec{p}_E}\frac{n_{qM}}{E_p(M)}\end{aligned}$$ where we used the fact the surface term disappears, we get finally $$\label{J-1med}
J_{-1}^{\mathrm{med}}(M^2,T,\mu )=-\frac{8}{3}\int^\infty_0{\mathrm{d}}|\vec{p}_E||\vec{p}_E|^4\hat{\rho}_{\Lambda\vec{p}_E}\left(
\frac{n_{qM}+n_{\overline{q}M}}{E_p(M)}-
\frac{n_{q0}+n_{\overline{q}0}}{E_p(0)}\right).$$
It is important to realize that the expansion of the integral (\[J-1med\]) for small values of $T$ and at $\mu =0$ starts from the term $$\label{limit}
J^{\mathrm{med}}_{-1}(M^2,T,0)=\frac{16}{3}\int_0^\infty
\frac{|\vec{p}_E|^3{\mathrm{d}}|\vec{p}_E|}{1+e^{{\frac{|\vec{p}_E|}{T}}}}
+{\cal O}(T^{\frac{5}{2}}M^{\frac{3}{2}}e^{-\frac{M}{T}})=\frac{14}{45}
\pi^4T^4+{\cal O}(T^{\frac{5}{2}}M^{\frac{3}{2}}e^{-\frac{M}{T}}).$$ This leading contribution in $T$ arises from the combination $\sim (n_{q0}+
n_{\overline{q}0})$ and does not depend on the cut-off, i.e. the Pauli-Villars regulator $\hat{\rho}_{\Lambda\vec{p}_E}$ does not affect the leading order of the low-temperature asymptotics of the integral. To make this clear let us consider the typical integral in eq. (\[J-1med\]) $$\label{int4}
\int^\infty_0{\mathrm{d}}|\vec{p}_E||\vec{p}_E|^4\frac{n_{qM}}{E_p(M)}
=\int^\infty_M\frac{|\vec{p}_E|^3{\mathrm{d}}E_p}{1+e^{\frac{E_p(M)}{T}}}
=T^4\int^\infty_0\!{\mathrm{d}}x\frac{(x^2+2x\frac{M}{T})^{\frac{3}{2}}}{1+
e^{x+\frac{M}{T}}}.$$ If $M=0$, then the integral can be evaluated explicitly and is found to be $\frac{7\pi^4}{120}T^4$, leading us to the result (\[limit\]). If $M\neq 0$, we obtain at once the estimate at small $T$ $$\int^\infty_0\!{\mathrm{d}}x\frac{(x^2+2x\frac{M}{T})^{\frac{3}{2}}}{1+
e^{x+\frac{M}{T}}}
=\frac{3\sqrt{\pi}}{4}\left(2\frac{M}{T}\right)^{\frac{3}{2}}
e^{-\frac{M}{T}}
\left(1+{\cal O}(T)\right).$$ We conclude that the integral vanishes exponentially for small $T$ and does not contribute to the leading order term in eq. (\[limit\]). It is then clear that the action of the Pauli-Villars regulator $\hat{\rho}_{\Lambda\vec{p}_E}$ on the integrand, which consists in subtracting the contribution of the massive Pauli-Villars states, will not affect the leading term as well.
One might worry that the low-temperature expansion of the integral (\[limit\]) starts from the unphysical contribution which corresponds to the massless quark states. This fear would be valid if the potential had not the term $C(T,\mu )$. Let us fix the $M_f$-independent function $C(T,\mu )$ in eq. (\[effpot-t\]) to avoid the problem. For that it is instructive to compare the matter quark-loop part of the thermodynamic potential obtained here (i.e. the $J^{\mathrm{med}}_{-1}$-part) with the corresponding result of the standard NJL approach. There is only one difference between such calculations: we use the Pauli-Villars subtractions instead of a 3-dimensional cut-off $\Lambda_3$. Therefore we can expect that if one removes the regularizations in both approaches ($\hat{\rho}_{\Lambda\vec{p}_E}\to 1$ and $\Lambda_3\to\infty$) the finite matter part of the thermodynamic potentials must coincide. From this requirement of consistency we find $$\label{FTP}
C(T,\mu )= -\frac{N_c}{\pi^2}\int_0^\infty{\mathrm{d}}|\vec{p}_E||\vec{p}_E|^4
\frac{n_{q0}+n_{\bar q0}}{E_p(0)}\ \to\ C(T,0)
=-\frac{7N_cN_f}{180}\pi^2T^4.$$ As a result, the unwanted massless quark contribution to the vacuum energy at small $T$ disappears.
Effective number of quark degrees of freedom
--------------------------------------------
A quantity of interest related with the thermodynamic potential is the number of quark degrees of freedom present at a certain temperature. For that we consider the quark pressure difference from the zero-temperature value $$\label{nu}
\nu (T) = \frac{p(T)-p(0)}{\pi^2T^4/90},$$ in order that the total $\nu (0)=0$. Here $p(T)=-V(M^*_f,T,\mu =0)$, where $M^*_f$ denotes the gap equation solution at a given $T$. Dividing the pressure in eq. (\[nu\]) by $\pi^2T^4/90$, the result is presented in Stefan-Boltzmann units, i.e. one explicitly counts the number of relevant degrees of freedom.
It is known that in the case of massless quarks of two and three flavors the fermionic degrees of freedom at $T>T_c$ are estimated as $\nu =(7/8)\times
3\times 2\times 4=21$ and $\nu =(7/8)\times 3\times 3\times 4=31.5$, respectively. The system studied here consists of three-types of light quarks: $u,d,s$. Hence $\nu$ is expected to be in the interval $21<\nu <31.5$ in the region $T>T_c$, where chiral symmetry is “restored” (up to the explicit symmetry breaking effects caused by the current quark masses). Indeed, the solid curves $\nu (T/T_c)$, plotted for the sets (a) and (b) in fig. \[fig-1\], at some values $T/T_c>1$ enter the interval and approach asymptotically the upper bound $\nu =31.5$ at high $T$: in particular, we have already at $T/T_c =2.5$ that $\nu (2.5)=30.95$ (set (a)) and $\nu (2.5) =30.25$ (set (b)). This is too fast as compared with the lattice estimates [@Bazavov:2009] in 2+1 flavor QCD, but the difference can be ascribed to the simplifications introduced by the model under consideration (the essential difference is that the NJL model does not possess the quark-confinement property of QCD).
We can gain some understanding of the asymptotic behavior of $\nu (T)$ by considering eqs. (\[J0t\]) and (\[J-1\]). Firstly, it is easy to see that the integral $J_0(M^2,T,\mu )\to 0$ at $T\to\infty$. The reason for this is very simple and is contained in the integrand $(1-n_q-n_{\bar q})$ which vanishes at $T\to\infty$, as it explicitly follows from eqs. (\[n-occup\]). Secondly, eq. (\[J-1\]) contains $J_0$ as an integrand. Thus we conclude that $J_{-1}(M^2,T,\mu )\to 0$ at $T\to\infty$. Next, from the gap equation (\[gap-t\]) it follows that $h_f(T)\to 0$ at $T\to\infty$. Therefore $V(M_f,T,\mu )\sim C(T,\mu )$ at large $T$, i.e. we can say that the asymptotics is totally determined by the term $C(T,\mu )$, yielding $\nu(T\to
\infty )=31.5$, which is independent of any model parameters. This conclusion is attractive because it agrees with the general arguments of the previous paragraph. In fact, to many readers our conclusion that $\nu (T)$ has the correct asymptotics, may seem to be a much more compelling argument for fixing $C(T,\mu )$ than the assumption made that the different cut-off procedures must give the same result when cut-offs are removed.
A clear insight into the origin of this result can be obtained by considering the contribution of $C(T,\mu )$ and the term $\sim (n_{q0}+n_{\bar q0})$ in eq. (\[J-1med\]) to the number of effective degrees of freedom $\nu (T)$, because exactly these terms determine the correct low-temperature behavior of the function $\nu (T)$. We designate this contribution by $\nu_\Lambda (T)$, and plot it in fig. \[fig-1a\]. Thus, we consider the following function of temperature $$\label{intconst}
\nu_\Lambda (T)=\frac{90 N_c}{\pi^4 T^4}\int_0^\infty |\vec{p}_E|^4
{\mathrm{d}}|\vec{p}_E|\,(1-\hat\rho_{\Lambda \vec{p}_E})
\frac{n_{q0}+n_{\bar q0}}{E_p(0)}$$ calculated at a fixed value of the cut-off parameter $\Lambda$ (the value taken is the same for both parameter sets considered, see Table I). At first glance one might wish to associate $\nu_\Lambda (T)$ with the contribution of massless states, introduced to $J_{-1}^{\mathrm{med}}$ by assigning the low limit $M=0$ to the integral (\[J-1\]). However, this expectation is potentially fallacious. One can easily see from eq. (\[intconst\]) that $\nu_{\Lambda}(T)$ vanishes for all $T$ if the the integral is not regularized $\hat\rho_{\Lambda \vec{p}_E}\to 1$. Hence only the auxiliary Pauli-Villars states of mass $\Lambda$ contribute to $\nu_\Lambda(T)$ $$\label{intconst-2}
\nu_\Lambda (T)=\frac{90 N_c}{\pi^4 T^4}\int_0^\infty |\vec{p}_E|^4
{\mathrm{d}}|\vec{p}_E|\left(1-\Lambda^2\frac{\partial}{\partial\vec{p}_E^{\,2}}
\right)\frac{n_{q\Lambda}+n_{\bar q\Lambda}}{E_p(\Lambda )}.$$ This contribution is given by an integral with a positive integrand. Here we have two dimensionful parameters, $T$ and $\Lambda$. Therefore, at large $T$ the series for $\nu_{\Lambda}(T)$ can be organized in powers of the dimensionless ratio $\Lambda/T$, i.e. $$\label{sb-1}
\nu_\Lambda (T)=\frac{180N_c}{\pi^4}\int_{\frac{\Lambda}{T}}^\infty\!{\mathrm{d}}x
\frac{(x^2-\frac{\Lambda^2}{T^2})^{\frac{3}{2}}}{1+e^x}\left[1+
\frac{\Lambda^2}{2T^2x^2}\left(1+\frac{xe^x}{1+e^x}\right)\right]=
\frac{21N_c}{2}\left[1+
{\cal O}\left(\frac{\Lambda}{T}\right)\right].$$ A useful observation is that although the heavy mass states determine the value of the integral, it still has the correct asymptotics at large $T$, which does not depend on $\Lambda$. In other words, the integral $\sim (n_{q0}+n_{\bar q0})$ in eq. (\[J-1med\]) must vanish at $T\to\infty$, in order that the function $\nu (T)$ has the right asymptotic behavior. This really happens, due to the Pauli-Villars regulator $\hat\rho_{\Lambda \vec{p}_E}$. In fig. \[fig-1a\] one can see that up to around $T\sim 100\,\mbox{MeV}$ the contribution to the effective number of degrees of freedom is practically constant and nearly zero, then it increases and reaches asymptotically the value $31.5$. The constant dashed curve shows the same quantity if the integral is not regularized. Such a big difference in the behavior of $\nu_\Lambda (T)$ translates in $\nu (T)$ (see fig. \[fig-1\]) to an enhancement in the number of quark degrees of freedom around the critical temperature in the presence of a regulator.
The conclusion that the Pauli-Villars regularization leads to the correct asymptotics is attractive because in the NJL model with 3-dimensional cut-off the Stefan-Boltzmann limit can be reached only when the cut-off is removed in the matter integrals [@Klevansky:1994], which are finite in themselves. Such a selective removal of the cut-off must be taken “cum grano salis”, since technically the NJL model requires the presence of a finite ultraviolet cut-off throughout all integrals. Nevertheless, one might think of criticizing our result on the grounds that we seem to get the correct asymptotics due to the auxiliary and therefore unphysical Pauli-Villars terms. This is certainly not true. To see this let us return to eq. (\[J-1med\]) and consider now the contribution of the term $\sim (n_{qM}+n_{\bar qM})$ to $\nu(T)$. (Our arguments will be based on considering the simplified case $M_u^*=M_d^*=M_s^*=M_*$. We need not be rigorous in the following discussion, because the unitary symmetry breaking effects are unimportant for the asymptotics.) The integral describes the thermal energy of massive quarks, but does not contribute at large $T$ $$\label{sb-2}
\nu_{M_*} (T) =\frac{90 N_c}{\pi^4 T^4}\int_0^\infty |\vec{p}_E|^4{\mathrm{d}}|\vec{p}_E|\hat\rho_{\Lambda \vec{p}_E}\frac{n_{qM_*}+n_{\bar qM_*}}{E_p(M_*)}
=\frac{21N_c}{2}\left[1-1+{\cal O}
\left(\frac{M_*}{T},\frac{\sqrt{\Lambda^2+M_*^2}}{T}\right)\right].$$ The vanishing result is a consequence of a total cancellation of two contributions: the first, $1$, in the square brackets represents the contribution of the physical states with mass $M_*$; the second, $-1$, comes from the Pauli-Villars regulator. What is interesting here is that the second term, if one joins it with the other unphysical contributions of eq. (\[sb-1\]), cancels them entirely. In other words, the correct large $T$ asymptotics in (\[nu\]) can equally be assigned to the pure physical states contribution as well.
Let us compare our results with the recent estimates of Fukushima [@Fukushima2:2008], made on the basis of the three-flavor NJL model with and without the Polyakov loop. The starting values are very similar: our curve for the set (a) agrees well with the Fukushima estimate made in the standard NJL model approach with the ’t Hooft six-quark interactions. Indeed, if we remove the cut-off dependence in the quark number occupation integrals (\[J-1med\]), like it has been done in [@Fukushima2:2008], the curves almost coincide: compare the upper thin solid line of our set (a), where the regulator has been removed, with the long dashed curve of Fukushima, almost on top of it in fig. \[fig-1\]. Taking systematically into account the finite value of the cut-off, we obtain the upper bold curve corresponding to the set (a). The set (b), compared with set (a), shows a rather strong (more than 50%) suppression of the abundant artificial quark excitations at $T/T_c>0.2$ due to the large OZI-violating eight-quark interactions (see lower bold curve in fig. \[fig-1\] for the finite cut-off result and lower thin solid line, where the cut-off condition has been relaxed. Notice that in both cases (a) and (b) the finite cut-off leads to larger values of $\nu$, because $\nu_\Lambda (T)$ is non-zero and positive at $\Lambda =\infty$; this effect is more pronounced in the case of set (a)). Although with set (b) the model still fails to describe accurately the pressure at $0.3<T/T_c<1$, it leads to an improved description of the number of quark degrees of freedom as compared to set (a). Thus the OZI-violating interactions could potentially play an important role in the description of quark excitations. At least one should not exclude the set (b) if one includes the Polyakov loop effects in the framework of effective NJL-type models with multi-quark interactions, see [@Bhattacharyya:2010] for results with the 3-dimensional cut-off.
Phase diagram
=============
Fig. \[fig-2\] shows the phase diagrams for the two sets of parameters. One observes a larger window for the first order transition regime in the case of stronger $8q$ interaction coupling $g_1$, the critical endpoint is situated at $(\mu_E,T_E)=(155,108)$ MeV, whereas for the smaller coupling it is at $(\mu_E,T_E)=(338,53)$ MeV. The temperature at zero chemical potential, in the crossover regime, is substantially smaller for the large $8q$ coupling case, around $T_c\simeq 135\,\mbox{MeV}$ compared to $T_c\simeq 193\,
\mbox{MeV}$ for the sets (b) and (a) respectively [@Osipov:2007b]. The approximate values for $T_c$ were obtained as usual, through the condition ${\rm d}^2M/{\rm d}T^2=0$ of strongest change in the slope of the constituent quark masses.
The length of the line of first order transitions can be increased further with increase of the $8q$ coupling $g_1$ and after some critical value it goes all the way through to the $\mu =0$ end. A corresponding set of parameters has been considered in [@Osipov:2008]. In this way we obtain the thin solid line in figs. \[fig-2\], \[fig-2a\] that connects all CEP obtained by varying $g_1$ in the allowed interval for stability of the effective potential.
However we point out that also in the case of strong $8q$ couplings our results have with other approaches in common that the dynamical $u$ and $d$ quark masses suffer a considerable reduction at the transition temperatures, while the strange quark mass remains roughly the same. For instance for set (b) at $\mu=170\,\mbox{MeV}$ at the first order transition temperature $T=103\,\mbox{MeV}$, $M_u$ jumps from $M_u=208\,\mbox{MeV}$ to $128\,
\mbox{MeV}$, while the strange quark mass changes only from $M_s=487\,
\mbox{MeV}$ to $448\,\mbox{MeV}$. By increasing the temperature keeping $\mu$ fixed, one obtains at $T=160\,\mbox{MeV}$ the values $M_u=24\,
\mbox{MeV}$ and $M_s=381\,\mbox{MeV}$. Profiles of the quark masses are given in [@Moreira:2010] for the $T=0,\mu\ne 0$ case. The slow decrease of the strange quark mass is present in studies involving realistic values for the strange current quark mass [@Fukushima:2008].
The position of the critical endpoint in the three flavor NJL model with $U_A(1)$ breaking has been analyzed in [@Fukushima2:2008], with the parameter set of [@Hatsuda:1994], $(\mu_E,T_E)=(324,48)\,\mbox{MeV}$ in comparison with the case with inclusion of the Polyakov loop, $(\mu_E,T_E)=
(313,102)\,\mbox{MeV}$. The increase of $T_E$ is explained by the suppression of the artificial quark excitations at finite temperature and density in the presence of the Polyakov loop contribution [@Fukushima2:2008]. Our set (a) with $(\mu_E,T_E)=(338,53)\,\mbox{MeV}$ is in reasonable agreement with the above estimates.
Our result for set (b), $(\mu_E,T_E)=(155,108)\,\mbox{MeV}$, yields a twice lower value for the critical $\mu_E$ as compared to set (a). This new feature is related with the OZI-violating eight-quark interactions: it is well-known that NJL-type models without $8q$-forces have the tendency in common to lead to a critical endpoint at relatively high density, above $\mu_E\sim 300\,
\mbox{MeV}$ [@Fukushima2:2008]. The small value found here is a good indicator that the main force responsible for dynamical chiral symmetry breaking has changed, being now associated with the ’t Hooft $6q$-interactions.
Let us also take notice of the difference between the critical temperatures for the case (b), $T_c=108\,\mbox{MeV}$, and the Fukushima’s case with Polyakov loop, $T_c=204.8\,\mbox{MeV}$. We expect that the inclusion of the Polyakov loop in our analysis will increase somewhat the value of $T_c$.
The NJL model with $8q$ interactions and without $U_A(1)$ symmetry breaking has been analyzed as well for the $SU(2)$ flavor case [@Kashiwa:2006; @Kashiwa:2008]. Although the $8q$ forces are not needed to stabilize the effective potential of the model in the two flavor case, the same tendency as above in i) was observed, for instance: $(\mu_E,T_E)=(276,62)\,\mbox{MeV}$ with the $8q$ interactions, whereas $(\mu_E,T_E)=(330,47)\,\mbox{MeV}$ without them [@Kashiwa:2008].
Another variant without $8q$ terms of the two flavor NJL model, including the vector-isoscalar interactions, which induce an effective chemical potential, has been considered a long time ago [@Asakawa]. In this case, the critical endpoint is located at larger $\mu$ and lower temperatures $(\mu_E,T_E)=(350,40)\,\mbox{MeV}$. This effect has been studied also recently in [@Kashiwa:2008; @Fukushima2:2008].
Further results concerning the position of the critical endpoint within other model approaches is given in the review [@Stephanov:2004] (note the notation there is in terms of $\mu_B= 3\mu$), in comparison with lattice results and the freezeout points extracted from heavy-ion experiments. For our two sets the critical endpoints are situated in case (a) slightly above and in case (b) slightly below the freezeout points obtained at different collision energies [@Braun-Munzinger:2003; @Stephanov:2004].
Conclusions
===========
The thermodynamic potential of the three flavor NJL model with ’t Hooft and $8q$ interactions has been obtained in stationary phase approximation (at leading order) and using the Pauli-Villars regularization in quark loops (at one-loop level).
The main conclusions of this work can be classified as follows.
Firstly, we argued that a non-renormalizable effective theory at finite temperature and chemical potential, can be self-consistently studied with the use of the Pauli-Villars regularization. The importance of the regulator in the matter parts for consistency has also been discussed in [@Florkowski:1997] in connection with correlators. Instead, our present study is devoted to the construction of the thermodinamic potential. Unlike the conventional approach with 3-dimensional cut-off, the Pauli-Villars technique leads to the right asymptotic behavior of relevant thermodynamic observables. It is one of the main results of this paper.
Secondly, we quantified the effect of the new $8q$ terms on the number of degrees of freedom and on the phase diagram. We observe that in the large $8q$ coupling regime a strong depletion of the number of degrees of freedom below $T_c$ is reached in comparison with the weak coupling case, working in the same direction as the effect produced through inclusion of the Polyakov loop in the model without $8q$ interactions.
Thirdly, we conclude that the NJL model with the $8q$ stabilizing interactions does not impede the possibility of having a phase diagram consisting only of first order transitions even for realistic quark masses. This will depend on the strength of the OZI-violating $8q$ interactions. At $\mu =0$ there is growing evidence from lattice calculations that the transition is a crossover [@Aoki:2006]. This would set an upper limit for the $8q$ coupling, which nevertheless can be sufficiently strong to trigger the first order transitions regime at low values of $\mu\ne 0$. This point deserves to be studied more carefully especially because it can help us to clarify the quark dynamics which is responsible for the mechanism of spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking. Indeed as it is shown above the shift of the critical endpoint to lower values of $\mu_E$ is possible only when the $6q$ interactions are responsible for the chiral phase transition (set (b)); however if the $4q$ coupling $G$ exceeds its critical value, the $4q$ interactions drive the chiral phase transition in NJL-type models and as a result the critical endpoint is located at large values of $\mu_E$ (set (a)).
**ACKNOWLEDGMENTS**
This work has been supported in part by grants of Fundao para a Ciência e Tecnologia, FEDER, OE, POCI 2010, CERN/FP/83510/2008, SFRH/BD/13528/2003 and Centro de Fsica Computacional, unit 405.
We acknowledge the support of the European Community-Research Infrastructure Integrating Activity “Study of Strongly Interacting Matter” (acronym HadronPhysics2, Grant Agreement n. 227431) under the Seventh Framework Programme of EU.
[99]{} K. Rajagopal, F. Wilczek, Chapter 35 in the Festschrift in honor of B.L. Ioffe, “At the Frontier of Particle Physics / Handbook of QCD”, M. Shifman, ed., (World Scientific). In Shifman, M. (ed.): At the frontier of particle physics, vol. 3, 2061-2151; hep-ph/0011333. T. Schafer, Lectures given at 20th Annual Hampton University Graduate Studies Program (HUGS 2005), Newport News, Virginia, 31 May - 17 Jun 2005; hep-ph/0509068. M. Stephanov, Acta Physica Polonica B [**35**]{}, 2939 (2004). K. Fukushima, J. Phys. G [**35**]{}, 104020 (2008); arXiv:0806.0292 \[hep-ph\]. C. Ratti, M.A. Thaler, and W. Weise, Phys. Rev. D [**73**]{}, 014019 (2006). Y. Nambu and G. Jona-Lasinio, Phys. Rev. [**122**]{}, 345 (1961); [**124**]{}, 246 (1961); V.G. Vaks and A.I. Larkin, Zh. Éksp. Teor. Fiz. [**40**]{}, 282 (1961) \[Sov. Phys. JETP [**13**]{}, 192 (1961)\]. G.’t Hooft, Phys. Rev. D [**14**]{}, 3432 (1976); G.’t Hooft, Phys. Rev. D [**18**]{}, 2199 (1978). V. Bernard, R.L. Jaffe and U.-G. Meissner, Phys. Lett. B [**198**]{}, 92 (1987); V. Bernard, R.L. Jaffe and U.-G. Meissner, Nucl. Phys. B [**308**]{}, 753 (1988). H. Reinhardt and R. Alkofer, Phys. Lett. B [**207**]{}, 482 (1988). A.A. Osipov, B. Hiller and J.da Providência, Phys. Lett. B [**634**]{}, 48 (2006); hep-ph/0508058. A.A. Osipov, B. Hiller, A.H. Blin and J.da Providência, Ann. of Phys. [**322**]{}, 2021 (2007); hep-ph/0607066. A.A. Osipov, B. Hiller, J. Moreira, A.H. Blin, J.da Providência, Phys. Lett. B [**646**]{}, 91 (2007); hep-ph/0612082. A.A. Osipov, B. Hiller, J. Moreira, A.H. Blin, Phys. Lett. B [**659**]{}, 270 (2008); arXiv:0709.3507 \[hep-ph\]. A.A. Osipov, B. Hiller, A.H. Blin, J.da Providência, Phys. Lett. B [**650**]{}, 262 (2007); hep-ph/0701090. A.A. Andrianov and V.A. Andrianov, Teor. Mat. Phys. 94 (1993) 6 \[arXiv:hep-ph/9309297\]; A.A. Andrianov and V.A. Andrianov, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 8 (1993) 1981. D. Ebert, K.G. Klimenko, Eur. Phys. J. C [**46**]{}, 771 (2006); D. Ebert, K.G. Klimenko, V. Ch. Zhukovsky, A.M. Fedotov, Eur. Phys. J. C [**49**]{}, 709 (2007); hep-ph/0606029; D. Ebert, K.G. Klimenko, A.V. Tyukov, V.Ch. Zhukovsky, Phys. Rev. D [**78**]{}, 045008 (2008); arXiv:0804.4826 \[hep-ph\]. A.A. Osipov, B. Hiller, Phys. Lett. B [**515**]{}, 458 (2001); A.A. Osipov, B. Hiller, Phys. Rev. D [**64**]{}, 087701 (2001); hep-th/0106226; A.A. Osipov, B. Hiller, Phys. Rev. D [**63**]{}, 094009 (2001); hep-ph/0012294. D. Ebert, H. Reinhardt, Nucl. Phys. B [**271**]{}, 188 (1986). A.A. Osipov, B. Hiller, Eur. Phys. J. C [**35**]{}, 223 (2004); hep-th/0307035. J.I. Kapusta, “Finite Temperature Field Theory”, Cambridge University Press (1989). A. Bazavov et al., Phys. Rev. D [**80**]{}, 014504 (2009), arXiv:0903.4379 \[hep-lat\]. P. Zhuang, J. Huefner, S.P. Klevansky, Nucl. Phys. A [**576**]{}, 525 (1994). K. Fukushima, Phys. Rev. D [**77**]{}, 114028 (2008); arXiv:0803.3318 \[hep-ph\]. A. Bhattacharyya, P. Deb, S. K. Ghosh, R. Ray, arXiv:1003.3337v1 \[hep-ph\]. J. Moreira, B. Hiller, A. A. Osipov, A. H. Blin, to appear in the Proceedings of Hadron 2009: XIII International Conference on Hadron Spectroscopy, Tallahassee, Florida, USA (2009), arXiv:1001.3565 \[hep-ph\]. T. Hatsuda, T. Kunihiro, Phys. Rep. [**247**]{}, 221 (1994). K. Kashiwa, H. Kouno, M. Matsuzaki, M. Yahiro, Phys. Lett. B [**662**]{}, 26 (2008); arXiv:0710.2180 \[hep-ph\]. K. Kashiwa, H. Kouno, T. Sakaguchi, M. Matsuzaki, M. Yahiro, Phys. Lett. B [**647**]{}, 446 (2007); nucl-th/0608078; K. Kashiwa, M. Matsuzaki, H. Kouno, M. Yahiro, arXiv:0705.1196 \[hep-ph\]. M. Asakawa, K. Yazaki, Nucl Phys. A [**504**]{}, 668 (1989). P. Braun-Munzinger, K. Redlich, J. Stachel, “Quark Gluon Plasma 3”, eds. R.C. Hwa and Xin-Nian Wang, World Scientific Publishing, 491 (2003); nucl-th/0304013. Y. Aoki, G. Endrodi, Z. Fodor, S.D. Katz, K.K. Szabo, Nature [**443**]{}, 675 (2006); hep-lat/0611014; Y. Aoki, G. Endrodi, Z. Fodor, S.D. Katz, K.K. Szabo, Phys. Lett. B [**643**]{}, 46 (2006); hep-lat/0609068. W. Florkowski, Acta Phys. Polon. B [**28**]{}, 2079 (1997); arXiv e-Print: hep-ph/9701223.
[^1]: On leave from Dzhelepov Laboratory of Nuclear Problems, Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, 141980 Dubna, Moscow Region, Russia
|
0 true cm 0 pt 0 pt 0 pt 21 true cm 14 true cm =1.0mm 0.2 true cm =0.5cm
Jianxun Hu
Department of Mathematics, Zhongshan University,\
Guangzhou 510275
Wanchuan Zhang
Department of Mathematics, University of Wisconsin-Madison,\
Madison WI 53706, USA
0.5cm
[**Abstract**]{}
Suppose that two compact manifolds $X, X'$ are connected by a sequence of Mukai flops. In this paper, we construct a ring isomorphism between cohomology ring of $X$ and $X'$. Using the localization technique, we prove that the quantum corrected products on $X, X'$ are the ordinary intersection products. Furthermore, $X, X'$ have isomorphic Ruan cohomology. i.e. we proved the cohomological minimal model conjecture proposed by Ruan.
0.5cm [**Keywords:**]{} Mukai Flop, Ruan cohomology, quantum cohomology, localization
0.5cm [**2000 AMS Classification:**]{} Primary 14N35, Secondary 53D45.
0.5cm
Introduction
============
After the mathematical foundation of quantum cohomology was established during last decade, see [@RT1], now the focus of the research is on its computation and application. We think that the fundamental problem in quantum cohomology is the [**quantum naturality problem**]{}[@R1; @R2; @H]: [*Define “ morphism” of symplectic manifolds so that quantum cohomology is natural.*]{} Qin and Ruan [@QR] showed that the quantum cohomology is not natural for fibrations. Their results also shows that possible “morphism” must be very rigid. The existence of these rigid morphisms will set apart quantum cohomology from ordinary cohomology and gives it its own identity. Although this result let us feel depressed, the result of [@LR] discovers some amazing relations between quantum cohomology and birational geometry. Their result said that threefolds which are connected by a sequence of flops have isomorphic quantum cohomology. This gives us some suggestions to look for the suitable “morphism" from some birational transformations.
In the study of higher dimensional algebraic geometry, the famous “minimal model program” initiated by Mori is one of the main research topics. So far the existence problem of minimal models is still completely open in dimensions higher than three. Moreover, in contrast to the two dimensional case, the minimal model is not unique in higher dimensions. It is then an important question to see what kind of invariants are shared by all the birationally equivalent minimal models, and more generally, are preserved under certain elementary birational transformations.
It is well-known that the crepant resolutions are not unique in dimensions higher than three. But Wang [@W] showed that the different crepant resolutions are connected by “K-equivalence”. Two smooth complex manifolds $X,Y$ are [**K-equivalent**]{} if and only if there is a common resolution $\phi: Z \longrightarrow X$ and $\varphi : Z \longrightarrow Y$ such that $\phi^* K_X = \varphi^* K_Y$. Batyrev [@B] and Wang [@W] showed that two K-equivalent projective manifolds have the same betti number. It is natural to ask if they have the same cohomology ring structure. Unfortunately, they usually have different ring structures. About this problem, Wang [@W; @W1] proposed his following conjecture:
[**Wang’s conjecture:**]{} For K-equivalent manifolds under birational map $f: X \cdots \rightarrow X'$, there is a naturally attached correspondence $T \in A^{\dim X}(X \times X')$ of the form $T = \overline{\Gamma}_f +
\sum _i T_i$ with $\overline{\Gamma}_f \subset X \times X'$ the cycle of graph closure of $f$ and with $T_i$’s being certain degenerate correspondences (i. e. $T_i$ has positive dimensional fibers when projecting to $X$ or $X'$) such that $T$ is an isomorphism of Chow motives.
In other words, Wang’s conjecture implies that for K-equivalent manifolds $X$ and $X'$, the canonical morphism $\varphi_* \phi^* : H^*(X, Q) \longrightarrow H^*(X', Q)$ gives rise to an isomorphism with some modification in the middle dimension. In the case of hyperkähler manifolds, using Bishop’s theorem [@Bi], Huybrechts [@Huy1; @Huy2] proved this conjecture by showing the existence of the correction cycles $T_i$. In this paper, for arbitrary projective manifolds connected by Mokai flops, we proved that $\varphi_*\phi^*$ gives rise to an isomorphism of cohomology rings of $X, X'$ with an explicit expression of the correction cycles $T_i$(see the definition of the map $T$ in section 3).
We will concentrated our attention on a special kind of birational transformations–[**Mukai Flops**]{} [@Mukai]. Here we first recall the definition of certain known flops.The simplest type of flops are called [**ordinary flops**]{}. An ordinary ${\bf P}^r$-flop(or simply ${\bf P}^r$-flop) $f: X \longrightarrow X'$ is a birational map such that the exceptional set $Z \subset X$ has a ${\bf P}^r$-bundle structure $\varphi : Z \longrightarrow S$ over some smooth variety S and the normal bundle $N_{Z/X}$ is isomorphic to ${\cal O}(-1)^{r+1}$ when restricting to any fiber of $\varphi$. The map $f$ and the space $X'$ are then obtained by first blowing up $X$ along $Z$ to get $Y$, with exceptional divisor $E$ a ${\bf P}^r \times
{\bf P}^r$-bundle over $S$, then blowing down $E$ along another fiber direction. Ordinary ${\bf P}^r$-flops are also called classical flops. Three dimensional classical flops are the most well-known Atiyah flops over $(-1,-1)$ rational curves.
Another important example is the [ **Mukai flops**]{} $f: X \longrightarrow X'$. In this case it is required that the exceptional set $Z \subset X$ is of codimension $r$ and has a ${\bf P}^r$-bundle structure $\varphi : Z={\bf P}_S(F)\longrightarrow S$ (for some rank $r+1$ vector bundle $F$) over a smooth base $S$, moreover the normal bundle $N_{Z/X}\equiv T^*_{Z/S}$, the relative cotangent bundle of $\varphi$. To get $f$, one first blows up $X$ along $Z$ to get $\phi: Y \longrightarrow X$ with exceptional divisor $E=
{\bf P}_S(T^*_{Z/S})\subset {\bf P}_Z(F)\times {\bf P}_S(F^*)$ as the incidence variety. The first projection corresponds to $\phi$ and one may contract $E$ through the second projection to get $\phi':Y \longrightarrow X'$.
In this paper, we will only consider the following simplest Mukai flops:
[**Definition:**]{} Let $X$ be a projective manifold of complex dimension $2n$. A Mukai flop from $(X,Z)$ to $(X', Z')$ is the following birational transformation $$\begin{array}{rcl}
& E \subset Y&\\
&\phi \swarrow \searrow \varphi&\\
Z \cong {\bf P}^n \subset X& \cdots \longrightarrow & X' \supset
Z' \cong ({\bf P}^n)^*
\end{array}$$ where $E$ is the incidence correspondence between $Z$ and $Z'$. We also call $X$ and $X'$ are connected by a [**Mukai flop**]{}.
Throughout this paper, we will call this simplest Mukai flops as Mukai flops.
In the study of birational geometry, one of the most important problems is to find that what kind of cohomology is preserved by K-equivalene. For this purpose, Ruan [@R3] proposed
[**Quantum Minimal Model Conjecture:**]{} Two K-equivalent projective manifolds have the same quantum cohomology.
In dimensions higher than three, quantum minimal model conjecture seems to be a difficult problem. We think the difficulty comes from the fact we used all quantum information involving the GW-invariants. So Ruan proposed that we should consider another kind of cohomology with a minimal set of quantum information involving the GW-invariants of exceptional rational curves. We call this new cohomology as Ruan Cohomology, and will give its definition in section 2. In section 4, we will also prove Ruan cohomology is invariant under Mukai flops.
Our main theorem in this paper is
[**Theorem:**]{} Two compact projective manifolds which are connected by a sequence of Mukai flops have isomorphic cohomology and Ruan cohomology.
We will divide the proof of the theorem into two cases: ordinary cohomology and Ruan cohomology. In section 3, we will prove that $X, X'$ have isomorphic cohomology, see Theorem 3.2. In section 4, we will prove that for $X, X'$ the quantum correction all vanish. So they have isomorphic Ruan cohomology, see Theorem 4.4.
[**Acknowledgements:**]{} We would like to thank Prof. Yongbin Ruan, Prof. Weiping Li for their many-hour-long suggestive discussion and encouragement. The first author would like to Prof. Banghe Li and Yaqing Li for their discussion and help during my visiting The Hongkong University of Science and Technology. Thanks also to the organizer of the satellite conference“ Stringy orbifolds" of ICM2002 in Chengdu for inviting us to announce our results.
Ruan Cohomology
===============
In [@R3], Ruan defined his quantum corrected cohomology with respect to a birational map. Suppose that $X, X'$ are K-equivalent and $\pi : X \cdots\rightarrow
X'$ is the birational map. Denote by $\pi ^{-1}:X' \cdots\rightarrow
X$ the inverse birational transformation of $\pi$. Let $A_1,
\cdots, A_k$ be an integral basis of the homology classes of exceptional effective curves. We call $\pi$ nondegenerate if $A_1,
\cdots, A_k$ are linearly independent. Then the homology class of any exceptional effective curve can be written as $A= \sum_i a_i
A_i$ for $a_i\geq 0$. For each $A_i$, we assign a formal variable $q_i$. Then $A$ corresponds to $q_1^{a_1}\cdots q_k^{a_k}$. We define a 3-point function $$<\alpha, \beta, \gamma>_{qc}(q_1,\cdots, q_k) =
\sum_{a_1,\cdots, a_k} \Psi^X_A(\alpha, \beta,
\gamma)q_1^{a_1}\cdots q_k^{a_k},$$ where $\Psi^X_A(\alpha,\beta,\gamma)$ is Gromov-Witten invariant and $qc$ stands for the quantum correction and $\alpha, \beta, \gamma\in H^*X$. We view $<\alpha,\beta,\gamma>_{qc}(q_1,\cdots,q_k)$ as analytic function of $q_1,\cdots, q_k$ and set $q_i = -1$ and let $$<\alpha, \beta,\gamma>_{qc} = <\alpha, \beta,
\gamma>_{qc}(-1,\cdots,-1).$$ We define a quantum corrected triple intersection $$<\alpha, \beta,\gamma>_{\pi} = <\alpha,\beta,\gamma> +
<\alpha,\beta,\gamma>_{qc},$$ where $<\alpha, \beta,\gamma>= \int _X \alpha \cup \beta \cup \gamma$ is the ordinary triple intersection. Then we define the quantum corrected product $\alpha *_{\pi}\beta$ by the equation $$<\alpha *_{\pi}\beta, \gamma> = <\alpha,\beta,\gamma>_{\pi}$$ for arbitrary $\gamma$. Another way to understand $\alpha *_{\pi}\beta$ is as follows. Define a product as the ordinary intersection product corrected by $\alpha *_{qc}\beta$. Namely, $$\alpha *_{\pi}\beta = \alpha \cup \beta + \alpha
*_{qc}\beta.$$ It is easy to see that the quantum corrected product gives rise to a ring structure on the cohomology group of $X$, Denote this cohomology ring as $RH_{\pi}^*(X, {\bf C})$.
[**Definition 2.1:**]{} Define the quantum corrected cohomology ring $RH^*_{\pi}(X,{\bf C})$ as [**Ruan cohomology**]{} of $X$.
Ruan computed some examples of his cohomology in [@R3; @R4]. About this cohomology, Ruan [@R3] proposed the following conjecture
[**Cohomological Minimal Model Conjecture:**]{} Suppose that $\pi: X\longrightarrow X'$ and its inverse $\pi^{-1}$ are nondegenerate. Then $RH^*_{\pi}(X, {\bf C})$ is isomorphic to $RH^*_{\pi^{-1}}(X', {\bf C})$.
[**Example 2.2:**]{} The first example is the flop in dimension three. This case has been worked out in great detail by Li-Ruan[@LR]. For example, they proved a theorem that quantum cohomology rings are isomorphic under the change of the variable $q\longrightarrow \frac{1}{q}$. Notes that if we set $q=-1$, $\frac{1}{q}= -1$. We set other quantum variables zero. Then, the quantum product becomes the quantum corrected product $\alpha \cup _{\pi}\beta$. Hence, Cohomological Minimal Model conjecture follows from LI-Ruan’s theorem. In fact, it is easy to calculate the quantum corrected product in this case and verify the Cohomological Minimal Model conjecture without using Li-Ruan’s theorem.
Isomorphism of ordinary cohomology
===================================
In this section, we will consider the cohomology of compact projective manifolds of complex dimension $2n$ connected by Mukai flops. Suppose that $X$ and $X'$ are compact projective manifolds of complex dimension $2n$, and $(X,{\bf P}^n)$ and $(X', ({\bf P}^n)^*)$ are connected by a Mukai flop. Now the normal bundle of ${\bf P}^n$ in $X$ is its cotangent bundle $T^*{\bf P}^n$. So we have the following Mukai transformation $$\begin{array}{rcl}
& E \subset \tilde{X}&\\
&\phi \swarrow \searrow \phi'&\\
Z \cong {\bf P}^n \subset X& -- \longrightarrow & X' \supset
({\bf P}^n)^* \cong Z'
\end{array}$$ where $\tilde{X}$ is the blowup of $X$ along $Z={\bf P}^n$ and $E$ is the incidence correspondence between $Z$ and $Z'$, i.e. $$\begin{array}{rcl}
E & = & \{(P,L)\mid P \in L \}\subset {\bf P}^n \times ({\bf P}^n)^*\\
p \swarrow& & \searrow q \\
P \in {\bf P}^n & & L \in ({\bf P}^n)^*.
\end{array}$$
Before we prove our theorem, we want to first introduce some notations and preliminary results. Let $X$ be a regularly embedded subscheme of a scheme $Y$ of codimension $d$ with normal bundle $N$. Let $A_k(X)$ be the group of $k$-cycles modulo rational equivalence on $X$. Denote by $s(X,Y)\in A_*(X)$ the Segre class of $X$ in $Y$, for its definition see Section 4.2 of [@F], so $s(X,Y)$ is the cap product of the total inverse Chern class of the normal bundle with $[X]$. Let $\tilde{Y}$ be the blowup of $Y$ along $X$, and let $\tilde{X} = {\bf P}(N)$ be the exceptional divisor. We have a fiber square $$\begin{array}{ccc}
\tilde{X}& \stackrel{j}{\longrightarrow}& \tilde{Y}\\
g \downarrow & & \downarrow f\\
X &\stackrel{\longrightarrow}{i}& Y .
\end{array}$$ Since $N_{\tilde{X}}\tilde{Y} = {\cal O}(-1)$, the excess normal bundle $\xi$ is the universal quotient bundle on ${\bf P}(N)$: $$\xi = g^*N/N_{\tilde{X}}\tilde{Y} = g^*N/{\cal O}(-1).$$ Then we have the following [**Blowup formula**]{}, which is the [**Theorem 6.7**]{}, see P. 116, of [@F],
[**Proposition 3.1:**]{} Let $V$ be a $k$-dimensional subvariety of $Y$, and let $\tilde{V}\subset \tilde{Y}$ be the proper transform of $V$, i. e. the blow-up of $V$ along $V \cap X$. Then $$f^*[V] = [\tilde{V}] + j_*\{c(\xi)\cap g^*s(V \cap X, V)\}_k$$ in $A_k \tilde{Y}$. In particular, for all $x \in A_k X$, $$f^*i_*(x) = j_*(c_{d-1}(E)\cap g^*x).$$
In our proof, we will use Borel-Moore homology as a tool. Therefore we first want to briefly introduce some basics of Borel-Moore homology, see [@CG; @F]. Borel-Moore homology can be defined using singular cohomology. If a space $X$ is imbedded as a closed subspace of ${\bf R}^n$, then we define the Borel-Moore homology with rational coefficients $$H^{BM}_iX := H^{n-i}({\bf R}^n, {\bf R}^n-X)$$ where the group on the right is relative singular cohomology with rational coefficients. From the difinition, it is easy to know if $X$ is compact then the ordinary homology of $X$ and the Borel-Moore homology of $X$ coincide. In this paper, we will reserve the symbol $H_*$ for the ordinary homology.
If $X$ is the complement of $U$ in $Y$, $i : X\longrightarrow Y$ the closed imbedding, there is a long exact sequence $$\cdots \rightarrow H^{BM}_{i+1}U\rightarrow H^{BM}_i X \stackrel{i_*}{\rightarrow}H^{BM}_i Y \stackrel{j^*}{\rightarrow} H^{BM}_i U \rightarrow H^{BM}_{i-1}X \rightarrow \cdots.$$
In this section, we will prove the following theorem
[**Theorem 3.2:**]{} Suppose that non-singular compact projective manifolds $X$ and $X'$ of complex dimension $2n$ are connected by a sequence of Mukai flops. Then $X$ and $X' $ have isomorphic cohomology rings.
[**Proof:**]{} By the Poincare duality, it is sufficient to prove that $X$ and $X'$ have isomorphic intersection rings. In fact, we want to prove the following morphism $T : H_*X \longrightarrow H_*X'$ given by $$T( \alpha):= \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\phi'_*\phi^* \alpha,& \mbox{if} \dim \alpha \not= 2n\\
\phi'_* (\phi^*\alpha + (-1)^{n+1}\alpha({\bf P}^n)[p^{-1}({\bf P}^1)]), & \mbox{if} \dim \alpha = 2n
\end{array}\right.$$ is a ring isomorphism, where $\alpha ({\bf P}^n)$ is the topological intersection number of $\alpha$ with ${\bf P}^n$ and ${\bf P}^1$ is a line in ${\bf P}^n$. It is obvious that $T$ is a linear map.
First of all, we want to prove that the restriction of $T$ to $i_* H_k ({\bf P}^n)$ is an isomorphism from $i_* H_k ({\bf P}^n)$ to $i'_* H_k (({\bf P}^n)^*)$. By the linearity of $T$, we only need to prove that $T$ maps a basis of $i_* H_* ({\bf P}^n)$ to a basis of $i'_* H_* (({\bf P}^n)^*)$. Since all elements in $i_* H_* ({\bf P}^n)$ are algebraic, so we may apply proposition 3.1. In our case, we have the following blowup fiber square $$\begin{array}{ccc}
E& \stackrel{j}{\longrightarrow}& \tilde{X}\\
p \downarrow & & \downarrow \phi\\
{\bf P}^n &\stackrel{\longrightarrow}{i}& X.
\end{array}$$ where $i$ embedded ${\bf P}^n$ into $X$ with its cotangent bundle $N_{{\bf P}^n|X}\cong T^*{\bf P}^n$ as the normal bundle and $E$ is the exceptional divisor. The excess normal bundle $Q$ is the universal quotient bundle on $E$ $$Q = \frac{p^*T^*{\bf P}^n}{{\cal O}_E(-1)}$$ i. e. we have the exact sequence $$0 \longrightarrow {\cal O}_E(-1)\longrightarrow p^*T^*{\bf P}^n \longrightarrow Q \longrightarrow 0$$ According to Proposition 3.1, we need to compute the Chern class $c_{n-1}(Q)$. Since $c(p^*T^*{\bf P}^n) =
c(Q)c({\cal O}_E(-1))$, so we have $$\begin{aligned}
c(Q) & = & \frac{c(p^*T^*{\bf P}^n)}{c({\cal O}_E(-1))}\\
& = & \sum _{k=0}^{2n-1}\sum _{i+j = k}(-1)^i
\left(\begin{array}{c}
n+1\\
i
\end{array}\right)(p^*H)^i c_1({\cal O}_E(1))^j\end{aligned}$$ where $H$ is the hyperplane class of ${\bf P}^n$. Therefore $$\begin{aligned}
c_{n-1}(Q) & = & \sum_{i+j=n-1} (-1)^i \left (\begin{array}{c}
n+1\\
i
\end{array}\right )(p^*H)^ic_1({\cal O}_E(1))^j\\
& = & \sum _{i=0}^{n-1}\sum _{j=0}^{n-i-1}(-1)^i \left(\begin{array}{c}
n+1\\
i
\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}
n-i-1\\
j
\end{array}\right)(q^*H^*)^{n-i-j-1}(p^*H)^{i+j}.\end{aligned}$$ where $H^*$ is the hyperplane class of $({\bf P}^n)^*$ and we used that $c_1({\cal O}_E(1)) = p^*H + q^*H^*$.
Choose $i_*[{\bf P}^k]$, $k=0,\cdots,n$ as a basis of $i_* H_* ({\bf P}^n)$. For arbitrary $1 \leq k < n$, i. e. $x = i_*[{\bf P}^k]\in i_*H_*({\bf P}^n)$, by Proposition $3.1$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\phi^*(i_*[{\bf P}^k])& = & j_*\{ \sum _{i=0}^{n-1}\sum _{j=0}^{n-i-1}(-1)^i \left(\begin{array}{c}
n+1\\
i
\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}
n-i-1\\
j
\end{array}\right)(q^*H^*)^{n-i-j-1}(p^*H)^{i+j}\cap p^*[{\bf P}^k]\}\\
& = & j_*\{ \sum _{i=0}^{n-1}\sum _{j=0}^{n-i-1}(-1)^i \left(\begin{array}{c}
n+1\\
i
\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}
n-i-1\\
j
\end{array}\right)(q^*H^*)^{n-i-j-1}\cap p^*(H^{i+j}\cap [{\bf P}^k])\}.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\phi'_*\phi^*(i_*[{\bf P}^k]) & = & \{\sum _{i=0}^k(-1)^i \left(\begin{array}{c}
n+1\\
i \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}
n-i\\
k-i \end{array}\right)\}i'_*([({\bf P}^k)^*]) \nonumber\\
& = & (-1)^k i'_*([({\bf P}^k)^*])\end{aligned}$$ where we used the facts that for any $k \geq 2$ the maps $\phi' : p^*[{\bf P}^k]\longrightarrow
({\bf P}^n)^*$ have positive dimensional fibers.
For the case $k=n$, i. e. $x= i_*({\bf P}^n)\in i_*H_*({\bf P}^n)$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\phi^*(i_*[{\bf P}^n]) & = & j_*\{ \sum _{i=0}^{n-1}\sum _{j=0}^{n-i-1}(-1)^i \left(\begin{array}{c}
n+1\\
i
\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}
n-i-1\\
j
\end{array}\right)(q^*H^*)^{n-i-j-1}(p^*H)^{i+j}\cap p^*[{\bf P}^n]\}\\
& = & \sum_{i=0}^{n-1}(-1)^i \left(\begin{array}{c}
n+1\\
i \end{array} \right)p^*[{\bf P}^1]\\
& = & (-1)^{n+1}n p^*[{\bf P}^1].\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, $$\phi'_*\phi^*(i_*({\bf P}^n)) = (-1)^{n+1}n\phi'_*(p^*[{\bf P}^1]) = (-1)^{n+1}n i'_*({\bf P}^n)^*.$$
Furthermore, by the definition of the map $T$, we have $$T(i_*({\bf P}^n)) = (-1)^n i'_*({\bf P}^n)^*.$$
Since $i'_*({\bf P}^k)^*$, $k=0,\cdots, n$ is a basis of $i'_*H_*(({\bf P}^n)^*)$, so the restriction of $T $ to $i_*H_*({\bf P}^n)$ is an isomorphism from $i_*H_*({\bf P}^n)$ to $i'_*H_*(({\bf P}^n)^*)$.
Next we want to prove that $T$ is an isomorphism of additive homology.
Denote $U:=X-{\bf P }^n$ and $U' := X'-({\bf P}^n)^*$. Since $H^{BM}_i{\bf P}^n$ has at most one generator for all $i$, then, from $(6)$, we have the following exact sequences: $$\begin{aligned}
0 \longrightarrow i_*H^{BM}_k{\bf P}^n \stackrel{\subset}{\longrightarrow} H^{BM}_k X \stackrel{j^*}{\longrightarrow}
H^{BM}_k U \longrightarrow 0 \\
0 \longrightarrow i_*H^{BM}_k ({\bf P}^n)^* \stackrel{\subset}{\longrightarrow} H^{BM}_k X' \stackrel{j^*}{\longrightarrow}
H^{BM}_k U' \longrightarrow 0. \end{aligned}$$ Since $H^{BM}_k {\bf P}^n$, $H^{BM}_k X$, $H^{BM}_k U$, $H^{BM}_k ({\bf P}^n)^*$, $H^{BM}_k X'$, $H^{BM}_k U'$ all are free Abelian groups, so we have $$\begin{aligned}
H^{BM}_k X & \cong & i_*H^{BM}_k {\bf P}^n \oplus H^{BM}_k U \\
H^{BM}_k X'& \cong & i_*H^{BM}_k({\bf P}^n)^* \oplus H^{BM}_k U'.\end{aligned}$$ Here we used the following elementary fact from extension theory:
[**Proposition 3.3: ([@Bott], P. 168)** ]{} In a short exact sequence of Abelian groups $$0 \longrightarrow A \longrightarrow B \longrightarrow C \longrightarrow 0,$$ if $A$ and $C$ are free, then $ B \cong A \oplus C$.
In fact, the previous proof shows that the restriction of $T$ to $i_*H^{BM}_k({\bf P}^n)$ is an isomorphism from $i_*H^{BM}_k({\bf P}^n)$ to $i'_*H^{BM}_k(({\bf P}^n)^*)$. On the other hand, since $\phi$ and $\phi'$ are the identity map outside ${\bf P}^n$ and $({\bf P}^n)^*$ respectively, i. e. $U \cong U'$, the restriction of $T$ to $H^{BM}_k U$ is also an isomorphism from $H^{BM}_k U$ to $H^{BM}_k U'$. By the linearity of $T$, from $(13)$ and $(14)$, we have that $T$ is an isomorphism from $H^{BM}_k X$ to $H^{BM}_k X'$ as additive groups. Since $X$ and $X'$ are compact, Therefore, $T$ also gives an isomorphism from the ordinary homology $H_k X$ to $H_k X'$ as additive groups.
Now it remains to prove that $T$ preserves the multiplication, i. e. for any classes $\alpha, \beta \in H_*X$, we have $$T(\alpha \cdot \beta) = T(\alpha)\cdot T(\beta).$$
By the transverality theorem, for any homology classes $\alpha, \beta$, we may choose their representatives $M$(for $\alpha$) and $N$(for $\beta$) respectively such that they transversally intersect, i. e. $\dim (M\cap N) = \dim M + \dim N - 4n$. In the rest proof of this theorem, we will use the same symbol to denote the homology class and its representatives.
Since $T$ is linear and the intersection product is distributive, we only need to prove $(15)$ holds for generator classes. From the fact that the intersection product is a map from $H_k X \otimes H_l X$ to $H_{k+l-4n}X$, we know that $(15)$ holds if $\dim \alpha + \dim \beta < 4n$. Therefore, we may assume that $\dim \beta \geq 2n$. Since $U:= X-Z$ is isomorphic to $U':=X'-Z'$, we have that the map $T$ is the identity map on $ H_*(X-Z)$. Therefore, If at least one of the supports of $\alpha, \beta$ does not intersect with ${\bf P}^n$, then $(15)$ holds. Therefore, we only need to consider the following four cases.
[**Case I:**]{} $\dim \alpha <2n$, $\beta $ is an arbitrary class.
In this case, we may choose a representative submanifold $\alpha $ with support away from ${\bf P}^n$. Therefore, by the construction of the intersection product and the fact that $T $ is an identity map from $H_*(U)$ to $H_*(U')$, we have $$T(\alpha\cdot \beta) = T(\alpha)\cdot T(\beta).$$
[**Case II:**]{} $\dim \alpha = 2n$ and $\dim \beta = 2n$.
From $(13)$ and the distributivity of intersection product, we only need to consider the case: $\alpha = i_*({\bf P}^n)$ and $\beta = i_*({\bf P}^n)$. In this case, we have $$T(\alpha\cdot\beta) = T(-(n+1)[pt]) = -(n+1)[pt] = i'_*({\bf P}^n)^*\cdot i'_*({\bf P}^n)^* = T(\alpha)\cdot T(\beta).$$
[**Case III:**]{} $\dim \alpha >2n $ and $\dim \beta >2n$.
Here we first prove the following claim:
[**Claim:**]{}If $\phi : \tilde{X}\longrightarrow X$ is the blowup of $X$ along a subvariety, then $\phi^*\alpha\cdot\phi^*\beta = \phi^*(\alpha\cdot \beta)$ for any classes $\alpha, \beta \in H_*X$.
In fact, by definition, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\phi^*(\alpha \cdot \beta) & = & PD \phi^* PD (\alpha \cdot \beta)
= PD \phi^*(PD(\alpha)\cup PD(\beta))\\
& = & PD(\phi^*PD(\alpha)\cup \phi^*PD(\beta) = PD\phi^*PD(\alpha)\cdot PD\phi^* PD(\beta)\\
& = & \phi^* \alpha \cdot \phi^*\beta\end{aligned}$$ where $PD$ stands for Poincare dual.
Since $\phi': \tilde{X'}\longrightarrow X'$ is the projection of blowup, so we have $\phi'_*\phi'^*\alpha = \alpha$ for any $\alpha \in H_*X'$. From the definition of $T$, we have $\phi'^* T(\alpha) = \phi^*\alpha + \xi$, $\phi'^* T(\beta) = \phi^*\beta +\eta$ where $\phi'_*\xi = \phi'_*\eta = 0$, i. e. $\phi'\mid _{\xi}$ and $\phi'\mid _{\eta}$ have positive dimensional fiber. Therefore, if $\dim (\alpha \cdot \beta)\not= 2n$, from the above claim and the projection formula, we have $$\begin{aligned}
T(\alpha\cdot \beta) & = & \phi'_*\phi^*(\alpha\cdot\beta)
= \phi'_*\{\phi^*\alpha\cdot\phi^*\beta\}\\
& = & \phi'_*\{\phi'^*T(\alpha)\cdot \phi'^*T(\beta)-\phi'^*T(\alpha)\cdot\eta - \phi'^*T(\beta)\cdot \xi + \xi\cdot\eta\}\\
& = & T(\alpha)\cdot T(\beta).\end{aligned}$$
If $\dim (\alpha \cdot \beta )= 2n$, i. e., $\dim \alpha + \dim \beta = 5n$, without loss of generality, we may assume that $\alpha \cdot \beta = k i_*{\bf P}^n$ and $\dim \beta <4n$. By the definition of $T$ and the intersection product, we also may assume that $T(\alpha) \cdot
T(\beta) = m i'_*({\bf P}^n)^*$. Choose a $l$-dimensional class $\gamma$ where $l$ satisfies $\dim \beta + l
- 4n < 2n$ and $l < 2n$. Then from the associativity of the intersection product and Case I, we have the triple intersection equality. $$T(\alpha\cdot\beta\cdot\gamma) = T(\alpha)\cdot T(\beta\cdot\gamma)= T(\alpha)\cdot T(\beta)\cdot T(\gamma).$$ Since $T(\alpha \cdot \beta \cdot \gamma)= T((\alpha\cdot\beta)\cdot\gamma)= T(\alpha\cdot\beta)
\cdot T(\gamma) = (-1)^nk i'_*({\bf P}^n)^*\cdot T(\gamma)$ and $T(\alpha)\cdot T(\beta)\cdot
T(\gamma) = m i'_*({\bf P}^n)^* \cdot T(\gamma)$, so we have $m = (-1)^n k$. Therefore $(15)$ holds.
[**Case IV:**]{} $\alpha = i_*{\bf P}^n$, $\dim \beta >2n$ and $\beta$ transverally intersects with ${\bf P}^n$.
Since all odd-dimensional classes in ${\bf P}^n$ are homologous to zero, without loss of generality, we may assume that $\dim \beta$ is even. Suppose that $\gamma$ is any $(6n-\dim \beta)$-dimensional class in $H_*X$. Then the intersection product $\beta\cdot\gamma$ is a $2n$-dimensional class in $H_{2n}X$. From the associativity of the intersection product and Case II and III, we have the triple intersection equality $$T(\alpha\cdot\beta\cdot\gamma) = T(\alpha)\cdot T(\beta\cdot\gamma)= T(\alpha)\cdot T(\beta)\cdot T(\gamma).$$
Suppose that ${\bf P}^n \cdot\beta = m i_*[{\bf P}^{\frac{\dim \beta}{2} -n}]$ and $({\bf P}^n)^*\cdot T(\beta) =
k i'_*([{\bf P}^{\frac{\dim \beta}{2} - n}]^*)$. Then by Case I we have $$\begin{aligned}
T(\alpha\cdot\beta\cdot\gamma)& = & m T(i_*[{\bf P}^{\frac{\dim \beta}{2} -n}] \cdot\gamma ) \\
& = & m T(i_*[{\bf P}^{\frac{\dim \beta}{2} -n}])
\cdot T(\gamma) = (-1)^{\frac{\dim \beta}{2} -n}m i'_*([{\bf P}^{\frac{\dim \beta} - n}])^*\cdot T(\gamma).\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, $$T(\alpha)\cdot T(\beta)\cdot T(\gamma) = k i'_*([{\bf P}^{\frac{\dim \beta}{2} - n}])^*\cdot T(\gamma).$$ Therefore we have $m=(-1)^{\frac{\dim \beta}{2} -n}k$. Therefore $$\begin{aligned}
T(\alpha\cdot\beta) & = & m T(i_*[{\bf P}^{\frac{\dim \beta}{2} -n}])= (-1)^{\frac{\dim \beta}{2} -n}k T( i_*[{\bf P}^{\frac{\dim \beta}{2} -n}])\\
& = & k i'_*([{\bf P}^{\frac{\dim \beta}{2} - n}]^*) = ({\bf P}^n)^*\cdot T(\beta) = T(\alpha)\cdot T(\beta).\end{aligned}$$ So we proved the equality $(15)$. This proves Theorem $3.2$.
Isomorphism of Ruan Cohomology
==============================
In this section, we will study Ruan cohomologies of $X$ and $X'$. From the previous section, we know that in order to prove isomorphisim of Ruan cohomology for the pair ,$X$ and $X'$, we need to calculate the quantum corrected product coming from exceptional effective curves on $X$ and $X'$ respectively. In fact, we will prove vanishing of the exceptional Gromov-Witten invariants appearing in the definition of quantum corrected product by localization technique.
Introduction to Localization
----------------------------
The calculation of the exceptional quantum product is local in nature, i.e. only a neighborhood of the embeded ${\bf P}^n$ in $X$ or $X'$ is relevant to the quantumn product with base homology being exceptional curves living in the embeded ${\bf P}^n$. Similar local invariants appeared in the study of local mirror symmetry. As explained in [@CKYZ], local mirror symmetry refers to a specialization of mirror symmetry technique to study geometry of Fano surfaces inside Calabi-Yau manifolds.
Following [@CKYZ], we first briefly describe the calculation setup. Let $\overline{\cal M}_{0,0}({\bf P},d)$ be Kontsevich’s moduli space of stable maps of genus 0(could be of higher genus) with no marked points. Denote a point in the space by $(C,f)$, where $f : C \longrightarrow {\bf P}$ (${\bf P}$ is some toric variety ), and $[f(C)] = d \in H_2({\bf P})$. Let $\overline{\cal M}_{0,1}({\bf P},d)$ be the same but with one marked point. Consider the following diagram $$\overline{\cal M}_{0,0}({\bf P},d)\longleftarrow \overline{\cal M}_{0,1}({\bf P},d)\longrightarrow {\bf P},$$ where the first arrow denotes the forgetting map $\rho : \overline{\cal M}_{0,1}({\bf P},d)\longrightarrow
\overline{\cal M}_{0,0}({\bf P},d)$ which forgets the marked point following stablization of the domain curve and the second arrow denotes the evaluation map $ev : \overline{\cal M}_{0,1}({\bf P}, d)\longrightarrow {\bf P}$ sending $(C,f, x_1)$ to $f(x_1)$.
Let [**Q**]{} be Calabi-Yau defined as the zero section of a convex bundle $V $ over ${\bf P}$ (here convex means $H^1(C,f^*V)=0$ for any stable map $(C,f)$). Then $U_d$ is the bundle over $\overline{\cal M}_{0,0}({\bf P},d)$ defined by $$U_d := \rho_*ev^*(V).$$ The fiber of $U_d$ over a point $(C,f)$ is $H^0(C,f^*V)$. And the Kontsevich numbers (Gromov-Witten type invariant) are defined to be $$K_d := \int_{\overline{\cal M}_{0,0}({\bf P},d)}c(U_d)$$ where $c$ is the appropriate Chern class in the context.
In case the bundle $V$ is also concave (meaning $H^0(C,f^*V) = 0$ for any stable map $(C,f)$), there is also an induced bundle over the moduli space of maps whose fiber over a point $(C,f)$ is given by $H^1(C, f^*V)$. In particular if $V$ is the normal bundle of ${\bf P}$ with respect to certain embedding of ${\bf P}$, the induced bundle is usually called the obstruction bundle.
In the same spirit of the above setup, there is another well known example (the multiple cover contribution) which we now describe.
Let $C_0 = {\bf P}^1$ be a smooth ${\bf P}^1$ embedded in a Calabi-Yau 3-fold $M$ with balanced normal bundle ${\cal O}(-1)\oplus {\cal O}(-1)$. The moduli space of stable maps $\overline{\cal M}_{0,0}(M, d[C_0])$ has a connected component $\overline{\cal M}_{C_0}$ isomorphic to $\overline{\cal M}({\bf P}^1, d[{\bf P}^1])$ consisting stable d-fold covers of $C_0$. This component has dimension $2 d -2$ while the virtual dimension is $0$. So to correctly count the number of maps (or to define the corresponding Gromov-Witten invariant), we have to consider the obstruction bundle $U_d$ whose fiber over $(C,f)$ is given by $H^1(C,f^*N_{C_0|M}) = {\bf C}^2 \otimes H^1(C, f^*{\cal O}(-1))$. Note that the rank of the obstruction bundle is also $2d-2$. And the contribution of $\overline{\cal M}_{C_0}$ is given by $$M_d := \int_{\overline{\cal M}({\bf P}^1, d)}c_{2d-2}(U_d).$$
The above definition is proposed by Kontsevich who also derived a graph summation formula for it. And the value is checked by Y. Manin to be $\frac{1}{d^3}$. ( there is difficulty in summing up all the contributions from admmisible graphs).
The essence in both examples described above is to determine and evaluate certain cohomology class (over the space of stable maps) which come from bundles induced from bundles over the target space. And solutions to both problems come out of application of localization techniques. Since the target space is toric, the moduli space of maps together with the induced bundles inherit torus action ( action on space of maps by translating maps). Hence the classes under consideration can be localized to the fixed points loci and become much more accessible.
In [@CKYZ], the authors considered the cases where the bundle $V$ is a direct sum of line bundles, while in this paper we will consider the case where the target space is ${\bf P}^n$ and the bundle $V$ is the cotangent bundle of ${\bf P}^n$ which is a natural example of concave bundles. It is of interest also because it demonstrate rather different phenomena from the examples described above. We will describe obstruction bundle induced from cotangent bundle of ${\bf P}^n$ and define related Gromov-Witten type invariants. Surprising we will see that all these invariants are $0$.
The essential fact used in the proof is the following [**observation:**]{} let $C$ be a smooth ${\bf P}^1$ mapping onto a line (${\bf P}^1$) inside ${\bf P}^n$ with degree d. Denote the map by $f$. Standard torus action (diagonal action) on ${\bf P}^n$ naturally lifted to $T^*{\bf P}^n$ induces an action on the vector space $H^1(C,f^*T^*{\bf P}^n)$. Calculate the weights of the action, we see that there is a $0$ weight piece.
This observation of the $0$ weight piece also leads to other interesting applications. For instance, by utilizing it, we can calculate all the Gromov-Witten invariant, hence determine the quantum cohomology ring structure of the projective bundle ${\bf P}(T^*{\bf P}^2\oplus {\cal O})$ over ${\bf P}^2$. Again the difficulty lies in how to sum up, granted with the graph summation machinery developed by Kontsevich. And the simple observation we have will greatly simplify the summation procedure.
The rest of this section is organized as follows: In subsection $4.2$, we define our invariant and state the vanishing theorem. In subsection $4.3$, we introduce the Bott’s residue formula and Kontsevich’s graph summation formula for computing the invariants. In subsection $4.4$, we prove our vanishing theorem and our result about isomorphism of Ruan cohomology.
Definition of invariants
------------------------
In this subsection we define our invariants. Let $\overline{\cal M}_{g,k}({\bf P}^n,d)$ be the moduli space of stable maps from genus $g$ curves with $k$ marked points into ${\bf P}^n$ which carries the fundamental class $d[{\bf P}^1]\in H_2({\bf P}^n)$. Denote a typical element in $\overline{\cal M}_{g,k}({\bf P}^n,d)$ by $(C,f,x_1,\cdots,x_k)$. The cotangent bundle of ${\bf P}^n$ induces an obstruction bundle over $\overline{\cal M}_{g,k}({\bf P}^n,d)$ whose fiber at $(C,f, x_1,\cdots,x_k)$ is $H^1(C,fT^*{\bf P}^n)$. Its Euler class ( denoted by $\Phi$) plays an important role in defining our invariants.
There are also other cohomology classes on $\overline{\cal M}_{g,k}({\bf P}^n,d)$. For instance there is the evaluation maps $ev_i : \overline{\cal M}_{g,k}({\bf P}^n,d) \longrightarrow {\bf P}^n$, sending $(C,f,x_1,\cdots, x_k)$ to $f(x_i)$, So we can pull back cohomology classes from ${\bf P}^n$ via the evaluation maps. Also there is the forgetting map $\overline{\cal M}_{g,k}({\bf P}^n,d) \longrightarrow \overline{\cal M}_{g,k}$ by forgetting the map $f$ of $(C,f,x_1,\cdots, x_k)$ where $\overline{\cal M}_{g,k}$ is the Deligne-Munford space of stable curves with $k$ marked points. So we can also pull back classes from $\overline{\cal M}_{g,k}$.
Integrating polynomials in these classes over the moduli space $\overline{\cal M}_{g,k}({\bf P}^n,d)$, we get numbers.
In particular, if ${\bf P}^n$ is embedded in a variety $X$ with normal bundle naturally isomorphic to its cotangent bundle, then to correctly define Gromov-Witten invariant out of the moduli space $\overline{\cal M}_{g,k}(M, d[{\bf P}^1])$, we have to take acount of the Euler class of the obstruction bundle as described above.
So we want to consider the integrals where the class $\Phi$ appears in the integrand. Formally, we have
[**Definition 4.1:**]{} $K_{(k,g,d,\Theta)} := \int_{\overline{\cal M}_{g,k}({\bf P}^n,d)}\Theta\wedge \Phi$, where $\Theta$ is a polynomial in Chern classes of certain equivariant vector bundles over $\overline{\cal M}_{g,k}({\bf P}^n,d)$.
For example, let us consider the case of mukai flop. It is well known that the normal bundle of the embeded ${\bf P}^n$ is actaully naturally isomorphic to its cotangent bundle because of the existence of holomorphic 2-forms.
[**Definition 4.2:**]{} $K_{(3,0,d,ev^*(\alpha) \wedge ev^*(\beta) \wedge ev^*(\gamma))}:= \int_{\overline{\cal M}_{0,3}({\bf P}^n,d)} ev^*(\alpha)\wedge ev^*(\beta)\wedge ev^*(\gamma) \wedge \Phi$. where $\alpha$,$\beta$,$\gamma$ are any cohomogy classes of ${\bf P} ^n$ with appropriate degrees, i.e. $$\deg (\alpha)+ \deg(\beta)+ \deg(\gamma)+ \deg(\Phi) = \dim {\cal M}_{0,3}({\bf P}^n,d).$$
Note that the invariant defined above includes all qauntum correction coming from exceptional effective curve in the case of mukai flop.
About these invariants, we have the following vanishing theorem
[**Theorem 4.3:**]{} The invariants $K_{(k,g,d, \Theta)}$ all vanish regardless of the flexibility of $\Theta$.
Bott’s residue formula and normal bundle contibution
----------------------------------------------------
In this subsection, we introduce the technique we use to compute the invariants as defined in previous subsections. The basic ideal is to consider torus action and use the Bott’s residue formula to reduce the integral to fixed points loci of the action.
Starting from [@K], a lot of work has been done towards localization techniques applied to the computation of Gromov-Witten invariants and verification of mirror symmetry predictions. In the most general case, one has to consider localization of virtual classes as done in [@GP; @LLY]. In [@CKYZ], the authors developed effective ways to compute similar invariants involving Euler classes of obstruction bundles. But they mainly treat direct sums of line bundles. For our computation, the machinery introduced by [@K] suffices. Here we will follow the presentation in [@K] closely. To keep notation simple, we will only consider integration formula in genus zero case. The proof of vanishing of the invariants in higher genus case will be almost identical. We will point out the slight difference later.
Before proving theorem $4.3$, we first want to introduce [**Bott’s residue formula:**]{}
Let $X$ be a compact complex projective manifold (orbifold allowed) and $E$ a holomorphic vector bundle (or orbibundle) over $X$. Suppose $T:=(C^*)^{n+1}$ a complex torus acts on $(X,E)$. Denote the fixed points loci by $X^T$ and its connected components by $X^{\gamma}$. Since the irreducible representations of torus are dimensional one, over $X^{\gamma}$ the bundle $E$ splits into direct sum of line bundles $E^{\gamma, \lambda}$ twisted by character $\lambda : T \longrightarrow C^*$, $\lambda\in T^\vee = Z \oplus Z \oplus\cdots\oplus Z$. The normal bundle of $X^{\lambda}$ (denoted by $N^{\lambda}$) also splits into sum of line bundles $N^{\gamma, \lambda }$ over characters $\lambda\in T^\vee\setminus \{0 \}$.
By splitting principle, we suppose the Chern classes of bundle $E$ are given by homogeneous symmetric polynomials in degree 2 generators $e_i$’s as follows: $$\sum_{k \geq 0}c_k(E) = \Pi_i(1+e_i), \,\,\,\,\,\, e_i \in H^2(X, Q).$$
Analogously, we add generators $e_i^{\gamma, \lambda}$ and $n_i^{\gamma, \lambda}$ to $H^2(X^{\gamma}, Q)$.
Let $ P$ be a homogeneous symmetric polynomial. Then the [**Bott’s residue formula**]{} reads: $$\int_X P(e_i) = \sum_{\gamma}\int_{X^\gamma}\frac{P(e_i^{\gamma,\lambda} + \lambda)}{\Pi(n_i^{\gamma,\lambda})}.$$
The right hand side of the above formula is considered as rational function in $\lambda$’s. It turns out to have homogeneous degree 0 ( actually a constant independent of choice of $\lambda$’s). The numerator of r.h.s. is actually the equivariant extension of the pullback of class $P(e_i)$ to $X^\gamma$. The denominator is the equivariant Euler class of normal bundle of $X^\gamma$.
Now, we want to calculate the fixed points in the moduli space of stable maps in order to apply the Bott’s residue formula.
Let $T= (C^*)^{n+1}$ acts diagonally on ${\bf P}^n$ with generic weights $-\lambda_1, -\lambda_2,\cdots,-\lambda_{n+1}$. The fixed points are projectivization of coordinate lines of $C^{n+1}$, denoted by $p_i$. And the only invariant curves are lines connecting the fixed points labeled by $l_{ij} = l_{ji}$, where $i\not= j$.
The action of $T$ on ${\bf P}^n$ induces an action of $T$ on the moduli space of stable maps $\overline{\cal M}_{g,k}({\bf P}^n,d)$ by moving the image of the map. Let $(C,f,x_1,\cdots, x_k)$ be a fixed point in the stable map space. Then the geometric image of the map is fixed. So we have
1. The contracted components, the marked points, the ramification points, the nodes all are mapped to the fixed points $p_i$’s in ${\bf P}^n$.
2. A non-contracted component is map onto one of the lines $l_{ij}$’s, ramifying over the two fixed points(end points of the line ), thus is forced to be rational and completely determined by its degree.
We associate with each fixed map a marked graph $\Gamma$ as follows. The vertices of the graph $v \in Vert(\Gamma)$ correspond to the connected components $C_v$ of $f^{-1}(p_1,p_2,\cdots, p_{n+1})$. Here the component can be either a point or union of irreducible components of the curve $C$. The edges $\alpha\in Edge(\Gamma)$ correspond to non-contracted component of $C^\alpha$ of genus $0$ mapping onto the $l_{ij}$’s. There are also tails on the vertices coming from the marked points. We also mark the graph by the following labels:
1. Label the vertices numbers $f_v$ from $1$ to $n+1$ defined by $f(C_v):= p_{f_v}$. Also label a vertex by $g_v$ (the genus of the $1$-dimensional part of $C_v$, for a point the genus is $0$) and a set $S_v \subset \{1,2,\cdots,k \}$ the indices of the marked points.
2. Label the edges by the mapping degree $d_{\alpha}\in N$
The claim is that the connected components of $\overline{\cal M}_{g,k}({\bf P}^n,d)^T$ are isomorphic to $\Pi_{v\in Vert(\Gamma)} \overline{\bf M}_{g_v,val(v)}/\mbox{\bf Aut}(\Gamma)$ and can be identified as equivalent classes of connected graphs $\Gamma$ with labeling satisfying the following conditions:
1. For $\alpha\in Edge(\Gamma)$ connecting vertices $u,v \in Vert(\Gamma)$, then $f_u \not= f_v$,
2. $1 - \chi (\Gamma) + \sum_{v \in Vert(\Gamma)} g_v = g$,
3. $\sum_{\alpha\in Edge(\Gamma)} d_{\alpha} = d$,
4. $\cup_{v \in Vert(\Gamma)}S_v = \{1,2,\cdots,k \}$.
From now on we only consider the integration formula for genus $0$ case. We first want to give some notations:
1. For a graph, we define an incident pair of vertex and edge $(v, \alpha)$ to be a flag $F = (v,\alpha)$ and denote by $w_F$ the expression $\frac{\lambda_{f_v}-\lambda_{f_u}}{d_\alpha}$ where $u\not=v$ is the other vertex of the edge $\alpha$.
2. Recall that $\overline{\cal M}_{0,k}$ is the Deligne-Mumford space of marked stable curves. For each marking $i$, there is a line bundle $L_i\longrightarrow \overline{\cal M}_{0,k}$ with fiber $T^*_{C,p_i}$ over the moduli point $C$. Define $\psi_i := c_1(L_i)$.
Now we describe the normal bundle of the fixed points components. For an equivariant bundle $E$, denote by $[E]$ its class in the corresponding equivariant K-group. Also we denote $\overline{\cal M}_{0,k}({\bf P}^n,d)$ by $\overline{\cal M}$ for simplicity and often denote a bundle by its geometric fiber at a point $(C,f)$.
To keep notation simple, we ignore the marked points as in [@K] and explain the difference along the way.
The class of normal bundle for a component $\overline{\cal M}^{\gamma}$ having graph type $\Gamma$ is
$$[N_{\overline{\cal M}^\gamma}] = [T_{\overline{\cal M}}] - [T_{\overline{\cal M}^\gamma}]$$
$$[T_{\overline{\cal M}}] = [H^0(C,f^*(T{\bf P}^n))] + \sum_{y \in C^\alpha\cap C^\beta} [T_y(C^\alpha)\otimes T_y(C^\beta)] \nonumber$$ $$+ \sum_{y \in C^\alpha\cap C^\beta : \alpha\not= \beta}([T_y(C^\alpha)] + [T_y(C^\beta)]) - \sum_\alpha[H^0(C^\alpha,TC^\alpha)]$$
The first summand corresponds to infinitesmal deformation of the map $f$ from $C$. The second summand corresponds to smoothing of nodes. And the third comes from deformation of the curve $C$ fixing the singular points. If there is a marked point $x$ on $C^\alpha$, it should also be fixed and in the third summand there would be an additional term $ \sum_\alpha[H^0(T_x(C^\alpha))]$. (Same remark applies to the formula below).
$$\begin{aligned}
[T_{\overline{\cal M}^\gamma}] & = & \sum_{y \in C^\alpha\cap C^\beta: \alpha\not=\beta:\alpha,\beta \not\in Edge(\Gamma)}
[T_y(C^\alpha)\otimes T_y(C^\beta)]\nonumber \\
& + & \sum_{y \in C^\alpha\cap C^\beta: \alpha\not=\beta:\alpha \not\in Edge(\Gamma)}
[T_y(C^\alpha)] - \sum_{\alpha \not\in Edge(\Gamma)}[H^0(C^\alpha, T C^\alpha)].\end{aligned}$$
where the first term corresponds to smoothing of nodes which are intersection of two contracted components. The second term and the third come from deformation of the components preserving singular points.
So we have the following formula $$[N_{\overline{\cal M}^\gamma}] = [H^0(C,f^*(T{\bf P}^n))]+ [N_{\overline{\cal M}^\gamma}^{abs}]$$ where $$[N_{\overline{\cal M}^\gamma}^{abs}] := \sum_{y \in C^\alpha\cap C^\beta: \alpha\not=\beta:\alpha,\beta \in Edge(\Gamma)}
[T_y(C^\alpha)\otimes T_y(C^\beta)]$$ $$+ \sum_{y \in C^\alpha\cap C^\beta: \alpha\in Edge(\Gamma),\beta \not\in Edge(\Gamma)}
[T_y(C^\alpha)\otimes T_y(C^\beta)]$$ $$+ \sum_{y \in C^\alpha\cap C^\beta: \alpha\not=\beta:\alpha\in Edge(\Gamma)}[T_y(C^\alpha)]
- \sum_{\alpha\in Edge(\Gamma)}[H^0(C^\alpha,T C^\alpha)].$$
In the formula for $ [N_{\overline{\cal M}^\gamma}^{abs}]$ above the first and third summand are trivial bundles twisted with characters of the torus. The term $[H^0(C,f^*(T{\bf P}^n))]$ and the classes from the bundle $E$ restricted to $X^\gamma$ in our application later have same nature. When we take the Chern classes of these summand, we just get weights of torus action on the fibers of these bundles (expressed in terms of $\lambda_i$’s), hence can be pulled out of the integral. In the second summand, the tangent space of the non-contracted component at $y$ is fixed but twisted, while the tangent space of the contracted component at $y$ is moving without twisting. Taking equivariant Chern class we get a sum of certain tangential weight and the $\psi$ class over suitable space of pointed stable curves. This reduce the integral on the right hand side of Bott’s formula integral to integral of $\psi$ classes over space of pointed curves for which the answer has been conjectured by Witten and verified by Kontsevich rigorously. Thus we have a contribution (as rational function in $\lambda$’s) from each of the admissible graphs. The invariant is given by a graph summation collecting all these contributions:
$$\begin{aligned}
& &\prod_{\alpha \in Edge(\Gamma );v_1, v_2:vertices \ of \ \alpha}
(\frac{(-1)^{d_\alpha}(\frac{d_\alpha}{\lambda _{V_1}-\lambda _{V_2}})^{2 d_\alpha}}{(d_\alpha !)^2}) \nonumber \\
& \times & \prod_{\alpha \in {Edge(\Gamma )}}\prod_{k \not= f_{v_1},k \not= f_{v_2}}\prod_{a,b \geq
0:a+b=d_{\alpha }}\frac{1}{\frac{a}{d_\alpha }\lambda _{f_{v_1}}+\frac{b}{d_\alpha }\lambda _{f_{v_2}}-\lambda _k}\nonumber \\
& \times & \prod_{v \in Vert(\Gamma)}\{(\sum_{flags:F=(v,\alpha )}w_F^{-1})^{ val (v)-3}\times
\prod_{ flags:F=(v,\alpha )}w_F^{-1}\nonumber \\
&\times & \prod_{j \not= f_v}(\lambda _{f_v}-\lambda _j)^{val (v)-1}\}.\end{aligned}$$
Here the valence of a vertex includes the counts of the number of tails. The detailed calculation of the weights can be found in [@K] which we refer the interested readers to.
Proof of the vanishing theorem.
-------------------------------
In this subsection, we prove the vanishing theorem stated in Section 4.2. We show the calculation for the specific example defined in Definition [**4.2** ]{} with n=2. The proof for the general cases is almost identical. We will briefly explain the difference at the end of the proof.
[**Proof of Theorem 4.3:**]{} First of all, note that the invariant is given by $$\begin{aligned}
& & \sum _{\Gamma }\frac{1}{|\mbox{Aut}(\Gamma )|}\times
(\mbox{contribution from }{ev}^*(\alpha)\wedge {ev}^*(\beta) \wedge {ev}^*(\gamma) )\nonumber \\
& \times & (\mbox{contribution from} \Phi )\times (\mbox{formula} (25)).\end{aligned}$$
Here the contribution of the second and the third terms are just a product of the weights of induced torus action on the corresponding vector bundles. We show that the contribution from the Euler class $\Phi $ of the obstruction bundle restricted to the fixed point component is zero and thus conclude.
To deal with nodal curves, we need the following normalization sequence. First let us consider the simple case where $\bf C=C_\alpha \cup C_\beta $. There is an exact sequence of maps of sheaves (of the holomorphic functions): $$0 \longrightarrow {\cal O}_C \longrightarrow {\cal O}_{C_\alpha}\oplus {\cal O}_{C_\beta}\longrightarrow
{\cal O}_{ C_\alpha\cap C_\beta}\longrightarrow 0.$$
Here all the maps except the last one are obtained from inclusions. And the last one maps $(f_1,f_2)$ to $f_1-f_2$.
In general we have the normalization sequence resolving all the nodes of ${\bf C}$ which are forced by a graph type $\Gamma $ $$\begin{aligned}
0 \longrightarrow {\cal O}_C & \longrightarrow & \left(\oplus _{v \in Vert(\Gamma )}{\cal O}_{C_v}\right)
\oplus \left( \oplus _{\alpha \in Edge(\Gamma )}{\cal O}_{C_\alpha }\right) \nonumber \\
& \longrightarrow & \oplus _{F \in Flag(\Gamma )}{\cal O}_{x_F}\longrightarrow 0,
\end{aligned}$$ where $x_F=C_v \cap C_\alpha$ for a flag $(v,\alpha )$, and the last map sends $(g|_{C_V},h|_{C_\alpha})$ to $g-h$ on the intersection point.
Twist the above sequence by $f^*T^*{\bf P}^2$ and take cohomology to get $$\begin{aligned}
0 & \longrightarrow & H^0(C,f^*T^*{\bf P}^{2}) \nonumber \\
& \longrightarrow & \left( \oplus _{v \in Vert(\Gamma )}H^0(C_v,f^*T^*{\bf P}^{2})\right) \oplus
\left( \oplus _{\alpha \in Edge(\Gamma )}H^0(C_\alpha,f^*T^*{\bf P}^{2})\right)\nonumber \\
& \longrightarrow & \oplus _{F \in Flag(\Gamma )}T_{f(x_F)}^*{\bf P}^{2}\longrightarrow H^1(C,f^*T^*{\bf P}^{2})
\nonumber \\
& \longrightarrow & \left( \oplus _{v \in Vert(\Gamma )}H^1(C_v,f^*T^*{\bf P}^{2})\right) \oplus
\left( \oplus _{\alpha \in Edge(\Gamma )}H^1(C_\alpha,f^*T^*{\bf P}^{2})\right)\nonumber \\
& \longrightarrow & 0.
\end{aligned}$$ The first term in the third line follows since $x_F$ is a point, which is why the last term in the last line is 0. Note that $f^*T^*{\bf P}^2|_{C_v}$ is trivial since $C_v$ is mapped to a point , hence $H^0(C_v,f^*T^*{\bf P}^2)
=T^*{\bf P}^2|_{P_{f(v)}}$ and $H^1(C_v,f^*T^*{\bf P}^2)=H^1(C_v,{\cal O})\otimes f^*T^*{\bf P}^2$. Since we are considering genus zero case, $H^1(C_v,f^*T^*{\bf P}^2)$ is also zero( In general, it can be expressed in terms of the first Chern class $C_1$ of Hodge bundle over space of pointed curves). Because of the concavity of $T^*{\bf P}^2$, $H^0(C_\alpha,f^*T^*{\bf P}^2)$ is zero. And by looking at the maps in the first line of $(29)$, we see $H^0(C,f^*T^*{\bf P}^2)$ is also zero. So we have $$[H^1(C,f^*T^*{\bf P}^2)]=[\prod _{v \in Vert(\Gamma )}T_{p_{f(v)}}^*{\bf P}^2]+[\prod _{a \in Edge(\Gamma )}H^1
(C_\alpha,f^*T^*{\bf P}^2)].$$ The contribution from the l.h.s is the product of those of the two terms on the r.h.s.
Since a non-contracted component is rigid, $[H^1(C_\alpha,f^*T^*{\bf P}^2)]$ is a trivial bundle when restricted to fixed point components. To compute the weights, we consider the following description of the cotangent bundle of ${\bf P}^2$ by an exact sequence of bundles over ${\bf P}^2={\bf P}(V)$ where $V$ is a complex vector space of dimension 3. First we have $$0 \longrightarrow {\cal O}(-1)\longrightarrow V \longrightarrow Q \longrightarrow 0,$$ where $V$ represents the trivial bundle with vector space $V$ as fiber and ${\cal O}(-1)$ is the universal bundle. Tensoring with ${\cal O}(1)$, we have $$0 \longrightarrow {\cal O}\longrightarrow {\cal O}(1)\otimes V \longrightarrow {\cal O}(1)\otimes
Q \longrightarrow 0,$$ where ${\cal O}(1)\otimes Q ={\bf T P}^2$. Dualizing we have $$0 \longrightarrow T^*{\bf P}^2 \longrightarrow
{\cal O}(-1)\otimes V^*\longrightarrow {\cal O}\longrightarrow 0.$$
Pulling back by $f$ over $C_\alpha$ and taking cohomology, we have $$\begin{aligned}
0 & \longrightarrow & H^0(C_\alpha,f^*T^*{\bf P}^2)\longrightarrow H^0(C_\alpha,{\cal O}(-d)\otimes V^*)\nonumber \\
& \longrightarrow & H^0(C_\alpha,{\cal O})\longrightarrow H^1(C_\alpha,f^*T^*{\bf P}^2) \nonumber \\
& \longrightarrow & H^1(C_\alpha,{\cal O}(-d)\otimes V^*)\longrightarrow H^1(C_\alpha,{\cal O})\longrightarrow 0.\end{aligned}$$ Note that $C_\alpha $ is rational. $H^0(C_\alpha,{\cal O}(-d)\otimes V^*)$ and $H^1(C_\alpha,{\cal O})$ are both $0$. So we have $$0 \longrightarrow H^0(C_\alpha,{\cal O})\longrightarrow H^1(C_\alpha,f^*T^*{\bf P}^2)\longrightarrow
H^1(C_\alpha,{\cal O}(-d)\otimes V^*)\longrightarrow 0.$$ So the contribution of $[H^1(C_\alpha,f^*T^*{\bf P}^2)]$ is given by a product of weights on $H^1(C_\alpha$, ${\cal O}(-d)\otimes V^*)$ and weight on $H^0(C_\alpha,{\cal O})$. Obviously the weight on $H^0(C_\alpha,{\cal O})$ is zero. So the contribution of $[H^1(C_\alpha, f^*T^*{\bf P}^2)]$ is zero for each $\alpha \in Edge(\Gamma )$.
From $(30)$, we see that the total contribution of the Euler class $\Phi $ is zero. Thus we conclude our proof of the genus zero case.
In the general case of higher genus, formula $(26)$ needs to be modified. $\lambda$ classes (coming from the deformation of the complex structures on ${\bf C})$ and hence Hodge integrals will appear in the computation of the normal bundle contribution and the details can be found in [@GP]. But the point is that the contribution of Euler class $\Phi $ is still zero, since there is a 0 weight coming from $H^1(C_\alpha,f^*T^*{\bf P}^2)$ for each non-contracted component (necessarily rational as explained earlier). So Theorem $ 4.3$ still holds.
[**Theorem 4.4:**]{} Suppose that non-singular projective manifolds $X$ and $X'$ of complex dimension $2n$ are connected by a sequence of Mukai flops. Then $X$ and $X' $ have isomorphic Ruan cohomologies.
[**Proof:**]{} By theorem 4.3, we have that all Gromov-Witten invariants appearing in the right hand side of $(1)$ vanish. Therefore, we have that for $X, X'$ their quantum corrections all vanish. Thus their quantum cohomology are the same as their ordinary Chow ring. By theorem 3.2, we know that $X, X'$ have isomorphic Ruan cohomology. This proves the theorem.
[**Corollary 4.5:**]{} For Mukai flops, cohomological minimal model conjecture holds.
Finally, we present a well known proposition to point out that local existence of a holomorphic symplectic 2-form implies natural isomorphism of the normal bundle and the cotangent bundle for a embedded ${\bf P}^n$.
[**Proposition 4.6: (see [@Mukai])**]{} Suppose that ${\bf P}^n$ is embedded in a smooth variety $X$ with a neighborhood $N$ admitting a holomorphic symplectic 2-form $\omega$, then we have the following
1. $ \mbox{codim}_X{\bf P}^n \geq n$.
2. In case $\mbox{codim}_X{\bf P}^n = n$, there is a natural isomorphism $T^*{\bf P}^n = N_{X|{\bf P}^n}$.
[**Proof:**]{} Since $H^{2,0}({\bf P}^n) = 0$, $\omega \mid _{{\bf P}^n} = 0$. Thus $T_p{\bf P}^n
\subset (T_p{\bf P}^n)^\bot$ for any point $p \in {\bf P}^n$, where $T_p{\bf P}^n \subset T_pX$ is considered as a subspace of $T_pX$. Hence codim$_X{\bf P}^n = \dim (T_p{\bf P}^n)^\bot \geq \dim T_p{\bf P}^n = n $. In case equality holds, $T_p{\bf P}^n = (T_p{\bf P}^n)^\bot$.
$\omega \mid _{T_pX}$ is nondegenerate, so there is an isomorphism $\phi : T_p X = (T_p X)^*$. Thus we have $T_p{\bf P}^n =(T_p{\bf P}^n)^\bot = \mbox{Ann}(T_p{\bf P}^n) = N^*_{X \setminus{\bf P}^n}$, where the second isomorphism is via the map $\phi$.
[9999]{} V. Batyrev, Birational Calabi-Yau n-folds have the equal betti numbers, New trends in algebraic geometry(Warwick, 1996), 1-11. London Math. Soc. Lecture Notes Ser. 264. Cambridge Uni. Press, Cambridge, 1999. A. Beauville, Some remarks on kähler manifolds with $c_1 = 0$, in Classification of algebraic and analytic manifolds, Prog. Math. 39(1983), 1-26. A. Burns, Y. Hu, T. Luo, Hyperkähler manifolds and birational transformations in dimension 4. math.AG/0004154 E. Bishop, Conditions for the analyticity of certain sets, Mich. Math. J. 11(1964), 289-304. R. Bott, L. Tu, Differential Forms in Algebraic Topology, GTM 82, Springer-Verlag Press, 1982. N. Chriss, V. Ginzburg, Representation theory and complex geometry, Birkhäuser, 1997 T. M. Chiang, A. Klemm, S. T. Yau, E. Zaslow, Local mirror symmetry : Calculation and Interpretations, Adv. Theory Math. Phys., 3(1999), 495-565 W. Fulton, Intersection theory, Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heideberg, 1984 P. Griffiths, J. Harris, Principles of Algebraic Geometry, Wiley Interscience, 1978. T. Graber, R. Pandharipande, Localization of virtual classes, alg-geom/9708001 J. Hu, Quantum cohomology of blowups of surfaces and its functoriality property, MPI-preprint, 2000-118 D. Huybrechts, Birational symplectic manifolds and their deformations, alg-geom/9601015. D. Huybrechts, Compact hyperkähler manifolds: Basic Results. alg-geom/9705025. M. Kontsevich, “Enumeration of Rational curves via torus actions,” in The Moduli Space of Curves, Dijkgraaf et al eds., Progress in Mathematics 129, Birkhüser(Boston) 1995 Weiping Li, Several-hour-long discussion. B. Lian, K. Liu, S. T. Yau, Mirror principle I, Asian J. Math., 1(1997), 729-763. A. Li, Y. Ruan, Symplectic surgery and Gromov-Witten invariants of Calabi-Yau $3$-folds,I, Invent. Math. 145(2001),151-218, alg-geom/9803036 D. McDuff, Blow-ups and symplectic embeddings in dimension 4, Topology, 30(1991), 409-421. S. Mukai, Symplectic structure of the moduli space of sheaves on an abelian or $K3$ surfaces, Invent. Math. 77(1984), 101-116. Z. Qin, Y. Ruan, Quantum cohomology of projective bundle over ${\bf P}^2$, Trans. AMS, 350(1998), 3615-3638 Y. Ruan, Quantum cohomology and its applications, Lecture at ICM98, Doc. Math. (1998)Extra vol. II, 411-420 Y. Ruan, Surgery, quantum cohomology and birational geometry, in Northern California Symplectic Geometry Seminar(Y. Eliashberg, D. Fuchs, T. Ratiu, A. Weinstein, eds), AMS Translations, Series 2, vol. 196(1999), 183-198. Y. Ruan, Cohomology ring of crepant resolutions of orbifolds, math.AG/0108195 Y. Ruan, Stingy orbifolds, math.AG/0201123 Y. Ruan, G. Tian, A mathematical theory of quantum cohomology, J. Diff. Geom. 42(1995), 259-367. C-L. Wang, On the topology of birational minimal models, J. Diff. Geom. 50(1998), 129-146 C-L. Wang, K-equivalence in birational geometry, math.AG/0204160
Email address: stsjxhu@zsu.edu.cn
|
---
abstract: 'We study the two-species symbiotic contact process (2SCP), recently proposed in \[de Oliveira, Santos and Dickman, Phys. Rev. E [**86**]{}, 011121 (2012)\] . In this model, each site of a lattice may be vacant or host single individuals of species A and/or B. Individuals at sites with both species present interact in a symbiotic manner, having a reduced death rate, $\mu < 1$. Otherwise, the dynamics follows the rules of the basic CP, with individuals reproducing to vacant neighbor sites at rate $\lambda$ and dying at a rate of unity. We determine the full phase diagram in the $\lambda-\mu$ plane in one and two dimensions by means of exact numerical quasistationary distributions, cluster approximations, and Monte Carlo simulations. We also study the effects of asymmetric creation rates and diffusion of individuals. In two dimensions, for sufficiently strong symbiosis (i.e., small $\mu$), the absorbing-state phase transition becomes discontinuous for diffusion rates $D$ within a certain range. We report preliminary results on the critical surface and tricritical line in the $\lambda-\mu-D$ space. Our results raise the possibility that strongly symbiotic associations of mobile species may be vulnerable to sudden extinction under increasingly adverse conditions.'
address: |
$^1$Departamento de Física e Matemática, CAP, Universidade Federal de São João del Rei, 36420-000 Ouro Branco, Minas Gerais - Brazil\
$^2$Departamento de Física and National Institute of Science and Technology for Complex Systems, ICEx, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, C. P. 702, 30123-970 Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais - Brazil
author:
- 'Marcelo Martins de Oliveira$^1$[^1] and Ronald Dickman$^2$[^2]'
title: 'Phase diagram of the symbiotic two-species contact process'
---
Introduction
============
Originally proposed as a toy model for epidemic spreading, the contact process (CP) [@harris-CP] can also be interpreted as a stochastic single species birth-and-death process with a spatial structure [@durrett]. In the CP, each individual can reproduce assexually with rate $\lambda$, or die with unitary rate. When the reproduction rate $\lambda$ is varied, the system undergoes a phase transition between extinction and survival.
Interacting, spatially extended, multi-species processes are a subject of recent interest [@jansen; @iwata; @multisp; @tauber; @tubay; @parasites; @competing]. In particular, multispecies (or multitype) contact processes have been used to model systems with neutral community structure, and have proven useful in understanding abundance distributions and species-area relationships [@weitz; @munoz].
Symbiosis is the “living together of two phylogenetically unrelated species in close association" [@boucher], and is thought to develop as a consequence of coevolution [@douglas; @sapp]; it is a rather common phenomenon in nature. For example, lichens are symbiotic complexes of algae living inside fungi, and the roots of higher plants use symbiotic associations with fungi to receive important nutrients [@paracer].
Macroscopic models derived from modifications of the Lotka-Volterra competition equations have been employed to model symbiotic relations for decades [@rockwood; @yukalov]. Such model however neglect stochastic effects, relevant due to the discrete nature of the individuals and in spatially extended systems [@discrete]. More recently, the effects of mutualistic interactions in one-dimensional stepping stone models were studied by Korolev and Nelson [@korolev], and by Dall’Asta et.al. [@asta], who found that fluctuations and spatial structure favors symmetric mutualism (in which species benefit equally from the interaction). The fixation(absorbing)-coexistence(active) phase transition was found to belong to the voter model universality class if mutualism is symmetric, and to the directed percolation class if asymmetric. Lavrentovich and Nelson extended the results of [@lav] to asymmetric interactions in two and three dimensions, finding that the mutualist phase is more accessible in higher dimensional range expansions. Pigolotti et. al [@pigolotti] studied competition and cooperation between two species when the population size is not constrained as it is in stepping-stone models.
Recently, we studied symbiotic interactions in a two-species CP [@scp]. This was done by allowing two CPs (species A and B), to inhabit the same lattice. The symbiotic interaction is modeled via a reduced death rate, $\mu < 1$, at sites occupied by individuals of each species. Aside from this interaction, the two populations evolve independently. We found that, as one would expect, the symbiotic interaction favors survival of a mixed population, in that the critical reproduction rate $\lambda_c$ decreases as we reduce $\mu$ [@scp].
Apart from its interest as an elementary model of symbiosis, the critical behavior of the two-species symbiotic CP (2SCP) is interesting for the study of nonequilibrium universality classes. Extinction represents an absorbing state, a frozen state with no fluctuations [@marro; @henkel; @odor07; @hinrichsen; @odor04]. Absorbing-state phase transitions have been a topic of much interest in recent decades. In addition to their connection with population dynamics, they appear in a wide variety of problems, such as heterogeneous catalysis [@zgb], interface growth [@tang], and epidemics [@bart], and have been shown to underlie self-organized criticality [@vdmz; @bjp]. Recent experimental realizations in the context of spatio-temporal chaos in liquid crystal electroconvection [@take07], driven suspensions [@pine] and superconducting vortices [@okuma] have heightened interest in such transitions. In this context, in [@scp] we employed extensive simulations and field-theoretical arguments to show that the critical scaling of the 2SCP is consistent with that of directed percolation (DP), which is known to describe the basic CP [@note1], and is generic for absorbing-state phase transitions [@janssen; @grassberger].
In this work we examine some of the issues regarding the 2SCP left open in the original study [@scp]: (1) Can mean-field predictions be improved on? (2) What is the phase boundary for unequal creation rates? (3) Does the model exhibit a discontinuous phase transition in two dimensions, for strong symbiosis, or in the presence of diffusion?
The mean-field theory for the 2SCP [@scp], at both one- and two-site levels, predicts a discontinuous phase transition for strong symbiosis in any number of dimensions. Discontinuous phase transitions to an absorbing state are not possible, however, in one-dimensional systems with short-range interactions and free of boundary fields [@hinrichsen]. We have indeed verified this general principle in simulations of the one-dimensional model. The simulations reported in [@scp] did not reveal a discontinuous transition in two dimensions ($d=2$) either. In the present work we aim to provide a better theoretical understanding of the phase diagram of the 2SCP, using exact quasistationary probability distributions for small systems, cluster approximations, and simulations. In two dimensions, we extend the model to include diffusion (nearest-neighbor hopping) of individuals. While we find no evidence of a discontinuous transition without diffusion, it becomes discontinuous for sufficiently small $\mu$ and large $D$.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II we review the definition of the model and the mean-field analysis, and in Sec. III present results of cluster approximations and quasistationary analysis. Then, in Sec. IV we study the diffusive process. Sec. V is devoted to discussion and conclusions.
Model
=====
To begin we review the definition of the two-species symbiotic contact process (2SCP) [@scp]. We denote the variables for occupation of a site $i$ by species A and B as $\sigma_i$ and $\eta_i$, respectively. The possible states $(\sigma_i, \eta_i)$ of a given site are $(0,0)$ (empty), $(1,0)$ (occupied by species A only), $(0,1)$ (species B only), and $(1,1)$ (occupied by both species). Birth of $A$ individuals, represented by the transitions $(0,0) \to (1,0)$ and $(0,1) \to (1,1)$, occur at rate $\lambda_A r_A$, with $r_A$ the fraction of nearest neighbor sites (NNs) bearing a particle of species A. Similarly, birth of $B$ individuals \[i.e., the transitions $(0,0) \to (0,1)$ and $(1,0) \to (1,1)$\], occurs at rate $\lambda_B r_B$, with $r_B$ the fraction of NNs bearing a particle of species B. Death at singly occupied sites, $(1,0) \to (0,0)$ and $(0,1) \to (0,0)$, occurs at a rate of unity, as in the basic CP. The transitions $(1,1) \to (1,0)$ and $(1,1) \to (0,1)$, corresponding to death at a doubly occupied site, occur at rate $\mu$. The set of transition rates defined above describes a pair of contact processes inhabiting the same lattice. If $\mu=1$ the two processes evolve independently, but for $\mu < 1$ they interact [*symbiotically*]{} since the annihilation rates are reduced at sites with both species present.
The phase diagram of the 2SCP exhibits four phases: (i) the fully active phase with nonzero populations of both species; (ii) a partly active phase with only $A$ species; (iii) a partly active phase with only $B$ species; (iv) the inactive phase in which both species are extinct. The latter is absorbing while the partly active phases represent absorbing subspaces of the dynamics. Extensive simulations on rings and on the square lattice indicate that the critical behavior is compatible with the directed percolation (DP) universality class; this conclusion is also supported by field-theoretic arguments [@scp].
In [@scp], we studied the model with symmetrical rates under exchange of species labels A and B, i.e., with $\lambda_A=\lambda_B=\lambda$. We found that for $\mu < 1$ the transition from the fully active to the absorbing phase occurs at some $\lambda_{c} (\mu) < \lambda_{c} (\mu=1)$, since the annihilation rate is reduced. The effect of asymmetric creation rates is shown in Fig. 1 : if one of the species, for instance A, has its creation rate below (above) $\lambda_c$, the transition occurs for a $\lambda_B$ above (below) $\lambda_c$. (The simulation algorithm is detailed in Sec. IV.) The results for $d=2$ are qualitatively the same, as shown in Fig. 2. Suppose we let $\lambda_A \to \infty$. Then all sites will bear an A particle, so that the dynamics of species B is a contact process with death rate $\mu$. It follows that the critical value of $\lambda_B$ is $\mu \, \lambda_c (\mu=1)$; this determines the asymptotic form of the phase boundaries in Figs. 1 and 2. The simulation data in Figs. 1 and 2 are obtained by extrapolating moment ratio crossings [@moments]. The system sizes are $L=200$, 400, 800 and 1600 in one dimension, and $L=40$, 80, 160 and 320 in two dimensions.
![[]{data-label="lalb1"}](pb25.eps){width="0.8\hsize"}
![[]{data-label="lalb2"}](lambdaAB.eps){width="0.8\hsize"}
The basic mean-field theory (MFT) (i.e., the one-site approximation), for the 2SCP was derived in [@scp]. Generalized to include different creation rates, $\lambda_A$ and $\lambda_B$, for the two species, and diffusion (nearest-neighbor hopping) of both species at rate $D$, the MFT equations read:
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d p_0}{dt} &=& - (\lambda_A \rho_A + \lambda_B \rho_B)p_0 + p_A + p_B
+D[p_A \tilde{\rho}_A + p_B\tilde{\rho}_B - \rho p_0],
\\
\frac{d p_A}{dt} &=& \lambda_A p_0 \rho_A + \mu p_{AB} - (1 + \lambda_B \rho_B) p_A
+D[p_0\rho_A \!-\! p_A\rho_B +p_{AB}\tilde{\rho}_B \!-\! p_A\tilde{\rho}_A],
\\
\frac{d p_B}{dt} &=& \lambda_B p_0 \rho_B + \mu p_{AB} - (1 + \lambda_A \rho_A) p_B
+D[p_0\rho_B \!-\! p_B\rho_A +p_{AB}\tilde{\rho}_A \!-\! p_B\tilde{\rho}_B],
\\
\frac{d p_{AB}}{dt} &=& \lambda_B p_A \rho_B + \lambda_A p_B \rho_A - 2 \mu p_{AB}
+D[p_A \rho_B + p_B\rho_A - p_{AB}(2-\rho)],
\label{pab}\end{aligned}$$
where the probabilities for a given site to be vacant, occupied by species A only, by species B only, and doubly occupied are denoted by $p_0$, $p_A$, $p_B$, and $p_{AB}$, respectively, $\rho_A = p_A + p_{AB}$, and $\rho_B = p_B + p_{AB}$. We have further defined $\rho = \rho_A + \rho_B$, $\tilde{\rho}_A = 1-\rho_A$ and $\tilde{\rho}_B = 1-\rho_B$. If one species is absent (for example, if $p_B = p_{AB} = 0$) this system reduces to the MFT for the basic contact process, $\dot{p}_A = \lambda p_A (1-p_A) - p_A$, with a critical point at $\lambda = 1$. Under the effect of symbiosis we seek a symmetric stationary solution, $p_A = p_B = p$, leading, for $D=0$, to
$$\overline{p} = \frac{\mu}{2 \lambda (1-\mu)} \left[ 2(1-\mu) - \lambda
+ \sqrt{\lambda^2 - 4\mu (1-\mu)} \right].
\label{pMFT}$$
and $$\overline{p}_{AB} = \frac{\lambda p^2}{\mu - \lambda p}
\label{pabmft}$$
For $\mu \geq 1/2$, $p$ grows continuously from zero at $\lambda=1$, marking the latter value as the critical point. The activity grows linearly, $p \simeq [\mu/(2\mu -1)](\lambda-1)$, in this regime. For $\mu < 1/2$, however, the expression is already positive for $\lambda = \sqrt{4 \mu(1-\mu)} < 1$, and there is a [*discontinuous*]{} transition at this point.
In the limit $D \to \infty$, we expect $p_{AB} = \rho_A \rho_B$, as is required by the condition that, in this limit, a time-independent solution requires that the coefficient of $D$ in Eq. \[pab\] be zero.
Cluster approximations and quasistationary analysis
===================================================
As noted above, the discontinuous phase transition predicted by one- and two-site MFT is impossible in one dimension. Simulations in both one and two dimensions, covering a broad range of $\mu$ values, yield no evidence of a discontinuous transition. Here we attempt to develop more reliable theoretical descriptions, using cluster approximations and quasistationary (QS) solutions of small systems, for the symmetric case, $\lambda_A = \lambda_B = \lambda$. In the following analysis we set $D=0$, i.e., the non-diffusive limit of Eqs. 1 - 4.
It is often the case that MFT predictions improve, both qualitatively and quantitatively, as the cluster size used in the analysis is increased. We therefore investigate MFT approximations using clusters of up to six sites in one dimension, and clusters of four sites on the square lattice. Following the usual procedure [@mftzgb; @marro; @benav], we deduce a set of coupled, nonlinear differential equations for the cluster occupation probabilities, which are then integrated numerically to obtain the stationary solution. As shown in Fig. \[lm1d\], for the one-dimensional case, the prediction for the phase boundary in the $\lambda-\mu$ plane does improve as we increase the cluster size from $n=2$ to $n=6$. The $n=2$ approximation correctly predicts a continuous phase transition for $\mu \geq 0.75$, but on this range it yields $\lambda_c$ independent of $\mu$, contrary to simulations, which show $\lambda_c$ varying smoothly with $\mu$. For $n=6$ the transition is predicted to be continuous for $\mu < 0.45$, [*discontinuous*]{} for $0.45\leq\mu < 0.88 $, and again continuous for $0.88 \leq \mu \leq 1$. (Note that on the latter interval $\lambda_c$ is again independent of $\mu$). Thus the $n=6$ approximation exhibits the same qualitative problems as for $n=2$, despite the overall improvement. The four-site approximation on the square lattice, shown in Fig. \[lm2d\], furnishes a reasonable prediction for the phase boundary, but suffers from similar defects: for $\mu < 0.66$ the transition is discontinuous, while for $\mu \geq 0.7$, $\lambda_c$ is independent of $\mu$.
In the context of absorbing-state phase transitions, we generally look to MFT as a guide to the overall phase diagram, expecting the critical point to have the correct order of magnitude and, perhaps more importantly, the nature (continuous or discontinuous) of the transition to be predicted correctly. The latter criterion is not always satisfied, however [@trpcr2009]. In light of this, and in the hope of devising a more reliable approximation method that is still relatively simple to apply, we consider analyses based on the quasistationary (QS) probability distribution of small systems. The QS distribution (or [*Yaglom limit*]{}, as it is known in the probability literature), is the probability distribution at long times, conditioned on survival of the process [@QSS]. For the one-dimensional CP and allied models [@exact], and an activated random walker model [@sleepy], finite-size scaling analysis of numerically exact QS results on a sequence of lattice sizes yields good estimates for the critical point, exponents and moment ratios. In the present case, with four states per site, attaining the sizes required for a precise analysis appears to be very costly, computationally, and we shall merely attempt to obtain reasonable estimates for the phase boundary $\lambda_{c}(\mu)$.
As described in detail in [@exact], obtaining the QS distribution numerically requires (1) enumerating all configurations on a lattice of a given size; (2) enumerating all transitions between configurations, and their associated rates; and (3) using this information in an iterative procedure to generate the QS distribution. Once the latter is known, one may calculate properties such as the order parameter or lifetime. For small systems these quantities are smooth functions of the control parameter and show no hint of the critical singularity. It is known, however, that the moment ratio $m(\lambda;L) \equiv \langle \rho^2 \rangle/\langle \rho \rangle^2$ exhibits crossings, analogous to those of the Binder cumulant [@moments]. (Here $\rho$ is the density of active sites.) That is, defining $\lambda_\times (L)$ via the condition $m[\lambda_\times (L);L] = m[\lambda_\times (L);L\!-\!1]$, the $\lambda_\times (L)$ converge to $\lambda_c$ as $L \to \infty$, as follows from a scaling property of the order-parameter probability distribution. Our procedure, therefore, is to calculate $m(\lambda;L)$ for a series of sizes $L$, locate the crossings $\lambda_\times (L)$, and use them to estimate $\lambda_c$.
In one dimension we calculate $m(\lambda;L)$ for rings of size $L=6$ to 11. We treat configurations with only one species as absorbing, as well as, naturally, the configuration devoid of any individuals. To estimate $\lambda_c$ we perform a quadratic fit to $\lambda_\times (L)$ as a function of $L^{-\gamma}$, using $\gamma$ in the range 1-3. (The precise value of $\gamma$ is chosen so as to render the plot of $\lambda(L)$ versus $L^{-\gamma}$ as close to linear as possible.) Similar estimates for $\lambda_c$ are obtained using the Bulirsch-Stoer procedure [@BS]. As is evident in Fig. \[lm1d\], the resulting phase boundary is in good accord with simulation, predicting $\lambda_{c,\mu}$ with an accuracy of 10% or better. (The simulation data in Fig. 3 are obtained by extrapolating moment ratio crossings [@moments] for system sizes $L=200$, 400, 800 and 1600). The extrapolated value of $m$ at the crossings is not particularly good (for $\mu=1$ we find $m_c = 1.110$, compared with the best estimate of 1.1736(1) [@moments]). Although we expect that this would improve using larger systems, our objective here is to find a relatively fast and simple method to predict the phase boundary. (The cpu time required to converge to the QS distribution is comparable to that required to integrate the equations numerically in the $n=6$ cluster approximation.)
To apply the QS method to the two-dimensional 2SCP, we devised an algorithm that enumerates configurations and transitions for a general graph of $N$ vertices; the graph structure is specified by the set of bonds ${\cal B} = \{(i_1,j_1), (i_2,j_2), ..., (i_m,j_m)\}$ linking pairs of vertices $i_k$ and $j_k$. To represent a portion of the square lattice, with periodic boundaries, each vertex must be linked to four others. This can be achieved rather naturally for a square ($m \times m$) or rectangle ($m \times (m+1)$); for other values of $N$ we use a cluster close to a square, and define the bonds required for periodicity by tiling the plane with this cluster, as shown in Fig. \[11site\].
We study clusters of 8 to 12 sites on the square lattice. For $N=12$, there are about 1.7 $\times 10^7$ configurations and about 3.9 $\times 10^8$ transitions; restrictions of computer time and storage prevent us from going beyond this size. The crossings of $m$ between successive sizes do not yield useful predictions for $\lambda_c$ in this case. Evidently, the linear extent of the clusters is too small to probe the scaling regime. We instead derive estimates for the critical point by locating the maximum of $d\rho/d\lambda$, since in the infinite-size limit, this derivative (taken from the left) diverges at the critical point. The resulting predictions, for clusters of 11 and 12 sites, are compared with simulation in Fig. \[lm2d\], showing that the QS analysis provides a semiquantitative prediction for $\lambda_c$, and captures the shape of the phase boundary. (The simulation data in Fig. 5 are obtained by extrapolating moment ratio crossings [@moments] for system with linear sizes $L=40$, 80, 160 and 320). This analysis suggests that the phase transition is continuous (as found in simulation) since the QS probability distribution is unimodal in all cases.
![[]{data-label="lm1d"}](lm1d.eps){width="0.8\hsize"}
![[]{data-label="11site"}](11site.eps){width="0.8\hsize"}
![[]{data-label="lm2d"}](lambda-mu.eps){width="0.8\hsize"}
The Diffusive SCP
=================
Although the one-site MFT predicts a discontinuous phase transition in the 2SCP in any number of dimensions, such a transition is not possible in one-dimensional systems with short-range interactions and free of boundary fields [@hinrichsen]. In one dimension the active-absorbing transition should be continuous, as we have indeed verified in simulations. In two dimensions ($d=2$), previous studies did not reveal any evidence for a discontinuous transition. These studies did not, however, include diffusion, which is expected to facilitate the appearance of discontinuous transitions. Here we study the 2SCP with diffusion on the square lattice.
We modify the process so that, in addition to creation and death, each individual can hop to one of its NN sites at rate $D$. In the simulation algorithm for the diffusive 2SCP, we maintain two lists, one of singly and another of doubly occupied sites. Let $N_s$ and $N_d$ denote, respectively, the numbers of such sites, so that $N_p = N_s + 2 N_d$ is the total number of individuals. The total rate of (attempted) transitions is $\lambda N_p + N_s + 2\mu N_d + D N_p\equiv 1/\Delta t$, where $\Delta t$ is the time increment associated with a given step in the simulation.
At each such step, we choose among the events: (1) creation attempt by an isolated individual, with probability $\lambda N_s \Delta t$; (2) creation attempt by an individual at a doubly occupied site, with probability $2 \lambda N_d \Delta t$; (3) death of an isolated individual, with probability $N_s \Delta t$; (4) death of an individual at a doubly occupied site, with probability $2 \mu N_d$ and (5) diffusion of an individual, with probability $D N_p \Delta t$.
Once the event type is selected a site $i$ is randomly chosen from the appropriate list. Creation occurs at a site $j$, a randomly chosen first-neighbor of site $i$, if $j$ is not already occupied by an individual of the species to be created. If site $i$ is doubly occupied, the species of the daughter (in a creation event) is chosen to be A or B with equal probability. Similarly, in an annihilation event at a doubly-occupied site, the species to be removed is chosen at random.
For the SCP with diffusion, we performed QS simulations [@qssim; @qssim2] for systems of linear sizes up to $L= 100$, with each run lasting $10^8$ time units. Averages are taken in the QS regime, after discarding an initial transient which depends on the system size and diffusion rate used.
![[]{data-label="scpD"}](scpD.eps){width="0.8\hsize"}
Figure \[scpD\] shows that with increasing diffusion rate, the critical creation rate $\lambda_c$ tends to unity, the value predicted by simple mean-field theory. (The increase in $\lambda_c$ in the small-$D$ regime reflects the elimination symbiotic A-B pairs due to diffusion.) In Fig. \[mu25d0\] we plot near-critical quasistationary probability distributions of single individuals, $\rho$, and of doubly occupied sites, $q$, for $\mu=0.25$ and $D=0$. The distributions are unimodal, showing that the transition is continuous. We verify that in the absence of diffusion, the absorbing phase transition is always continuous, regardless the value of $\mu$. For diffusion rates considerably in excess of unity, we observe a discontinuous transition for certain values of $\mu$. An example of bimodal QS probability distributions, signaling a discontinuous transition, is shown in Fig. \[mu25d5\], for $D=5.0$.\
![[]{data-label="mu25d0"}](mu25D0L100.eps){width="0.8\hsize"}
![[]{data-label="mu25d5"}](mu25D5L100.eps){width="0.8\hsize"}
![[]{data-label="mu01d.1"}](mu001D01L100.eps){width="0.8\hsize"}
![[]{data-label="rqd01"}](rqd01.eps){width="0.95\hsize"}
![[]{data-label="mu25d100"}](mu25D100L100.eps){width="0.8\hsize"}
The mechanism by which diffusion gives rise to a discontinuous transition can be understood as follows. Under strong symbiosis ($\mu$ close to zero), only doubly occupied sites are observed near the critical point, in the absence of diffusion. Since the transition is continuous in this case, the overall density is very low near the critical point. In the presence of diffusion, pairs tend to be destroyed; the resulting isolated individuals then rapidly die. Thus diffusion renders low-density active states inviable. Under moderate diffusion, a finite density is required to maintain a significant concentration of doubly occupied sites, and thereby maintain activity. Hence the population density jumps from zero to a finite value at the transition. For small $\mu$ we observe a discontinuous phase transition even for small values of the diffusion rate, as shown in Figs. \[mu01d.1\] and \[rqd01\].
![[]{data-label="crsurf"}](crsurf.eps){width="0.95\hsize"}
Although we have verified that the phase transition is discontinuous for small $\mu$ and moderate diffusion rates $D$, increasing $D$ further, the transition becomes continuous again. In the limit $D \to \infty$, we expect mean field-like behavior, with the effects of diffusion suppressing the clustering which permits symbiosis. In this limit, the one-site MFT predicts a [*continuous*]{} phase transition, with $\lambda_c = 1$, for any value of $\mu$. Reversion to a continuous transition under rapid diffusion ($D=100$, $\mu=0.25$) is evident in Fig. \[mu25d100\]: the QS probability distributions are again unimodal. At criticality, fewer than $4\%$ of the individuals are located at doubly occupied sites for $D=100$, in comparison with $25\%$ for $D=5$.
In the three-dimensional parameter space space of $\lambda$, $\mu$, and $D$, there is a critical surface separating the active and absorbing phases. On this surface, a [*tricritical line*]{} separates regions exhibiting continuous and discontinuous phase transitions (see Fig. \[crsurf\]). The mean-field theory of Eqs. (1)-(4) yields a tricritical line that begins at $\lambda=1$, $\mu=1/2$ (for $D=0$), and then tends, for increasing $D$, to ever smaller values of $\mu$ (asymptotically, $\mu = 1/D$, with $\lambda=1$ all the while). Simulations show a somewhat different picture, with the tricritical line approaching the point $\lambda=\mu=D=0$, and then curving toward larger $\mu$ and $\lambda$ values for small but nonzero $D$, before doubling back towards $\mu=0$, as shown in Fig \[crsurf\]. This means that for a given, nonzero value of $\mu$, the transition is discontinuous (if at all), only within a restricted range of $D$ values. For example, our simulations reveal that for $\mu=0.25$, the transition is discontinuous for $3 < D < 10$, but becomes continuous for $D \geq 100$. We defer a full mapping of the tricritical line to future work.
Conclusions
===========
We present a detailed study of the phase diagram of the symbiotic contact process, using simulation, cluster approximations, and exact (numerical) quasistationary distributions of small systems. We study the effect of asymmetric creation rates and of diffusion of individuals. Exact quasistationary distributions and cluster approximations provide fair predictions for the phase boundary in the symmetric case. In simulations, the phase transition is always found to be continuous in one dimension, but in two dimensions we observe a discontinuous phase transition when symbiosis is strong ($\mu\to 0$), in the presence of moderate diffusion. For $D \to \infty$ the transition is again continuous.
Although the model studied here is much too simple to apply to real ecosystems, our results raise the possibility of catastrophic (discontinuous) collapse of strongly symbiotic interspecies alliances under increasingly adverse conditions, even if the change is gradual. Possible extensions of this work include precise determination of the tricritical line for the diffusive process, as well as the design of more precise theoretical approaches for two-dimensional problems. The latter task assumes even greater significance when one observes that despite the simplicity of the model, the full parameter space, including distinct reproduction, death, and diffusion rates for each species, is far too vast to be mapped out via simulation alone. Finally, the possibility of discontinuous phase transitions in more complex models of symbiosis merits investigation.
[**Acknowledgments**]{}
This work was supported by CNPq and FAPEMIG, Brazil.
[100]{}
T. E. Harris, Ann. Probab., [**2**]{}, 969 (1974).
R. Durrett, SIAM Rev. [**41**]{}, 677 (1994).
H. Janssen, J. Stat. Phys. 103, 801 (2001).
S. Iwata, K. Kobayashi, S. Higa, J. Yoshimura and K. Tainaka, Ecol. Modelling [**222**]{}, 2042 (2011).
D. C. Markham, M. J. Simpson, P. K. Maini, E. A. Gaffney and R. E. Baker, Phys. Rev. E [**88**]{}, 052713 (2013).
S. J. Court , R.A. Blythe and R. J. Allen, Europhys. Lett. [**101**]{}, 50001 (2013).
T. B. Pedro, M. M. Szortyka and W. Figueiredo, J. Stat. Mech. [**2014**]{} P05016 (2014).
U. Dobramysl and U. C. Tauber, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**110**]{}, 048105 (2013).
J. M. Tubay et.al, Sci. Reports [**3**]{}, 2835 (2013).
J. S. Weitz and D. H. Rothman, J. Theor. Biol. 225, 205 (2003).
M. Cencini, S. Pigolotti, M. A. Muñoz, PloS One 7 (6), e38232 (2012).
D. Boucher, [*The Biology of Mutualism: Ecology and Evolution*]{} (Oxford University, New York, 1988).
A. E. Douglas, [*Symbiotic Interactions*]{} (Oxford University, Oxford, 1994).
J. Sapp, [*Evolution by Association: A History of Symbiosis*]{} (Oxford University, Oxford,1994).
S. Paracer and V. Ahmadjian, [*Symbiosis: An introduction to biological associations*]{} (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2nd ed., 2000).
L. L. Rockwood, [*Introduction to Population Ecology*]{} (Blackwell Publishing, Malden, 2006).
V. I. Yukalov, E. P. Yukalova and D. Sornette, Physica D [**241**]{}, 1270 (2012).
R. Durrett and S. Levin, Theor. Pop. Biol. [**46**]{}, 363 (1994).
K. Korolev and D. R. Nelson, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**107**]{}, 088103 (2011).
L. Dall’Asta, F. Caccioli, and D. Beghé, Europhys. Lett. [**101**]{}, 18003 (2013).
S. Pigolotti, R. Benzi, P. Perlekar, M. H. Jensen, F. Toschi and D. R. Nelson, Theor. Pop. Biol. [**84**]{}, 72 (2013).
M. O. Lavrentovich and D. R. Nelson, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**112**]{}, 138102 (2014).
M. M. de Oliveira, R. V. dos Santos and R. Dickman, Phys. Rev. E [**86**]{}, 011121 (2012).
J. Marro and R. Dickman, [*Nonequilibrium Phase Transitions in Lattice Models*]{} (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1999).
G. Ódor, [*Universality In Nonequilibrium Lattice Systems: Theoretical Foundations*]{} (World Scientific,Singapore, 2007)
M. Henkel, H. Hinrichsen and S. Lubeck, [*Non-Equilibrium Phase Transitions Volume I: Absorbing Phase Transitions*]{} (Springer-Verlag, The Netherlands, 2008).
H. Hinrichsen, Adv. Phys. [**49**]{}, 815 (2000).
G. Ódor, Rev. Mod. Phys [**76**]{}, 663 (2004).
R. M. Ziff, E. Gulari, and Y. Barshad, Phys. Rev. Lett. 56, 2553 (1986).
L. H. Tang and H. Leschhorn, Phys. Rev. A 45, R8309(1992).
M. S. Bartlett, [*Stochastic Population Models in Ecology and Epidemiology*]{} (Methuen, London, 1960).
A. Vespignani, R. Dickman, M. A. Muñoz, and S. Zapperi, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**81**]{}, 5676 (1998).
R. Dickman, M. A. Muñoz, A. Vespignani, and S. Zapperi, Braz. J. Phys. [**30**]{}, 27 (2000).
K. A. Takeuchi, M. Kuroda, H. Chaté, and M. Sano, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**99**]{}, 234503 (2007).
L. Corté, P. M. Chaikin, J. P. Gollub, and D. J. Pine, Nature Physics [**4**]{}, 420 (2008).
S. Okuma, Y. Tsugawa, and A. Motohashi, Phys. Rev. B[**83**]{}, 012503 (2011).
M. M. de Oliveira and R. Dickman, Phys. Rev. E [**84**]{}, 011125 (2011)
Similar conclusions apply to a related model, the CP with creation at second-neighbor sites, in which each species inhabits a distinct sublattice [@cpsl] with enhanced survival at first neighbors.
H. K. Janssen, Z. Phys. B [**42**]{}, 151 (1981).
P. Grassberger, Z. Phys. B [**47**]{}, 365 (1982).
R. Dickman, Phys. Rev. A [**34**]{}, 4246 (1986).
D. [ben-Avraham]{} and J. Köhler, Phys. Rev. [**A**]{} 45, 8358 (1992).
A well known example is the triplet-creation model; see G. Ódor and R. Dickman, J. Stat. Mech. [**2009**]{} P08024, and references therein.
See R. Dickman and R. Vidigal, J. Phys. A [**35**]{}, 1147 (2002), and references therein.
R. Dickman, Phys. Rev. E [**73**]{}, 036131 (2006).
J. C. Mansur Filho and R. Dickman, J. Stat. Mech. [**2011**]{}, P05029 (2011).
R. Dickman and J. [Kamphorst Leal da Silva]{}, Phys. Rev. E [**58**]{}, 4266 (1998).
M. Henkel and G. Schütz, J. Phys. A [**21**]{}, 2617 (1988).
M. M. de Oliveira and R. Dickman, Phys. Rev. E [**71**]{}, 016129 (2005); R. Dickman and M. M. de Oliveira, Physica A [**357**]{}, 134 (2005).
M. M. de Oliveira and R. Dickman, Braz. J. Phys. [**36**]{}, 685 (2006).
[^1]: email: mmdeoliveira@ufsj.edu.br
[^2]: email: dickman@fisica.ufmg.br
|
---
author:
- 'Quinton Aboud[^1] and Anton Izosimov[^2]'
bibliography:
- 'ref.bib'
title: The limit point of the pentagram map and infinitesimal monodromy
---
Introduction
============
The pentagram map, introduced by R.Schwartz in [@schwartz1992pentagram], is a discrete dynamical system on the space of planar polygons. The definition of this map is illustrated in Figure \[Fig1\]: the image of the polygon $P$ under the pentagram map is the polygon $P'$ whose vertices are the intersection points of consecutive shortest diagonals of $P$ (i.e., diagonals connecting second-nearest vertices).
(VK7) at (0,0); (VK6) at (1.5,-0.5); (VK5) at (3,1); (VK4) at (3,2); (VK3) at (1,3); (VK2) at (-0.5,2.5); (VK1) at (-1,1.5);
(VK7) – (VK6) – (VK5) – (VK4) – (VK3) – (VK2) – (VK1) – cycle; (VK7) – (VK5); (VK6) – (VK4); (VK5) – (VK3); (VK4) – (VK2); (VK3) – (VK1); (VK2) – (VK7); (VK1) – (VK6);
; ; ; ; ; ; ;
(Ap) – (Bp) – (Cp) – (Dp) – (Ep) – (Fp) – (Gp) – cycle;
at (-0.9,2.3) () [$P$]{}; at (2,1.5) () [$P'$]{};
The pentagram map has been an especially popular topic in the last decade, mainly due to its connections with integrability [@ovsienko2010pentagram; @soloviev2013integrability] and the theory of cluster algebras [@GLICK20111019; @Gekhtman2016; @fock2014loop]. Most works on the the pentagram map regard it as a dynamical system on the space of polygons modulo projective equivalence. And indeed that is the setting where most remarkable features of that map such as integrability reveal themselves. That said, the pentagram map on actual [polygons]{} (as opposed to projective equivalence classes) also has interesting geometry. One of the early results in this direction was Schwartz’s proof of the exponential convergence of successive images of a convex polygon under the pentagram map to a point (see Figure \[Fig2\]). That limit point is a natural invariant of a polygon and can be thought of as a projectively natural version of the center of mass. However, it is not clear a priori whether this limit point can be expressed in terms of coordinates of the vertices by any kind of an explicit formula. A remarkable recent result by M.Glick [@glick2020limit] is that this dependence is in fact algebraic. Moreover, there exists an operator in ${\mathbb R}^3$ whose matrix entries are rational in terms of polygon’s vertices, while the coordinates of the limit point are given by an eigenvector of that operator. Therefore, coordinates of the limit point can be found by solving a cubic equation.
(A1) at (-16.97,-8.49) ; (B1) at (-16.97,1.70) ; (C1) at (-5.09,10.18) ; (D1) at (11.88,11.03) ; (E1) at (18.67,4.24) ; (F1) at (11.88,-6.79) ; (G1) at (-3.39,-11.88) ;
(A1) – (B1) – (C1) – (D1) – (E1) – (F1) – (G1) – (A1);
(A1) – (C1); (C1) – (E1); (E1) – (G1); (G1) – (B1); (B1) – (D1); (D1) – (F1); (F1) – (A1);
; at (A2) ; ; at (B2) ; ; at (C2) ; ; at (D2) ; ; at (E2) ; ; at (F2) ; ; at (G2) ;
(A2) – (B2) – (C2) – (D2) – (E2) – (F2) – (G2) – (A2);
(A2) – (C2); (C2) – (E2); (E2) – (G2); (G2) – (B2); (B2) – (D2); (D2) – (F2); (F2) – (A2);
; at (A3) ; ; at (B3) ; ; at (C3) ; ; at (D3) ; ; at (E3) ; ; at (F3) ; ; at (G3) ;
(A3) – (B3) – (C3) – (D3) – (E3) – (F3) – (G3) – (A3);
(A3) – (C3); (C3) – (E3); (E3) – (G3); (G3) – (B3); (B3) – (D3); (D3) – (F3); (F3) – (A3);
; at (A4) ; ; at (B4) ; ; at (C4) ; ; at (D4) ; ; at (E4) ; ; at (F4) ; ; at (G4) ;
(A4) – (B4) – (C4) – (D4) – (E4) – (F4) – (G4) – (A4);
(A4) – (C4); (C4) – (E4); (E4) – (G4); (G4) – (B4); (B4) – (D4); (D4) – (F4); (F4) – (A4);
; at (A5) ; ; at (B5) ; ; at (C5) ; ; at (D5) ; ; at (E5) ; ; at (F5) ; ; at (G5) ;
(A5) – (B5) – (C5) – (D5) – (E5) – (F5) – (G5) – (A5);
(A5) – (C5); (C5) – (E5); (E5) – (G5); (G5) – (B5); (B5) – (D5); (D5) – (F5); (F5) – (A5);
; at (A6) ; ; at (B6) ; ; at (C6) ; ; at (D6) ; ; at (E6) ; ; at (F6) ; ; at (G6) ;
(A6) – (B6) – (C6) – (D6) – (E6) – (F6) – (G6) – (A6);
(A6) – (C6); (C6) – (E6); (E6) – (G6); (G6) – (B6); (B6) – (D6); (D6) – (F6); (F6) – (A6);
; at (A7) ; ; at (B7) ; ; at (C7) ; ; at (D7) ; ; at (E7) ; ; at (F7) ; ; at (G7) ;
(A7) – (B7) – (C7) – (D7) – (E7) – (F7) – (G7) – (A7);
(A7) – (C7); (C7) – (E7); (E7) – (G7); (G7) – (B7); (B7) – (D7); (D7) – (F7); (F7) – (A7);
; ; ; ; ; ; ;
(A8) – (B8) – (C8) – (D8) – (E8) – (F8) – (G8) – (A8);
(A8) – (C8); (C8) – (E8); (E8) – (G8); (G8) – (B8); (B8) – (D8); (D8) – (F8); (F8) – (A8);
; ; ; ; ; ; ;
(A9) – (B9) – (C9) – (D9) – (E9) – (F9) – (G9) – (A9);
(A9) – (C9); (C9) – (E9); (E9) – (G9); (G9) – (B9); (B9) – (D9); (D9) – (F9); (F9) – (A9);
; ; ; ; ; ; ;
(A10) – (B10) – (C10) – (D10) – (E10) – (F10) – (G10) – (A10);
(A10) – (C10); (C10) – (E10); (E10) – (G10); (G10) – (B10); (B10) – (D10); (D10) – (F10); (F10) – (A10);
; ; ; ; ; ; ;
(A11) – (B11) – (C11) – (D11) – (E11) – (F11) – (G11) – (A11);
(A11) – (C11); (C11) – (E11); (E11) – (G11); (G11) – (B11); (B11) – (D11); (D11) – (F11); (F11) – (A11);
; ; ; ; ; ; ;
(A11) – (B11) – (C11) – (D11) – (E11) – (F11) – (G11) – (A11);
(A12) – (C12); (C12) – (E12); (E12) – (G12); (G12) – (B12); (B12) – (D12); (D12) – (F12); (F12) – (A12);
; ; ; ; ; ; ;
(A12) – (B12) – (C12) – (D12) – (E12) – (F12) – (G12) – (A12);
(A13) – (C13); (C13) – (E13); (E13) – (G13); (G13) – (B13); (B13) – (D13); (D13) – (F13); (F13) – (A13);
; ; ; ; ; ; ;
(A13) – (B13) – (C13) – (D13) – (E13) – (F13) – (G13) – (A13);
(A14) – (C14); (C14) – (E14); (E14) – (G14); (G14) – (B14); (B14) – (D14); (D14) – (F14); (F14) – (A14);
; ; ; ; ; ; ;
(A14) – (B14) – (C14) – (D14) – (E14) – (F14) – (G14) – (A14);
(A15) – (C15); (C15) – (E15); (E15) – (G15); (G15) – (B15); (B15) – (D15); (D15) – (F15); (F15) – (A15);
; ; ; ; ; ; ;
(A15) – (B15) – (C15) – (D15) – (E15) – (F15) – (G15) – (A15);
Specifically, suppose we are given an $n$-gon $P$ in the projectivization ${\mathbb P}{\mathbb {V}}$ of a $3$-dimensional vector space ${\mathbb {V}}$. Lift the vertices of the polygon to vectors $V_i \in {\mathbb {V}}$, $i = 1, \dots, n$. Define an operator $G_P \colon {\mathbb {V}}\to {\mathbb {V}}$ by the formula $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:glick}
G_p(V) := n V - \sum_{i=1}^n \frac{V_{i-1}\wedge V \wedge V_{i+1}}{V_{i-1}\wedge V_i \wedge V_{i+1}}\,V_i,\end{aligned}$$ where all indices are understood modulo $n$. Note that this operator does not change under a rescaling of $V_i$’s and hence depends only on the polygon $P$. What Glick proved is that the limit point of successive images of $P$ under the pentagram map is one of the eigenvectors of $G_P$ (equivalently, a fixed point of the associated projective mapping ${\mathbb P}{\mathbb {V}}\to {\mathbb P}{\mathbb {V}}$).
We believe that the significance of Glick’s operator actually goes beyond the limit point. In particular, as was observed by Glick himself, the operator $G_P$ has a natural geometric meaning for both pentagons and hexagons. Namely, by Clebsch’s theorem every pentagon is projectively equivalent to its pentagram map image, and it turns out that the corresponding projective transformation is given by $G_P - 3I$, where $I$ is the identity matrix. Indeed, consider e.g. the first vertex of the pentagon and its lift $V_1$. Then the above formula gives $$(G_P - 3{ {I}})(V_1) = V_1 - \frac{V_{2}\wedge V_1 \wedge V_{4}}{V_{2}\wedge V_3 \wedge V_{4}}\,V_3 - \frac{V_{3}\wedge V_1 \wedge V_{5}}{V_{3}\wedge V_4 \wedge V_{5}}\,V_4.$$ Taking the wedge product of this expression with $V_2 \wedge V_4$ or $V_3 \wedge V_5$ we get zero. This means that $$(G_P - 3{ {I}})(V_1) \in \mathrm{span}(V_2, V_4) \cap \mathrm{span}(V_3, V_5),$$ so the corresponding point in the projective plane is the intersection of diagonals of the pentagon. Furthermore, since Glick’s operator is invariant under cyclic permutations, the same holds for all vertices, meaning that the operator $G_P - 3{ {I}}$ indeed takes a pentagon to its pentagram map image.
Likewise, the second iterate of the pentagram map on hexagons also leads to an equivalent hexagon, and the equivalence is again realized by $G_P - 3I$. Finally, notice that for quadrilaterals $G_P - 2I$ is a constant map onto the intersection of diagonals. These observations make us believe that the operator $G_P$ is per se an important object in projective geometry, whose full significance is yet to be understood.
In the present paper we show that Glick’s operator $G_P$ can be interpreted as *infinitesimal monodromy*. To define the latter, consider the space of *twisted polygons*, that are polygons closed up to a projective transformation, known as the *monodromy*. Any closed polygon can be viewed as a twisted one, with trivial monodromy. To define the infinitesimal monodromy we deform a closed polygon into a genuine twisted one. To construct such a deformation, we use what is known as the *scaling symmetry*. The scaling symmetry is a $1$-parametric group of transformations of twisted polygons which commutes with the pentagram map. That symmetry was instrumental for the proof of complete integrability of the pentagram map [@ovsienko2010pentagram].
Applying the scaling symmetry to a given closed polygon $P$ we get a family $P_z$ of polygons depending on a real parameter $z$ and such that $P_1 = P$. Thus, the monodromy $M_z$ of $P_z$ is a projective transformation depending on $z$ which is the identity for $z = 1$. By definition, the infinitesimal monodromy of $P$ is the derivative $dM_z/dz$ at $z = 1$. This makes the infinitesimal monodromy an element of the Lie algebra of the projective group ${{\mathbb P}\mathrm{GL}}({\mathbb P}^2)$, i.e. a linear operator on ${\mathbb R}^3$ defined up to adding a scalar matrix. The following is our main result.
\[thm1\] The infinitesimal monodromy of a closed polygon $P$ coincides with Glick’s operator $G_P$, up to addition of a scalar matrix.
This result provides another perspective on the limit point. Namely, observe that for $z \approx 1$ the monodromy $M_z$ of the deformed polygon is given by $$M_z \approx I + (z-1)(G_P + \lambda I),$$ up to higher order terms. Thus, the eigenvectors of $G_P$, and in particular the limit point, coincide with limiting positions of eigenvectors of $M_z$ as $z \to 1$. At least one of the eigenvectors of $M_z$ has a geometric meaning. Namely, the deformed polygon $P(z)$ can be thought of as a spiral, and the center of that spiral must be an eigenvector of the monodromy. We believe that as $z \to 1$ that eigenvector converges to the limiting point of the pentagram map (and not to one of the two other eigenvectors). If this is true, then we have the following picture. The scaling symmetry turns a closed polygon into a spiral. As the scaling parameter $z$ goes to $1$, the spiral approaches the initial polygon, while its center approaches the limit point of the pentagram map, see Figure \[Fig:scaling\].
We note that the scaling symmetry is actually only defined on projective equivalence classes of polygons as opposed to actual polygons. This makes the family of polygons $P_z$ we used to define the infinitesimal monodromy non-unique. After reviewing basic notions in Section \[Sec:back\], we show in Section \[Sec:im\] that the infinitesimal monodromy does not depend on the family used to define it. The proof of Theorem \[thm1\] is given in Section \[Sec:proof\].
We end the introduction by mentioning a possible future direction. The notion of infinitesimal monodromy is well-defined for polygons in any dimension and any scaling operation. For multidimensional polygons, there are different possible scalings, corresponding to different integrable generalizations of the pentagram map [@khesin2013; @khesin2016]. It would be interesting to investigate the infinitesimal monodromy in those cases, along with its possible relation to the limit point of the corresponding pentagram maps. As for now, it is not even known if such a limit point exists for any class of multidimensional polygons satisfying a convexity-type condition.
It also seems that the infinitesimal monodromy in ${\mathbb P}^1$ is related to so-called cross-ratio dynamics, see [@arnold2018cross Section 6.2.1].
[**Acknowledgments.**]{} The authors are grateful to Boris Khesin, Valentin Ovsienko, Richard Schwartz, and Sergei Tabachnikov for comments and discussions. A.I. was supported by NSF grant DMS-2008021.
Background: twisted polygons, corner invariants, and scaling {#Sec:back}
============================================================
In this section we briefly recall standard notions related to the pentagram map, concentrating on what will be used in the sequel.
A [*twisted $n$-gon*]{} is a bi-infinite sequence of points $v_i \in {\mathbb P}^2$ such that $v_{i+n}=M(v_i)$ for all $i\in \mathbb{Z}$ and a certain projective transformation $M\in {{\mathbb P}\mathrm{GL}}({\mathbb P}^2)$ called the [*monodromy*]{}. A twisted $n$-gon generalizes the notion of a closed $n$-gon as we recover a closed $n$-gon when the monodromy is equal to the identity. We denote the space of twisted $n$-gons by ${\mathcal{P}}_n$.
The pentagram map takes a twisted $n$-gon to a twisted $n$-gon (preserving the monodromy) so it can be regarded as a densely defined map from the space ${\mathcal{P}}_n$ of twisted $n$-gons to itself. From now on, we will assume that polygons are in sufficiently general position so as to allow for all constructions to go through unhindered.
We say that two twisted $n$-gons $\{v_i\}$ and $\{v_i'\}$ are projectively equivalent when there is a projective transformation $\Phi$ such that $\Phi (v_i)=v_i'$. Notice, if two twisted $n$-gons are projectively equivalent, then their monodromies $M,M'$ are related by $M'=\Phi \circ M \circ \Phi^{-1}$.
The pentagram map on twisted $n$-gons commutes with projective transformations and as such descends to a map on the space ${\mathcal{P}}_n \,/\, {{\mathbb P}\mathrm{GL}}({\mathbb P}^2)$ of projective equivalence classes of twisted $n$-gons.
We now recall a construction of coordinates on the space ${\mathcal{P}}_n \,/\, {{\mathbb P}\mathrm{GL}}({\mathbb P}^2)$ of projective equivalence classes of twisted $n$-gons. These coordinates are known as *corner invariants* and were introduced in [@schwartz2008discrete].
Let $\{v_i \in {\mathbb P}^2\}$ be a twisted polygon. Then the corner invariants $x_i,y_i$ of the vertex $v_i$ are defined as follows. $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
x_i &:=\Big[
v_{i-2},v_{i-1},\big((v_{i-2},v_{i-1})\cap (v_i,v_{i+1})\big), \big((v_{i-2},v_{i-1})\cap (v_{i+1},v_{i+2})\big)
\Big], \\
y_i &:= \Big[
\big( (v_{i-2},v_{i-1})\cap (v_{i+1},v_{i+2})\big), \big((v_{i-1},v_i)\cap (v_{i+1},v_{i+2}) \big), v_{i+1}, v_{i+2}
\Big],
\end{split} \label{eq2}\end{aligned}$$ where we define the cross-ratio $[a,b,c,d]$ of $4$ points $a,b,c,d$ on a projective line as $$\begin{aligned}
[a,b,c,d]:=\frac{(a-b)(c-d)}{(a-c)(b-d)}. \label{eq1}\end{aligned}$$ Consider Figure \[Fig:CI\]. The value of $x_i$ is the cross ratio of the four points drawn on the line $(v_{i-2},v_{i-1})$ (i.e. the line on the left) and $y_i$ is the cross ratio of the four points drawn on the line $(v_{i+1},v_{i+2})$ (i.e. the line on the right).
These corner invariants are defined on almost the entire space ${\mathcal{P}}_n$ of twisted $n$-gons. Furthermore, these numbers are invariant under projective transformations and hence descend to the space ${\mathcal{P}}_n \,/\, {{\mathbb P}\mathrm{GL}}({\mathbb P}^2)$ of projective equivalence classes of twisted polygons. As shown in [@schwartz2008discrete], the functions $x_1, \dots, x_n, y_1, \dots, y_n$ constitute a coordinate system on an open dense subset of ${\mathcal{P}}_n \,/\, {{\mathbb P}\mathrm{GL}}({\mathbb P}^2)$. This in particular allows one to express the pentagram map, viewed as a transformation of ${\mathcal{P}}_n \,/\, {{\mathbb P}\mathrm{GL}}({\mathbb P}^2)$, in terms of the corner invariants.
(v1) at (-4,2.5) ; (v2) at (-3,1) ; (v3) at (0,0) ; (v4) at (2,1) ; (v5) at (3,2.5) ;
(v1)–(v2); (v5)–(v4); (v4) – (v3); (v2) – (v3); (i1) at (-.5,-2.75) ; (i2) at (-1.75,-.875) ; (i3) at (1.0909,-.363636) ;
(v2) – (i1); (v4) – (i1);
(v3) – (i2); (v3) – (i3);
If we are given a twisted $n$-gon with corner invariants $(x_i,y_i)$, then the corner invariants $(x_i,y_i)$ of its image under the pentagram are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq3}
x'_i=x_i\frac{1-x_{i-1} y_{i-1}}{1-x_{i+1} y_{i+1}} \qquad
y'_i=y_{i+1} \frac{1-x_{i+2}y_{i+2}}{1-x_iy_i}. \end{aligned}$$ These formulas assume a specific labeling of vertices of the pentagram map image. For a different labeling the resulting formulas differ by a shift in indices. The choice of labeling, and more generally, the specific form of the above formulas will be of no importance to us. We will only use the following corollary. Consider a $1$-parametric group of densely defined transformations ${\mathcal{P}}_n \,/\, {{\mathbb P}\mathrm{GL}}({\mathbb P}^2) \to {\mathcal{P}}_n \,/\, {{\mathbb P}\mathrm{GL}}({\mathbb P}^2)$ given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq: scaling}
{R}_z\colon(x_i,y_i)\mapsto (x_i z, y_iz^{-1})\end{aligned}$$ These transformations are known as *scaling symmetries*.
The scaling symmetry $R_z \colon {\mathcal{P}}_n \,/\, {{\mathbb P}\mathrm{GL}}({\mathbb P}^2) \to {\mathcal{P}}_n \,/\, {{\mathbb P}\mathrm{GL}}({\mathbb P}^2)$ on projective equivalence classes of twisted polygons commutes with the pentagram map for any $z \neq 0$.
The above formulas for the pentagram map in $x,y$ coordinates remain unchanged if all $x$ variables are multiplied by $z$ and all $y$ variables by are multiplied by $z^{-1}$.
This proposition was a key tool in the proof of integrability of the pentagram map. Namely, consider a (twisted or closed) polygon $P$ defined up to a projective transformation, and let $P_z$ be its image under the scaling symmetry. Then, since the pentagram map commutes with scaling and preserves the monodromy, it follows that the monodromy $M_z$ of $P_z$ (which does not have to be the identity even if the initial polygon is closed!) is invariant under the map. Since $P_z$ is only defined as a projective equivalence class, this means that $M_z$ is only defined up to conjugation. Nevertheless, taking conjugation invariant functions (e.g. appropriately normalized eigenvalues) of $M_z$, we obtain, for every $z$, functions that are invariant under the pentagram map. It is shown in [@ovsienko2010pentagram] that the so-obtained functions commute under an appropriately defined Poisson bracket and turn the pentagram map into a discrete completely integrable system. See also [@ovsienko2013liouville] for a mode detailed proof. In our paper we utilize pretty much the same idea, but instead of looking at the eigenvalues of $M_z$ we will consider $M_z$ itself. It is not quite well-defined, but we will show that its $z$ derivative at $z = 1$ is, and that it coincides with Glick’s operator.
Infinitesimal monodromy {#Sec:im}
=======================
In this section we define the infinitesimal monodromy and show that it does not depend on the choices we need to make to formulate the definition, namely on the way we lift the scaling symmetry from projective equivalence classes of polygons to actual polygons.
We start with a closed $n$-gon, $P$, in ${\mathbb P}^2$. Let $[P] \in {\mathcal{P}}_n \,/\, {{\mathbb P}\mathrm{GL}}({\mathbb P}^2)$ be its projective equivalence class. Then, applying the scaling transformation $R_z$ given by to $[P]$, we get a path $R_z[P]$ in $ {\mathcal{P}}_n \,/\, {{\mathbb P}\mathrm{GL}}({\mathbb P}^2)$ such that $R_1[P] = [P]$. Now, choose a smooth in $z$ lift $P_z$ of the path $R_z[P]$ to the space ${\mathcal{P}}_n$ of actual twisted polygons such that $P_1 = P$ (we will construct an explicit example of such a lift later on). Denote by $M_z \in {{\mathbb P}\mathrm{GL}}({\mathbb P}^2)$ the monodromy of $P_z$. It is a family of projective transformations such that $M_1$ is the identity, $M_1 = { {I}}$. This family [does]{} depend on the choice of the lift $P_z$ of the path $R_z[P]$. However, as we show below, the tangent vector $dM_z/dz$ at $z = 1$ does not depend on that choice, and this is what we call the *infinitesimal monodromy*.
\[def:im\] The *infinitesimal monodromy* of a closed polygon $P$ is the derivative $dM_z / dz$ at $z=1$, where $M_z$ is the monodromy of any path $P_z$ of polygons such that $P_1 = 1$ and $[P_z] = R_z[P]$.
The infinitesimal monodromy is therefore a tangent vector to the projective group ${{\mathbb P}\mathrm{GL}}({\mathbb P}^2)$ at the identity, and, upon a choice of basis, can be viewed as a $3 \times 3$ matrix defined up to addition of a scalar matrix. Our main result can thus be formulated as follows.
\[thm2\] The tangent vector to ${{\mathbb P}\mathrm{GL}}({\mathbb P}^2)$ represented by Glick’s operator $G_P$ coincides with the infinitesimal monodromy of $P$.
The proof will be given in Section \[Sec:proof\]. But first we need to check that Definition \[def:im\] makes sense, i.e. that the infinitesimal monodromy does not depend on the choice of the path $P_z$. This is established by the following:
Let $P_z$ and $\tilde P_z$ be two families of polygons such that $P_1 = \tilde P_1$ is a closed polygon and $\tilde P_z$ is projectively equivalent to $P_z$ for every $z$. Then, for the monodromies $M_z$ and $\tilde M_z$ of these families, at $z = 1$ we have $dM_z / dz = d\tilde M_z / dz$.
Let $\Phi_z$ be a projective transformation taking $P_z$ to $\tilde P_z$. Since $P_1 = \tilde P_1$, we have that $\Phi_1 = { {I}}$ (a generic $n$-gon in ${\mathbb P}^2$ does not admit any non-trivial projective automorphisms, provided that $n \geq 4$). Then we know that the monodromies are related by $\tilde M_z=\Phi_z M_z\Phi_z^{-1}.$ Differentiating this and using that $\Phi_1 = { {I}}$, we get $$\left.\frac{d}{dz}\right\vert_{z=1}\tilde M_z =
\left.\frac{d}{dz}\right\vert_{z=1} M_z + \left[\left.\frac{d}{dz}\right\vert_{z=1} \Phi_z, M_1 \right].$$ This identity in particular shows that the infinitesimal monodromy of a *twisted* polygon is in general not well-defined, due to the extra commutator term in the right-hand side. But for a closed polygon we have $M_1 = { {I}}$, so the extra term vanishes and we get the desired identity.
Before we proceed to the proof of the main theorem, let us mention one property of the infinitesimal monodromy:
The infinitesimal monodromy of a closed polygon is preserved by the pentagram map.
The pentagram map preserves the monodromy and commutes with the scaling. The infinitesimal monodromy is defined using monodromy and scaling and is thus preserved as well.
This result in fact follows from our main theorem, because Glick shows in [@glick2020limit Theorem 3.1] that his operator has this property. However, the proof based on Glick’s definition is quite non-trivial, while in our approach it is immediate. The observation that the infinitesimal monodromy is preserved by the pentagram map was in fact our motivation to conjecture that it should coincide with Glick’s operator. And, as we show below, this is indeed true.
The infinitesimal monodromy and Glick’s operator {#Sec:proof}
================================================
In this section we prove our main result, Theorem \[thm1\] (=Theorem \[thm2\]). To that end, we explicitly construct a deformation $P_z$ of a polygon $P$ as in Definition \[def:im\]. Such a deformation is not unique, but we know that the infinitesimal monodromy does not depend on the deformation. We will in fact use this ambiguity to our advantage by choosing a deformation for which the infinitesimal monodromy can be computed explicitly. We will then compute it and see that it coincides with Glick’s operator.
Consider a closed $n$-gon $P$. Lift the $n$-periodic sequence $\{v_i \in {\mathbb P}^2\}$ of its vertices to an $n$-periodic sequence of non-zero vectors $V_i \in {\mathbb R}^3$. Then, for every $i \in {\mathbb Z}$, there exist $a_i, b_i, c_i \in {\mathbb R}$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq4}
V_{i+3}=a_i V_{i+2} + b_i V_{i+1} + c_i V_i. \end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, for a generic polygon the numbers $a_i, b_i, c_i$ are uniquely determined because the points $v_{i}, v_{i+1}, v_{i+2}$ are not collinear so the vectors $V_i, V_{i+1}, V_{i+3}$ are linearly independent. Also, we have $c_i \neq 0$ for any $i$ because the points $v_{i+1}, v_{i+2}, v_{i+3}$ are not collinear. In addition to that, since $V_{i+n} = V_i$ we have that the sequences $a_i,b_i,c_i$ are $n$-periodic. Finally, notice that for fixed $a_i, b_i, c_i$ the sequence $V_i$ is uniquely determined by equation and initial condition $V_0, V_1, V_2$. Indeed, given $V_0, V_1, V_2$ and using that $c_i \neq 0$, we can successively find all $V_i$’s from . This gives us a way to deform the polygon $P$: keeping $V_0, V_1, V_2$ unchanged, we deform the coefficients in . Namely, consider the following equation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq6}
V_{i+3} = a_iV_{i+2} +z^{-1}\big( b_i V_{i+1}+c_iV_i \big), \end{aligned}$$ We assume that the vectors $V_0, V_1, V_2$ do not depend on $z$ and coincide with the above-constructed lifts of vertices of $P$. For any $z \neq 0$, equation has a unique solution with such initial condition. For $z = 1$ we recover the initial polygon, while for other values of $z$ we get its deformation. Note that for $i \neq 0,1,2$ the solutions $V_i$ of are actually functions of the parameter $z$, i.e. $V_i = V_i(z)$.
Taking the solution of such that $V_0, V_1, V_2$ are fixed lifts of vertices $v_0, v_1, v_2$ of $P$ and projecting the vectors $V_i \in {\mathbb R}^3$ to ${\mathbb P}^2$, we get a family $P_z$ of twisted polygons as in Definition \[def:im\]. Namely, we have that $P_1 = P$, and also $[P_z] = R_z[P]$, where $R_z$ is the scaling symmetry .
First, we need to show that if a sequence $V_i$ is a solution of with given initial condition, then $V_i(z) \neq 0$ for any $i$ and every $z \neq 0$, so we can indeed project those vectors to get a sequence of points in ${\mathbb P}^2$. Assume that $V_j(z) = 0$ for some $j$ and $z$. Then, using , we can express all vectors $V_i(z)$ in terms of $V_{j+1}(z), V_{j+2}(z)$. This means that the span of all vectors $V_i(z)$ is at most two-dimensional. But this is impossible, since $V_0, V_1, V_2$ are linearly independent by construction. Further, observe that since the coefficients of equation are periodic, its solution is quasi-periodic: $V_{i+n}(z) = M_z V_i(z)$ for a certain invertible matrix $M_z$ depending on $z$. Therefore, the projections $v_i(z) \in {\mathbb P}^2$ of the vectors $V_i(z) \in {\mathbb R}^3$ form a twisted polygon whose monodromy is the projective transformation defined by $M_z$. Furthermore since equations and agree for $z = 1$, and the initial conditions are the same too, it follows that for the so-obtained family $P_z$ of twisted polygons we have $P_1 = P$. Finally, we need to show that the projective equivalence classes of $P$ and $P_z$ are related by scaling $[P_z] = R_z[P]$. To that end, we use formulas expressing corner invariants in terms of coefficients of a recurrence relation satisfied by the lifts of vertices. Arguing as in the proof of [@ovsienko2010pentagram Lemma 4.5] one gets the following expressions for the corner invariants of $P$: $$\begin{aligned}
x_{i+2}=\frac{a_ic_i}{b_i b_{i+1}} \qquad y_{i+2}=-\frac{b_{i+1} }{a_i a_{i+1}}. \end{aligned}$$ Accordingly, since equations and encoding $P$ and $P_z$ are connected by the transformation $b_i \mapsto z^{-1}b_i$, $c_i \mapsto z^{-1}c_i $, the corner invariants of $P_z$ are given by $$\begin{aligned}
x_{i+2}(z)=\frac{a_i(z^{-1}c_i)}{(z^{-1}b_i) (z^{-1}b_{i+1})} = z x_{i+2} \qquad y_{i+2}(z)=-\frac{z^{-1}b_{i+1} }{a_i a_{i+1}} = z^{-1}y_{i+2}.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, the projective equivalence classes of the polygons $P$ and $P_z$ are indeed related by scaling, as desired.
We are now in a position to prove our main result. To that end, we will compute the monodromy of the polygon defined by , take its derivative at $z=1$, and hence find the infinitesimal monodromy.
We put the vectors $V_i(z)$ into columns of matrices as follows: define $$W_i(z):=\big[V_{i+2}(z) \quad V_{i+1}(z) \quad V_i(z) \big].$$ Then the relation gives us the matrix equation $$W_{i+1}(z)=W_i(z) U_i(z),$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:ui}
U_i(z):=\begin{bmatrix}
a_i & 1 & 0 \\
z^{-1}b_i & 0 & 1 \\
z^{-1}c_i & 0 & 0
\end{bmatrix}.\end{aligned}$$ We stop explicitly recording the dependence on $z$ as it is notationally cumbersome. Inductively, we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq11}
W_i = W_0U_0U_1 \dots U_{i-1}.\end{aligned}$$ In particular, $$W_{n}=W_0U$$ where $U:= U_0U_{1}\dots U_{n-1}$. At the same time, we have that $V_{i+ n}=M_zV_i$, where $M_z$ is a matrix representing the monodromy of the polygon defined by the vectors $V_i$. This means that $W_{n}=M_zW_0$. Relating these two expressions for $W_{n}$ we get $$W_0U=M_zW_0 \quad \iff \quad M_z=W_0UW_0^{-1}.$$ Notice that because $V_0,V_1,V_2$ are fixed we have that $W_0=[V_0 \quad V_1 \quad V_2]$ is constant while $z$ varies. This means that all the dependence of $M_z$ on $z$ is contained in the expression for $U$. This gives $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{dM_z}{dz} &=\frac{d}{dz} \left( W_0 U_0 \dots U_{n-1} W_0^{-1} \right)
\\ &= \sum_{i=0}^{n-1} W_0 U_0 \dots U_{i-1}\frac{dU_i}{dz}U_{i+1} \dots U_{n-1} W_0^{-1}
= \sum_{i=0}^{n-1} W_i \frac{dU_i}{dz}U_{i+1} \dots U_{n-1} W_0^{-1},\end{aligned}$$ where the last equality uses that $W_{i}=P_0U_0\dots U_{i-1}$. Further, observe that $$\begin{aligned}
U_{i+1}\dots U_{n-1}&=(U_0\dots U_{i})^{-1}(U_0\dots U_{n-1}) =(W_0^{-1}W_{i+1})^{-1}(W_0^{-1}W_{n})=W_{i+1}^{-1}W_{n}.\end{aligned}$$ Also using that $W_n W_0^{-1}=M_z$, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{dM_z}{dz} = \sum_{i=0}^{n-1} W_i \frac{dU_i}{dz} W_{i+1}^{-1}W_{n} W_0^{-1} = \left(\sum_{i=0}^{n-1} W_i \frac{dU_i}{dz} W_{i+1}^{-1}\right)M_z.\end{aligned}$$ Further, using that the monodromy satisfies $M_1={ {I}}$ because we started with a closed $n$-gon, we arrive at $$\left.\frac{dM_z}{dz}\right|_{z=1} \!\!\!= \,\,\sum_{i=0}^{n-1} S_i,$$ where $$S_i := \left.\left(W_i \frac{dU_i}{dz} W_{i+1}^{-1}\right)\,\right\vert_{z=1}.$$ Now, we will show that summing these $S_i$ with $i=0,1,\ldots,n-1$ gives up to a scalar matrix. Using , we get $$\begin{aligned}
\left.\frac{dU_i}{dz}\right|_{z=1} \!\!=\,\,
\begin{bmatrix}
0 & 0 & 0 \\
-b_i & 0 & 0 \\
-c_i & 0 & 0
\end{bmatrix}.\end{aligned}$$ Further, observe that for $z=1$ the matrix $W_i$ sends the standard basis to the lifts $V_{i+2}, V_{i+1}, V_i$ of the vertices of $P$. Therefore $W_{i+1}^{-1}$ takes the vectors $V_{i+3},V_{i+2},V_{i+1}$ to the standard basis, from which we find that the matrix $S_i$ acts on these vectors as $$V_{i+3} \mapsto -b_iV_{i+1} - c_iV_i,
\quad V_{i+2} \mapsto 0
\quad V_{i+1} \mapsto 0.$$ Using also , we find that $$S_i(V_i) = \frac{1}{c_i}S_i(V_{i+3}) = -\frac{b_i}{c_i} V_{i+1} - V_i,$$ which means that $$\begin{aligned}
S_i(V)=\frac{|V,V_{i+1},V_{i+2}|}{|V_i,V_{i+1},V_{i+2}|}\Big(-V_i-\frac{b_i}{c_i}V_{i+1}\Big) \quad \forall \,\,V \in {\mathbb R}^3, \label{eq13}\end{aligned}$$ where $|A,B,C|$ is the determinant of the matrix with columns $A, B, C$. Further, rewriting as $$-V_i-\frac{b_i}{c_i}V_{i+1} = \frac{a_i}{c_i}V_{i+2} -\frac{1}{c_i}V_{i+3}$$ we get $$\begin{aligned}
S_i(V)=
\frac{|V_{i+1},V_{i+2},V|}{|V_{i+1},V_{i+2},V_i|}\Big( \frac{a_i}{c_i}V_{i+2} -\frac{1}{c_i}V_{i+3} \Big) = \frac{|V_{i+1},V_{i+2},V|}{|V_{i+1},V_{i+2},c_i^{-1}V_{i+3}|}\Big( \frac{a_i}{c_i}V_{i+2} -\frac{1}{c_i}V_{i+3} \Big),\end{aligned}$$ where in the last equality we used to express $V_i$ in terms of $V_{i+1}, V_{i+2}, V_{i+3}$. This can be rewritten as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:si}
\begin{aligned}
S_i(V)= \frac{|V_{i+1},V_{i+2},V|}{|V_{i+1},V_{i+2},V_{i+3}|} a_iV_{i+2} - \frac{|V_{i+1},V_{i+2},V|}{|V_{i+1},V_{i+2},V_{i+3}|} V_{i+3},
\end{aligned}\end{aligned}$$ and the first term can be further rewritten as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:si2}
\begin{aligned}
\frac{|V_{i+1},V_{i+2},V|}{|V_{i+1},V_{i+2},V_{i+3}|} a_iV_{i+2} &=
\frac{|V_{i+1},a_iV_{i+2},V|}{|V_{i+1},V_{i+2},V_{i+3}|} V_{i+2}
= \frac{|V_{i+1},V_{i+3}-c_iV_i,V|}{|V_{i+1},V_{i+2},V_{i+3}|} V_{i+2} \\ &= - \frac{|V_{i+1},V,V_{i+3}|}{|V_{i+1},V_{i+2},V_{i+3}|} V_{i+2} + \frac{|V_{i},V_{i+1},V|}{|V_{i+1},V_{i+2},V_{i+3}|} c_iV_{i+2}
\end{aligned}\end{aligned}$$ where in the second equality we used to express $a_iV_{i+2}$ in terms of $V_i, V_{i+1}, V_{i+3}$. Furthermore, using to express $V_{i+3}$ in terms of $V_i, V_{i+1}, V_{i+2}$, the last term in the latter expression can be rewritten as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:si3}
\frac{|V_{i},V_{i+1},V|}{|V_{i+1},V_{i+2},V_{i+3}|} c_iV_{i+2} = \frac{|V_{i},V_{i+1},V|}{|V_i, V_{i+1},V_{i+2}|} V_{i+2}.\end{aligned}$$ Combining , , and , we arrive at the following expression $$\begin{aligned}
S_i(V)&=
-\frac{|V_{i+1},V,V_{i+3}|}{|V_{i+1},V_{i+2},V_{i+3}|} V_{i+2} + \frac{|V_{i},V_{i+1},V|}{|V_i, V_{i+1},V_{i+2}|} V_{i+2}
- \frac{|V_{i+1},V_{i+2},V|}{|V_{i+1},V_{i+2},V_{i+3}|} V_{i+3}. \label{eq15}\end{aligned}$$ Since the last two terms only differ by a shift in index, and the sequence of $V_i$’s in $n$-periodic, we get $$\left.\frac{dM_z}{dz}\right|_{z=1} \!\!\!(V)= -\sum_{i=0}^{n-1} S_i(V) = \sum_{i=0}^{n-1} \frac{|V_{i+1},V,V_{i+3}|}{|V_{i+1},V_{i+2},V_{i+3}|} V_{i+2} = -\sum_{i=0}^{n-1} \frac{|V_{i-1},V,V_{i+1}|}{|V_{i-1},V_{i},V_{i+1}|} V_{i},$$ which coincides with Glick’s operator up to a scalar matrix. Thus, Theorem \[thm1\] (=Theorem \[thm2\]) is proved.
[^1]: Department of Mathematics, University of Arizona, e-mail:
[^2]: Department of Mathematics, University of Arizona, e-mail:
|
---
author:
- Author
- 'Harris V. Georgiou'
bibliography:
- 'math-econ-proofs\_apa-custom\_HG-ver1a.bib'
nocite: '[@*]'
title: Feedback models and stability analysis of three economic paradigms
---
[T]{}HERE is a frequently-stated assertion that labor cost is not the driving factor for production cost per unit, even when the selling unit is not a product but some service. However, in times of crisis and austerity, labor costs are almost always the first (and usually the only) factor that is ’relaxed’ to lower and lower levels by enterprises, in an effort to keep the margin of profit stable when selling rates decline. Some economists justify these policies as the typical ’rule of thumb’: when profits decline, the workers will be paid less and less, until either the business recovers or bankrupts. Others say that its is exactly the recipe of failure, since underpaid workers will rarely work twice as hard to get the business back on it feet - quite the opposite.
Similarly, incentives for new private investments, e.g. low tax rates, are often compared to public spending and the regulatory policies are usually criticized as ’killers’ for those incentives. However, there is a definite link between changes in the investment flows and the inherent gap between market value and true value of products and services: excessively positive prospects cause a positive feedback in new investments flow, while the exact opposite happens in times of crises and markets downfall. This oscillatory feedback is (should be) negated by an opposite feedback, usually realized under regulatory policies (e.g. increasing tax rates and government spending), in order to avoid the systemic risk of value ’bubbles’ in both the market level and a country’s overall GDP change rate.
However, this is not the case in the real world; in fact, the exact opposite happens. This is a ’paradox’ of budgeting policies and government spending that are based on false paradigms, hence the end result is typically a self-reinforcing spiral: when things go well, hope and money flow go up too; when things turn bad, more austerity policies lead to the typical ’spiral of death’, for a business or a whole country’s economy. This is a fundamental issue of high controversy among leading economists and one that will be investigated in-depth under several mathematical formulations in the next sections.
This is by no means a complete paper on economic policies nor in-depth analysis of some of the most important issues in modern economics; it is rather a simple, purely mathematical approach to three very important paradigms, a short study that can be used as an example of how feedback models and stability analysis from classic Control Theory can be applied as a guideline of ’proofs’ in the context of economic policies.
The paper is organized as follows: The first section is a short formulation for the problem of minimum wages and their importance in self-regulating markets, under the scope of gain-cost analysis of private firms. Next, the core issues of currency rates and differences between market value and true (hidden) value are investigated under the scope of a first-order feedback model, as well as a stability analysis with regard to private-versus-public spending rates. Finally, government spending, public workers’ wages and the general taxation level are described in the context of a differential equations model as mutually dependent variables of the same (economic) system. Analytical solutions are provided in all three paradigms and some useful conclusions are drawn in terms of variable analysis.
Minimum wages and self-regulating labor markets
===============================================
In order to investigate this ’labor cost shrinkage’ dilemma and provide some model-based guidelines, the driving force of every profit-focused enterprise can be formulated in correspondence to the ’labor cost’ variable. Let $w=\sum p_{k}$ be the sum of the $p_{k}$ wages for all $k$ workers, i.e., the enterprise’s total labor cost per production unit. Let $NC\left(w\right)$ be the total cost per production unit, including labor cost, as a weighted sum of $n$ individual factors. Without loss of generality, assume that the labor cost is at index $i=1$, hence its weight in the total production cost is $\alpha_{1}$ and is singled out from the sum:
$$NC\left(w\right)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{\sum}}\alpha_{i}\cdot z_{i}=\alpha_{1}\cdot w+\underset{i=2}{\overset{n}{\sum}}\alpha_{i}\cdot z_{i}\label{eq:NCw-def}$$
The net profit $NP\left(w\right)$ per sold unit is proportional to the difference between the maximum attainable market (selling) price $MPr_{max}$ and the total cost per unit $NC\left(w\right)$, i.e., the maximum margin of profit, while inversely proportional to the total labor cost $w$:
$$NP\left(w\right)\propto\frac{MPr_{max}-NC\left(w\right)}{w}\label{eq:NPw-def}$$
Substituting (\[eq:NCw-def\]) in (\[eq:NPw-def\]) we have:
$$NP\left(w\right)=\frac{MP_{max}-\left(\alpha_{1}\cdot w+\underset{i=2}{\overset{n}{\sum}}\alpha_{i}\cdot z_{i}\right)}{w}=\frac{C}{w}-\alpha_{1}\label{eq:NPw-std}$$
where $C=MPr_{max}-\underset{i=2}{\overset{n}{\sum}}\alpha_{i}\cdot z_{i}>0$ is a constant with respect to $w$ and $\alpha_{i}$ are typical convex weighting factors, i.e.:$\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{\sum}}\alpha_{i}=1\;,\;0\leq\alpha_{i}\leq1$.
In order to find the maximum attainable value for $NP\left(w\right)$, the first- and second-order derivatives against $w$ must be calculated:
$$\frac{\partial NP(w)}{\partial w}=\frac{\partial}{\partial w}\left(\frac{C}{w}-\alpha_{1}\right)=\frac{-C}{w^{2}}\underset{C>0}{\overset{w\geq w_{0}\geq0}{\Longrightarrow}}\frac{\partial NP(w)}{\partial w}\leq0$$
$$\frac{\partial^{2}NP(w)}{\partial w^{2}}=\frac{\partial}{\partial w}\left(\frac{-C}{w^{2}}\right)=\frac{2C}{w^{3}}\underset{C>0}{\overset{w\geq w_{0}\geq0}{\Longrightarrow}}\frac{\partial^{2}NP(w)}{\partial w^{2}}\geq0$$
In other words, the negative sign of the first-order derivative shows (as expected) that $NP\left(w\right)$ decreases as $w$ increases above some minimum allowable value $w_{0}$ (employing minimum wages for the workers), while the positive sign of the second-order derivative shows that the function curves upwards. These conditions are typical to all functions $y=x^{p}$ where $k\leq1$, like in this case. Hence, the function is maximized at the lower limit $w=w_{0}$:
$$\begin{array}{c}
\left.\begin{array}{c}
\underset{w}{\max}NP\left(w\right)\\
s.t.:\: w\geq w_{0}\geq0
\end{array}\right\} \Rightarrow\underset{w\rightarrow w_{0}}{\lim}NP\left(w\right)=\\
=\underset{w\rightarrow w_{0}}{\lim}\left(\frac{C}{w}-\alpha_{1}\right)=\frac{C}{w_{0}}-\alpha_{1}=NP_{w_{0}}
\end{array}\label{eq:Wmin-0}$$
where $NP_{w_{0}}$ is the maximum attainable net profit per sold unit with regard to labor cost. Obviously, when there is no minimum-wage limit, i.e., $w_{0}=0$, the net profit w.r.t. labor cost is sky-rocketed to infinity:
$$\begin{array}{c}
\left.\begin{array}{c}
\underset{w}{\max}NP\left(w\right)\\
s.t.:\: w\geq w_{0}=0
\end{array}\right\} \Rightarrow\underset{w\rightarrow0}{\lim}NP\left(w\right)=\\
=\underset{w\rightarrow0}{\lim}\left(\frac{C}{w}-\alpha_{1}\right)=+\infty=NP_{0}
\end{array}\label{eq:Wmin-inf}$$
What (\[eq:Wmin-inf\]) proves is nothing new:
However, the most important conclusion from this result is the fact that the minimum wage limit, as it is usually legislated by laws and government policies, is actually not something that can be ’discovered’ by a totally free (unregulated) market. If salaries can go down to zero, no enterprise has a serious incentive, profit-wise, to offer a decent wage to anyone. In fact, even when minimum wage limits do exist in a labor market, the difference between this lower threshold and the actual mean value of offered wages is only marginal; it only relies on the various enterprises’ competitiveness over very few capable candidates for many open positions. Of course, this is hardly the case in the real world where the exact opposite is the rule, i.e., many highly qualified candidates have to compete for a limited number of job openings.
A first-order feedback control model for stable currency rates
==============================================================
The starting point for the following model-based approach is the assertion that there is a distinct difference between the true economy and the currency used in it. That is, each commodity or labor effort has a specific ’hidden’ value that is *invariant* with respect to a currency that is used to ’translate’ it into monetary value. This assertion is valid for *any* such currency, even those that are bounded to a specific commodity, e.g. gold or silver, since no one commodity can be used a the universal baseline for this evaluation: a huge amount of gold is next to worthless when it can not buy food or water if there are nowhere to be found. On the other hand, a single worker can produce a specific amount of work (on average), just as one apple tree can produce (on the same soil and climate) more or less the same amount of apples, which in turn contain the same amount of nutrients and calories. Hence, the *market price* of a single apple or a single man-hour of work, which is mainly a factor offer and demand, is not a valid invariant metric of its *true value*.
Furthermore, on monetary systems that are based on a representative currency, i.e., some form of printed money or bonds, there is no inherent link between the total volume of currency available to spend and the total volume of commodities and labor to purchase - when there is more money than goods, inflation occurs. More money means higher prices for the exact same commodities, just like less commodities means higher prices at the same total amount of money. It all depends on who controls the total amount of currency available for spending and how this is carefully balanced against the total amount of commodities to purchase.
Basic model
-----------
Let $V_{m}$ be the market price of the commodity, labor effort or even the currency itself and let $V_{t}$ be the corresponding ’true’ value. These two values are correlated linearly by a parameter $\rho$ that corresponds to inflation and deflation effects in the economy:
$$V_{m}=\left(\rho+1\right)\cdot V_{t}\label{eq:Vm-r-Vt}$$
When $\rho>0$ then inflation occurs, i.e., the market price is higher than it should for some specific commodity or work effort unit, while $\rho<0$ means deflation, i.e., the market price of the same commodity gets devalued. Grouping inflation effects as $\varepsilon^{+}$ and deflation effects as $\varepsilon^{-}$, the adjustment parameter now becomes $\rho=\varepsilon^{+}-\varepsilon^{-}$.
Let us now consider these two factors, $\varepsilon^{+}$ and $\varepsilon^{-}$. During inflation, there is a positive sign in the change rate of the market price $V_{m}$ against the true value $V_{t}$, i.e.:
$$\varepsilon^{+}=c^{+}\cdot\frac{dV_{m}}{dV_{t}}\label{eq:e-dVmdVt-p}$$
where $c^{+}\geq0$ is a constant. Likewise, during deflation, there is a negative sign in the change rate of the market price $V_{m}$ against the true value $V_{t}$, i.e.:
$$\varepsilon^{-}=c^{-}\cdot\frac{dV_{m}}{dV_{t}}\label{eq:e-dVmdVt-n}$$
where $c^{-}\geq0$ is a constant. Equations (\[eq:e-dVmdVt-p\]) and (\[eq:e-dVmdVt-n\]) essentially link the parameter $\rho$ in (\[eq:Vm-r-Vt\]) with the change rate of the market price $V_{m}$ against the true value $V_{t}$. In other words, the inflation and deflation effects are expressed as a function of the first derivative of $V_{m}$ against $V_{t}$.
The terms ’inflation’ and ’deflation’ here are somewhat misleading, since they are usually linked to increasing and decreasing prices, respectively, in the market. Here, ’inflation’ is linked to its primary definition, i.e., the increasing availability and flow of money in the market, a situation that favors ’cheaper’ currency, easier loans and incentives for riskier investments. This means that when the money flow increases, *into* the economy (private investments, low taxation levels, economy growth, etc), the incentives for moving even more money into it increases, since profitable businesses are plenty. On the other hand, ’deflation’ here is also linked to its primary definition, i.e., the decreasing availability and flow of money in the market, a situation that results in ’expensive’ currency, harder loans and incentives for more conservative (or no) investments. This means that when the money flow decreases, *out of* the economy (outgoing foreign exchange, high taxation levels, economy shrinking, etc), the incentives for putting more and more money away from it increases, since profitable investments are scarce. In other words, equations (\[eq:e-dVmdVt-p\]) and (\[eq:e-dVmdVt-n\]) translate the momentum of $V_{m}$ against $V_{t}$ into quantifiable feedback, reinforcing (positive) or dampening (negative), according to the relation between $c^{+}$ and $c^{-}$.
There is also a definite link between inflation/deflation and interest rates in bank loans: during inflation, the governments and central banks try to ’slow down’ excessive loaning and credit card use by raising the baseline for interest rates, while during deflation they try to ’boost’ the economy by lowering this baseline and thus enabling more money flow in the market. Here, these ’correcting’ actions are essentially included in both $c^{+}$ and $c^{-}$, according to the direction these authorities want to employ into (\[eq:e-dVmdVt-p\]) and (\[eq:e-dVmdVt-n\]) and, in the end, into (\[eq:Vm-r-Vt\]) as well.
Analytical solution
-------------------
The model described by (\[eq:Vm-r-Vt\]) now becomes a differential equation that is to be solved, i.e., fully defines $V_{m}$ as a function of $V_{t}$. The following steps show how:
$$\begin{array}{cc}
V_{m} & =\left(\rho+1\right)\cdot V_{t}=(\varepsilon^{+}-\varepsilon^{-}+1)\cdot V_{t}\\
& =\left(\left(c^{+}-c^{-}\right)\cdot\frac{dV_{m}}{dV_{t}}+1\right)\cdot V_{t}\\
\Leftrightarrow & \left(c^{+}-c^{-}\right)\cdot V_{t}\cdot\frac{dV_{m}}{dV_{t}}-V_{m}+V_{t}=0\\
\Leftrightarrow & \left(c^{+}-c^{-}\right)\cdot x\cdot\frac{dy}{dx}-y+x=0\\
\Leftrightarrow & \frac{dy}{dx}+\left(\frac{-1}{c^{+}-c^{-}}\right)\cdot\frac{y}{x}+\left(\frac{1}{c^{+}-c^{-}}\right)=0
\end{array}$$
$$\begin{array}{cc}
\Leftrightarrow & \frac{dy}{dx}=\beta\cdot\frac{y}{x}-\beta=F\left(\frac{y}{x}\right)\end{array}\label{eq:dydx-Fyx}$$
where $y=V_{m}$, $x=V_{t}$ and $\beta=\frac{1}{c^{+}-c^{-}}$. The last step in the previous sequence is essentially a typical transformation into a well-known form of differential equations that can be solved by substituting $z=\frac{y}{x}$ and calculating the integral:
$$\begin{array}{cc}
& \frac{dy}{dx}=\beta\cdot\frac{y}{x}-\beta=F\left(\frac{y}{x}\right)\\
\left(z=\frac{y}{x}\right) & \Rightarrow\ln x=\int\frac{dz}{F\left(z\right)-z}+\alpha\\
& \ln x=\int\frac{dz}{F\left(z\right)-z}=\int\frac{d\left(\frac{y}{x}\right)}{\left(\beta\cdot\frac{y}{x}-\beta\right)-\left(\frac{y}{x}\right)}\\
& =\int\frac{d\left(\frac{y}{x}\right)}{\frac{y}{x}\cdot\left(\beta-1\right)+\left(-\beta\right)}=\int\frac{dz}{z\cdot\left(\beta-1\right)+\left(-\beta\right)}\\
& =\frac{1}{\left(\beta-1\right)}\cdot\ln\left(z\cdot\left(\beta-1\right)+\left(-\beta\right)\right)\\
\Leftrightarrow & \ln x=\frac{1}{\left(\beta-1\right)}\cdot\ln\left(z\cdot\left(\beta-1\right)+\left(-\beta\right)\right)\\
\Leftrightarrow & \ln x^{\left(\beta-1\right)}=\ln\left(\frac{y}{x}\cdot\left(\beta-1\right)+\left(-\beta\right)\right)\\
\Leftrightarrow & x^{\left(\beta-1\right)}=\frac{y}{x}\cdot\left(\beta-1\right)+\left(-\beta\right)\\
\Leftrightarrow & \left(\beta-1\right)\cdot y=x^{\beta}+\beta\cdot x
\end{array}$$
$$\begin{array}{cc}
\Leftrightarrow & y=\left(\frac{1}{\beta-1}\right)\cdot x^{\beta}+\left(\frac{\beta}{\beta-1}\right)\cdot x\end{array}\label{eq:y-exp-x}$$
Hence, from the final result an analytical formula of $V_{m}$ with regard to $V_{t}$ becomes available:
$$V_{m}=\left(\frac{1}{\beta-1}\right)\cdot V_{t}^{\beta}+\left(\frac{\beta}{\beta-1}\right)\cdot V_{t}\qquad\beta=\frac{1}{c^{+}-c^{-}}\label{eq:Vm-exp-Vt}$$
Note that (\[eq:Vm-exp-Vt\]) is more or less the long-term expansion of (\[eq:Vm-r-Vt\]). That is, (\[eq:Vm-r-Vt\]) is the ’instance’ definition of $V_{m}$ with regard to $V_{t}$ as a differential equation, while in (\[eq:Vm-exp-Vt\]) $V_{m}$ is defined only as a function of $V_{t}$ (no differentials) and some constant parameters. This analytical form is appropriate for calculating stability and feedback factors as the result of these constant parameters and how they affect the relation between $V_{m}$ and $V_{t}$.
As a verification step, one can calculate the differential term $\frac{dy}{dx}$ by its starting definition in (\[eq:dydx-Fyx\]) and by its analytical solution in (\[eq:y-exp-x\]). From (\[eq:dydx-Fyx\]) this calculation gives:
$$\begin{array}{cc}
\frac{dy}{dx} & =\beta\cdot\frac{y}{x}-\beta=\beta\cdot\left(\frac{x^{\beta}+\beta\cdot x}{\beta-1}\right)\cdot x^{-1}=...=\left(\frac{\beta}{\beta-1}\right)\cdot\left(x^{\beta-1}+\beta\right)\end{array}$$
Similarly, from (\[eq:y-exp-x\]) the same calculation gives:
$$\begin{array}{cc}
\frac{dy}{dx} & =\left(\frac{1}{\beta-1}\right)\cdot\frac{d\left(x^{\beta}+\beta\cdot x\right)}{dx}=\frac{\beta\cdot x^{\beta-1}+\beta}{\beta-1}=\left(\frac{\beta}{\beta-1}\right)\cdot\left(x^{\beta-1}+\beta\right)\end{array}$$
Hence, (\[eq:Vm-exp-Vt\]) is a valid analytical solution of (\[eq:Vm-r-Vt\]).
Stability and feedback analysis
-------------------------------
Equation (\[eq:Vm-exp-Vt\]) provides a full description for $V_{m}$ with regard to $V_{t}$ and the means to analyze its asymptotic behavior. Since $\beta$ is the only parameter that includes all model configuration, it is the main factor of interest here. Specifically, it is evident that as $|\beta|$ increases, i.e., as the difference $|c^{+}-c^{-}|$ becomes smaller, $V_{m}$ exhibits larger exponent in $V_{t}$. This means that $V_{m}$ either increases at higher rates (when $\beta>0$) or drives the first term to zero (when $\beta<0$). Furthermore, as $|\beta|$ becomes larger, the coefficient $\frac{\beta}{\beta-1}$ of the second term in (\[eq:Vm-exp-Vt\]) approaches unity. In other words, as $c^{+}$ approaches $c^{-}$, $V_{m}$ and $V_{t}$ become directly proportional (not just linearly dependent).
Combining these previous comments with respect to $\beta$, it is clear that if $V_{m}$ is to be ’stabilized’ against $V_{t}$, $\beta$ can be selected accordingly in order to diminish the first (higher-order) term and reinforce the second (linear) term. This happens only when $|\beta|\gg1$ and $\beta<0$, i.e., as $\beta\rightarrow-\infty$:
$$V_{m}=\left(\frac{1}{\beta-1}\right)\cdot V_{t}^{\beta}+\left(\frac{\beta}{\beta-1}\right)\cdot V_{t}\overset{\beta\rightarrow-\infty}{\longrightarrow}V_{t}^{+}\label{eq:Vm-lim-Vt}$$
where $V_{t}^{+}$ means that it is approached from higher values as $\beta$ becomes more and more negative. In other words:
$$\beta\rightarrow-\infty\Leftrightarrow c^{+}-c^{-}\rightarrow0^{-}\Longrightarrow V_{m}\rightarrow V_{t}^{+}\label{eq:Vm-lim-Vt-cc}$$
What equation (\[eq:Vm-lim-Vt-cc\]) says is pretty clear:
This result is not something unexpected; keeping taxes and interest rates high is the standard policy for slowing down a booming economy into a ’controlled growth’ state. This is necessary to avoid excessive debt increase in both public and private sector, as well as decreasing the incentives of ’bubbles’ in stock markets. However, what is very interesting is that the proper control policy is for the authorities to *counter match* the positive feedback with *proportional* negative feedback actions. In other words, government spending, taxation levels and interest rates should *always* increase/decrease in proportion to private investments, creation of new businesses and incoming flow of foreign capital.
Unfortunately, the idea of a deliberate slowdown in the economy is something that is often unthinkable for modern free trades and stock markets - this is why (\[eq:Vm-lim-Vt\]) and (\[eq:Vm-lim-Vt-cc\]) also constitute a very realistic explanation of the various financial crises, like the dot-com bubble of the late ’90s or the 2008 house market crash in USA: *when negative feedback is not enforced, the catastrophic deviation of $V_{m}$ from $V_{t}$ becomes a mathematical certainty*.
Government spending and stable taxation level
=============================================
One of the most controversial issues in all economic models is the acceptable amount of government spending for public services, infrastructure and government salaries. In general, the amount of government budget available for spending is directly proportional to the country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP):
$$\left\{ GDP\right\} =C+I+G+\left(X-M\right)\thicksim S+P=W\label{eq:GDP-gen}$$
Basic model
-----------
Equation (\[eq:GDP-gen\]) is the typical calculation of GDP: $C$ is for consumption, $I$ is for investments and savings (domestic), $G$ is for government spending and $\left(X-M\right)$ is the exports-imports (net) balance. Reformulating these parameters, let $W$ be the GDP portion attributed to salaries of workers in the public and the private sector, i.e., $S$ and $P$ respectively. Public spending on infrastructure can be reformulated as the weighted sum of $N$ factors, each contributing $\alpha_{i}$ to the total spending:
$$G_{s}=\sum\alpha_{i}g_{i}\quad i=1,...,N$$
$$\sum\alpha_{i}=1\quad0\leq\alpha_{i}\leq1$$
Similarly, a ’public welfare’ index can be calculated as a weighted sum of $K$ factors, each contributing $\gamma_{i}$ to the index, that affect availability of public services to the people:
$$G_{w}=\sum\gamma_{k}\left(1-h_{k}\right)\quad k=1,...,K$$
$$\sum\gamma_{k}=1\quad0\leq\gamma_{k}\leq1$$
where $h_{k}$ is the fraction of people without access to public service $k$. Clearly, there is a link between $G_{s}$ and $G_{w}$, i.e., $G_{w}\thicksim G_{s}$.
Let us now focus on the government budget that need to cover for public workers’ salaries $S$ and public spending $G_{s}$. Let $Q^{+}$be the positive flow, which is essentially the sum of taxes on wages to all workers (public and private sector), and let $Q^{-}$ be the negative flow, which goes to $S$ and public spending $G_{s}$. If $0\leq c\leq1$ is the balancing factor between salaries and infrastructure in government spending and $p$ is the balancing factor between private sector and public sector fractions in the total work force, then:
$$Q^{+}=\left(S+P\right)\cdot t=\left(W\cdot\left(1-p\right)+W\cdot p\right)\cdot t=W\cdot t$$
$$Q^{-}=\left(1-c\right)\cdot\hat{S}+G_{s}\cdot c=\left(1-c\right)\cdot\left(1-t\right)\cdot S+G_{s}\cdot c$$
For a long-term viable budget management without deficiencies, huge reserving and external loans, then the positive/negative flows should be roughly equal:
$$Q^{+}\simeq Q^{-}\Leftrightarrow S\cdot t+P\cdot t\simeq\left(1-c\right)\cdot\left(1-t\right)\cdot S+G_{s}\cdot c$$
$$Q^{+}-Q^{-}=W\cdot t-\left(1-c\right)\cdot\left(1-t\right)\cdot\left(1-p\right)\cdot W-G_{s}\cdot c=\varphi\label{eq:QQ-phi-def}$$
where $\varphi$ is the instantaneous (annual) balance in the government budget. The model presented above assumes perfect mechanisms for spending, paying salaries and collecting taxes. For a more realistic calculation, deficiency factors have to be introduced in all the major components in (\[eq:QQ-phi-def\]), i.e.:
$$\hat{t}=t\cdot\left(1-\varepsilon_{t}\right)\;,\;0\leq\varepsilon_{t}\leq1\;,\;0\leq t\leq1$$
$$\hat{W}=W\cdot\left(1-\varepsilon_{w}\right)\;,\;0\leq\varepsilon_{w}\leq1$$
$$\hat{G}=G\cdot\left(1-\varepsilon_{g}\right)\;,\;0\leq\varepsilon_{g}\leq1$$
$$\hat{\varphi}=\varphi\cdot\left(1-\varepsilon_{\varphi}\right)\;,\;0\leq\varepsilon_{\varphi}\leq1$$
Here, $\varepsilon_{t}$ stands for deficiency in collecting taxes, $\varepsilon_{w}$ stands for deficiency in work effort (outsourced workers), $\varepsilon_{g}$ stands for deficiency in constructing and maintaining public services (corruption) and $\varepsilon_{\varphi}$ stands for deficiency due to inflation (domestic currency devaluation). These adjusted components can be introduced directly into (\[eq:QQ-phi-def\]) for proper calculations; however, for the shake of simplicity, the simplified model of (\[eq:QQ-phi-def\]) will be used as-is, since this choice does not affect the analysis that follows.
Analytical solution
-------------------
Returning now to (\[eq:GDP-gen\]), the investments component $I$ can be expressed as a factor of $W$, meaning that the amount of money available for domestic spending drives the incentives for more investments, new businesses and foreign capitals:
$$I=\xi\cdot W\cdot\left(1-t\right)\cdot\left(1+\vartheta\right)\quad\vartheta,\xi\geq0\label{eq:Invest-W}$$
where $\xi$ is the amount of available money $W\cdot\left(1-t\right)$ (after taxation) that goes into investments and $\vartheta$ is the multiplier that is attributed to foreign capital that comes into the domestic economy as investments too. Hence, the true annual change in $W$ can now be stated as a function of $\varphi$ and $I$ as:
$$\begin{array}{ccc}
\triangle W & = & \varphi+I\\
& = & W\cdot t-\left(1-c\right)\cdot\left(1-t\right)\cdot\left(1-p\right)\cdot W-G_{s}\cdot c\\
& + & \xi\cdot W\cdot\left(1-t\right)\cdot\left(1+\vartheta\right)
\end{array}\label{eq:DW-phi-Inv}$$
Equation (\[eq:DW-phi-Inv\]) is a differential model that links $W$ with its change rate and all the other factors. Since it is stated in a discrete form (annual changes), it can be solved as a first-order iterative equation, defining $a_{n}=W_{n}$ and substituting for all the other factors:
$$a_{n+1}=a_{n}\cdot\left(A+B\right)+C\Leftrightarrow a_{n+1}-a_{n}\cdot\left(A+B\right)=C\label{eq:an-diff}$$
$$A=t-\left(1-c\right)\cdot\left(1-t\right)\cdot\left(1-p\right)\label{eq:A-diff}$$
$$B=\xi\cdot\left(1-t\right)\cdot\left(1+\vartheta\right)\label{eq:B-diff}$$
$$C=-G_{s}\cdot c\label{eq:C-diff}$$
Equation (\[eq:an-diff\]) is solved by calculating the solution of the corresponding homogeneous system $\left(C=0\right)$ and then trying a solution similar to the right-hand side of the general equation. The solution of the homogeneous system is:
$$d_{n+1}-d_{n}\cdot\left(A+B\right)=0$$
$$\lambda-\left(A+B\right)=0\Rightarrow\lambda=A+B\Rightarrow d_{n}=\left(A+B\right)^{n}\cdot d_{0}\label{eq:dn-diff}$$
Since the right-hand side of (\[eq:an-diff\]) is a zero-order polynomial, a constant can be introduced as a solution to the general equation:
$$\hat{a}=b_{0}\Rightarrow b_{0}-\left(A+B\right)\cdot b_{0}=C\Leftrightarrow b_{0}=\frac{C}{1-\left(A+B\right)}\label{eq:b0-diff}$$
Then, the complete solution of (\[eq:an-diff\]) is the sum of the partial solutions of (\[eq:dn-diff\]) and (\[eq:b0-diff\]), i.e.:
$$a_{n}=d_{n}+\hat{a}=\left(A+B\right)^{n}\cdot d_{0}+b_{0}\label{eq:an-d0-b0}$$
where $d_{0}$ is a constant that can be calculated directly by using any value for $n$, i.e.:
$$n=0\rightarrow a_{0}=1\cdot d_{0}+b_{0}\Leftrightarrow d_{0}=a_{0}-b_{0}\label{eq:d0-value}$$
Substituting (\[eq:b0-diff\]) and (\[eq:d0-value\]) into (\[eq:an-d0-b0\]), the final solution for $a_{n}$ becomes:
$$\begin{array}{ccc}
a_{n} & = & \left(A+B\right)^{n}\cdot\left(a_{0}-b_{0}\right)+b_{0}\\
& = & \left(A+B\right)^{n}\cdot\left(a_{0}-\frac{C}{1-\left(A+B\right)}\right)+\frac{C}{1-\left(A+B\right)}
\end{array}$$
or in terms of the original $W$ parameter:
$$W_{n+1}=\left(A+B\right)^{n}\cdot\left(W_{0}-\frac{C}{1-\left(A+B\right)}\right)+\frac{C}{1-\left(A+B\right)}\label{eq:Wn-full}$$
where $W_{0}$ is a constant corresponding to some starting value for $W$. Hence, the total amount of money available as workers’ salaries (public and private sectors) is now expressed as a function of all the other parameters of (\[eq:QQ-phi-def\]) and (\[eq:Invest-W\]).
Stability and feedback analysis
-------------------------------
In order to evaluate the stability constraints for the model described in (\[eq:Wn-full\]), the most important factor is the base of the exponent, i.e., $\left(A+B\right)$. The same result can be drawn by applying the z-transformation to the original model in (\[eq:an-diff\]):
$$W_{n+1}-\left(A+B\right)\cdot W_{n}=C\overset{F(z)}{\longrightarrow}H\left(z\right)$$
$$H\left(z\right)=\frac{C}{1-\left(A+B\right)\cdot z^{-1}}\longleftrightarrow h\left(n\right)=C\cdot\left(A+B\right)^{n}\cdot u\left(n\right)\label{eq:Hz-AB}$$
It is clear from (\[eq:Hz-AB\]) that, in order for the system to be stable, the constraint $|A+B|\leq1$ needs to be true in all cases. Let us now examine the case $A+B\leq1$ with regard to the taxation level $t$, applying (\[eq:A-diff\]) for $A$ and (\[eq:B-diff\]) for $B$:
$$\begin{array}{ccc}
& A+B & \leq1\\
\Leftrightarrow & t-\left(1-c\right)\cdot\left(1-t\right)\cdot\left(1-p\right)+\xi\cdot\left(1-t\right)\cdot\left(1+\vartheta\right) & \leq1\\
\Leftrightarrow & t\cdot\left(1+\left(1-c\right)\cdot\left(1-p\right)-\xi\cdot\left(1+\vartheta\right)\right)\\
& -\left(\left(1-c\right)\cdot\left(1-p\right)-\xi\cdot\left(1+\vartheta\right)\right) & \leq1\\
\Leftrightarrow & t\cdot\left(1+\tau\right)-\tau & \leq1
\end{array}$$
where:
$$\tau=\left(1-c\right)\cdot\left(1-p\right)-\xi\cdot\left(1+\vartheta\right)\label{eq:tau-tt}$$
and finally we get:
$$t\leq\frac{1+\tau}{1+\tau}=1\label{eq:tt-upper}$$
Similarly, for the lower bound we get:
$$\begin{array}{ccc}
& A+B & \geq-1\\
\Leftrightarrow & t-\left(1-c\right)\cdot\left(1-t\right)\cdot\left(1-p\right)+\xi\cdot\left(1-t\right)\cdot\left(1+\vartheta\right) & \geq-1\\
\Leftrightarrow & t\cdot\left(1+\tau\right)-\tau & \geq-1
\end{array}$$
which gives:
$$t\cdot\left(1+\tau\right)-\tau\geq-1\Leftrightarrow t\geq\frac{-1+\tau}{1+\tau}\label{eq:tt-lower}$$
Combining (\[eq:tt-upper\]) and (\[eq:tt-lower\]), and since $0\leq t\leq1$, we get the final range for ’stable’ taxation level:
$$\max\left\{ 0,\frac{-1+\tau}{1+\tau}\right\} \leq t\leq1\label{eq:tt-st-range}$$
Equation (\[eq:tt-st-range\]) is essentially a range constraint for $t$ and describes the stability conditions for $W$ with respect to the taxation level. In practice, if the lower bound becomes positive, this range is shrinking towards the upper bound, i.e., the taxation levels are forced to be higher in order to maintain a stable budget management. Using (\[eq:tau-tt\]) this translates to:
$$\frac{-1+\tau}{1+\tau}>0\Leftrightarrow\tau>1\Leftrightarrow\left(1-c\right)\cdot\left(1-p\right)>1+\xi\cdot\left(1+\vartheta\right)\label{eq:tau-stability}$$
The result stated by (\[eq:tau-stability\]) is indeed a very interesting one:
This statement per-se is completely expected, as government budget comes from taxes and foreign capital investments (assuming no long-term policies for debt deficiencies are allowed). However, if the total government spending is assumed constant, (\[eq:tau-stability\]) states that the system can also be stabilized by allocating more funds to public infrastructure and services instead of public workers’ wages. In other words, *budgets cuts (austerity) is not necessarily the only solution available.*
Equation (\[eq:tau-stability\]) incorporates $c$ and $p$ as negative terms, while $\xi$ and $\vartheta$ as positive ones, hence it is fairly easy to come with another interesting result: Since $p$ corresponds to the fraction of work force employed in the private sector, (\[eq:tau-stability\]) implies that having an excessively large number of private sector workers, with regard to true investments, essentially destabilizes the system. This assertion can be explained by the fact that excessive private worker force means excessive sum of salaries available for spending, thus increased attraction of domestic and foreign funds for new investments. This incentive essentially destabilizes the control of $\triangle W$ in (\[eq:DW-phi-Inv\]) and may cause a catastrophic oscillation (market bubbles). Therefore, *the proper stabilization action is for the government to ’slow down’ any excessive increases*, a result similar to the one stated at the end of the previous paradigm (see previous section). This action is usually executed by employing higher taxes and limiting incoming flow of investment funds - policies that are usually considered unthinkable for modern free trades and stock markets.
Conclusion
==========
In this paper, simple mathematical models from Control Theory were applied to three very important economic paradigms, namely (a) minimum wages in self-regulating markets, (b) market-versus-true values and currency rates, and (c) government spending and taxation levels.
The main conclusions are:
The best labor wages policy, i.e., the one that provides the maximum gain-per-salary ratio, is *slavery* (free labor - no salaries at all).
Even when minimum wage limits do exist in a labor market, the difference between this lower threshold and the actual mean value of offered wages is only marginal.
If market prices of commodities and work effort are to be kept close to their true values, the negative feedback factors (high taxes, high interest rates, high government spending, etc) should *closely match* the positive feedback factors (low taxes, low interest rates, strict government spending, etc).
For stable economies, the proper control policy is for the authorities (government) to *counter match* the positive feedback (private investments) with *proportional* negative feedback actions.
For a stable spending of government budget, the available range for the taxation level is *shrinking towards the higher limit* as the total number of public workers and/or the spending weight (i.e., wages level) of their salaries becomes larger than the domestic and foreign investments (incoming flow).
If the total government spending is assumed constant, the budget can also be stabilized by allocating more funds to public infrastructure and services instead of public workers’ wages (i.e. wages cuts is not the only ’correcting’ solution).
This short study that can be used as an example of how feedback models and stability analysis can be applied as a guideline of ’proofs’ in the context of economic policies.
|
---
abstract: 'Instance search is an interesting task as well as a challenging issue due to the lack of effective feature representation. In this paper, an instance level feature representation built upon fully convolutional instance-aware segmentation is proposed. The feature is ROI-pooled from the segmented instance region. So that instances in various sizes and layouts are represented by deep features in uniform length. This representation is further enhanced by the use of deformable ResNeXt blocks. Superior performance is observed in terms of its distinctiveness and scalability on a challenging evaluation dataset built by ourselves. In addition, the proposed enhancement on the network structure also shows superior performance on the instance segmentation task.'
address: |
The School of Information Science and Technology,\
Xiamen University\
Xiamen, 361005, P. R. China.\
author:
- Yu Zhan
- 'Wan-Lei Zhao'
bibliography:
- 'yzhan.bib'
title: |
Instance Search via Instance Level\
Segmentation and Feature Representation
---
Instance search ,Instance segmentation ,CNN
Introduction
============
With the proliferation of massive multimedia contents in our daily life, it is desired that users are allowed to browse over relevant images/videos in which the specified visual instance (e.g., an object or a landmark or a person) appears. This is known as instance search [@Awad17], which arises from several application scenarios such as online product search in the shopping website, video editing, and person re-identification, etc.
Instance search is essentially different from conventional content-based image retrieval (CBIR) [@RuiHC99; @AlZubiAR15] in several perspectives. First of all, in instance search, the query is a visual object that is outlined (usually by a bounding box) in an image. While in CBIR, the whole image is treated as the query. Secondly, instance search requires the intended visual objects to come from the same instance (while possibly under different transformations) as the query [@Awad17]. In contrast, CBIR only requires the returned contents to be visually similar as the query image no matter whether they share the same origin. Moreover, instance search should localize the target instance in the returned images.
There are basically two stages in visual content search system, namely feature representation [@Sivic03; @Jegou10; @JegouDS10; @RetaCMGAD18; @DalalT05; @PerronninSM10; @ZhangLZCY15; @RaveauxBO13; @WANG201363; @Babenko14; @Razavian14; @Babenko15; @NgYD15] and fast retrieval [@JegouDS11; @DatarIIM04; @MujaL09; @MujaL14]. In the whole process, feature representation plays the key role to the success of the system. On one hand, features are required to be robust to various image transformations, such as scaling, rotation and occlusions, motion blur, etc. On the other hand, they should be distinctive enough so that the retrieval quality does not suffer severe degradation as the scale of the reference set grows.
In the existing solutions, instance search has been mainly addressed by conventional approaches that are originally designed for image search [@Awad17; @RuiHC99], such as bag-of-visual words (BoVW) [@Sivic03], RoI-BoVW [@ZhangLZCY15], VLAD [@Jegou10] and FV [@PerronninSM10]. All these approaches are built upon image local features such as SIFT [@Lowe04], RootSIFT [@ArandjelovicZ12], SURF [@BayTG06]. Although local features are much more distinctive than global features, they are still unsuitable for instance search task. First of all, local features are not robust to out-of-plane rotation and deformation, both of which are widely observed in the real world. Moreover, it is not rare that very few local features are extracted from transparent objects (e.g., bottles) or objects with flat surface (e.g., balls). Additionally, it is not guaranteed that the regions covered by local features are exactly from one instance. As a result, the local features used to describe a target instance are more or less contaminated by the contents from the background. For this reason, similar as global features, isolated feature representation for individual instances is not desirable.
Recently, pre-trained CNNs are gradually introduced to image retrieval tasks [@Babenko14; @Razavian14; @Babenko15; @NgYD15; @ZhengZWWT16; @ArandjelovicGTP16; @XieZWYT16] due to their great success in visual object classification tasks [@DengDSLL009]. In the existing practices, image features are typically extracted from the whole image or a series of local regions with convolution or fully connected layers. Encouraging results are observed on the landmark retrieval tasks in [@Razavian14; @Babenko15]. However, they are unfeasible for instance representation since it is essentially a type of global feature. The feature vector is comprised by a mixture of activations from a variety of latent instances in the image. Although recent research [@Tolias15; @Kalantidis16] attempts to localize the representation to regional level, exhaustive sliding search or feature aggregation is still inevitable. Moreover, since such region level representation is given by a coarsely restricted region, their improvement is still limited.
In this paper, an instance level feature representation is proposed, which is based on an effective instance segmentation approach, namely fully convolutional instance-aware semantic segmentation (FCIS) [@Li17]. Individual instances present in the image are detected and segmented on pixel level by FCIS. This is essentially different from the approach presented in [@Salvador16], in which the segmentation only reaches to the semantic category level. With the instance level segmentation, feature representation of each instance is derived from the feature maps of convolution layers using ROI pooling. So that instances in different sizes and layouts are represented with the feature vectors of the same size. In order to enhance the performance, two modifications have been made on the FCIS network.
- The back-bone network of FCIS is replaced with a more powerful ResNeXt-101 [@Xie17] without increasing extra FLOPs complexity or the number of parameters;
- To enable the receptive field to be adaptive to the various shape of potential objects, the plain layer in ResNeXt-101’s final stage is replaced with deformable convolution [@Dai17].
To the best of our knowledge, this is the first piece of work that visual instances are represented by features derived exactly from the instance region. Moreover, due to the lack of publicly available testing benchmark for instance search, a new dataset called *Instance-160* is constructed by harvesting test videos that are originally used for visual object tracking evaluation.
Framework for Instance Search {#sec:mthd}
=============================
Instance Level Feature Representation
-------------------------------------
Fully convolutional instance-aware semantic segmentation (FCIS) [@Li17] is designed primarily for instance segmentation and detection. The framework of FCIS is given as a sub-figure in Fig. \[fig:framework\], which is inside the bounding box in green. In the network, the idea of “position-sensitive score map” is adopted to perform segmentation and detection simultaneously. These two sub-tasks share the same set of score maps by assembling operation according to the region of interest (ROI). ROIs are generated by region proposal network (RPN), which is added on top of “conv4”. The score maps output “inside” and “outside” scores for the mask prediction and classification jointly. For details, readers are referred to [@Li17].
![Framework of instance-level feature representation from convolutional activations of FCIS [@Li17]. Processing flow with black arrows and dashed lines denote the proposed modification and enhancement over FCIS.[]{data-label="fig:framework"}](framework){width="0.84\linewidth"}
As seen from Fig. \[fig:framework\], there are three outputs from FCIS for one image, namely, the segmented instances (given as instance masks) and the corresponding category label, along with the bounding box of each instance. In order to extract the feature for each segmented instance, another pipeline is introduced into FCIS framework. Namely, with the generated bounding box, ROI pooling is performed on the feature maps that are generated in the convolution stages. This feature extraction pipeline is shown on the up-right of Fig. \[fig:framework\]. Since the size of feature map is different from the input image and varies from layer to layer, bounding box of each instance is scaled accordingly to fit the size of the feature map when we perform ROI pooling. The maximum activation is extracted from the scaled ROI region as one dimension of the feature representation. This ROI pooling is applied on all feature maps in the same layer. As a consequence, the size of the output feature equals to the number of the feature maps. Instances in different sizes and layouts are represented with the same size of feature vectors. Since the segmentation is precise and clean, this feature representation is on instance level of real sense. All per-ROI computation is simple and fast with a negligible cost, compared with forward pass.
Intuitively, convolution layers keep more abstract visual information as network goes deeper. It is therefore widely believed that shallower convolution layers are more suitable for low level feature representation. In our framework, the ROI pooling could be possibly applied on “conv2” to “conv5” and “conv” in Fig. \[fig:framework\]. In the experiment, a comparative study is made to show the distinctiveness of the feature extracted from these layers. In addition, we also test the possibility of concatenating features ROI-pooled from different stages. Features are *l$_{2}$*-normalized before and after the concatenation.
Performance Enhancement {#sec:boost}
-----------------------
In order to boost the performance of the proposed feature representation, the FCIS is modified in two aspects. Namely, the ResNet-101 [@He16], upon which FCIS is built, is replaced by more powerful ResNeXt-101 [@Xie17]. In addition, to enable the network to be more robust to severe shape variations, deformable convolution [@Dai17] is adopted in the last three bottle-neck blocks of ResNeXt-101.
As pointed out in [@Li17], the performance of ResNet [@He16] gets saturated when its depth reaches to *152*. To further improve the accuracy of this back-bone network, ResNet-101 is replaced by ResNeXt-101 [@Xie17] which corresponds to “conv1-4” and “conv-5” in Fig. \[fig:framework\]. Compared to ResNet, ResNeXt increases the *cardinality* of the building blocks. Fig. \[fig:blcok\] show the difference between blocks of ResNet and ResNeXt. *Cardinality* refers to the size of same-topology transformation aggregated in the building block. The cardinality of building blocks in our case is set to *32*. This is to control the FLOPs complexity on the same level as ResNet. Similar as ResNet-101, the weights of the model are initialized from ImageNet [@DengDSLL009] classification task. The layers (i.e., deformable convolution layer and RPN) absent from the pre-trained model are randomly initialized.
![Comparison between ResNet and ResNeXt blocks. In figure (b), ResNeXt’s block [@Xie17] is embedded with deformable convolution [@Dai17] with cardinality of *32*. The size of filter and the number of filters are shown on each convolution layer. In the enhanced instance feature design, structure in (b) is adopted. The last *3* bottle-neck blocks of ResNeXt-101 are replaced by deformable convolution given in figure (d).[]{data-label="fig:blcok"}](block){width="0.86\linewidth"}
Visual instances usually undergo various irregular geometric transformations in real scenario, which causes heavy deformations in their appearances. Plain convolution modules in CNNs are inherently vulnerable to such kind of transformations. Inspired from [@Dai17], deformable convolutions are introduced to replace the plain convolution in the last three bottle-neck blocks of ResNeXt-101 to alleviate this problem (illustrated in Fig. \[fig:blcok\]). Fig. \[fig:blcok\](d) shows the sampling structure of deformable convolution in contrast to plain one (Fig. \[fig:blcok\](c)). The deformable convolution calculates a set of offsets for the ultimate sampling locations to better adapt to the deformations of the instance. The offsets are easily learned by applying a convolutional layer over the same input feature maps. As is revealed later in the experiments, both modifications proposed in this section boost the performance of instance segmentation and instance search.
Evaluation Dataset Construction {#sec:data}
===============================
Since the initiatives of instance search task in TRECVID [@Awad17], several instance search approaches have been proposed one after another over the past few years. However, the publicly available evaluation benchmark is slow to occur. Approaches [@Tolias15; @Kalantidis16; @Salvador16] aiming for instance search are only evaluated on landmark datasets, typically Oxford5k [@Philbin07], Paris6k [@Jegou08] and Holidays [@Jegou08]. The evaluation does not reflect the real challenges, such as motion blur, partial occlusion, deformation and mutual object embedding, that instance search faces in the general cases. Dataset maintained by TRECVID [@Awad17] avoids such kind of disadvantages, whereas it is only open to TRECVID participants. In this paper, a new dataset, namely *Instance-160* is introduced. As visual object tracking and instance search are two similar tasks, *Instance-160* is built based on the video sequences used for visual object tracking evaluation. On one hand, this avoids the painstaking efforts to annotate the instances from new video sequences. On the other hand, videos that are used for visual object tracking have been widely accepted benchmarks. The variety of variations and transformations that could happen on visual instances are incorporated.
In the object tracking, the tracking algorithm is required to track the target object (selected on the first frame) in the rest of video frames. In order to verify the robustness of the tracking algorithm, the test videos are collected from different scenarios and cover a wide range of objects. Most popular evaluation benchmarks are OTB2015 [@Wu15] and ALOV++ [@Smeulders14]. They are collected from diverse circumstance including illuminations, transparency, specularity, confusion with similar objects, clutter, occlusion, severe deformation, motion blur and low contrast. Since instance search arises from similar application scenarios as object tracking, the same challenges are seen in instance search. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that instance search is different from object tracking. The latter assumes the visual object varies following the temporal order. For this reason, the temporal information is more or less capitalized in various object tracking algorithms. While this is not the case for instance search. Moreover, the tracking algorithm is allowed to update the feature representation from time to time as the tracking continues. In contrast, feature representation, once has been designed, is fixed all the way in instance search.
When we construct *Instance-160*, *58* and *102* sequences are selected from *100* and *300* video sequences from OTB2015 and ALOV++ respectively. The videos inside which the target instances are not covered by Microsoft COCO’s *80* categories are omitted. For each video, the first frame in which the query instance is given by a bounding box is extracted as the query side. For the rest, one frame is extracted for every other *4* frames as the reference dataset. This results in *11,885* reference images in total. Sample queries are seen in Fig. \[fig:query\](a). The distribution about the number of true-positives for all queries are shown in Fig. \[fig:query\](b). As shown in the figure, more than *90%* of the queries have more than *20* true-positives for each.
Experiments
===========
In this section, the proposed approach for instance search is evaluated on the dataset introduced in Section \[sec:data\]. Additionally, in order to verify the scalability of the presented approach, another *1* million images randomly crawled from Flickr are incorporated as distractors. The performance evaluation is studied in comparison to several representative approaches. They are BoVW [@Sivic03], BoVW+HE [@Jegou08], R-MAC [@Tolias15], Deepvision [@Salvador16] and CroW [@Kalantidis16]. The last three are based on deep features. For each CNN-based method, the network is initialized with the default pre-trained model and configuration described in the corresponding paper. For BoVW and BoVW+HE, the same visual vocabulary sized of *65,536* are used. The binary signature in HE is set to *64* bits. The performance is measured by mAP at top-*k*, where *k* varies from *10* to *100*. This is due to the fact that more than *95%* the queries have more than *10* corresponding true-positives as shown in Fig. \[fig:query\](b).
Under the same training protocol introduced in [@Li17], the feasibility of the proposed enhancement strategies is validated on PASCAL VOC 2012 [@EveringhamGWWZ10]. Thereby, FCIS and FCIS in-planted with the proposed enhancement strategies are trained on Microsoft COCO 2014 [@LinMBHPRDZ14]. All the experiments are conducted on a workstation with four Nvidia Titan X GPUs and one *3.20*GHz Intel CPU setup.
Configuration Test on FCIS
--------------------------
Theoretically speaking, feature ROI-pooled from any layer could be used to represent the detected instance. The distinctiveness of these features varies from layer to layer. In the first experiment, the distinctiveness of instance-wise representation that are extracted from different layers is studied. The feature representation with the best distinctiveness (reflected by the highest mAP) is selected as the final feature representation. Additionally, we also investigate the possibility of concatenating features from different layers.
![Performance of deep features extracted from different stages’ convolution layer, including experiments with feature concatenation.[]{data-label="fig:baseline"}](baseline){width="0.84\linewidth"}
According to our observation, the category label for the segmented instance from FCIS is in high accuracy. It is therefore could be adopted for early pruning. Namely, the instance query only needs to compare with the candidate instances which share the same category label. Such pruning strategy speeds up the retrieval by two times without notable drop in mAP. In the following experiments, pruning scheme is adopted as default configuration for our approach.
In the first experiment, the distinctiveness of features from different layers of FCIS network is studied. We also investigate the performance of hybrid features that combining features from two layers. Feature derived from the “conv” (see Fig. \[fig:framework\]) layer is given as comparison baseline.
Fig. \[fig:baseline\] summarizes the performance with features extracted from different stages. In the figure, mAP@*10* and mAP@*20* for all the configurations are low since not all potential true-positives are considered due to the fact that *90%* queries have more than *20* true-positives (see Fig. \[fig:query\](b)). As expected, features derived from intermediate layers perform better over feature from baseline (“conv”). Performance drops when features are derived from the shallow layers, such as “conv2” and “conv3”. This basically indicates that it is sub-optimal to employ representations only kept with local visual patterns. As seen in the figure, all three different combinations between features from different layers lead to better results. The combination of features from “conv3” and “conv4” achieves the best performance. As revealed in later experiment, this observation is consistent even we change the back-bone network from ResNet to ResNeXt.
FCIS+XD versus FCIS
-------------------
In this section, we are going to investigate the performance achieved by two enhancement strategies proposed in Section \[sec:boost\]. Since FCIS is primarily designed for instance segmentation, the effectiveness of the enhanced FCIS network is studied first on instance segmentation task. In the experiment, the performance of FCIS with ResNeXt back-bone network and deformable convolution layer are studied both as separate runs and as a combination. FCIS supported with deformable convolution is denoted as FCIS+D. FCIS supported with ResNeXt-101 is denoted as FCIS+X. FCIS+XD denotes that FCIS powered by both enhancement strategies.
The performance evaluation is conducted on PASCAL VOC 2012 [@EveringhamGWWZ10] and Microsoft COCO 2014 test-dev [@LinMBHPRDZ14]. $mAP^r@r$ is adopted for the evaluation. It basically calculates the mean of Average Precision (AP) measured for a method for which the corresponding recall exceeds *r*. Notice that it is essentially different from mAP that we use to evaluate the instance search performance.
The performance of instance segmentation using FCIS and its variants is summarized in Table \[tab:segmentation\_voc\] and Table \[tab:segmentation\_coco\]. On the two datasets PASCAL VOC 2012 and Microsoft COCO 2014, both networks individually supported by deformable convolution layers and ResNeXt bottle-neck blocks (denoted as FCIS+D and FCIS+X respectively) are able to achieve better results in comparison to original FCIS architecture. When both of these enhancement strategies are adopted (given as FCIS+XD), the best segmentation accuracy is attained. As we verified on PASCAL VOC 2012 and Microsoft COCO 2014, the segmentation accuracy of FCIS is relatively improved by *2.7%* and *5.5%* measured with mAP$^r$@0.5 respectively by FCIS+XD. Such results indicate that the enhancement strategies proposed in Section \[sec:boost\] are all effective in boosting the performance of instance segmentation task.
![Performance of FCIS, FCIS+D, FCIS+D and FCIS+XD with the hybrid features from different layers. The performance is measured by mAP at top-*50* on *Instance-160*.[]{data-label="fig:modification"}](modification){width="0.78\linewidth"}
In addition, we further study the performance of the features derived from FCIS+D, FCIS+X and FCIS+XD when they are adopted for instance search task. Similar as FCIS, the other three networks are trained on Microsoft COCO 2014 [@LinMBHPRDZ14]. Fig. \[fig:modification\] presents the performance of FCIS and its variants on *Instance-160*. mAPs at top-*50* are presented. Since hybrid features from different layers are always better than the ones from single layer, the results of features derived from single layer are omitted. As seen from the figure, hybrid features from “conv3 + conv4” achieve the best result. This is consistent with the observation on the results shown in Fig. \[fig:baseline\]. In the following experiments, hybrid feature from “conv3” and “conv4” is selected as the feature representation for each detected instance.
Table \[tab:self-cmpr\] further shows the performance of FCIS and its enhancements on *Instance-160*. For all different networks, the features are extracted from “conv3” and “conv4”. Due to the high accuracy on instance level segmentation, superior performance is observed with FCIS+XD across all the rankings. It outperforms FCIS by a constant *2-3%* margin. In the rest of our experiments, FCIS with ResNeXt back-bone network and deformable convolution, namely FCIS+XD is selected as the standard configuration for our approach.
Comparison to State-of-the-art Approaches
-----------------------------------------
In this section, the performance of proposed FCIS+XD is studied in comparison to five representative approaches in the literature. They are two local feature based approaches BoVW [@Sivic03] and BoVW+HE [@Jegou08] and three deep feature based approaches R-MAC [@Tolias15], Deepvision [@Salvador16] (denoted as DV-Vgg) and CroW [@Kalantidis16]. For Deepvision, the search is carried out in two steps. In the first step, the top-ranked candidates are produced by image level comparison. In the second step, instance level search is carried out on the top-*100* candidates. In order to make a more fair comparison between Deepvision and our approach, another run is also conducted for Deepvision. In this new run, back-bone network of Deepvision is replaced by ResNet-101, which becomes the same as FCIS. The filtering scheme in the first step is disabled. This run is denoted as DV-Res.
Table \[tab:comparison\] shows the performance from all approaches. As seen from the table, DV-Vgg and FCIS+XD show considerably better performance than the rest. BoVW+HE still shows competitive performance in comparison to deep feature approaches such as R-MAC and CroW. Although the results from Deepvision are very close to FCIS+XD, they do not reflect real behavior of Deepvision. In *Instance-160*, the videos are primarily collected from visual tracking evaluation. In many cases, the query instance shares similar background scene as the reference images. So that true instances are retrieved by Deepvision due to their similar background. For this reason, the image-wise feature representation in Deepvision still works seemingly well. However, the performance of Deepvision drops considerably when the target instances are cluttered in different backgrounds. This will be confirmed by another experiment afterwards. Another disadvantage for Deepvision lies in its low accuracy of generated instance bounding box. As shown in the table, the mAP of DV-Res is even lower than original FCIS (see Table \[tab:self-cmpr\]) although it is already powered by ResNet. This is mainly caused by its imprecise feature representation of each instance. In contrast, FCIS+XD is able to generate precise instance-level bounding-boxes owing to its precise object category-level classification and pixel-level mask prediction.
In order to further confirm our observation about Deepvision, *40* queries from *Instance-160*, in which severe background variations are observed, are selected to verify its real behavior. Table \[tab:subset\] shows the performance of FCIS, FCIS+XD and Deepvision on *40* queries. As observed from the table, the performance of Deepvision drops considerably compared to that of Table \[tab:comparison\]. As the background scenes from the instance query and the reference images are dissimilar, the first round search in Deepvision becomes ineffective since it is based on image-wise feature. As the consequence, decent results are not expected from the re-ranking stage since many true-positives are already missed in the first stage. Another disadvantage of this approach is that one has to keep two types of features. One is on image level, another is on region level, which induce heavy computational overhead.
Scalability Test
----------------
![Scalability test in comparison to five state-of-the-art approaches. The performance is measured by mAP at top-*50*.[]{data-label="fig:distract"}](distract){width="0.8\linewidth"}
In this section, the scalability of the proposed feature representation is studied. In the experiment, *1* million distractor images are added in the reference set. The same processing pipeline is undertaken on this *1* million images. In the experiment, five representative approaches are considered. For FCIS+XD, *1,648,654* instances are extracted from the distractor images, each of which is represented as an *1,536*-dimensional feature vector.
As seen from Fig. \[fig:distract\], FCIS+XD shows the best scalability. It outperforms Deepvision by a constant margin. As the computation cost is high and the results from BoVW, BoVW+HE, R-MAC, CroW and DV-Res are already much poorer than FCIS+XD and Deepvision (DV-Vgg) with 100K distractors, further verification on the whole *1* million distractors is not carried out for these approaches. Fig. \[fig:result\] shows six instance search results produced by FCIS+XD. As shown in the figure, all the top-*8* results for each individual query are meaningful. Although a few false-positive instances are returned, they indeed exhibit very close appearance as the query.
![Top-*8* search results of six sample queries produced by FCIS+XD with *1* million distractor images.[]{data-label="fig:result"}](result){width="0.98\linewidth"}
Conclusion
==========
We have presented a promising way of instance level feature representation for instance search. This representation is built upon a fully convolutional network that is originally used for instance segmentation. With the precise instance segmentation, the feature is derived by ROI pooling on the feature maps. To further boost its performance, two enhancement strategies are proposed. The distinctiveness and scalability of this feature have been comprehensively studied. As shown in the experiment, it outperforms most of the representative approaches in the literature. Considering the lack of publicly available evaluation benchmark, a medium-scale dataset for instance search is introduced by harvesting videos from object tracking benchmarks. Currently, the types of instances that our approach could handle with are restricted to Microsoft COCO-*80* categories. Although it already covers variety of instances that we encounter in the daily life, exploring more generic instance segmentation model that works beyond *80* categories will be our future research focus.
Acknowledgments
===============
This work is supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China under grants 61572408 and grants of Xiamen University 0630-ZK1083.
|
---
abstract: 'A connected graph $G$ with at least $2m + 2n + 2$ vertices which contains a perfect matching is $E(m, n)$-[*extendable*]{}, if for any two sets of disjoint independent edges $M$ and $N$ with $|M| = m$ and $|N|= n$, there is a perfect matching $F$ in $G$ such that $M\subseteq F$ and $N\cap F=\emptyset$. Similarly, a connected graph with at least $n+2k+2$ vertices is called $(n,k)$-[*extendable*]{} if for any vertex set $S$ of size $n$ and any matching $M$ of size $k$ of $G-S$, $G-S-V(M)$ contains a perfect matching. Let $\varepsilon$ be a small positive constant, $b(G)$ and $t(G)$ be the binding number and toughness of a graph $G$. The two main theorems of this paper are: for every graph $G$ with sufficiently large order, 1) if $b(G)\geq 4/3+\varepsilon$, then $G$ is $E(m,n)$-extendable and also $(n,k)$-extendable; 2) if $t(G)\geq 1+\varepsilon$ and $G$ has a high connectivity, then $G$ is $E(m,n)$-extendable and also $(n,k)$-extendable. It is worth to point out that the binding number and toughness conditions for the existence of the general matching extension properties are almost same as that for the existence of perfect matchings.'
author:
- 'Hongliang Lu[^1]'
- 'Qinglin Yu[^2]'
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
nocite: '[@*]'
title: 'Binding Number, Toughness and General Matching Extendability in Graphs'
---
Introduction {#sec:in}
============
In this paper, we only consider simple connected graphs. Let $G$ be a graph with vertex set $V(G)$ and edge set $E(G)$. A *matching* is a set of independent edges and we often refer a matching with $k$ edges as a $k$-[*matching*]{}. For a matching $M$, we use $V(M)$ to denote the set of the endvertices of the edges in $M$ and $|M|$ to denote the number of edges in $M$. A matching is called a *perfect matching* if it covers all vertices of graph $G$. For $S\subseteq V(G)$, we write $G[S]$ for the subgraph of $G$ induced by $S$ and $G - S$ for $G[V(G)\backslash S]$. The number of odd components (i.e., components with odd order) and the number of components of $G$ are denoted by $c_0(G)$ and $c(G)$, respectively. Let $N_G(S)$ denote the set of neighbors of a set $S$ in a graph $G$, and $\kappa(G)$ denote the vertex connectivity of graph $G$.
Let $M$ be a matching of $G$. If there is a matching $M'$ of $G $ such that $M\subseteq M'$, we say that $M$ can be extended to $M'$ or $M'$ is an *extension* of $M$. Suppose that $G$ is a connected graph with perfect matchings. If each $k$-matching can be extended to a perfect matching in $G$, then $G$ is called *$k$-extendable*. To avoid triviality, we require that $|V(G)|\geq 2k+2$ for $k$-extendable graphs. This family of graphs was introduced and studied first by [@Pl80]. A graph $G$ is called [*$n$-factor-critical*]{} if after deleting any $n$ vertices the remaining subgraph of $G$ has a perfect matching, which was introduced in [@Yu] and was a generalization of the notions of the well-known factor-critical graphs and bicritical graphs (the cases corresponding to $n = 1$ and $2$, respectively). Note that every connected factor-critical graph is 2-edge-connected (see [@Yu]).
Let $G$ be a graph and let $n, k$ be nonnegative integers such that $|V(G)|\geq n+2k+2$ and $|V(G)|-n \equiv 0 \pmod{2}$. If deleting any $n$ vertices from $G$ the remaining subgraph of $G$ contains a $k$-matching and moreover, each $k$-matching in the subgraph can be extended to a perfect matching, then $G$ is called *$(n, k)$-extendable* ([@LY01]). This term can be considered as a general framework to unify the concepts of $n$-factor-criticality and $k$-extendability. In particular, $(n, 0)$-extendable graphs are exactly $n$-factor-critical graphs and $(0, k)$-extendable graphs are the same as $k$-extendable graphs. A graph is called *$E(m,n)$-extendable* if deleting edges of any $n$-matching, the resulted graph is $m$-extendable ([@PA96]). $E(m,0)$-extendability is equivalent to $m$-extendability, and $(n,k)$-extendability and $E(m, n)$-extendability are referred as general matching extensions, which are widely studied in graph theory (see [@Plu94; @Plu96; @Plu]).
For a non-complete graph $G$, its *toughness* is defined by $$t(G) = \min_{S\subset V(G)} \frac{|S|}{c(G-S)}$$ where $S$ is taken over all cut-sets of $G$. The *binding number* $b(G)$ is defined to be the minimum, taken over all $S\subseteq V (G)$ with $S\neq \emptyset$ and $N_G(S)\neq V (G)$, of the ratios $\frac{|N_G(S)|}{|S|}$.
Toughness and binding number have been effective graphic parameters for studying factors and matching extensions in graphs. For instances, 1-tough graphs guarantee the existence of perfect matchings (see [@Chvatal73]) and graphs with $b(G) \geq \frac{4}{3}$ contain perfect matchings (see [@Wood73]). There are sufficient conditions with respect to $t(G)$ and $b(G)$ in terms of $m, n, k$ to ensure the existences of $k$-extendability, $E(m,n)$-extendability and other matching extensions (see [@Chen95; @LY98; @Plu88; @Plu]). Moreover, [@RW02] proved a remarkable result that a graph with $b(G)$ slightly greater than $\frac{4}{3}$ ensure $k$-extendability if the order of $G$ is sufficiently large. Recently, [@PS2016] extended this result to $E(m,n)$-extendability. In this paper, we continue the study in this direction and prove that the essential bounds of $t(G)$ and $b(G)$ (i.e., $1$ and $\frac{4}{3}$) which guarantee the existence of a perfect matching can also ensure the existence of all general matching extensions mentioned earlier.
[@Tutte47] gave a characterization for a graph to have a perfect matching.
\[Tutte\] Let $G$ be a graph with even order. Then $G$ contains a perfect matching if and only if for any $S\subseteq V(G)$ $$c_0(G-S)\leq |S|.$$
The following result is an extension of Tutte’s theorem and also a lean version of a comprehensive structure theorem for matchings, due to Gallai (1964) and Edmonds (1965). See [@LoPl86] for a detailed statement and discussion of this theorem.
\[GE645\] Let $G$ be a graph with even order. Then $G$ contains no perfect matchings if and only if there exists a set $S\subset V(G)$ such that $$fc(G-S)\ge |S|+2,$$ where $fc(G-S)$ denotes the number of factor-critical components of $G-S$.
The proofs of the main theorems require the following two results as lemmas.
\[LY01\] If $G$ is an $(n, k)$-extendable graph and $n\geq 1,k\geq 2$, then $G$ is also $(n + 2,
k-2)$-extendable.
\[P88\] If a graph $G$ is connected and $k$-extendable graph ($k \geq 1$), then $G-e$ is $(k-1)$-extendable for any edge $e$ of $G$.
Binding Number and Matching Extendability {#sec:bing}
=========================================
[@Chen95] proved that a graph $G$ of even order at least $2m + 2$ is $m$-extendable if $b(G) >
\max\{m, (7m + 13)/12\}$. [@RW02] proved a stronger result (in most cases). We state their result in a simpler but slightly weaker form below.
\[Bind-k-ex\] For any positive real number $\varepsilon$ and nonnegative integer $m$, there exists an integer $N = N(\varepsilon, m)$ such that every graph $G$ of even order greater than $N$ and $b(G)>4/3 + \varepsilon$ is $m$-extendable.
In this section, we extend the above result using a different proof technique.
\[Thm2-1\] Let $k,g$ be two positive integers such that $g\geq 3$ and let $g_0=2\lfloor\frac{g}{2}\rfloor+1$. For any positive real number $\varepsilon<\frac{1}{g_0}$, there exists $N=N(\varepsilon, k, g_0)$ such that for every graph $G$ with order at least $N$ and girth $g$, if $b(G)>\frac{g_0+1}{g_0}+\varepsilon$, then $G$ is $k$-extendable.
Suppose that the result does not hold. Then there exists a graph $G$ with order at least $N$ and $b(G)> \frac{g_0+1}{g_0}+\varepsilon$ such that $G$ is not $k$-extendable. By the definition of $k$-extendable graphs, there exists a $k$-matching $M$ such that $G-V(M)$ contains no perfect matchings. From Theorem \[GE645\], there exists $S\subset V(G)-V(M)$ such that $$fc(G-V(M)-S)= s+q,$$ where $q\geq 2$ is even by parity and $s:=|S|$. Let $C_1,\ldots, C_{s+q}$ denote these factor-critical components of $G-S-V(M)$ such that $|C_1|\leq \cdots\leq |C_{s+q}|$. Without loss of generality, we assume $|C_1|=\ldots =|C_l|=1$. Note that $|C_i| \geq 3$ implies $g(C_i)\geq g$ as $C_i$ is 2-edge-connected. Thus we have $|C_i|\geq g_0$ for $l+1\leq i\leq s+q$. Write $U=\cup_{i=2}^{s+q}V(C_i)$ and $W=V(G)-U-S-V(M)$. Note that $V(C_1)\subseteq W$ and $s+q \geq 2$. So we have $U \neq \emptyset$ and $W\neq \emptyset$. One may see that $N(U) \cap W = \emptyset$ and $N(W) \cap U = \emptyset$. Hence $N(U) \not= V(G)$ and $N(W) \not= V(G)$. Denote $r=\max\{2,l+1\}$. Thus we have
$$\begin{aligned}
b(G)&\leq \min\{\frac{|N(U)|}{|U|},\frac{|N(W)|}{|W|}\}\\
&\leq\min\{\frac{2k+s+\sum_{i=r}^{s+q} |C_i|}{r-2+\sum_{i=r}^{s+q} |C_i|}, \frac{|G|-\sum_{i=2}^{s+q} |C_i|}{|G|-2k-s-\sum_{i=2}^{s+q} |C_i|}\}\\
&=\min\{f,h\}\end{aligned}$$
where $f=\frac{2k+s+\sum_{i=r}^{s+q} |C_i|}{r-2+\sum_{i=r}^{s+q} |C_i|}$ and $h=\frac{|G|-\sum_{i=2}^{s+q} |C_i|}{|G|-2k-s-\sum_{i=2}^{s+q} |C_i|}$.
**Claim 1. ** $2k+s > r-2$.
This claim is implied by the following inequality: $$\begin{aligned}
1<\frac{g_0+1}{g_0}+\varepsilon < b(G) \leq f = \frac{2k+s+\sum_{i=r}^{s+q} |C_i|}{r-2+\sum_{i=r}^{s+q} |C_i|},\end{aligned}$$
**Claim 2. ** $\sum_{i=r}^{s+q} |C_i|< g_0(2k+s)$.
Suppose that $\sum_{i=r}^{s+q} |C_i|\ge g_0(2k+s)$. By Claim 1, we have $$\begin{aligned}
b(G)\leq f&\leq \frac{2k+s+g_0(2k+s)}{r-2+g_0(2k+s)}\\
&\leq\frac{2k+s+g_0(2k+s)}{g_0(2k+s)}\\
&= \frac{g_0+1}{g_0},\end{aligned}$$ a contradiction.
**Claim 3. ** $s< \max\{2(g_0-1)k,\frac{2k}{g_0\varepsilon}\}$.
Suppose that $s\ge \max\{2(g_0-1)k,\frac{2k}{g_0\varepsilon}\}$. Since $s\geq 2(g_0-1)k$, we infer that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{g0-ratio}
\frac{s(g_0+1)+2k}{g_0s}\leq\frac{g_0}{g_0-1}.\end{aligned}$$
If $$\begin{aligned}
\label{small-s}
\frac{g_0+1}{g_0}+\varepsilon < \frac{(g_0+1)s+2k}{g_0s},\end{aligned}$$ then $s<\frac{2k}{g_0\varepsilon}$, a contradiction. So it is enough for us to show (\[small-s\]). Consider $q< r-1$. Then we infer that $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{g_0+1}{g_0}+\varepsilon < f &\leq \frac{2k+s+g_0(s+q-r+1)}{r-2+g_0(s+q-r+1)} \quad\quad\mbox{(by Claim 1 and $\sum_{i=r}^{s+q} |C_i| \ge g_0(s+q-r+1)$})\\
&=\frac{s(g_0+1)+2k+g_0(q-r+1)}{g_0s+g_0(q-r+1)+r-2}\\
&<\frac{s(g_0+1)+2k+g_0(q-r+1)}{g_0s+g_0(q-r+1)+r-1-q} \\
&=\frac{s(g_0+1)+2k-g_0(r-1-q)}{g_0s-(g_0-1)(r-1-q)}\\
&\leq \frac{(g_0+1)s+2k}{g_0s}. \quad\quad\mbox{(by (\ref{g0-ratio}) and $g_0s+g_0(q-r+1)>q-r+1$)}\end{aligned}$$ Next, we consider $q\ge r-1$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{g_0+1}{g_0}+\varepsilon < f &\leq \frac{2k+s+g_0(s+q-r+1)}{r-2+g_0(s+q-r+1)} \quad\quad\mbox{(by Claim 1 and $\sum_{i=r}^{s+q} |C_i| \ge g_0(s+q-r+1)$})\\
&\leq \frac{2k+s+g_0(s+q'-r+1)}{r-2+g_0(s+q'-r+1)} \quad\quad\mbox{(for any $q'$ satisfying $q \geq q' \geq r-1$}) \\
&=\frac{s(g_0+1)+2k}{g_0s+r-2}\\
&\leq \frac{(g_0+1)s+2k}{g_0s}.\end{aligned}$$ This completes the proof of Claim 3.
**Claim 4. ** $l< \max\{2g_0k+1,\frac{2k}{g_0\varepsilon}+1\}$.
Suppose that $l\ge \max\{2g_0k+1,\frac{2k}{g_0\varepsilon}+1\}$. From Claim 3, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{s-upp}
s<\max\{2(g_0-1)k,\frac{2k}{g_0\varepsilon}\}.\end{aligned}$$ From (\[s-upp\]), we see $l\geq s+1$ and thus $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{g_0+1}{g_0}+\varepsilon < \ f & = \frac{2k+s+\sum_{i=r}^{s+q} |C_i|}{r-2+\sum_{i=r}^{s+q} |C_i|}\\
&=\frac{2k+s+\sum_{i=r}^{s+q} |C_i|}{l-1+\sum_{i=r}^{s+q} |C_i|}\\
&\leq \frac{2k+s}{l-1} \quad \quad \mbox{(by Claim 1)}\\
&\leq \frac{2k+l-1}{l-1}\\
&\leq \frac{g_0+1}{g_0}, \quad \quad \mbox{(since $l\geq 2g_0k+1$)}\end{aligned}$$ a contradiction.
From Claim 2, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sum-Ci}
\sum_{i=r}^{s+q} |C_i|< g_0(2k+s).\end{aligned}$$ Thus $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{g_0+1}{g_0}+\varepsilon < h&=\frac{|G|-\sum_{i=2}^{s+q} |C_i|}{|G|-2k-s-\sum_{i=2}^{s+q} |C_i|}\\
&= \frac{|G|-(r-2)-\sum_{i=r}^{s+q} |C_i|}{|G|-2k-s-(r-2)-\sum_{i=r}^{s+q} |C_i|}\\
&\leq \frac{|G|-(r-2)-g_0(2k+s)}{|G|-2k-s-(r-2)-g_0(2k+s)} \quad\mbox{(by (\ref{sum-Ci}))}\\
&\leq\frac{|G|-l-g_0(2k+s)}{|G|-2k-s-l-g_0(2k+s)} \quad\mbox{(since $r=\max\{2, l+1\}\le l+2$)}\\
&= \frac{|G|-2kg_0-g_0s-l}{|G|-2k-2kg_0-(g_0+1)s-l},\end{aligned}$$ i.e., $$\begin{aligned}
\label{contra}
\frac{g_0+1}{g_1}+\varepsilon < \frac{|G|-2kg_0-g_0s-l}{|G|-2k-2kg_0-(g_0+1)s-l}.\end{aligned}$$ Claims 2 and 3 imply that $s, l$ are bounded, therefore $$\lim_{|G|\rightarrow \infty} \frac{|G|-2kg_0-g_0s-l}{|G|-2k-2kg_0-(g_0+1)s-l}=1.$$
For a large $N$, (\[contra\]) leads to a contradiction when $|G|>N$. This completes the proof.
Clearly, Theorem \[Thm2-1\] is a generalization of Theorem \[Bind-k-ex\]. For connected graphs $G$, the girth $g$ of $G$ is at least three. Setting $g_0=3$, we obtain the following results regarding the general matching extensions (i.e., stronger properties).
\[bind-n-k-ex\] Let $n, k$ be two positive integers. For any $\varepsilon<1/3$, there exists $N=N(\varepsilon,n,k)$ such that if $b(G)>\frac{4}{3}+\varepsilon$ and the order of $G$ is at least $N$, then $G$ is $(n,k)$-extendable.
Since $b(G)>\frac{4}{3}+\varepsilon$, by Theorem \[Bind-k-ex\], for a sufficiently large $|G|$, $G$ is $(k+2n)$-extendable or $(0, k+2n)$-extendable. By Theorem \[LY01\], $G$ is $(n,k)$-extendable.
With similar discussion as in Corollary \[bind-n-k-ex\], we can deduce $E(m, n)$-extendability with the same conditions, which is a result proved in [@PS2016] but here we gave a much shorter proof.
\[bind-E(m,n)\] Let $m,n$ be two positive integers. For any $\varepsilon<\frac{1}{3}$, there exists $N=N(\varepsilon,m,n)$ such that for every graph $G$ with order at least $N$, if $b(G)>\frac{4}{3}+\varepsilon$, then $G$ is $E(m,n)$-extendable.
Since $b(G)>\frac{4}{3}+\varepsilon$, by Theorem \[Bind-k-ex\], for a sufficiently large $|G|$, $G$ is $(m+n)$-extendable. Let $M = \{e_1, e_2, \dots, e_n\}$ be any $n$-matching. By Theorem \[P88\], $G_1=G-e_1$ is $(m+n-1)$-extendable. Applying Theorem \[P88\] recursively, we conclude that $G_n=G-\{e_1, e_2, \dots, e_n\}$ is $m$-extendable, that is, $G$ is $E(m,n)$-extendable.
**Remark:** Clearly, Corollaries \[bind-n-k-ex\] and \[bind-E(m,n)\] can be easily stated in terms of the more general condition $b(G)>\frac{g_0+1}{g_0}+\varepsilon$. However, without the parameter $g$, the results look more neatly.
Toughness and Matching Extendability {#sec:toughness}
====================================
It is not hard to construct examples with any given large toughness, but do not have $(n, k)$-extendability or $E(m, n)$-extendability. Therefore toughness alone is insufficient to guarantee the general matching extension properties. However, with an additional condition in terms of connectivity, it only requires slightly large than 1-toughness to deduce the desired matching extendability.
\[tough\] Let $n$ be a positive integer, $\varepsilon$ be a small positive constant and $G$ be a graph with $t(G)\geq 1+\varepsilon$ and $|V(G)| \equiv n \pmod 2$. If $\kappa(G)>\frac{(n-2)(1+\varepsilon)}{\varepsilon}$, then $G$ is $n$-factor-critical.
Suppose that $G$ is not $n$-factor-critical. By the definition of $n$-factor-critical, there exists a subset $S$ of order $n$ such that $G-S$ contains no perfect matchings. By Theorem \[Tutte\], there exists $T\subseteq V(G)-S$ such that $$q=c_0(G-S-T)\geq |T|+2.$$ Note that $q\geq 2$. So $$\begin{aligned}
1+\varepsilon\leq t(G)&\leq \frac{|S|+|T|}{|T|+2}\\
&\leq\frac{\kappa}{\kappa-n+2}, \quad \quad \mbox{(since $\kappa \leq n+|T|$)}\end{aligned}$$ which implies $$\kappa\leq \frac{(n-2)(1+\varepsilon)}{\varepsilon},$$ a contradiction. This completes the proof.
**Remark:** The connectivity condition in the theorem is sharp. Let $n,t$ be two positive integers and $\varepsilon$ be a small constant such that $n+t<\frac{(n-2)(1+\varepsilon)}{\varepsilon}$. Let $G_1 = K_{n+t}$, $G_2 = (t+1)K_1$, and $G_3 = K_{r}$ ($r$ is any positive integer). Define $G = G_1+(G_2 \cup G_3)$, that is, $G$ is a graph obtained by connecting each vertex in $G_1$ to each vertex in $G_2$ and $G_3$. Let $S=V(G_1)$. Then $S$ is a cut set of $G$ and thus $\kappa \leq n+t \leq \frac{(n-2)(1+\varepsilon)}{\varepsilon}$. It is easy to verify that $$t(G) = \frac{|S|}{c(G-S)}=\frac{n+t}{t+2}\geq 1+\varepsilon.$$ However, for any set $R$ of $n$ vertices in $S$, $G-R$ has no perfect matchings. So $G$ is not $n$-factor-critical.\
From Theorem \[tough\], it is easy to see the following.
Let $n,k$ be two positive integers. Let $\varepsilon$ be a positive constant and $G$ be a graph with $t(G)\geq 1+\varepsilon$. If $\kappa(G)>\frac{(2k-2)(1+\varepsilon)}{\varepsilon}$, then $G$ is $k$-extendable.
With the same arguments as in the proof of Corollary \[bind-E(m,n)\], Theorem \[tough\] implies the following.
Let $m,n$ be two positive integers. Let $\varepsilon$ be a positive constant and $G$ be a graph with $t(G)\geq 1+\varepsilon$. If $\kappa(G)>\frac{(2m+2n-2)(1+\varepsilon)}{\varepsilon}$, then $G$ is $E(m,n)$-extendable.
\[sec:ack\] The authors are grateful to an anonymous referee for his/her useful suggestions.
\[sec:biblio\]
[^1]: Supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, No. 11471257 and 11871391.
[^2]: Supported by the Discovery Grant from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and the Shanxi Hundred-Talent Program of Shanxi Province.\
Corresponding email: yu@tru.ca
|
---
abstract: 'The large branching ratios for pure annihilation $\bar{B}_s^0$ $\to$ $\pi^+ \pi^-$ and $\bar{B}_d^0$ $\to$ $K^+ K^-$ decays reported by CDF and LHCb collaborations recently and the so-called ${\pi}K$ and ${\pi}{\pi}$ puzzles indicate that spectator scattering and annihilation contributions are important to the penguin-dominated, color-suppressed tree dominated, and pure annihilation nonleptonic $B$ decays. Combining the available experimental data for $B_{u,d}$ ${\to}$ $\pi \pi$, ${\pi}K$ and $K \bar{K}$ decays, we do a global fit on the spectator scattering and annihilation parameters $X_H({\rho}_H$, ${\phi}_H)$, $X_A^i({\rho}_A^{i},{\phi}_A^{i})$ and $X_A^f({\rho}_A^{f},{\phi}_A^{f})$, which are used to parameterize the endpoint singularity in amplitudes of spectator scattering, nonfactorizable and factorizable annihilation topologies within the QCD factorization framework, in three scenarios for different purpose. Numerically, in scenario II, we get $({\rho}_A^{i},{\phi}_A^{i}[^{\circ}])=(2.88^{+1.52}_{-1.30},-103^{+33}_{-40})$ and $({\rho}_A^{f},{\phi}_A^{f}[^{\circ}])=(1.21^{+0.22}_{-0.25},-40^{+12}_{-8})$ at the $68\%$ confidence level, which are mainly demanded by resolving ${\pi}K$ puzzle and confirm the presupposition that $X_A^i\neq X_A^f$. In addition, correspondingly, the $B$-meson wave function parameter $\lambda_B$ is also fitted to be $0.18^{+0.11}_{-0.08}\, MeV$, which plays an important role for resolving both ${\pi}K$ and $\pi\pi$ puzzles. With the fitted parameters, the QCDF results for observables of $B_{u,d}$ $\to$ $\pi \pi$, $\pi K$ and $K \bar{K}$ decays are in good agreement with experimental measurements. Much more experimental and theoretical efforts are expected to understand the underlying QCD dynamics of spectator scattering and annihilation contributions.'
author:
- Qin Chang
- Junfeng Sun
- Yueling Yang
- Xiaonan Li
title: |
Spectator Scattering and Annihilation Contributions\
as a Solution to the ${\pi}K$ and ${\pi}{\pi}$ Puzzles\
within QCD Factorization Approach
---
Introduction {#sec01}
============
Charmless hadronic $B$-meson decays provide a fertile ground for testing the Standard Model (SM) and exploring the source of $CP$ violation, which attract much attention in the past years. Thanks to the fruitful accomplishment of BABAR and Belle, the constraints on the sides and interior angles of the unitarity triangle significantly reduce the allowed ranges of some of the CKM elements, and many rare $B$ decays are well measured. With the successful running of LHC and the advent of Belle II at SuperKEKB, heavy flavour physics has entered a new exciting era and more $B$ decay modes will be measured precisely soon.
Recently, the evidence of pure annihilation decays $\bar{B}_{s}^{0}$ ${\to}$ ${\pi}^{+}{\pi}^{-}$ and $\bar{B}_{d}^{0}$ ${\to}$ $K^{+}K^{-}$ are firstly reported by CDF Collaboration [@CDFanni], and soon confirmed by LHCb Collaboration [@LHCbanni]. The Heavy Flavor Averaging Group (HFAG) presents their branching ratios [@HFAG] $${\cal B}(\bar{B}_{s}^{0}{\to}{\pi}^{+}{\pi}^{-})
=(0.73{\pm}0.14){\times}10^{-6}
\label{HFAGpipi},$$ $${\cal B}(\bar{B}_{d}^{0}{\to}K^{+}K^{-})
=(0.12{\pm}0.05){\times}10^{-6}
\label{HFAGKK}.$$ Such results, if confirmed, imply unexpectedly large annihilation contributions in $B$ decays and significant flavour symmetry breaking effects between the annihilation amplitudes of $B_{u,d}$ and $B_{s}$ decays, which attract much attention recently, for instance Refs. [@zhu1; @zhu2; @chang1; @xiao1].
Theoretically, as noticed already in Refs. [@pqcd; @relaRef; @du1; @Beneke2], even though the annihilation contributions are formally $\Lambda_{QCD}/m_b$ power suppressed, they are very important and indispensable for charmless $B$ decays. By introducing the parton transverse momentum and the Sudakov factor to regulate the endpoint divergence, there is a large complex annihilation contribution within the perturbative QCD (pQCD) approach [@pqcd; @relaRef]. The latest renewed pQCD estimations ${\cal B}(\bar{B}_s^0 \to \pi^+ \pi^-)$ $=$ $(5.10^{+1.96+0.25+1.05+0.29}_{-1.68-0.19-0.83-0.20}) \times 10^{-7}$ and ${\cal B}(\bar{B}_d^0 \to K^+ K^-)$ $=$ $(1.56^{+0.44+0.23+0.22+0.13}_{-0.42-0.22-0.19-0.09}) \times 10^{-7}$ [@xiao1] give an appropriate account of the CDF and LHCb measurements within uncertainties. In the QCD factorization (QCDF) framework [@Beneke1], the endpoint divergence in annihilation amplitudes is usually parameterized by $X_{A}(\rho_A,\phi_A)$ (see Eq.(\[XA\])). The parameters $\rho_A$ $\sim$ $1$ and $\phi_A$ $\sim$ $-55^{\circ}$ (scenario S4) [@Beneke2] are adopted conservatively in evaluating the amplitudes of $B$ $\to$ $PP$ decays, which lead to the predictions ${\cal B}(\bar{B}_s^0 \to \pi^+ \pi^-)$ $=$ $(0.26^{+0.00+0.10}_{-0.00-0.09}) \times 10^{-6}$ and ${\cal B}(\bar{B}_d^0 \to K^+ K^-)$ $=$ $(0.10^{+0.03+0.03}_{-0.02-0.03}) \times 10^{-6}$ [@Cheng2]. It is obvious that the QCDF prediction of ${\cal B}(\bar{B}_d^0 \to K^+ K^-)$ agrees well with the data Eq.(\[HFAGKK\]), but the one of ${\cal B}(\bar{B}_s^0 \to \pi^+ \pi^-)$ is much smaller than the present experimental measurement Eq.(\[HFAGpipi\]). This discrepancy kindles the passions of restudy on annihilation contributions [@zhu1; @zhu2; @chang1].
At present, there are two major issues among the well-concerning focus on the annihilation contributions within the QCDF framework, one is whether $X_A(\rho_A,\phi_A)$ is universal for $B$ decays, and the other is what its value should be. As to the first issue, there is no an imperative reason for the annihilation parameters $\rho_A$ and $\phi_A$ to be the same for different $B_{u,d,s}$ decays, even for different annihilation topologies, although they were usually taken to be universal in the previous numerical calculation for simplicity [@du1; @Beneke2]. Phenomenologically, it is almost impossible to account for all of the well-measured two-body charmless $B$ decays with the universal values of $\rho_A$ and $\phi_A$ based on the QCDF approach [@zhu2; @chang1; @Beneke2; @Cheng2]. In addition, the pQCD study on $B$ meson decays also indicate that the annihilation parameters $\rho_A$ and $\phi_A$ should be process-dependent. In fact, in the practical QCDF application to the $B$ ${\to}$ $PP$, $PV$ decays (where $P$ and $V$ denote the light pseudoscalar and vector $SU(3)$ meson nonet, respectively), the non-universal values of annihilation phase $\phi_A$ with respect to PP and PV final states are favored (scenario S4) [@Beneke2]; the process-dependent values of $\rho_A$ and $\phi_A$ are given based on an educated guess [@Cheng2; @Cheng1] or the comparison with the updated measurements [@chang1]; the flavour-dependent values of $\rho_A$ and $\phi_A$ are suggested recently in the nonfactorizable annihilation contributions [@zhu2]. In principle the value of $\rho_A$ and $\phi_A$ should differ from each other for different topologies with different flavours, but we hope that the QCDF approach can accommodate and predict much more hadronic $B$ decays with less input parameters. So much attention in phenomenological analysis on the weak annihilation $B$ decays is devoted to what the appropriate values of the parameters $\rho_A$ and $\phi_A$ should be. This is the second issue. In principle, a large value of $\rho_A$ is unexpected by the power counting rules and the self-consistency validation within the QCDF framework. The original proposal is that $\rho_A$ ${\leq}$ $1$ and an arbitrary strong interaction phase $\phi_A$ are universal for all decay processes, and that a fine-tuning of the phase $\phi_A$ is required to be reconciled with experimental data when $\rho_A$ is significantly larger than 1 [@Beneke2]. The recent study on the annihilation contributions show that $\rho_A$ $>$ $2$ and ${\vert}\phi_A{\vert}$ $\geq$ $30^{\circ}$ are acceptable, even necessary, to reproduce the data for some two-body nonleptonic $B_{u,d,s}$ decay modes [@zhu2; @chang1]. In this paper, we will perform a fitting on the parameters $\rho_A$ and $\phi_A$ by considering $B$ ${\to}$ ${\pi}{\pi}$, ${\pi}K$ and $K \bar{K}$ decay modes, on one hand, to investigate the strength of annihilation contribution, on the other hand, to study their effects on the anomalies in $B$ physics, such as the well-known ${\pi}K$ and ${\pi}{\pi}$ puzzles.
The so-called ${\pi}K$ puzzle is reflected by the difference between the direct $CP$ asymmetries for $B^{-}$ ${\to}$ $K^{-}\pi^{0}$ and $\bar{B}^{0}$ ${\to}$ $K^{-}\pi^{+}$ decays. With the up-to-date HFAG results [@HFAG], we get $$\Delta A \equiv A_{CP}(B^{-} {\to} K^{-} {\pi}^{0})
- A_{CP}(\bar{B}^{0} \to K^{-} \pi^{+})
= (12.2 \pm 2.2) \%
\label{acppi},$$ which differs from zero by about $5.5\sigma$. However, the direct $CP$ asymmetries of $A_{CP}(B^{-} \to K^{-} \pi^{0})$ and $A_{CP}(\bar{B}^{0} \to K^{-} \pi^{+})$ are expected to be approximately equal with the isospin symmetry in the SM, numerically for instance $\Delta A \sim 0.5 \%$ in the S4 scenario of QCDF [@Beneke2].
The so-called ${\pi}{\pi}$ puzzle is reflected by the following two ratios of the $CP$-averaged branching fractions [@pipipuz]: $$R_{+-}^{\pi \pi}
\equiv 2 \Big[
\frac{ {\cal B}(B^{-} \to \pi^{-} \pi^0) }
{ {\cal B}(\bar{B}^{0} \to \pi^{+} \pi^{-}) }
\Big]
\frac{ \tau_{B^0} }{ \tau_{B^+} },
\qquad
R_{00}^{\pi \pi}
\equiv 2 \Big[
\frac{ {\cal B}( \bar{B}^{0} \to \pi^0 \pi^0) }
{ {\cal B}( \bar{B}^{0} \to \pi^{+} \pi^{-}) }\Big]
\label{pipipuzzle}.$$ It is generally expected that branching ratio ${\cal B}(\bar{B}^{0} \to \pi^+ \pi^-) \gtrsim
{\cal B}(B^{-} \to \pi^{-} \pi^0)$ and ${\cal B}(\bar{B}^{0} \to \pi^+ \pi^-) \gg
{\cal B}(\bar{B}^{0} \to \pi^0 \pi^0)$ within the SM. To date, the agreement of $R_{+-}^{\pi \pi}$ between the S4 scenario QCDF $R_{+-}^{\pi \pi}(\text{QCDF})$ $=$ $1.83$ [@Beneke2] and the refined experimental data $R_{+-}^{\pi \pi}(\text{Exp.})$ $=$ $1.99 \pm 0.15$ [@HFAG] can be achieved consistently within experimental error, while the discrepancy in $R_{00}^{\pi \pi}$ between the S4 scenario QCDF $R_{00}^{\pi \pi}(\text{QCDF})$ $=$ $0.27$ (where theoretical uncertainties are unenclosed) [@Beneke2] and the progressive experimental data $R_{+-}^{\pi \pi}(\text{Exp.})$ $=$ $1.99 \pm 0.15$ [@HFAG] is unexpectedly large.
It is claimed [@pipipuz] that the so-called ${\pi}{\pi}$ puzzle could be accommodated by the nonfactorizable contributions in SM. It is argued [@Cheng1; @pipipuz] that to solve the so-called ${\pi}K$ puzzle, a large complex color-suppressed tree amplitude $C^{\prime}$ or a large complex electroweak penguin contribution $P_{\rm EW}^{\prime}$ or a combination of them are essential. An enhanced complex $P_{\rm EW}^{\prime}$ with a nontrivial strong phase can be obtained from new physics effects [@pipipuz]. To get a large complex $C^{\prime}$, one can resort to spectator scattering and final state interactions [@Cheng1; @Cheng2]. Recently, the annihilation amplitudes with large parameters $\rho_A$ is suggested to conciliate the recent measurements Eq.(\[HFAGpipi\]) and Eq.(\[HFAGKK\]), so surprisingly, the ${\pi}K$ puzzle is also resolved simultaneously [@zhu2]. Theoretically, the power corrections, such as spectator scattering at the twist-3 order and annihilation amplitudes, are important to account for the large branching ratios and $CP$ asymmetries of penguin-dominated and/or color-suppressed tree-dominated $B$ decays. So, before claiming a new physics signal, it is essential to examine whether power corrections could retrieve “problematic” deviations from the SM expectations. Interestingly, our study show that with appropriate parameters, the annihilation and spectator scattering contributions could provide some possible solutions to the $\pi K$ and $\pi \pi$ puzzles.
Our paper is organized as following. In section \[sec02\], we give a brief overview of the hard spectator and annihilation calculations and recent studies within QCDF. In section \[sec03\], focusing on $\pi K$ and $\pi \pi$ puzzles, the effects of spectator scattering and annihilation contributions on $B$ $\to$ $\pi \pi$, $\pi K$ and $K \bar{K}$ decays are studied in detail in blue[three]{} scenarios. In each scenario, a fitting on relevant parameters are performed. Our conclusions are summarized in section \[sec04\]. Appendix \[app01\] recapitulates the building blocks of annihilation and spectator scattering amplitudes. The input parameters and our fitting approach are given in Appendix \[app02\] and \[app03\], respectively.
Brief Review of Spectator Scattering and Annihilation Amplitudes within QCDF {#sec02}
============================================================================
The effective Hamiltonian for nonleptonic $B$ weak decays is [@Buchalla:1996vs] $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal H}_{\rm eff} &=&
\frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}
\sum\limits_{p,q}
V_{pb} V_{pq}^{\ast}
\Big\{
\sum\limits_{i=1}^{10}
C_i O_i + C_{7 \gamma} O_{7 \gamma}
+ C_{8g} O_{8g} \Big\}
+ {\rm h.c.}
\label{eq:eff},
\end{aligned}$$ where $V_{pb} V_{pq}^{\ast}$ ($p$ $=$ $u$, $c$ and $q$ $=$ $d$, $s$) is the product of the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix elements; $C_{i}$ is the Wilson coefficient corresponding to the local four-quark operator $O_i$; $O_{7 \gamma}$ and $O_{8g}$ are the electromagnetic and chromomagnetic dipole operators.
\
With the effective Hamiltonian Eq.(\[eq:eff\]), the QCDF method has been fully developed and extensively employed to calculate the hadronic two-body $B$ decays, for example, see [@du1; @Beneke1; @Beneke2; @Cheng2]. The spectator scattering and annihilation amplitudes (see Fig.\[diag\]) are expressed as the convolution of scattering functions with the light-cone wave functions of the participating mesons [@Beneke1; @Beneke2]. The explicit expressions for the basic building blocks of spectator scattering and annihilation amplitudes have been given by Ref. [@Beneke2], which are also listed in the appendix \[app01\] for convenience. With the asymptotic light-cone distribution amplitudes, the building blocks for annihilation amplitudes of Eq.(\[ai1\]-\[af3\]) could be simplified as [@Beneke2] $$\begin{aligned}
A_1^i & \simeq & A_2^i \simeq
2 \pi \alpha_s \Big[ 9\,\Big( X_A - 4 + \frac{\pi^2}{3} \Big)
+ r_\chi^{M_1} r_\chi^{M_2} X_A^2 \Big]
\label{xai12}, \\
A_3^i & \simeq &
6 \pi \alpha_s \big(r_\chi^{M_1} - r_\chi^{M_2} \big)
\Big( X_A^2 - 2 X_A + \frac{\pi^2}{3} \Big)
\label{xai3}, \\
A_3^f & \simeq &
6 \pi \alpha_s ( r_\chi^{M_1} + r_\chi^{M_2} )
(2 X_A^2 - X_A)
\label{xaf3},
\end{aligned}$$ where the superscripts $i$ (or $f$) refers to gluon emission from the initial (or final) state quarks, respectively (see Fig.\[diag\]). For the $\pi \pi$, $\pi K$ and $K \bar{K}$ final-state, $A_3^i$ is numerically negligible due to $r_\chi^{M_1}$ $\simeq$ $r_\chi^{M_2}$. The model-dependent parameter $X_A$ is used to estimate the endpoint contributions, and expressed as $$\int_0^1 \frac{dx}{x} \to
X_A = (1+ \rho_A e^{i\phi_A})
\ln \frac{m_B}{\Lambda_h}
\label{XA},$$ where $\Lambda_h$ $=$ $0.5$ GeV. For spectator scattering contributions, the calculation of twist-3 distribution amplitudes also suffers from endpoint divergence, which is usually dealt with the same manner as Eq.(\[XA\]) and labelled by $X_H$ [@Beneke2]. Moreover, a quantity $\lambda_B$ is used to parameterize our ignorance about $B$-meson distribution amplitude \[see Eq.(\[hardblock\])\] through [@Beneke2] $$\int_0^1 \frac{ d \xi }{\xi} \Phi_B(\xi)
\ \equiv \ \frac{m_B}{\lambda_B}
\label{lamdef}.$$
The QCDF approach itself cannot give information or/and constraint on the phenomenological parameters of $X_A$, $X_H$ and ${\lambda_B}$. These parameters should be determined from experimental data. To conform with measurements of nonleptonic $B$ ${\to}$ $PP$ decays, we will adopt a similar method used in Ref.[@zhu2] to deal with the contributions from weak annihilation and spectator scattering. Focusing on the flavor dependence, without consideration of theoretical uncertainties, annihilation contributions are reevaluated in detail [@zhu2] to explain the ${\pi}K$ puzzle and the recent measurements on pure annihilation decays $\bar{B}_{s}^{0}$ ${\to}$ ${\pi}^{+}{\pi}^{-}$ and $\bar{B}_{d}^{0}$ ${\to}$ $K^{+}K^{-}$ \[see Eq.(\[HFAGpipi\],\[HFAGKK\])\]. The authors of Ref. [@zhu2] find that the flavour symmetry breaking effects should be carefully considered for $B_{u,d,s}$ decays, and suggest that the parameters of $\rho_A$ and $\phi_A$ in nonfactorizable annihilation topologies $A^{i}_{k}$ \[see Eq.(\[xai12\],\[xai3\])\] should be different from those in factorizable annihilation topologies $A^{f}_{k}$ \[see Eq.(\[xaf3\])\]. (1) For factorizable annihilation topologies, i.e., the gluon emission from the final states Fig.\[diag\](c,d), the flavor symmetry breaking effects are embodied in the decay constants, because the asymptotic light-cone distribution amplitudes of final states are the same. In addition, all decay constants have been factorized outside from the hadronic matrix elements of factorizable annihilation topologies. So $A^{f}_k$ is independent of the initial state, and is the same for $B_{u,d,s}$ annihilation decays to two light pseudoscalar mesons, that is to say, $\rho^f_A$ and $\phi^f_A$ should be universal for $B_{u,d,s}$ $\to$ $PP$ decays. (2) For nonfactorizable annihilation topologies, i.e., the gluon emission from the initial $B$ meson Fig.\[diag\](a,b), besides the factorized decay constants and the same asymptotic light-cone distribution amplitudes, $B$ meson wave functions $\Phi_{B}(\xi)$ are involved in the convolution integrals of hadronic matrix elements. Hence, $A^{i}_k$ should depend on the initial state and be different for $B_{u,d}$ from $B_{s}$ meosn due to flavor symmetry breaking effects, i.e., parameters of $\rho^i_A$ and $\phi^i_A$ should be non-universal for $B_s$ and $B_{u,d}$ meson decays, and be different from parameters of $\rho^f_A$ and $\phi^f_A$ for $A^{f}_k$. In fact, the symmetry breaking effects have been considered in pervious QCDF study on two-body hadronic $B$ decays [@Cheng1; @Cheng2; @Cheng3; @Beneke2; @chang1], but with parameters of $\rho^f_A$ $=$ $\rho^i_A$ and $\phi^f_A$ $=$ $\phi^i_A$. So, it is essential to systematically reevaluate factorizable and nonfactorizable annihilation contributions and preform a global fit on the annihilation parameters with the current available experimental data. In this paper, we will pay much attention to $B_{u,d}$ ${\to}$ $KK$, ${\pi}K$, ${\pi}{\pi}$ decays and the aforementioned ${\pi}K$, ${\pi}{\pi}$ puzzles with a distinction between ($\rho^f_A$, $\phi^f_A$) and ($\rho^i_A$, $\phi^i_A$), i.e., $X_A^i$ $\neq$ $X_A^f$.
As aforesaid [@Cheng1; @pipipuz], the nonfactorizable spectator scattering amplitudes contribute to a large complex $C^{\prime}$, which is important to resolve the ${\pi}K$, ${\pi}{\pi}$ puzzles. From the building block Eq.(\[hardblock\]), it can be easily seen that $B$ meson wave functions $\Phi_{B}(\xi)$ appear in the spectator scattering amplitudes. Therefore, the symmetry breaking effects should also be considered for the quantity $X_H$ that is introduced to parameterize the endpoint singularity in the twist-3 level spectator scattering corrections. Similar to $X_A^i$, the quantity $X_H$ is related to the topologies that gluon emit from the initial $B$ meson. So, for simplicity, the approximation $X_H$ $=$ $X_A^i$ is assumed in our coming numerical evaluation (scenarios I and II, see the next section for detail). Of course, this approximation is neither based on solid ground or from some underlying principle, and should be carefully studied and deserve much research. In fact, our coming phenomenological study (scenarios III) shows that the approximation $X_H$ $=$ $X_A^i$ is allowable with the up-to-date measurement on $B_{u,d}$ ${\to}$ $KK$, ${\pi}K$, ${\pi}{\pi}$ decays. In addition, it can be seen from Eq.(\[hardblock\]) that the spectator scattering corrections depend strongly on the inverse moment parameter ${\lambda}_{B}$ given in Eq.(\[lamdef\]). Recently, the value of ${\lambda}_{B}$ is an increasing concern of theoretical and experimental physicists [@Beneke5; @Beneke4; @Braun; @BaBarBA1; @BaBarBA2; @lambda]. A scrutiny of parameter ${\lambda}_{B}$ becomes imperative. In this paper, we will give some information on ${\lambda}_{B}$ required by present experimental data of $B_{u,d}$ ${\to}$ $K \bar{K}$, ${\pi}K$, ${\pi}{\pi}$ decays.
numerical analysis and discussions {#sec03}
==================================
With the conventions in Ref. [@Beneke2], the decay amplitudes for $B_{u,d}$ ${\to}$ $\pi K$, $K \bar{K}$, $\pi \pi $ decays within the QCDF framework can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% B- -> pi- k0
{\cal A}_{ B^- \to \pi^- \bar{K}^0 }
&=&
\sum\limits_{p=u,c} V_{pb}V_{ps}^{\ast}
A_{ \pi K }
\Big\{ \alpha_{4}^{p} - \frac{1}{2} \alpha_{4,{\rm EW}}^{p}
+ {\delta}_{pu} \beta_{2} + \beta_{3}^{p} +
\beta_{3,{\rm EW}}^{p} \Big\}
\label{bm2pimkz}, \\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% B- -> piz k-
\sqrt{2} {\cal A}_{ B^- \to \pi^0 K^- }
&=&
\sum\limits_{p=u,c} V_{pb}V_{ps}^{\ast}
\Big\{ A_{ \pi K} \Big[ \delta_{pu} ( \alpha_1 + \beta_2 )
+ \alpha_4^p + \alpha_{4,{\rm EW}}^p + \beta_3^p
+ \beta_{3,{\rm EW}}^p \Big]
\nonumber \\
& & + A_{ K \pi } \Big[ \delta_{pu} \alpha_2
+ \frac{3}{2} \alpha_{3,{\rm EW}}^p \Big] \Big\}
\label{amp2}, \\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% B0 -> pi+ k-
{\cal A}_{ \bar{B}^0 \to \pi^+ K^- }
&=& \sum\limits_{p=u,c} V_{pb}V_{ps}^{\ast}
A_{ \pi K} \Big\{ \delta_{pu} \alpha_1
+ \alpha_4^p + \alpha_{4,{\rm EW}}^p
+ \beta_3^p - \frac{1}{2} \beta_{3,{\rm EW}}^p
\Big\}
\label{amp3}, \\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% B0 -> pi0 k0
\sqrt{2} {\cal A}_{ \bar{B}^0 \to \pi^0 \bar{K}^0 }
&=&
\sum\limits_{p=u,c} V_{pb}V_{ps}^{\ast}
\Big\{ A_{ \pi K} \Big[ - \alpha_4^p
+ \frac{1}{2} \alpha_{4,{\rm EW}}^p - \beta_3^p
+ \frac{1}{2} \beta_{3,{\rm EW}}^p \Big]
\nonumber \\
& & + A_{ K \pi } \Big[ \delta_{pu} \alpha_2
+ \frac{3}{2} \alpha_{3,{\rm EW}}^p \Big] \Big\}
\label{b02pi0k0}, \\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% B- -> k- k0
{\cal A}_{ B^- \to K^0 \bar{K}^0 }
&=& \sum\limits_{p=u,c} V_{pb}V_{pd}^{\ast}
A_{ K K} \Big\{ \alpha_4^p
- \frac{1}{2} \alpha_{4,{\rm EW}}^p
+ \delta_{pu} \beta_2 + \beta_{3}^{p}
+ \beta_{3,{\rm EW}}^p \Big\}
\label{bm2kk}, \\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% B0 -> k+ k-
{\cal A}_{ \bar{B}^0 \to K^- K^+}
&=& \sum\limits_{p=u,c} V_{pb}V_{pd}^{\ast}
\Big\{ B_{ \bar{K} K} \Big[ \delta_{pu} b_1 + b_4^p
+ b_{4,{\rm EW}}^p \Big] + B_{ K \bar{K} } \Big[
b_4^p - \frac{1}{2} b_{4,{\rm EW}}^p \Big] \Big\}
\label{amp4}, \\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% B0 -> k0 k0
{\cal A}_{ \bar{B}^0 \to \bar{K}^0 K^0}
&=& \sum\limits_{p=u,c} V_{pb}V_{pd}^{\ast}
\Big\{ A_{ \bar{K} K} \Big[ \alpha_4^p
- \frac{1}{2} \alpha_{4,{\rm EW}}^p + \beta_3^p
+ \beta_4^p - \frac{1}{2} \beta_{3,{\rm EW}}^p
- \frac{1}{2} \beta_{4,{\rm EW}}^p \Big]
\nonumber \\ & &
+ B_{ K \bar{K} } \Big[
b_4^p - \frac{1}{2} b_{4,{\rm EW}}^p \Big] \Big\}
\label{b02kzkz}, \\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% B- -> pi- pi0
\sqrt{2} {\cal A}_{ B^- \to \pi^- \pi^0 }
&=& \sum\limits_{p=u,c} V_{pb}V_{pd}^{\ast}
A_{ \pi \pi }
\Big\{ \delta_{pu} ( \alpha_1 + \alpha_2 )
+ \frac{3}{2} ( \alpha_{3,{\rm EW}}^p
+ \alpha_{4,{\rm EW}}^p) \Big\}
\label{amp5}, \\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% B0 -> pi+ pi-
{\cal A}_{ \bar{B}^0 \to \pi^+ \pi^- }
&=& \sum\limits_{p=u,c} V_{pb}V_{pd}^{\ast}
A_{ \pi \pi }
\Big\{ \delta_{pu} ( \alpha_1 + \beta_1 )
+ \alpha_{4}^p + \alpha_{4,{\rm EW}}^p
+ \beta_3^p + 2 \beta_4^p
\nonumber \\ & &
- \frac{1}{2} \beta_{3,{\rm EW}}^p
+ \frac{1}{2} \beta_{4,{\rm EW}}^p \Big\}
\label{amp6}, \\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% B0 -> pi0 pi0
-{\cal A}_{ \bar{B}^0 \to \pi^0 \pi^0 }
&=& \sum\limits_{p=u,c} V_{pb}V_{pd}^{\ast}
A_{ \pi \pi } \Big\{ \delta_{pu} ( \alpha_2 - \beta_1 )
- \alpha_{4}^p + \frac{3}{2}\alpha_{3,{\rm EW}}^p
+ \frac{1}{2} \alpha_{4,{\rm EW}}^p
\nonumber \\ & &
- \beta_3^p -2 \beta_4^p
+ \frac{1}{2} \beta_{3,{\rm EW}}^p
- \frac{1}{2} \beta_{4,{\rm EW}}^p) \Big\}
\label{amp7}.
\end{aligned}$$
For the sake for convenient discussion, we reiterate the expressions of the annihilation coefficients [@Beneke2], $$\begin{aligned}
{\beta}_{i}^{p} &=& b_{i}^{p} B_{M_{1}M_{2}}/A_{M_{1}M_{2}}
\label{betai}, \\
b_{1} &=&
\frac{C_{F}}{N_{c}^{2}}\, C_{1} A_{1}^{i},
\quad \quad \quad
b_{2} =
\frac{C_{F}}{N_{c}^{2}}\, C_{2} A_{1}^{i}
\label{b12}, \\
b_{3}^{p} &=&
\frac{C_{F}}{N_{c}^{2}}\,
\Big[ C_{3} A_{1}^{i} + C_{5}( A_{3}^{i} + A_{3}^{f} )
+N_{c} C_{6} A_{3}^{f} \Big]
\label{b3}, \\
b_{4}^{p} &=&
\frac{C_{F}}{N_{c}^{2}}\,
\Big[ C_{4} A_{1}^{i} + C_6 A_2^i \Big]
\label{b4}, \\
b_{3,\rm EW}^p &=&
\frac{C_{F}}{N_{c}^{2}}\,
\Big[ C_9 A_1^i + C_7 ( A_3^i + A_3^f )
+ N_c C_8 A_3^f \Big]
\label{b3ew}, \\
b_{4,\rm EW}^p &=&
\frac{C_{F}}{N_{c}^{2}}\,
\Big[ C_{10} A_1^i + C_8 A_2^i \Big]
\label{b4ew}.
\end{aligned}$$
Numerically, coefficients of $b_{3,\rm EW}^p$ and $b_{4,\rm EW}^p$ are negligible compared with the other effective coefficients due to the small electroweak Wilson coefficients, and so their effects would be not discussed in this paper.
In order to illustrate the contributions of annihilation and spectator scattering, we explore three parameter scenarios in which certain parameters are changed freely.
- Scenario I: $B_{u,d}$ ${\to}$ $\pi K$ and $K \bar{K}$ decays, including the $\pi K$ puzzle and pure annihilation decay $B_{d}$ $\to$ $K^- K^+$, are studied in detail. Combining the latest experimental data on the $CP$-averaged branching ratios, direct and mixing-induced $CP$-asymmetries, total 14 observables (see Table.\[pikbr\], \[pikdcp\], \[pikmcp\]) for seven $B_{u,d}$ ${\to}$ $\pi K$, $K \bar{K}$ decay modes \[see Eq.(\[bm2pimkz\]—\[b02kzkz\])\], the fit on four parameters ($\rho^f_A$, $\phi^f_A$) and ($\rho^i_A$, $\phi^i_A$) is performed with the fixed value $\lambda_B$ $=$ 0.2 GeV and the approximation ($\rho_H$, $\phi_H$) = ($\rho^i_A$, $\phi^i_A$), where ($\rho^f_A$, $\phi^f_A$), ($\rho^i_A$, $\phi^i_A$) and ($\rho_H$, $\phi_H$) are assumed to be universal for factorizable annihilation amplitudes, nonfactorizable annihilation amplitudes and spectator scattering corrections, respectively.
- Scenario II: $B_{u,d}$ ${\to}$ $\pi K$, $K \bar{K}$ and $\pi \pi$ decays, including $\pi \pi$ puzzle, are studied. Combining the latest experimental data on the $CP$-averaged branching ratios, direct and mixing-induced $CP$-asymmetries, total 21 observables (see Table.\[pikbr\], \[pikdcp\], \[pikmcp\]) for ten $B_{u,d}$ ${\to}$ $\pi K$, $K \bar{K}$, $\pi \pi$ decay modes \[see Eq.(\[bm2pimkz\]—\[amp7\])\], the fit on five parameters ($\rho^f_A$, $\phi^f_A$), ($\rho^i_A$, $\phi^i_A$) and $\lambda_B$ is performed with the approximation ($\rho_H$, $\phi_H$) = ($\rho^i_A$, $\phi^i_A$).
- Scenario III: As a general scenario, to clarify the relative strength among ($\rho^f_A$, $\phi^f_A$), ($\rho^i_A$, $\phi^i_A$) and ($\rho_H$, $\phi_H$), and check whether the approximation ($\rho_H$, $\phi_H$) = ($\rho^i_A$, $\phi^i_A$) is allowed or not, a fit on such six free parameters is performed.
Other input parameters used in our evaluation are summarized in Appendix \[app02\]. Our fit approach is illustrated in detail in Appendix \[app03\].
Scenario I {#sec0301}
----------
Comparing Eq.(\[amp2\]) with Eq.(\[amp3\]), it can be clearly seen that $\sqrt{2} {\cal A}_{ B^- \to \pi^0 K^-}$ $\simeq$ ${\cal A}_{ \bar{B}^0 \to \pi^+ K^-}$ if $\delta_{pu} \alpha_2$ $+$ $\frac{3}{2} \alpha_{3,{\rm EW}}^p$ is negligible compared with $\delta_{pu} \alpha_1$ $+$ $\alpha_4^p$. Hence it is expected $\Delta A$ $\simeq$ 0 in SM, which significantly disagrees with the current experimental data in Eq.(\[acppi\]), this is the so-called $\pi K$ puzzle. To resolve the $\pi K$ puzzle, one possible solution is that there is a large complex contributions from $\delta_{pu} \alpha_2$ $+$ $\frac{3}{2} \alpha_{3,{\rm EW}}^p$. Many proposals have been offered, such as the enhancement of color-suppressed tree amplitude $\alpha_2$ in Ref.[@Cheng1], significant new physics corrections to the electroweak penguin coefficient $\alpha_{3,{\rm EW}}^p$ in Ref.[@pipipuz], and so on. Indeed, it has been shown [@Beneke2] that the coefficients $\alpha_2$ and $\alpha_{3,{\rm EW}}^p$ are seriously affected by spectator scattering corrections within QCDF framework. Consequently, the nonfactorizable spectator scattering parameters $X_H$ or ($\rho_H$, $\phi_H$) will have great influence on the observable $\Delta A$. Furthermore, a scrutiny of difference between Eq.(\[amp2\]) and Eq.(\[amp3\]), another possible resolution to the $\pi K$ puzzle might be provided by annihilation contributions, such as coefficient $\beta_2$, as suggested in Ref.[@zhu2]. If so, then $\Delta A$ will depend strongly on the nonfactorizable annihilation parameters ($\rho_A^i$, $\phi_A^i$) because $\beta_2$ is proportional to $A_1^i$ in Eq.(\[b12\]). Additionally, it can be seen from Eq.(\[amp2\]) and Eq.(\[amp3\]) that annihilation coefficient $\beta_3^p$ contributes to amplitudes both ${\cal A}_{ B^- \to \pi^0 K^-}$ and ${\cal A}_{ \bar{B}^0 \to \pi^+ K^-}$. If $\beta_3^p$ could offer a large strong phase, then its effect should contribute to the direct $CP$ asymmetries $A_{CP}(B^- \to \pi^0 K^-)$ and $A_{CP}(\bar{B}^0 \to \pi^+ K^-)$ rather than $\Delta A$. Due to the fact that the lion’s share of $\beta_3^p$ comes from $N_{c} C_6 A_3^f$ in Eq.(\[b3\]), the direct $CP$ asymmetries $A_{CP}(B^- \to \pi^0 K^-)$ and $A_{CP}(\bar{B}^0 \to \pi^+ K^-)$ should vary greatly with the factorizable annihilation parameters $X_A^f$, while $\Delta A$ should be insensitive to variation of parameters ($\rho_A^f$, $\phi_A^f$). The above analysis and speculations are confirmed by Fig.\[cpanni\].
From Eq.(\[amp4\]), it is seen that the amplitude ${\cal A}_{ \bar{B}^0 \to K^- K^+}$ depends heavily on coefficients $\beta_1$ and $\beta_4^p$, which are closely associated with the nonfactorizable annihilation parameter $X_A^i$ only. The factorizable annihilation contributions vanish due to the isospin symmetry, which is consistent with the pQCD calculation [@xiao1]. The large branching ratio Eq.(\[HFAGKK\]) would appeal for large nonfactorizable annihilation parameter $X_A^i$ or $\rho_A^i$. The dependence of branching ratio ${\cal B}(\bar{B}^0 \to K^- K^+)$ on the parameters ($\rho_A^i$, $\phi_A^i$) is displayed in Fig.\[branni\].
![The dependence of branching ratio ${\cal B}(\bar{B}^0 \to K^- K^+)$ on nonfactorizable annihilation parameters ($\rho_A^i$, $\phi_A^{i}$). The notes are the same as Fig.\[cpanni\].[]{data-label="branni"}](kkphi.pdf){width="40.00000%"}
$\rho_H$ $=$ $\rho_A^i$ $\phi_H$ $=$ $\phi_A^i\,[^{\circ}]$ $\rho_A^f$ $\phi_A^f[^{\circ}]$
-------- ------------------------- ------------------------------------- ------------------------ ----------------------
Part A $2.82^{+2.73}_{-1.15}$ $-108^{+44}_{-50}$ $1.07^{+0.30}_{-0.20}$ $-40^{+10}_{-11}$
Part B $2.86^{+2.68}_{-1.20}$ $-108^{+42}_{-51}$ $2.72^{+0.30}_{-0.22}$ $166^{+3}_{-4}$
: Numerical results of annihilation parameters in scenario I.[]{data-label="pikfit"}
Exp. [@HFAG] scenario I scenario II S4 [@Beneke2]
--------------------------------- ------------------------- ----------------------------------- ----------------------------------- ---------------
$B^- \to \pi^- \bar{K}^0$ $23.79 \pm 0.75$ $20.53^{+1.52+4.28}_{-0.65-3.87}$ $21.54^{+1.60+4.40}_{-0.68-3.99}$ $20.3$
$B^- \to \pi^0 K^-$ $12.94^{+0.52}_{-0.51}$ $11.29^{+0.88+2.14}_{-0.45-1.96}$ $11.78^{+0.92+2.20}_{-0.47-2.01}$ $11.7$
$\bar{B}^0 \to \pi^+ K^-$ $19.57^{+0.53}_{-0.52}$ $17.54^{+1.34+3.61}_{-0.65-3.27}$ $18.51^{+1.41+3.73}_{-0.67-3.38}$ $18.4$
$\bar{B}^0 \to \pi^0 \bar{K}^0$ $9.93 \pm 0.49$ $8.05^{+0.60+1.84}_{-0.27-1.65}$ $8.60^{+0.65+1.90}_{-0.29-1.72}$ $8.0$
$B^- \to K^- K^0$ $1.19 \pm 0.18$ $1.45^{+0.13+0.32}_{-0.09-0.29}$ $1.51^{+0.13+0.32}_{-0.09-0.29}$ $1.46$
$\bar{B}^0 \to K^- K^+$ $0.12 \pm 0.05$ $0.13^{+0.01+0.02}_{-0.01-0.02}$ $0.15^{+0.02+0.02}_{-0.01-0.02}$ $0.07$
$\bar{B}^0 \to K^0 \bar{K}^0$ $1.21 \pm 0.16$ $1.22^{+0.11+0.27}_{-0.08-0.24}$ $1.32^{+0.12+0.27}_{-0.08-0.25}$ $1.58$
$B^- \to \pi^- \pi^0$ $5.48^{+0.35}_{-0.34}$ $5.20^{+0.64+1.11}_{-0.47-1.00}$ $5.59^{+0.68+1.15}_{-0.51-1.04}$ $5.1$
$\bar{B}^0 \to \pi^+ \pi^-$ $5.10 \pm 0.19$ $5.88^{+0.66+1.66}_{-0.49-1.45}$ $5.74^{+0.64+1.63}_{-0.47-1.42}$ $5.2$
$\bar{B}^0 \to \pi^0 \pi^0$ $1.91^{+0.22}_{-0.23}$ $1.67^{+0.22+0.25}_{-0.19-0.23}$ $2.13^{+0.29+0.32}_{-0.24-0.29}$ $0.7$
$R_{+-}^{\pi \pi}$ $1.99 \pm 0.15$ $1.64^{+0.06+0.13}_{-0.06-0.11}$ $1.80^{+0.07+0.17}_{-0.07-0.13}$ $1.82$
$R_{00}^{\pi \pi}$ $0.75 \pm 0.09$ $0.57^{+0.06+0.16}_{-0.06-0.12}$ $0.74^{+0.08+0.22}_{-0.08-0.17}$ $0.27$
: The CP-averaged branching ratios (in units of $10^{-6}$) of $B$ ${\to}$ $\pi K$, $K \bar{K}$, $\pi \pi$ decays. For the Part A results of scenario I and II, the first and second theoretical uncertainties are caused by the CKM and other input parameters, respectively.[]{data-label="pikbr"}
Exp. [@HFAG] scenario I scenario II S4 [@Beneke2]
--------------------------------- ---------------- ----------------------------------- ----------------------------------- ---------------
$B^- \to \pi^- \bar{K}^0$ $-1.5 \pm 1.9$ $-0.05^{+0.00+0.13}_{-0.00-0.15}$ $-0.17^{+0.01+0.14}_{-0.01-0.15}$ $0.3$
$B^- \to \pi^0 K^-$ $4.0 \pm 2.1$ $3.2^{+0.2+0.6}_{-0.2-0.6}$ $2.5^{+0.1+0.6}_{-0.1-0.6}$ $-3.6$
$\bar{B}^0 \to \pi^+ K^-$ $-8.2 \pm 0.6$ $-7.7^{+0.4+0.9}_{-0.4-0.9}$ $-9.1^{+0.4+0.9}_{-0.5-0.9}$ $-4.1$
$\bar{B}^0 \to \pi^0 \bar{K}^0$ $-1 \pm 10$ $-10.3^{+0.6+0.9}_{-0.6-1.0}$ $-10.6^{+0.6+0.9}_{-0.6-0.9}$ $0.8$
$\Delta A$ $12.2 \pm 2.2$ $10.9^{+0.6+0.9}_{-0.5-0.8}$ $11.6^{+0.6+0.9}_{-0.6-0.8}$ $0.5$
$B^- \to K^- K^0$ $3.9 \pm 14.1$ $-0.6^{+0.0+3.2}_{-0.0-2.9}$ $2.0^{+0.1+3.4}_{-0.1-3.0}$ $-4.3$
$\bar{B}^0 \to K^0 \bar{K}^0$ $-6 \pm 26$ $-17^{+1+2}_{-1-2}$ $-16^{+1+2}_{-1-2}$ $-11.5$
$B^- \to \pi^- \pi^0$ $2.6 \pm 3.9$ $-1.1^{+0.1+0.1}_{-0.1-0.1}$ $-1.2^{+0.1+0.1}_{-0.1-0.1}$ $-0.02$
$\bar{B}^0 \to \pi^+ \pi^-$ $29 \pm 5$ $19^{+1+4}_{-1-4}$ $24^{+2+5}_{-2-4}$ $10.3$
$\bar{B}^0 \to \pi^0 \pi^0$ $43 \pm 24$ $46^{+3+6}_{+3-6}$ $38^{+2+6}_{-2-6}$ $-19.0$
: The direct CP asymmetries (in units of $10^{-2}$) of $B$ ${\to}$ $\pi K$, $K \bar{K}$, $\pi \pi$ decays. The notes on uncertainties are the same as Table\[pikbr\].[]{data-label="pikdcp"}
Exp. [@HFAG] scenario I scenario II
--------------------------------- --------------- ----------------------- ----------------------- --
$\bar{B}^0 \to \pi^0 \bar{K}^0$ $57 \pm 17$ $78^{+3+1}_{-3-1}$ $79^{+3+1}_{-3-1}$
$\bar{B}^0 \to K^- K^+$ — $-86^{+6+0}_{-5-0}$ $-86^{+6+0}_{-5-0}$
$\bar{B}^0 \to K^0 \bar{K}^0$ $-108 \pm 49$ $-10^{+1+0}_{-1-0}$ $-11^{+1+0}_{-1-0}$
$\bar{B}^0 \to \pi^+ \pi^-$ $-65 \pm 6$ $-59^{+11+2}_{-10-3}$ $-60^{+10+2}_{-10-2}$
$\bar{B}^0 \to \pi^0 \pi^0$ — $77^{+6+1}_{-8-2}$ $77^{+7+1}_{-9-2}$
: The mixing-induced $CP$ asymmetries (in units of $10^{-2}$) of $B$ ${\to}$ $\pi K$, $K \bar{K}$, $\pi \pi$ decays. The notes on uncertainties are the same as Table\[pikbr\].[]{data-label="pikmcp"}
To get more information on annihilation and spectator scattering, we perform a fit on the parameters $X_H$ $=$ $X_A^i$ and $X_A^f$, considering the constraints of the $CP$-averaged branching ratios, direct and mixing-induced $CP$-asymmetries, from $B$ ${\to}$ $\pi K$, $K \bar{K}$ decays. The experimental data are summarized in the second column of Tables \[pikbr\]-\[pikmcp\]. Our fitting results are shown by Fig.\[ParaSpacI\], and the corresponding numerical results are listed in Table \[pikfit\]-\[pikmcp\].
It is found that two possible solutions entitled Part A and B in Table \[pikfit\], correspond to almost the same $(\rho_A^i, \phi_A^i)$ $\approx$ $(2.8,-108^{\circ})$. The large errors on parameter $(\rho_A^i, \phi_A^i)$ are mainly caused by the current loose experimental constraints on $CP$ asymmetries measurements for $B$ ${\to}$ ${\pi}K$, $K \bar{K}$ decays. In principle, the pure annihilation $\bar{B}^0 \to K^- K^+$ decays whose amplitudes depend predominantly on $(\rho_A^i, \phi_A^i)$, besides the decays constants, should give rigorous constraint on $X_A^i$. It’s a pity that the available measurement accuracy on its branching ratio is too poor to efficiently confine $(\rho_A^i, \phi_A^i)$ to some tiny spaces. The large $(\rho_A^i,\phi_A^i)$ mean large $X_A^i$ and $X_H$, i.e., there must exist large nonfactorizable annihilation and spectator scattering contributions to accommodate the current measurements. Our fit results on parameter $\rho_A^i$ provide a robust evidence to the educated guesswrok about $\rho_{Ad}^i$ $=$ 2.5 in Ref.[@zhu2]. In fact, the strong phase $\phi_A^i$ educed from measurements of branching ratios for $B^0$ $\to$ $K \bar{K}$ decays in Ref.[@zhu2] can have either positive or negative values with the magnitudes of $\gtrsim$ $100^{\circ}$ (see Fig.5 of Ref.[@zhu2]), where the positive value $\phi_A^i$ $=$ $+100^{\circ}$ used in Ref.[@zhu2] will be excluded by our fit with much more experimental data on $B$ ${\to}$ $\pi K$, $K \bar{K}$ decays. The large value of $\phi_A^i$, corresponding to a large imaginary part of the enhanced complex corrections, also lends some support to the pQCD claim that the annihilation amplitudes can provide a large strong phase [@pqcd].
There are two possible solutions for the factorizable annihilation parameters, namely, Part A $(\rho_A^f,\phi_A^f)$ $\approx$ $(1.1,-40^{\circ})$ and Part B $(\rho_A^f,\phi_A^f)$ $\approx$ $(2.7,166^{\circ})$. From Fig.\[ParaSpacI\], it can be seen that there is no overlap between the regions of $(\rho_A^f,\phi_A^f)$ and $(\rho_A^i,\phi_A^i)$ at the 95% confidence level, which indicates that it might be wrong to treat $(\rho_A^f,\phi_A^f)$ $=$ $(\rho_A^i,\phi_A^i)$ $=$ $(\rho_A,\phi_A)$ as universal parameters for nonfactorizable and factorizable annihilation topologies in pervious studies. Our fit results certify the suggestion of Ref.[@zhu1; @zhu2] that different annihilation topologies should be parameterized by different annihilation parameters, i.e., $(\rho_A^f,\phi_A^f)$ $\neq$ $(\rho_A^i,\phi_A^i)$. Compared with the results of $(\rho_A^i,\phi_A^i)$, the errors on parameter $(\rho_A^f, \phi_A^f)$ are relatively small (see Table \[pikfit\]), because the available measurements on branching ratios for $B$ ${\to}$ ${\pi}K$ decays are highly precise. The conjecture about $(\rho_A^f, \phi_A^f)$ in [@zhu2] is somewhat alike to our fit results of Part A.
The value of term $(2X_A^f-X_A^f)$ in Eq.(\[af3\]) is about $(27.2-i26.2)$ with parameters for Part A and $(28.9-i25.5)$ for Part B, that is to say, these two solutions, Part A and B, will present similar factorizable annihilation contributions. Nevertheless, a small value of $\rho_A^f$ is more easily accepted by the QCDF approach [@Beneke2]. So with the best fit parameters of Part A in Table \[pikfit\], we present our evaluations on branching ratios, direct and mixing-induced $CP$ asymmetries for $B_{u,d}$ ${\to}$ $\pi K$, $K \bar{K}$, $\pi \pi$ decays in the “scenario I” column of Table \[pikbr\], \[pikdcp\] and \[pikmcp\], respectively. For comparison, the results of scenario S4 QCDF [@Beneke2] are also collected in the “S4” column. It is easily found that all theoretical results are in good agreement with experimental data within errors. Especially, the difference $\Delta A$, which $\sim$ 0.5% in scenario S4 QCDF, is enhanced to the experimental level $\sim$ 11%. It is interesting that although $B$ $\to$ $\pi \pi$ decays are not considered in the “scenario I” fit, all predictions on these decays, including the ratios $R_{+-}^{\pi\pi}$ and $R_{00}^{\pi\pi}$, are also in good consistence with the experimental measurements within errors, which implies that the $\pi K$ and $\pi \pi$ puzzles could be resolved by annihilation and spectator corrections, at the same time, without violating the agreement of other observables. The reason will be excavated in Scenario II.
Scenario II {#sec0302}
-----------
From Eq.(\[amp5\]), it is obviously found that the amplitude of $B^-\to\pi^-\pi^0$ decay is independent of annihilation contributions, and dominated by $\alpha_1$ $+$ $\alpha_2$. Moreover, comparing Eq.(\[amp6\]) with Eq.(\[amp7\]), it is easily found that the annihilation contributions are almost helpless for $R_{00}^{\pi \pi}$ puzzle due to ${\cal A}_{B^0 \to \pi^+ \pi^-}^{\rm anni}$ $\simeq$ ${\cal A}_{B^0 \to \pi^0 \pi^0}^{\rm anni}$. So, the spectator scattering corrections, which play an important role in the color-suppressed coefficient $\alpha_2$ [@Beneke2; @Cheng1; @Cheng3], would be another important key for the good results of scenario I, especially for $B$ $\to$ $\pi\pi$ decays.
Within QCDF framework, besides $X_H$, the inverse moment $\lambda_B$ of $B$ wave function defined by Eq.(\[lamdef\]) is another important quantity in evaluating the contributions of spectator scattering. Unfortunately, its value is hardly to be obtained reliably with theoretical methods until now, for instance $350{\pm}150$ MeV (200 MeV in scenario S2) in Ref.[@Beneke2], $200^{+250}_{-0}$ MeV in Ref.[@Beneke4] and $300{\pm}100$ MeV in Ref.[@Cheng1], though QCD sum rule prefer $460{\pm}110$ MeV at the scale of 1 GeV [@Braun]. Experimentally, the upper limit on parameter $\lambda_B$ are set at the 90% C.L. via measurements on branching fraction of radiative leptonic $B$ $\to$ $\ell \bar{\nu}_{\ell} \gamma $ decay by BABAR collaboration, $\lambda_B$ $>$ 669 (591) MeV with different priors based on 232 million $B\bar{B}$ sample where the photon is not required to be sufficiently energetic in order not to sacrifice statistics [@BaBarBA1], and $\lambda_B$ $>$ 300 MeV based on 465 million $B\bar{B}$ pairs [@BaBarBA2]. Considering radiative and power corrections, an improved analysis is preformed in Ref.[@Beneke5] with the conclusion that present BABAR measurements cannot put significant constrains on $\lambda_B$ and that $\lambda_B$ $>$ 115 MeV from the experimental results [@BaBarBA2]. Anyway, the study of hadronic $B$ decays favors a relative small value of $\lambda_B$ $\approx$ 200 MeV to achieve a satisfactory description of color-suppressed tree decay modes [@lambda]. At the present time, the value of $\lambda_B$ is still a point of controversy. In the following analysis and evaluations, we treat $\lambda_B$ as a free parameter.
![The dependance of the direct $CP$ asymmetries $A_{CP}(B^- \to \pi^0 K^-)$, $A_{CP}(\bar{B}^0 \to \pi^+ K^-)$ and their difference $\Delta A$ on $\lambda_B$ (in unites of GeV) with the fitted annihilation parameters of scenario I (Part A). Their experimental results with $1\sigma$ error are shown by shaded bands with the same color as the lines.[]{data-label="LBpik"}](pikLB.pdf){width="30.00000%"}
\
$\rho_A^i$ $\phi_A^i[^{\circ}]$ $\rho_A^f$ $\phi_A^f[^{\circ}]$ $\lambda_B$ \[GeV\]
-------- ------------------------ ---------------------- ------------------------ ---------------------- ------------------------
Part A $2.88^{+1.52}_{-1.30}$ $-103^{+33}_{-40}$ $1.21^{+0.22}_{-0.25}$ $-40^{+12}_{-8}$ $0.18^{+0.11}_{-0.08}$
Part B $2.98^{+1.50}_{-1.40}$ $-106^{+35}_{-39}$ $2.78^{+0.29}_{-0.18}$ $165^{+4}_{-3}$ $0.19^{+0.09}_{-0.10}$
: Numerical results of annihilation parameters and moment parameter $\lambda_B$ in Scenario II.[]{data-label="pipikfit"}
To explicitly show the effects of spectator scattering contributions on $\pi K$ puzzle, dependance of $A_{CP}(B^- \to \pi^0 K^-)$, $A_{CP}(\bar{B}^0 \to \pi^+ K^-)$ and their difference $\Delta A$ on parameter $\lambda_B$ are displayed in Fig.\[LBpik\]. It is found that (1) observables of $A_{CP}(B^- \to \pi^0 K^-)$ and $\Delta A$ are more sensitive to variation of $\lambda_B$ than $A_{CP}(\bar{B}^0 \to \pi^+ K^-)$ in the region of $\lambda_B$ $\geq$ 100 MeV. The reason is aforementioned fact that coefficient $\alpha_2$ in amplitude ${\cal A}_{ B^- \to \pi^0 K^-}$ \[see Eq.(\[amp2\])\] receives significant spectator scattering corrections. A noticeable change of observables is easily seen in the low region of $\lambda_B$ because spectator scattering corrections are inversely proportional to $\lambda_B$ \[see Eq.(\[lamdef\]) and Eq.(\[hardblock\])\]. (2) a relative small value of $\lambda_B$ $\in$ \[150 MeV, 220 MeV\], as expected in [@lambda], is required to confront with available measurements. Especially, the value $\lambda_B$ $\approx$ 190 MeV provides a perfect description of the experimental data on $A_{CP}(B^- \to \pi^0 K^-)$, $A_{CP}(\bar{B}^0 \to \pi^+ K^-)$ and $\Delta A$ simultaneously. For $B$ $\to$ $\pi \pi$ decays, from Eqs.(\[amp5\]-\[amp7\]), it is easily seen that amplitude ${\cal A}_{ B^- \to \pi^- \pi^0 }$ $\propto$ $\alpha_1$ + $\alpha_2$, ${\cal A}_{ \bar{B}^0 \to \pi^+ \pi^- }$ $\propto$ $\alpha_1$, ${\cal A}_{ \bar{B}^0 \to \pi^0 \pi^0 }$ $\propto$ $\alpha_2$. The coefficient $\alpha_2$, corresponding to the color-suppressed tree contribution, its value is small relative to $\alpha_1$, so the experimental data on $R_{+-}^{\pi \pi}$ can be well explained with scenario S4 QCDF where $X_A^i$ $=$ $X_A^f$ and $\rho_A^{f,i}$ = 1 (see Table \[pikbr\]). But as to observable $R_{00}^{\pi \pi}$ or/and branching ratio ${\cal B}(\bar{B}^0 \to \pi^0 \pi^0)$, an enhanced $\alpha_2$ is desirable. Hence, the nonfactorizable spectator scattering contributions, which have significant effects on $\alpha_2$, would play an important role in studying the color-suppressed tree $B$ decays, and possibly provide a solution to the $\pi \pi$ puzzle. The dependencies of the branching fractions of $B$ $\to$ $\pi\pi$ decays and ratios $R_{+-}^{\pi\pi}$, $R_{00}^{\pi\pi}$ on $\lambda_B$ are shown in Fig.\[LBpipi\] where the fitted parameters of Part A in Table \[pikfit\] is used. It is interesting that beside a large value $\rho_H$, a small value of $\lambda_B$ $\sim$ 200 MeV is also required to confront with experimental data on ${\cal B}(B \to \pi \pi)$, $R_{+-}^{\pi\pi}$ and $R_{00}^{\pi\pi}$.
With the available experimental data on $B$ $\to$ $\pi \pi$, $\pi K$ and $K \bar{K}$ decays, we perform a comprehensive fit on both annihilation parameters ($\rho_{A}^{i,f}$, $\phi_{A}^{i,f}$) and $B$-meson wave function parameter $\lambda_B$. The allowed parameter spaces are shown in Fig.\[ParaSpacII\], and the corresponding numerical results are summarized in Table \[pipikfit\]. Like scenario I, there are two allowed spaces which are labelled by part A and B. It is easily found that (1) parameters $(\rho_A^i,\phi_A^i)$ $=$ $(\rho_H,\phi_H)$ are still required to have large values (see Table \[pipikfit\]), that is to say, it is necessary for penguin-dominated or color-suppressed tree $B$ decays to own large corrections from nonfactorizable annihilation and spectator scattering topologies. (2) There is still no overlap between the regions of $(\rho_A^f,\phi_A^f)$ and $(\rho_A^i,\phi_A^i)$ at the 95% confidence level. (3) The cental values of $\rho_A^{i,f}$ are a little larger than those in scenario I. The uncertainties on $(\rho_A^i,\phi_A^i)$ are a little smaller than those in scenario I, because more processes from $B$ $\to$ $\pi \pi$ decays are considered in fitting and the amplitudes for $B$ $\to$ $\pi \pi$ decays are sensitive to $X_A^i$ and $X_H$ rather than $X_A^f$. (4) A small value of parameter $\lambda_B$ $\leq$ 350 MeV at the 95% confidence level is strongly required to reconcile discrepancies between results of QCDF approach and available experimental data on $B$ $\to$ $\pi \pi$, $\pi K$ and $K \bar{K}$ decays.
The two solutions of scenario II, Part A and B, will give similar results, as discussed before. With the best fit parameters of Part A in Table \[pipikfit\], we present our evaluations on branching ratios, direct and mixing-induced $CP$ asymmetries for $B_{u,d}$ ${\to}$ $\pi K$, $K \bar{K}$, $\pi \pi$ decays in the “scenario II” column of Table \[pikbr\], \[pikdcp\] and \[pikmcp\], respectively. It is found that the central values of branching ratios for $B$ $\to$ $\pi \pi$, $\pi K$ and $K \bar{K}$ decays, expect $\bar{B}^0$ $\to$ $\pi^+ \pi^-$ decay, with the Part A parameters of scenario II, are a little larger than those of scenario I (see Table \[pikbr\]), because a bit larger values of $\rho_A^{i,f}$ and a bit smaller value of $\lambda_B$ than those of scenario I are taken in scenario II. Compared with results of scenario S4 QCDF, agreement between theoretical results within two scenarios and experimental measurements is improved, especially for the observables $\Delta A$, $R_{00}^{\pi \pi}$ and $A_{CP}(B^0 \to \pi \pi)$.
Scenario III {#sec0303}
------------
The above analyses and results are based on the assumption that $X_A^{i}$ $=$ $X_{H}$ (i.e. $(\rho_A^{i}, \phi_A^{i})$ $=$ $(\rho_H, \phi_H)$) for simplicity. While, there is no compellent requirement for such simplification, except for the fact that wave functions of $B$ mesons are involved in the convolution integrals of both spectator scattering and nonfactorizable annihilation corrections, but are irrelevant to the factorable annihilation amplitudes. So, as a general scenario (named scenario III), we would reevaluate the strength of annihilation and hard-spectator contributions without any simplification for the parameters $(\rho_A^{i}, \phi_A^{i})$, $(\rho_A^{i}, \phi_A^{i})$ and $(\rho_H, \phi_H)$.
![The allowed regions of annihilation and hard-spectator parameters ($\rho_A^{f}$, $\phi_A^{f}$), ($\rho_A^{i}$, $\phi_A^{i}$) and ($\rho_H$, $\phi_H$) at $68\%$ C.L.. The two solutions of ($\rho_A^{f}$, $\phi_A^{f}$) and ($\rho_A^{i}$, $\phi_A^{i}$) are labeled as Part A, B and $\rm A^{\prime}$, $\rm B^{\prime}$, respectively.[]{data-label="SpecFig"}](SpecFig.pdf){width="35.00000%"}
Considering the constraints from observables of $B_{u,d}$ ${\to}$ $K \bar{K}$, ${\pi}K$ and ${\pi}{\pi}$ decays, a fit for the annihilation and hard-spectator parameters is performed again. In this fit, $(\rho_A^{f}, \phi_A^{f})$, $(\rho_A^{i}, \phi_A^{i})$ and $(\rho_H, \phi_H)$ are treated as six free parameters. Moreover, from the hard-spectator corrections illustrated by Eq. (\[hardblock\]), it can be seen that $\lambda_B$ and $X_H$ are always combined together.
Although the inverse moment $\lambda_B$ of $B$ wave function could be determined or constricted by further experiments [@Beneke5; @BaBarBA1; @BaBarBA2; @lambda], $\lambda_B$ is more like a free parameter for the moment due to loose limitation on it. So it is impossible to strictly bound on $\lambda_B$ and $X_H$ simultaneously due to the interference effects between them. In our following fit, we will fix $\lambda_B=200\,{\rm MeV}$. Our fitting results at $68\%$ C.L. are presented in Fig. \[SpecFig\], where the range of ${\phi}$ ${\in}$ $[-360^{\circ},0^{\circ}]$ is assigned to illustrate their relative magnitude. Numerically, we get $$\begin{aligned}
&&(\rho_A^{f}, \phi_A^{f}[^{\circ}])=\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
& (1.18^{+0.26}_{-0.23}, -40^{+12}_{-8})\qquad \text{Part A } \\
& (2.79^{+0.26}_{-0.20}, -196^{+5}_{-3})\qquad \text{Part B }
\end{array} \right. \\
&&(\rho_A^{i}, \phi_A^{i}[^{\circ}])=\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
& (2.85^{+2.18}_{-1.92}, -103^{+52}_{-63})\qquad \text{Part ${\rm A}^{\prime}$ } \\
& (6.54^{+1.81}_{-3.30}, -206^{+23}_{-24})\qquad \text{Part ${\rm B}^{\prime}$ }
\end{array} \right. \\
&& (\rho_{H}, \phi_{H}[^{\circ}])=(3.09^{+1.64}_{-1.53}, -102^{+40}_{-31})\,.
\label{soluSIII}
\end{aligned}$$
It can be easily seen from Fig. \[SpecFig\] that: (1) for factorizable annihilation parameters $(\rho_A^{f}, \phi_A^{f})$, similar to scenarios I and II, there are two allowed regions (labelled by part A and B); (2) for nonfactorizable annihilation parameters $(\rho_A^{i}, \phi_A^{i})$, besides the solution similar to scenarios I and II (labelled by part ${\rm A}^{\prime}$), another solution (labelled by part ${\rm B}^{\prime}$) with a very large value of $\rho_A^{i}$ is gotten. (3) It is very intersting that the allowed space of $(\rho_{H}, \phi_{H})$ overlaps almost entirely with the “part ${\rm A}^{\prime}$” allowed space of $(\rho_A^{i}, \phi_A^{i})$. Moreover, their best-fit points $(\rho_A^{i}, \phi_A^{i})$ $=$ $(2.85, -103^{\circ})$ of “part ${\rm A}^{\prime}$” and $(\rho_{H}, \phi_{H})$ $=$ $(3.09, -102^{\circ})$ are very close to each other. It might imply that the assumption $X_A^{i}$ $(\rho_A^{i}, \phi_A^{i})$ $=$ $X_H$ $(\rho_H, \phi_H)$ used in scenarios I and II is a good simplification.
With the best fit parameters in scenarios III, either the small value of $\rho_A^{i}$ in “part ${\rm A}^{\prime}$” or the large value in “part ${\rm B}^{\prime}$”, our evaluations on branching ratios, direct and mixing-induced $CP$ asymmetries for $B_{u,d}$ ${\to}$ $\pi K$, $K \bar{K}$, $\pi \pi$ decays are similar to those given in our scenarios I and II, so no longer listed here. For the two solutions ${\rm A}^{\prime}$ and ${\rm B}^{\prime}$ of $(\rho_A^{i}, \phi_A^{i})$, it is expected by QCDF approach [@Beneke2] that the parameter $\rho_A^{i}$ should have a small value, which is also favored by our scenarios I and II fit. In fact, such two solutions lead to the same results of $A^{i}_{1,2}$, but the different ones of $A^{i}_{3}$, which principally provides an opportunity to refute one of them. However, because $A^{i}_{3}$ is numerically trivial due to $(r_\chi^{M_1}-r_\chi^{M_2}) \sim 0$ for the light mesons, such way is practically unfeasible for current accuracies of theoretical calculation and experimentally measurement.
Conclusions {#sec04}
===========
The recent CDF and LHCb measurements of large branching ratios for pure annihilation $\bar{B}_s^0$ $\to$ $\pi^+ \pi^-$ and $\bar{B}_d^0$ $\to$ $K^+ K^-$ decays imply possible large annihilation contributions, which induce us to modify the traditional QCDF treatment for annihilation parameters. Following the suggestion of Ref.[@zhu2], two sets of annihilation parameters $X_A^i$ and $X_A^f$ are used to parameterize the endpoint singularity in nonfactorizable and factorizable annihilation amplitudes, respectively. Besides annihilation effects, the resolution of so-called ${\pi}K$ and ${\pi}{\pi}$ puzzles also expect constructive contributions from spectator scattering topologies. With the approximation of $X_A^i$ $=$ $X_H$, we perform a global fit on both annihilation parameters ($\rho_{A}^{i,f}$, $\phi_{A}^{i,f}$) and $B$-meson wave function parameter $\lambda_B$ based on available experimental data for $B$ $\to$ $\pi \pi$, $\pi K$ and $K \bar{K}$ decays. Our main conclusions and findings are summarized as:
- The $95\%$ C.L. allowed region of $(\rho_A^i,\phi_A^i)$ is entirely different from that of $(\rho_A^f,\phi_A^f)$. This fact means that the traditional QCDF treatment $(\rho_A,\phi_A)$ as universal parameters for different annihilation topologies might be unapplicable to hadronic $B$ decays.
- The current experimental data on $B$ $\to$ $\pi \pi$, $\pi K$ and $K \bar{K}$ decays seems to favor a large value of $\rho_A^i$ $\sim$ 2.9, which corresponds to a sizable nonfactorizable annihilation contributions. But the range of $(\rho_A^i,\phi_A^i)$ is still very large, because the measurement precision of $CP$ asymmetries is low now.
- There are two possible choices for parameters $(\rho_A^f,\phi_A^f)$. One is $(\rho_A^f,\phi_A^f)$ $\sim$ $(1.1,-40^{\circ})$, the other is $(\rho_A^f,\phi_A^f)$ $\sim$ $(2.7,165^{\circ})$. These two choices correspond to similar factorizable annihilation contributions, although the QCDF approach tends to have a small value of $\rho_A^f$ [@Beneke2]. The space for $(\rho_A^f,\phi_A^f)$ is relatively tight due to the well measured branching ratios for $B$ $\to$ $\pi \pi$, $\pi K$ and $K \bar{K}$ decays.
- The spectator scattering corrections play an important role in resolving both $\pi K$ and $\pi \pi$ puzzles. Within QCDF approach, the spectator scattering amplitudes depend on parameters $(\rho_H,\phi_H)$ and $B$-meson wave function parameter $\lambda_B$. In our analysis, the approximation $(\rho_H,\phi_H)$ $=$ $(\rho_A^i,\phi_A^i)$ is assumed, which is proven to be a good simplification by a global fit in scenario III. A small value of $\lambda_B$ $\leq$ 350 MeV at the 95% C.L. is obtained by the global fit on $B$ $\to$ $\pi \pi$, $\pi K$ and $K \bar{K}$ decays, which needs to be further tested by future improved measurement on $B$ $\to$ $\ell \nu_\ell \gamma$ decays. An enhanced color-suppressed tree coefficient $\alpha_2$, which is supported by both large value of $\rho_H$ $\sim$ 2.9 and small value of $\lambda_B$ $\sim$ 200 MeV, is helpful to reconcile discrepancies on $\Delta A$ and $R_{00}^{\pi \pi}$ between QCDF approach and experiments.
The spectator scattering and annihilation contributions can offer significant corrections to observables of hadronic $B$ decays, and deserve intensive research especially when we apply the QCDF approach to the penguin-dominated, color-suppressed tree, and pure annihilation nonleptonic $B$ decays. As suggested in Ref.[@zhu1; @zhu2] and proofed by the pQCD approach [@pqcd], different parameters corresponding to different topologies should be introduced to regulate the endpoint divergences in spectator scattering and annihilation amplitudes within QCDF approach, even parameters reflecting the flavor symmetry-breaking effects should be considered for $B_{u,d,s}$ decays [@zhu1; @zhu2; @Cheng1; @Cheng2; @Cheng3; @Beneke2; @chang1]. This treatment might provide possible solution to “problematic” discrepancies between QCDF results and available measurements. Of course, a fine-tuning of these parameters is required to be compatible with the experimental constraints. With the running LHCb and the upcoming SuperKEKB experiments, more refined measurements on $B$-meson decays can be obtained, which will provide more powerful grounds to test various approach and confirm or refute some theoretical hypotheses.
Acknowledgments {#thanks .unnumbered}
===============
This work is supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant Nos. 11147008, 11105043 and U1232101, 11475055. Q. Chang is also supported by Foundation for the Author of National Excellent Doctoral Dissertation of P. R. China under Grant No. 201317, Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education of China under Grant No. 20114104120002 and Program for Science and Technology Innovation Talents in Universities of Henan Province (Grant No. 14HASTIT036).
Building blocks of annihilation and spectator scattering contributions {#app01}
======================================================================
The annihilation amplitudes for two-body nonleptonic $B$ $\to$ $M_{1}M_{2}$ decays (here $M_{i}$ denotes the light pseudoscalar meson) can be expressed as the following building blocks [@Beneke2], $$\begin{aligned}
A_1^i &=&
\pi \alpha_s \int_0^1 dx dy
\Big\{ \Phi_{M_2}^{a}(x) \Phi_{M_1}^{a}(y)
\Big[ \frac{1}{y(1-x \bar{y})}
+ \frac{1}{\bar{x}^2 y} \Big]
+ r_\chi^{M_1} r_\chi^{M_2}
\frac{2 \Phi_{M_2}^{p}(x) \Phi_{M_1}^{p}(y)}
{\bar{x}y} \Big\}
\label{ai1}, \\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
A_2^i &=&
\pi \alpha_s \int_0^1 dx dy
\Big\{ \Phi_{M_2}^{a}(x) \Phi_{M_1}^{a}(y)
\Big[ \frac{1}{\bar x(1-x \bar{y})}
+ \frac{1}{\bar{x} y^2} \Big]
+ r_\chi^{M_1} r_\chi^{M_2}
\frac{2 \Phi_{M_2}^{p}(x) \Phi_{M_1}^{p}(y)}
{\bar{x} y} \Big\}
\label{ai2}, \\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
A_3^i &=&
\pi \alpha_s \int_0^1 dx dy
\Big\{ r_\chi^{M_1}
\frac{2 \bar{y}\ \Phi_{M_2}^{a}(x) \Phi_{M_1}^{p}(y)}
{\bar{x}y(1-x\bar{y})}
- r_\chi^{M_2}
\frac{2x\ \Phi_{M_1}^{a}(y) \Phi_{M_2}^{p}(x)}
{\bar{x}y(1-x\bar{y})} \Big\}
\label{ai3}, \\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
A_1^f &=& A_2^f =0
\label{af12}, \\
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
A_3^f &=&
\pi \alpha_s \int_0^1 dx dy
\Big\{ r_\chi^{M_1}
\frac{2(1+\bar x)\ \Phi_{M_2}^{a}(x) \Phi_{M_1}^{p}(y)}
{\bar{x}^2 y}
+ r_\chi^{M_2}
\frac{2(1+y)\ \Phi_{M_1}^{a}(y) \Phi_{M_2}^{p}(x)}
{\bar{x} y^2} \Big\}
\label{af3},
\end{aligned}$$ where the subscripts $k$ on $A^{i,f}_{k}$ correspond to three possible Dirac current structures, namely, $k$ $=$ $1$, $2$, $3$ for $(V-A)\otimes(V-A)$, $(V-A)\otimes(V+A)$, $-2(S-P)\otimes(S+P)$, respectively. $r_\chi^{M}$ $=$ $2m_{M}^{2}/m_{b}(m_{1}+m_{2})$, where $m_{1,2}$ are the current quark mass of the pseudoscalar meson with mass $m_{M}$. $\Phi_{M}^{a}$ and $\Phi_{M}^{p}$ are the twist-2 and twist-3 light-cone distribution amplitudes, respectively. Their asymptotic forms are $\Phi_{M}^{a}(x)$ $=$ $6x\bar{x}$ and $\Phi_{M}^{p}(x)$ $=$ $1$.
The spectator scattering corrections are given by [@Beneke2] $$H_i ( M_1 M_2) =
\left\{ \begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle
+\frac{B_{M_1 M_2}}{A_{M_1 M_2}}
{\int}_{0}^{1}d{\xi}
\frac{ \Phi_{B}(\xi) }{ \xi }
\int_0^1 dx dy \Big[
\frac{ \Phi_{M_2}^{a}(x) \Phi_{M_1}^{a}(y) }
{ \bar{x} \bar{y} }
+ r_\chi^{M_1}
\frac{ \Phi_{M_2}^{a}(x) \Phi_{M_1}^{p}(y) }
{ x \bar{y} } \Big],
\\ \qquad \qquad \qquad
\text{for }\, i=1,2,3,4,9,10
\\
\displaystyle
-\frac{B_{M_1 M_2}}{A_{M_1 M_2}}
{\int}_{0}^{1}d{\xi}
\frac{ \Phi_{B}(\xi) }{ \xi }
\int_0^1 dx dy \Big[
\frac{ \Phi_{M_2}^{a}(x) \Phi_{M_1}^{a}(y) }
{ x \bar{y} }
+ r_\chi^{M_1}
\frac{ \Phi_{M_2}^{a}(x) \Phi_{M_1}^{p}(y) }
{ \bar{x} \bar{y} } \Big],
\\ \qquad \qquad \qquad
\text{for }\, i=5,7
\\
0, \qquad \qquad \quad
\text{for }\, i=6,8
\end{array} \right.
\label{hardblock}$$ where the factorized matrix elements are parameterized as [@Beneke2] $$A_{M_{1}M_{2}} =
i\frac{G_{F}}{\sqrt{2}}
m_{B}^{2}F_{0}^{B{\to}M_{1}}f_{M_{2}},
\qquad \qquad
B_{M_{1}M_{2}} =
i\frac{G_{F}}{\sqrt{2}}
f_{B}f_{M_{1}}f_{M_{2}}.$$
Theoretical input parameters {#app02}
============================
For the CKM matrix elements, we adopt the fitting results for the Wolfenstein parameters given by the CKMfitter group [@CKMfitter] $$\begin{aligned}
\bar{\rho} = 0.140^{+0.027}_{-0.026}, \quad
\bar{\eta} = 0.343^{+0.015}_{-0.014}, \quad
A = 0.802^{+0.029}_{-0.011}, \quad
\lambda = 0.22543^{+0.00059}_{-0.00094}.
\end{aligned}$$
The pole masses of quarks are [@PDG12] $$\begin{aligned}
&&m_u=m_d=m_s=0, \quad
m_c=1.67 \pm 0.07 \, {\rm GeV},
\nonumber\\
&&m_b=4.78 \pm 0.06 \, {\rm GeV}, \quad
m_t=173.5 \pm 1.0\,{\rm GeV}
\label{polemass}.
\end{aligned}$$
The running masses of quarks are [@PDG12] $$\begin{aligned}
&&\frac{\bar{m}_s(\mu)}{\bar{m}_q(\mu)} = 27 \pm 1, \quad
\bar{m}_{s}(2\,{\rm GeV}) = 95 \pm 5 \,{\rm MeV}, \quad
\bar{m}_{c}(\bar{m}_{c}) = 1.275 \pm 0.025 \,{\rm GeV},
\nonumber \\
&&\bar{m}_{b}(\bar{m}_{b}) = 4.18 \pm 0.03 \,{\rm GeV}, \quad
\bar{m}_{t}(\bar{m}_{t}) = 160.0^{+4.8}_{-4.3}\,{\rm GeV}
\label{runningmass}.
\end{aligned}$$
The decay constants of $B$-meson and light mesons are [@PDG12] $$f_{B} = (0.190 \pm 0.013)\,{\rm GeV}, \quad
f_{\pi} = (130.4 \pm 0.2)\,{\rm MeV}, \quad
f_{K} = (156.1 \pm 0.8)\,{\rm MeV}.$$
We take the following heavy-to-light transition form factors [@BallZwicky] $$F^{B \to \pi }_{0}(0) = 0.258 \pm 0.031, \qquad
F^{B \to K }_{0}(0) = 0.331 \pm 0.041.$$ Moreover, for the Gegenbauer coefficients, we take [@BallG] $$a_{1}^{\pi}({\rm 2 GeV}) =0, \quad
a_2^{\pi}({\rm 2 GeV}) =0.17, \quad
a_{1}^{K}({\rm 2 GeV}) =0.05, \quad
a_{2}^{K}({\rm 2 GeV}) =0.17.$$
For the other inputs, such as the masses and lifetimes of mesons and so on, we take their central values given by PDG [@PDG12].
Fitting Approach {#app03}
================
Our fit is performed in a simple way, which is similar to the one adopted in Ref.[@Vernazza] based on the frequentist framework. Considering a set of $N$ observables $f_j$, the experimental measurements are assumed to be Gaussian distributed with the mean value $f_{j\,\rm exp}$ and error $\sigma_{j\,\rm exp}$. The theoretical prediction $f_{j\,\rm theo}$ for each observable could be treated as a function of a set of “unknown” free parameters $\{y_i\}$ (here $y_i$ $=$ $\rho_{A}^{i,f}$, $\phi_{A}^{i,f}$ and $\lambda_B$ in this paper). To estimate the values of “unknown” parameters $\{y_i\}$ and compare the theoretical results $f_{j\,\rm theo}$ with the experimental data $f_{j\,\rm exp}$, typically, it is need to construct a $\chi^2$ function as $$\chi^2(\{y_i\}) =
\sum\limits_{j=1}^N
\frac{(f_{j\,\rm theo}(\{y_i\})-f_{j\,\rm exp})^2}
{\sigma_{j\,\rm exp}^2}.
\label{chi2I}$$
In the evaluation of $f_{j\,\rm theo}$ for hadronic B decays, ones always encounter theoretical uncertainties induced by input parameters, like form factor and decay constant, whose probability distribution is unknown. Following the treatment of Rfit scheme [@CKMfitter; @Rfit] that input values are treated on an equal footing, irrespective of how close they are from the edge of the allowed range, the $\chi^2$ function is modified as [@Vernazza] $$\chi^2 = \sum_{j=1}^N
\left\{ \begin{array}{cl}
\displaystyle
\frac{([ f_{j\,\rm theo}-\delta_{j\,\rm theo,\,sub} ]
-f_{j\,\rm exp})^2}{\sigma_{j\,\rm exp}^2}
& \quad \text{if } f_{j\,\rm exp} <
[f_{j\,\rm theo}-\delta_{j\,\rm theo,\,sub}],
\\
\displaystyle
\frac{(f_{j\,\rm exp}-
[f_{j\,\rm theo}+\delta_{j\,\rm theo,\,sup}])^2}
{\sigma_{j\,\rm exp}^2}
& \quad \text{if } f_{j\,\rm exp} >
[f_{j\,\rm theo}+\delta_{j\,\rm theo,\,sup}],
\\
0 & \quad \text{otherwise}
\end{array} \right.
\label{chi2II}$$ where $\delta_{j\,\rm theo,\,sup}$ and $\delta_{j\,\rm theo,\,sub}$ denote asymmetric theoretical uncertainties, and are defined as $(f_{j\,\rm theo})^{+\delta_{j\,\rm theo,\,sup}}_{-\delta_{j\,\rm theo,\,sub}}$. As to the asymmetric experimental errors, we choose the larger one as weighting factor. Correspondingly, the confidence levels are defined by the function $${\rm CL}(\{y_i\}) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2^{N_{\rm dof}}} \Gamma(N_{\rm dof}/2)}
\int_{\Delta \chi^2(\{y_i\})}^{\infty} e^{-t/2}t^{N_{\rm dof}/2 -1}dt
\label{CLfun},$$ with $\Delta \chi^2$ $=$ $\chi^2$ $-$ $\chi^2_{\rm min}$ and $N_{\rm dof}$ the number of degrees of freedom of free parameters.
With the input parameters summarized in Appendix \[app02\], we scan the space of the parameters $y_i$ and calculate the theoretical results $f_{j\,\rm theo}$. The $\chi^2 $ could be obtained with Eq.(\[chi2II\]). The numerical results at $1 \sigma$ and $2 \sigma$ confidence levels are gotten from Eq.(\[CLfun\]) by taking ${\rm CL}$ $=$ $1 - 68.27\%$ and ${\rm CL}$ $=$ $1 - 95.45\%$, respectively.
[99]{} T. Aaltonen [*et al.*]{} (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. [**108**]{} (2012) 211803 \[arXiv:1111.0485\].
R. Aaij [*et al.*]{} (LHCb Collaboration), JHEP [**1210**]{} (2012) 037 \[arXiv:1206.2794\].
Y. Amhis [*et al.*]{} (HFAG), arXiv:1207.1158; and online update at: http://www.slac.stanford.edu/xorg/hfag.
G. H. Zhu, Phys. Lett. B [**702**]{} (2011) 408 \[arXiv:1106.4709\].
K. Wang and G. H. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D [**88**]{} (2013) 014043 \[arXiv:1304.7438\].
Q. Chang, X. W. Cui, L. Han and Y. D. Yang, Phys. Rev. D [**86**]{} (2012) 054016 \[arXiv:1205.4325\].
Z. J. Xiao, W. F. Wang and Y. Y. Fan, Phys. Rev. D [**85**]{} (2012) 094003 \[arXiv:1111.6264\].
Y. Y. Keum, H. N. Li and A.I. Sanda, Phys. Lett. B [**504**]{} (2001) 6 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0004004\]; Y. Y. Keum, H. N. Li and A.I. Sanda, Phys. Rev. D [**63**]{} (2001) 054008 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0004173\]; C. D. Lu, K. Ukai and M.-Z. Yang, Phys. Rev. D [**63**]{} (2001) 074009 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0004213\].
A. Ali, G. Kramer, Y. Li, C. D. Lu, Y. L. Shen, W. Wang and Y. M. Wang, Phys. Rev. D [**76**]{} (2007) 074018 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0703162\]; Y. Li and C. D. Lu, Commun. Theor. Phys. [**44**]{} (2005) 659 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0502038\].
D. Du, H, Gong, J. Sun, D. Yang, and G. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D [**65**]{} (2002) 074001 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0108141\]; Phys. Rev. D [**65**]{} (2002) 094025 Erratum, ibid. [**66**]{} (2002) 079904 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0201253\]; J. Sun, G. Zhu and D. Du, Phys. Rev. D [**68**]{} (2003) 054003 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0211154\].
M. Beneke, G. Buchalla, M. Neubert and C. T. Sachrajda, Nucl. Phys. B [**606**]{} (2001) 245 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0104110\]; M. Beneke and M. Neubert, Nucl. Phys. B [**651**]{} (2003) 225 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0210085\]; M. Beneke and M. Neubert, Nucl. Phys. B [**675**]{} (2003) 333 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0308039\].
M. Beneke, G. Buchalla, M. Neubert and C. T. Sachrajda, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{} (1999) 1914 \[arXiv:hep-ph/9905312\]; Nucl. Phys. B [**591**]{} (2000) 313 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0006142\].
H. Y. Cheng and C. K. Chua, Phys. Rev. D [**80**]{} (2009) 114026 \[arXiv:0910.5237\].
H. Y. Cheng and C. K. Chua, Phys. Rev. D [**80**]{} (2009) 114008 \[arXiv:0909.5229\].
A. J. Buras, R. Fleischer, S. Recksiegel and F. Schwab, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**92**]{} (2004) 101804 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0312259\]; Nucl. Phys. B [**697**]{} (2004) 133 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0402112\].
G. Buchalla, A. J. Buras, and M. E. Lautenbacher, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**68**]{} (1996) 1125 \[arXiv:hep-ph/9512380\]; A. J. Buras, arXiv:hep-ph/9806471; arXiv:hep-ph/0101336.
H. Y. Cheng and C. K. Chua, Phys. Rev. D [**80**]{} (2009) 074031 \[arXiv:0908.3506\].
M. Beneke and J. Rohrwild, Eur. Phys. J. C [**71**]{} (2011) 1818 \[arXiv:1110.3228\].
M. Beneke, J. Rohrer and D. S. Yang, Nucl. Phys. B [**774**]{} (2007) 64 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0612290\].
V. M. Braun, D.Yu. Ivanov, G. P. Korchemsky, Phys. Rev. D [**69**]{} (2004) 034014 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0309330\].
B. Aubert [*et al.*]{} (BaBar Collaboration), arXiv:0704.1478.
B. Aubert [*et al.*]{} (BaBar Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D [**80**]{} (2009) 111105 \[arXiv:0907.1681\].
M. Beneke, S. Jäger, Nucl. Phys. B [**751**]{} (2006) 160 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0512351\]; G. Bell, V. Pilipp, Phys. Rev. D [**80**]{} (2009) 054024 \[arXiv:0907.1016\]; M. Beneke, T. Huber, X. Q. Li, Nucl. Phys. B [**832**]{} (2010) 109 \[arXiv:0911.3655\].
J. Charles [*et al.*]{} (CKMfitter Group), Eur. Phys. J. C [**41**]{}, 1 (2005); updated results and plots available at: http://ckmfitter.in2p3.fr.
J. Beringer [*et al.*]{} (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D [**86**]{} (2012) 010001.
P. Ball and R. Zwicky, Phys. Rev. D [**71**]{} (2005) 014015 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0406232\].
P. Ball, V. M. Braun, A. Lenz, JHEP [**0605**]{} (2006) 004 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0603063\].
L. Hofer, D. Scherer and L. Vernazza, JHEP [**1102**]{} (2011) 080 \[arXiv:1011.6319\].
A. Hocker, H. Lacker, S. Laplace and F. Le Diberder, Eur. Phys. J. C [**21**]{} (2001) 225 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0104062\].
|
---
abstract: |
Let $\mathcal{M}$ be the set of Borel probability measures on $\mathbb{R}$. We denote by $\mu^{\mathrm{ac}}$ the absolutely continuous part of $\mu\in\mathcal{M}$. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the supports and regularity for measures of the form $(\mu^{\boxplus
p})^{\uplus q}$, $\mu\in\mathcal{M}$, where $\boxplus$ and $\uplus$ are the operations of free additive and Boolean convolution on $\mathcal{M}$, respectively, and $p\geq1$, $q>0$. We show that for any $q$ the supports of $((\mu^{\boxplus p})^{\uplus
q})^{\mathrm{ac}}$ and $(\mu^{\boxplus p})^{\mathrm{ac}}$ contain the same number of components and this number is a decreasing function of $p$. Explicit formulas for the densities of $((\mu^{\boxplus p})^{\uplus q})^{\mathrm{ac}}$ and criteria for determining the atoms of $(\mu^{\boxplus p})^{\uplus q}$ are given. Based on the subordination functions of free convolution powers, we give another point of view to analyze the set of $\boxplus$-infinitely divisible measures and provide explicit expressions for their Voiculescu transforms in terms of free and Boolean convolutions.
address: 'Department of Mathematics, Indiana University, 831 East 3rd Street, Bloomington, IN 47405'
author:
- 'Hao-Wei Huang'
title: |
Supports, regularity, and $\boxplus$-infinite\
divisibility for measures of the form $(\mu^{\boxplus p})^{\uplus q}$
---
Introduction
============
For measures $\mu$ and $\nu$ in $\mathcal{M}$, the measure $\mu\boxplus\nu$ is the free (additive) convolution of $\mu$ and $\nu$. Thus, $\mu\boxplus\nu$ is the distribution of $X+Y$, where $X$ and $Y$ are free random variables with distributions $\mu$ and $\nu$, respectively. Denote by $\phi_\mu$ the Voiculescu transform of $\mu$ which satisfies the identity $\phi_{\mu\boxplus\nu}=\phi_\mu+\phi_\nu$ in some truncated cone in the upper half-plane $\mathbb{C}^+$.
For $n\in\mathbb{N}$, the $n$-fold free convolution $\mu\boxplus\cdots\boxplus\mu$ is denoted by $\mu^{\boxplus n}$. It was shown in \[\[NS\]\] that the discrete semigroup $\{\mu^{\boxplus
n}:n\in\mathbb{N}\}$ can be embedded in a continuous family $\{\mu^{\boxplus p}:p\geq1\}$ which satisfies $\mu^{\boxplus
p_1}\boxplus\mu^{\boxplus p_2}=\mu^{\boxplus(p_1+p_2)}$, $p_1,p_2\geq1$. Any measure in this family satisfies $\phi_{\mu^{\boxplus p}}=p\phi_\mu$ in some truncated cone in $\mathbb{C}^+$. We refer the reader to \[\[BB1\],\[BB2\], and \[HV3\]\] for complete developments on the existence of this continuous family. In the full generalization, Belinschi and Bercovici used the subordination function to construct the measure $\mu^{\boxplus p}$, $p>1$, and obtained certain regularity properties. In \[\[Huang\]\], an explicit formula for the density of $(\mu^{\boxplus p})^{\mathrm{ac}}$ was provided and the relation between the supports of $\mu$ and $\mu^{\boxplus p}$ was analyzed. As a consequence, the number $n(p)$ of components in the support of $\mu^{\boxplus p}$ was shown to be a decreasing function of $p$.
An important class of measures in $\mathcal{M}$ is the set of $\boxplus$-infinitely divisible measures $\mu$. Recall that $\mu$ is $\boxplus$-infinitely divisible if for any $n\in\mathbb{N}$ there exists a measure $\mu_n\in\mathcal{M}$ such that $\mu_n^{\boxplus
n}=\mu$. Another operation of convolution is the Boolean convolution $\uplus$ introduced by Speicher and Woroudi \[\[Boolean\]\]. The connection among free, Boolean, and classical infinite divisibilities was thoroughly studied by Bercovici and Pata \[\[BP\]\]. An aspect of this connection between infinite divisibility with respect to $\boxplus$ and $\uplus$ is the Boolean Bercovici-Pata bijection $\mathbb{B}$.
Another map $\mathbb{B}_t:\mathcal{M}\to\mathcal{M}$ connecting free and Boolean convolutions is defined by $$\mathbb{B}_t(\mu)=\left(\mu^{\boxplus(t+1)}\right)^{\uplus\frac{1}{t+1}},\;\;\;\;\;t\geq0,\;\;\mu\in\mathcal{M}.$$ This map introduced by Belinshi and Nica \[\[BN1\]\] satisfies $\mathbb{B}_t\circ\mathbb{B}_s=\mathbb{B}_{t+s}$, $s,t\geq0$. More importantly, the map $\mathbb{B}_1$ coincides with the Boolean Bercovici-Pata bijection $\mathbb{B}$. As a result, $\mathbb{B}_t(\mu)$ is $\boxplus$-infinitely divisible for any $\mu\in\mathcal{M}$ and $t\geq1$. This led the authors to associate to each measure $\mu\in\mathcal{M}$ a nonnegative number $\mathrm{Ind}(\mu)$, which is called $\boxplus$-divisibility indicator. For instance, the semicircular and Cauchy distributions have $\boxplus$-divisibility indicators $1$ and $\infty$, respectively. It was also shown that $\mu$ is $\boxplus$-infinitely divisible if and only if $\mathrm{Ind}(\mu)\geq1$. For any measure $\mu\in\mathcal{M}$ with mean zero and unit variance, denote by $\Phi(\mu)$ the unique measure in $\mathcal{M}$ such that $E_\mu=G_{\Phi(\mu)}$. Recall that the free Brownian motion started at $\nu\in\mathcal{M}$ is the process $\{\nu\boxplus\gamma_t:t>0\}$, where $\gamma_t$ is the centered semicircular distribution of variance $t$. The connection between this process and the map $\mathbb{B}_t$ is via the identity $E_{\mathbb{B}_t(\mu)}=G_{\Phi(\mu)\boxplus\gamma_t}$. These authors also studied the regularity of measures in $\mathbb{B}_t(\mathcal{M})$. In \[\[BN2\]\], the same authors studied the map $\mathbb{B}_t$ on the space $\mathcal{D}_c(k)$ of distributions of $k$-tuples of self-adjoint elements in a $C^*$-probability space based on moments and combinatorics. As in \[\[BN1\]\], they showed that $\mathbb{B}_1$ is the multi-variable Boolean Bercovic-Pata bijection and investigated the relation between $\mathbb{B}_t$ and free Brownian motion. Later, for measures $\mu,\nu\in\mathcal{D}_c(k)$, Nica \[\[Nica\]\] studied the so-called subordination distribution of $\mu\boxplus\nu$ with respect to $\nu$, in which a property related to the present paper is that $(\mu^{\boxplus p})^{\uplus(p-1)/p}$ is $\boxplus$-infinitely divisible for any $p>1$. For other further developments on $\mathbb{B}_t$ and the $\boxplus$-divisibility indicator of the measure $(\mu^{\boxplus p})^{\uplus q}$, we refer the reader to \[\[Japan\]\].
In the present paper, we mainly use the subordination functions for the $\boxplus$-convolution powers to study $\boxplus$-infinitely divisible measures. We show that measures of the form $(\mu^{\boxplus p})^{\uplus q}$ are $\boxplus$-infinitely divisible for $\mu\in\mathcal{M}$, $p>1$, and $0<q\leq(p-1)/p$. We also provide explicit formulas for the Voiculescu transforms of $\boxplus$-infinitely divisible measures. particularly, the compound free Poisson distribution with the rate $\lambda$ and jump distribution $\nu\in\mathcal{M}$ is shown to be of the form $(\nu_1^{\boxplus(\lambda+1)})^{\uplus\lambda/(\lambda+1)}$, $\nu_1\in\mathcal{M}$, and its $\boxplus$-divisibility indicator is calculated as well. In the study of the measures with mean zero and finite variance $\sigma^2$, we reformulate their $\boxplus$-divisibility indicators in terms of free Brownian motion: $$\mathrm{Ind}(\mu)=\sup\left\{t\geq0:E_\mu=\sigma^2G_{\nu_t\boxplus\gamma_{t\sigma^2}}\;\;
\mathrm{for}\;\;\mathrm{some}\;\;\nu_t\in\mathcal{M}\right\}.$$ As a consequence of this reformulation, a measure $\nu\in\mathcal{M}$ can be written as $\nu_1\boxplus\gamma_t$ for some $\nu_1\in\mathcal{M}$ and $t>0$ if and only if $\mathrm{Ind}(\Phi^{-1}(\nu))>0$. Moreover, we have $\mathrm{Ind}(\mu)>1$ if and only if $\phi_\mu=\sigma^2G_{\nu\boxplus\gamma_t}$ for some $\nu\in\mathcal{M}$ and $t>0$. The work \[4\] provides solid foundations for the current research and leads us to investigate the supports and regularity for the measures $\left(\mu^{\boxplus
p}\right)^{\uplus q}$, $p\geq1$, $q>0$. We prove that the nonatomic parts of this type of measure are absolutely continuous and the densities are analytic wherever they are positive. More importantly, the number of components in the support of $((\mu^{\boxplus
p})^{\uplus q})^{\mathrm{ac}}$ is independent of $q$ and a decreasing function of $p$. Particularly, $(\mu^{\uplus
q})^{\mathrm{ac}}$ contains the same number of components in the support for any $q>0$ provided that $\mathrm{Ind}(\mu)>0$.
The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 contains definitions and basic facts in free probability theory. Section 3 provides complete descriptions about the connections among free, Boolean convolutions, and $\boxplus$-infinitely divisible measures. Section 4 investigates the set of $\boxplus$-infinitely divisible measures with mean zero and finite variance. Section 5 contains results about the supports and regularity for the measures $\left(\mu^{\boxplus
p}\right)^{\uplus q}$, where $p\geq1$ and $q>0$.
Preliminary
===========
For any complex number $z$ in $\mathbb{C}$, let $\Re z$ and $\Im z$ be the real and imaginary parts of $z$, respectively. Denote by $\mathbb{C}^+=\{z\in\mathbb{C}:\Im z>0\}$ the complex upper half-plane. Consider the set $\mathcal{G}$ defined as $$\mathcal{G}=\left\{G|G:\mathbb{C}^+\to\mathbb{C}^-\;\;\mathrm{is}\;\;\mathrm{analytic}\;\;\mathrm{and}
\;\;\lim_{y\to\infty}iyG(iy)=1\right\}.$$ It is known that a function $G$ is in $\mathcal{G}$ if and only if there exists some measure $\mu\in\mathcal{M}$ such that $G$ can be written as $$G(z)=G_\mu(z):=\int_\mathbb{R}\frac{1}{z-s}\;d\mu(s),\;\;\;\;\;z\in\mathbb{C}^+.$$ The function $G_\mu$ is called the Cauchy transform of $\mu$. The measure $\mu$ can be recovered from $G_\mu$ as the weak limit of the measures $$\label{inversion}
d\mu_\epsilon(s)=-\frac{1}{\pi}\Im G_\mu(s+i\epsilon)\;ds$$ as $\epsilon\to0^+$. This is the Stieltjes inversion formula. Particularly, if $\Im G$ extends continuously to an open interval containing some point $x\in\mathbb{R}$ then the density of the absolutely continuous part of $\mu$ at $x$ is given by $-\Im
G(x)/\pi$.
Another class of functions which is closely related to $\mathcal{G}$ and plays a significant role in free probability theory is the following set $$\mathcal{F}=\left\{F|F:\mathbb{C}^+\to\mathbb{C}^+\;\;\mathrm{is}\;\;\mathrm{analytic}\;\;\mathrm{and}
\;\;\lim_{y\to\infty}\frac{F(iy)}{iy}=1\right\}.$$ A function $F$ belongs to $\mathcal{F}$ if and only if $F=F_\mu:=1/G_\mu$ for some $\mu\in\mathcal{M}$. The function $F_\mu$ is called the reciprocal Cauchy transform of $\mu$. Any function $F\in\mathcal{F}$ has the property $\Im F(z)\geq\Im z$ for $z\in\mathbb{C}^+$ and has a Nevanlinna representation of the form $$\label{NeF}
F(z)=\Re F(i)+z+\int_\mathbb{R}\frac{1+sz}{s-z}\;d\rho(s),$$ where $\rho$ is some finite positive Borel measure on $\mathbb{R}$. Moreover, the function $F$ has a right inverse $F_\mu^{-1}$ with respect to composition, which is defined on the truncated cone $$\Gamma_{\alpha,\beta}=\{x+iy\in\mathbb{C}^+:|x|\leq\alpha
y,\;|y|\geq\beta\}$$ of the upper half-plane for some $\alpha,\beta>0$. The function $\phi_\mu:\Gamma_{\alpha,\beta}\to\mathbb{C}^-\cup\mathbb{R}$ defined by $$\phi_\mu(z)=F_\mu^{-1}(z)-z,\;\;\;\;\;z\in\Gamma_{\alpha,\beta},$$ is called the Voiculescu transform of $\mu$. As indicated in the introduction, for $\mu,\nu\in\mathcal{M}$ and $z$ in some truncated cone in $\mathbb{C}^+$ the following identity holds: $$\phi_{\mu\boxplus\nu}(z)=\phi_\mu(z)+\phi_\nu(z).$$ Particularly, the identity $F_{\mu\boxplus\delta_a}(z)=F_\mu(z-a)$ holds for $z\in\mathbb{C}^+$ and $a\in\mathbb{R}$.
The reciprocal Cauchy transform $F_\mu$ can be used to locate the atoms of $\mu$. A point $\alpha$ is an atom of $\mu$ if and only if $F_\mu(\alpha)=0$ (that is, $F_\mu$ is defined and takes the value $0$ at the point $\alpha$) and the Julia-Carathéodory derivative $F_\mu'(\alpha)$ (which is the limit of $$\frac{F_\mu(z)-F_\mu(\alpha)}{z-\alpha}$$ as $z\to\alpha$ nontangentially, i.e., $(\Re
z-\alpha)/\Im z$ stays bounded and $z\in\mathbb{C}^+$) is finite, in which case $\mu(\{\alpha\})=1/F_\mu'(\alpha)$.
Given any measure $\mu\in\mathcal{M}$, the function $E_\mu(z)=z-F_\mu(z)$ is called the energy function associated with $\mu$ and belongs to the following set $$\mathcal{E}=\left\{E|E:\mathbb{C}^+\to\mathbb{C}^-\cup\mathbb{R}\;\;\mathrm{is}\;\;\mathrm{analytic}\;\;\mathrm{and}
\;\;\lim_{y\to\infty}\frac{E(iy)}{iy}=0\right\}.$$ Conversely, any function $E$ in $\mathcal{E}$ is the energy function of some $\mu\in\mathcal{M}$ whose Nevanlinna representation is given by $$\label{NeE}
E(z)=\Re E(i)+\int_\mathbb{R}\frac{1+sz}{z-s}\;d\rho(s),$$ where $\rho$ is some finite positive Borel measure on $\mathbb{R}$. Observe that we have the inclusion $\mathcal{G}\subset\mathcal{E}$. Indeed, for any measure $\mu\in\mathcal{M}$ it was proved in \[\[Maa\]\] that $\mu$ has mean zero and finite variance $\sigma^2$, i.e., $$\int_\mathbb{R}s\;d\mu(s)=0\;\;\;\;\;\mathrm{and}\;\;\;\;\;\int_\mathbb{R}s^2\;d\mu(s)=\sigma^2$$ if and only if there exists some unique $\nu\in\mathcal{M}$ such that $$\label{EMaa} E_\mu=\sigma^2G_\nu.$$ If $\sigma^2=1$, let $\Phi(\mu)$ be the unique measure satisfying $E_\mu=G_{\Phi(\mu)}$. The Eq. (\[EMaa\]) particularly shows that $\mu^{\uplus1/\sigma^2}$ has mean zero and unit variance, i.e., $E_\mu=\sigma^2G_{\Phi(\mu^{\uplus1/\sigma^2})}$.
Next, consider the set $$\mathcal{H}=\left\{H|H:\mathbb{C}^+\to\mathbb{C}\;\;\mathrm{is}\;\;\mathrm{analytic},\;\Im H(z)\leq\Im
z, \;\;z\in\mathbb{C}^+,\;\;\mathrm{and}
\;\;\lim_{y\to\infty}\frac{H(iy)}{iy}=1\right\},$$ which plays an important role in the investigation of the free convolution powers of measures in $\mathcal{M}$. Indeed, for any $H\in\mathcal{H}$ the function $2z-H(z)\in\mathcal{F}$ is the reciprocal Cauchy transform of some measure in $\mathcal{M}$. More importantly, the right inverses of the functions in $\mathcal{H}$ can be used to construct the $p$-th $\boxplus$-convolution power $\mu^{\boxplus p}$, $p\geq1$, of any measure $\mu\in\mathcal{M}$. We list below the properties needed in this paper. For more details, we refer the reader to \[\[BB1\],\[BB2\], and \[Huang\]\].
\[prop2.1\] For any $\mu\in\mathcal{M}$ and $p>1$, define the function $$H_p(z)=pz+(1-p)F_\mu(z),\;\;\;\;\;z\in\mathbb{C}^+,$$ the set $\Omega_p=\{z\in\mathbb{C}^+:\Im H_p(z)>0\}$, and the function $f_\mu:\mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{R}_+\cup\{\infty\}$ as $$\label{fmu}
f_\mu(x)=\int_\mathbb{R}\frac{s^2+1}{(s-x)^2}\;d\rho(s),\;\;\;\;\;x\in\mathbb{R},$$ where $\rho$ is the measure in the Nevanlinna representation $(\ref{NeF})$ of $F_\mu$.
1. [The function $H_p$ is in $\mathcal{H}$ and the set $\Omega_p$ is a simply connected domain whose boundary is the graph of the continuous function $f_p:\mathbb{R}\to[0,\infty)$, where $$f_p(x)=\inf\left\{y>0:\frac{\Im
E_\mu(x+iy)}{y}>\frac{-1}{p-1}\right\},\;\;\;\;\;x\in\mathbb{R}.$$]{}
2. [For $x\in\mathbb{R}$, $f_p(x)=0$ if and only if $f_\mu(x)\leq1/(p-1)$, while $z\in\Omega_p$ if and only if $$\int_\mathbb{R}\frac{s^2+1}{|s-z|^2}\;d\rho(s)<\frac{1}{p-1}.$$ Consequently, the functions $E_\mu$ and $H_p$ have continuous extensions to $\overline{\Omega_p}$ which are Lipschitz continuous with Lipschitz constants $1/(p-1)$ and $2$, respectively. Moreover, Eq. $(\ref{NeF})$ holds for $z\in\overline{\Omega_p}$.]{}
3. [There exists an analytic function $\omega_p:\mathbb{C}^+\to\mathbb{C}^+$ extending continuously to $\mathbb{C}^+\cup\mathbb{R}$ such that $H_p(\omega_p(z))=z$ holds for $z\in\mathbb{C}^+\cup\mathbb{R}$. Consequently, $\Omega_p=\omega_p(\mathbb{C}^+)$, $\omega_p(H_p(z))=z$ holds for $z\in\overline{\Omega_p}$, and $$\frac{|z_1-z_2|}{2}\leq|\omega_p(z_1)-\omega_p(z_2)|,\;\;\;\;\;z_1,z_2\in\mathbb{C}^+\cup\mathbb{R}.$$]{}
4. [The function $\omega_p$ is analytic in a neighborhood of $x$ wherever $\omega_p(x)\not\in\mathbb{R}$.]{}
5. [Let $\mu^{\boxplus p}$ be the unique measure in $\mathcal{M}$ whose reciprocal Cauchy transform satisfies $$\label{p-power}
F_{\mu^{\boxplus
p}}(z)=\frac{p\omega_p(z)-z}{p-1},\;\;\;\;\;z\in\mathbb{C}^+.$$ Then there exist some $\alpha,\beta>0$ such that $$\phi_{\mu^{\boxplus
p}}(z)=p\phi_\mu(z),\;\;\;\;\;z\in\Gamma_{\alpha,\beta}.$$ Moreover, the function $\omega_p$ is the subordination function of $\mu^{\boxplus p}$ with respect to $\mu$, i.e., $$F_{\mu^{\boxplus
p}}(z)=F_\mu(\omega_p(z)),\;\;\;\;\;z\in\mathbb{C}^+\cup\mathbb{R},$$ and consequently $$F_{\mu^{\boxplus
p}}(H_p(z))=F_\mu(z),\;\;\;\;\;z\in\overline{\Omega_p}.$$]{}
Complete characterizations of the supports of $\mu^{\boxplus p}$ were given in \[\[Huang\]\]. Following the notations in Proposition \[prop2.1\], we give below the results needed in the current research.
\[Hthm\] For $\mu\in\mathcal{M}$, define the function $\psi_p:\mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{R}$ by $\psi_p(x)=H_p(x+if_p(x))$, $x\in\mathbb{R}$, and the set $V_p^+=\{x\in\mathbb{R}:f_p(x)>0\}$. Then the following statements are true.
1. [The function $\psi_p$ is a homeomorphism on $\mathbb{R}$.]{}
2. [The measure $(\mu^{\boxplus
p})^{\mathrm{ac}}$ is concentrated on the set $\psi_p(\overline{V_p^+})$ with density $$\label{density}
\frac{d(\mu^{\boxplus
p})^{\mathrm{ac}}}{dx}(\psi_p(x))=\frac{(p-1)pf_p(x)}{\pi|px-\psi_p(x)+ipf_p(x)|},
\;\;\;\;\;x\in V_p^+.$$ ]{}
3. [The number of the components in the support of $\mu^{\boxplus
p}$ is a decreasing function of $p$.]{}
The set of $\boxplus$-infinitely divisible measures in $\mathcal{M}$ is closed under weak convergence of probability measures. As shown in \[\[HV2\]\], a necessary and sufficient condition for $\mu$ to be $\boxplus$-infinitely divisible is that $\phi_\mu$ belong to $\mathcal{E}$.
The Boolean convolution introduced in \[\[Boolean\]\] was defined via the functions in $\mathcal{E}$. Given $\mu_1$ and $\mu_2$ in $\mathcal{M}$, the measure $\nu$ satisfying the relation $$E_\nu=E_{\mu_1}+E_{\mu_2}$$ is called the Boolean convolution of $\mu_1$ and $\mu_2$, and it is denoted $\mu_1\uplus\mu_2$. For $\mu\in\mathcal{M}$ and a positive integer $n$, the $n$-fold Boolean convolution $\mu\uplus\cdots\uplus\mu$ denoted by $\mu^{\uplus n}$ satisfies $E_{\mu^{\uplus n}}=nE_\mu$. This can be extended naturally to the case when the exponent $n$ is not an integer. That is, for every $q\geq0$ the $q$-th $\uplus$-convolution power $\mu^{\uplus q}$ is defined as the unique measure in $\mathcal{M}$ satisfying $$E_{\mu^{\uplus q}}=qE_\mu.$$
The following theorem builds the connection between $\boxplus$-infinitely divisible measures and the Boolean convolution, which was thoroughly investigated in \[\[BP\]\].
\[thm2.2\] Let $\{\mu_n\}$ be a sequence in $\mathcal{M}$ and let $k_1<k_2<\cdots$ be a sequence of positive integers. Then the following statements $(1)$-$(3)$ are equivalent:
1. [$\mu_n^{\boxplus k_n}\to\mu_{\boxplus}^{c,\rho}$ weakly as $n\to\infty$;]{}
2. [$\mu_n^{\uplus k_n}\to\mu_{\uplus}^{c,\rho}$ weakly as $n\to\infty$;]{}
3. [the measures $$k_n\frac{s^2}{s^2+1}\;d\mu_n(s)\to d\rho(s)$$ weakly as $n\to\infty$ and $$\lim_{n\to\infty}\int_\mathbb{R}\frac{k_ns}{s^2+1}\;d\mu_n(s)=c.$$]{}
If $(1)$-$(3)$ hold then $\mu_{\boxplus}^{c,\rho}$ is $\boxplus$-infinitely divisible and $$\phi_{\mu_{\boxplus}^{c,\rho}}(z)=E_{\mu_{\uplus}^{c,\rho}}(z)=c+\int_\mathbb{R}\frac{1+sz}{z-s}\;d\rho(s),
\;\;\;\;\;z\in\mathbb{C}^+.$$
For $\mu\in\mathcal{M}$, Theorem \[thm2.2\] shows that $(\mu^{\uplus1/n})^{\boxplus n}$ converges weakly to some $\boxplus$-infinitely divisible measure $\mathbb{B}(\mu)$ satisfying $\phi_{\mathbb{B}(\mu)}=E_\mu$. Conversely, for any $\boxplus$-infinitely divisible measure $\nu$ the sequence $(\nu^{\boxplus1/n})^{\uplus n}$ converges weakly to some $\mu$ satisfying $\phi_\nu=E_\mu$. Since $E$ determines the measure uniquely, the map $\mathbb{B}$ induces a bijective map from $\mathcal{M}$ onto the set of $\boxplus$-infinitely divisible measures. This map $\mathbb{B}$ is called the Boolean Bercovici-Pata bijection, which coincides with $\mathbb{B}_1$ as indicated in the introduction.
In the study of $\boxplus$-infinitely divisible measures, there is one useful tool introduced in \[\[BN1\]\] called $\boxplus$-divisibility indicator: $$\mathrm{Ind}(\mu)=\sup\{t\geq0:\mu\in\mathbb{B}_t(\mathcal{M})\},\;\;\;\;\;\mu\in\mathcal{M}.$$ Any measure $\mu\in\mathcal{M}$ with finite support has $\mathrm{Ind}(\mu)=0$, while $\mu$ is $\boxplus$-infinitely divisible if and only if $\mathrm{Ind}(\mu)\geq1$. In general, for any $t\geq0$ and $\mu\in\mathcal{M}$ we have $$\label{Nindicator}
\mathrm{Ind}(\mathbb{B}_t(\mu))=t+\mathrm{Ind}(\mu)$$ For $\boxplus$-divisibility indicators of some specific measures, we refer the reader to \[\[BN1\]\].
$\boxplus$-infinite divisibility of $\mathbb{B}_{p,q}(\mu)$
===========================================================
For any $\mu\in\mathcal{M}$ and $p\geq1$, $q>0$, denote $\mathbb{B}_{p,q}(\mu)=\left(\mu^{\boxplus p}\right)^{\uplus q}$. Particularly, $\mathbb{B}_{t+1,1/(t+1)}=\mathbb{B}_t$ for any $t\geq0$ and $\mathbb{B}_{2,1/2}=\mathbb{B}$. In this section, we mainly use Proposition \[prop2.1\] to investigate the measure $\mathbb{B}_{p,q}(\mu)$. Throughout the paper, the number $r^*$ stands for the conjugate exponent of any number $r>0$, i.e., $$\frac{1}{r}+\frac{1}{r^*}=1,\;\;\;\;\;r\neq1$$ and $r^*=\infty$ if $r=1$. Note that we have $r^*<0$ if $r\in(0,1)$.
For $p>1$, by (\[p-power\]) and the definition of Boolean convolution power we have $$\label{general}
F_{\mathbb{B}_{p,q}(\mu)}(z)=\frac{pq\omega_p(z)-(1+pq-p)z}{p-1},\;\;\;\;\;z\in\mathbb{C}^+\cup\mathbb{R}.$$ As a special case of (\[general\]), if $1+pq-p=0$, i.e., $q=1/p^*$ then $$F_{\mathbb{B}_{p,1/p^*}(\mu)}(z)
=\frac{p\omega_p(z)}{p^*(p-1)}=\omega_p(z),\;\;\;\;\;z\in\mathbb{C}^+\cup\mathbb{R}.$$ This yields that the Voiculescu transform $\phi_{\mathbb{B}_{p,1/p^*}(\mu)}$ of the measure $\mathbb{B}_{p,1/p^*}(\mu)$ has an analytic continuation to $\mathbb{C}^+$, which is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\phi_{\mathbb{B}_{p,1/p^*}(\mu)}(z)&=F_{\mathbb{B}_{p,1/p^*}(\mu)}^{-1}(z)-z=H_p(z)-z \\
&=E_{\mu^{\uplus(p-1)}}(z),\;\;\;\;\;z\in\mathbb{C}^+.\end{aligned}$$ These observations are recorded in the following result.
\[3.1\] For any measure $\mu\in\mathcal{M}$ and number $p>1$, the measure $\mathbb{B}_{p,1/p^*}(\mu)$ is $\boxplus$-infinitely divisible, the function $F_{\mathbb{B}_{p,1/p^*}(\mu)}$ extends continuously to $\mathbb{C}^+\cup\mathbb{R}$, $$F_{\mu^{\boxplus p}}(z)=F_\mu\left(F_{\mathbb{B}_{p,1/p^*}(\mu)}(z)\right),\;\;\;\;\;z\in\mathbb{C}^+\cup\mathbb{R},$$ and the Voiculescu transform of $\mathbb{B}_{p,1/p^*}(\mu)$ can be expressed as $$\phi_{\mathbb{B}_{p,1/p^*}(\mu)}=E_{\mu^{\uplus(p-1)}}.$$ In particular, the above statements hold for $\mathbb{B}_1$.
Observe that Proposition \[3.1\] provides an easy way to prove that $\mathbb{B}_1(\mu)$, $\mu\in\mathcal{M}$, is identically equal to the image $\mathbb{B}(\mu)$ of $\mu$ under the Boolean Bercovici-Pata bijection. Indeed, by Theorem \[thm2.2\] and Proposition \[3.1\] we obtain $$\label{bijection}
\phi_{\mathbb{B}(\mu)}=E_\mu=\phi_{\mathbb{B}_1(\mu)}.$$ In \[\[Nica\]\], results similar to Proposition \[3.1\] for the joint distributions for $k$-tuples of selfadjoint elements in a $C^*$-probability space were obtained by combinatorial tools. We refer the reader to the same paper for the so-called $k$-tuple Boolean Bercovici-Pata bijection and related results.
The following lemma contains some basic properties of the map $\mathbb{B}_{p,q}$ which is frequently used in the sequel. The identity in (\[formula\]) can be obtained by \[\[BN1\], Proposition 3.1\]. Here we provide an alternative proof using Proposition \[3.1\].
If $\mu\in\mathcal{M}$, $p,p_1\geq1$, and $q,q_1>0$ then $$\label{formula}
\left(\mu^{\uplus q}\right)^{\boxplus
p}=\mathbb{B}_{1+pq-q,\frac{pq}{1+pq-q}}(\mu),$$ $$\label{two}
\mathbb{B}_{p_1,q_1}\circ\mathbb{B}_{p,q}=
\mathbb{B}_{p(1+p_1q-q),\frac{p_1q_1q}{1+p_1q-q}},$$ and $$\label{t}
\mathbb{B}_{p,q}=\mathbb{B}_t\circ\mathbb{B}_{p(1-qt),\frac{q}{1-qt}},
\;\;\;\;\;0\leq t\leq\frac{1}{p^*q}.$$
It suffices to show the lemma for $p>1$. By Proposition \[prop2.1\], we have $$F_{(\mu^{\uplus q})^{\boxplus p}}(z)=\frac{p\omega(z)-z}{p-1},\;\;\;\;\;z\in\mathbb{C}^+,$$ where the function $\omega$ is the right inverse of the function $$\begin{aligned}
H(z)&=pz+(1-p)F_{\mu^{\uplus q}} \\
&=(1+pq-q)z+(q-pq)F_\mu(z),\;\;\;\;\;z\in\mathbb{C}^+.\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, since the number $1+pq-q>1$ whose conjugate exponent is $$(1+pq-q)^*=\frac{1+pq-q}{pq-q},$$ by Proposition \[3.1\] we see that $\omega=F_\nu$, where $$\label{nu} \nu=\mathbb{B}_{1+pq-q,\frac{pq-q}{1+pq-q}}(\mu).$$ Then using the definition of the Boolean convolution power and (\[nu\]) gives $$\frac{p\omega(z)-z}{p-1}=\frac{pF_\nu(z)-z}{p-1}=F_{\nu^{\uplus p^*}}(z),\;\;\;\;\;z\in\mathbb{C}^+,$$ and $\nu^{\uplus p^*}=\mathbb{B}_{1+pq-q,\frac{pq}{1+pq-q}}(\mu)$, whence the formula in (\[formula\]) follows. The equality in (\[two\]) follows directly from (\[formula\]). Finally, note that if $t\in[0,1/(p^*q)]$ then $$p(1-qt)\geq1\;\;\;\;\;\mathrm{and}\;\;\;\;\;\frac{q}{1-qt}>0,$$ whence the measure $\mathbb{B}_{p(1-qt),q/(1-qt)}(\mu)$ is defined and (\[t\]) holds by (\[two\]).
If $p>1$ and $0<q<1/p^*$ (or, equivalently, $1+pq-p<0$) then (\[t\]) yields $\mathbb{B}_{p,q}=\mathbb{B}_1\circ\mathbb{B}_{p_1,q_1}$, where $$p_1=p(1-q)>1\;\;\;\;\;\mathrm{and}\;\;\;\;\;q_1=\frac{q}{1-q}>0.$$ Using Proposition \[3.1\] and the preceding discussions gives the following result.
\[3.3\] If $\mu\in\mathcal{M}$, $p>1$, and $0<q\leq1/p^*$ then the following statements hold.
1. [The measure $\mathbb{B}_{p,q}(\mu)$ is $\boxplus$-infinitely divisible.]{}
2. [For any $n\in\mathbb{N}$, $${\mathbb{B}_{p,q}(\mu)}=
\left({\mathbb{B}_{\frac{p(n+q-nq)}{n},\frac{q}{n(1-q)+q}}(\mu)}\right)^{\boxplus
n}.$$]{}
3. [The Voiculescu transform of $\mathbb{B}_{p,q}(\mu)$ can be expressed as $$\phi_{\mathbb{B}_{p,q}(\mu)}=E_{\mathbb{B}_{p_1,q_1}(\mu)}.$$]{}
4. [For $r>0$, let $\nu_r=\mathbb{B}_{p_1,r}(\mu)$. Then $$F_{\mathbb{B}_{p,(1-q)r+q}(\mu)}(z)
=F_{\nu_r}\left(F_{\mathbb{B}_{p,q}(\mu)}(z)\right),\;\;\;\;\;z\in\mathbb{C}^+\cup\mathbb{R}.$$]{}
Particularly, for any $t\geq1$ the measure $\mathbb{B}_t(\mu)$ is $\boxplus$-infinitely divisible, $$\phi_{\mathbb{B}_t(\mu)}=E_{\mathbb{B}_{t-1}(\mu)},$$ and $F_{\mathbb{B}_t(\mu)}$ is the subordination function of $\mu^{\boxplus(t+1)}$ with respect to $\mu^{\boxplus t}$, that is, $$F_{\mu^{\boxplus(t+1)}}(z)=F_{\mu^{\boxplus t}}(F_{\mathbb{B}_t(\mu)}(z)),
\;\;\;\;\;z\in\mathbb{C}^+\cup\mathbb{R}.$$
The assertions (1) and (3) were proved (particularly, $p=t+1$ and $q=(t+1)^{-1}$ satisfy the condition $1+pq-p\leq0$ if and only if $t\geq1$). Next, observe that $$\frac{p(n+q-nq)}{n}>p-pq\geq1\;\;\;\;\;\mathrm{and}\;\;\;\;\;
\frac{q}{n(1-q)+q}>0,$$ whence the assertion (2) follows from (\[two\]). By (3), $F_{\mathbb{B}_{p,q}(\mu)}^{-1}$ can be expressed as $$\label{1}
F_{\mathbb{B}_{p,q}(\mu)}^{-1}(z)=
\left(1+\frac{q_1}{r}\right)z-\frac{q_1}{r}F_{\nu_r}(z),\;\;\;\;\;z\in\mathbb{C}^+.$$ Since $\nu_r^{\boxplus\left(1+q_1/r\right)}=\mathbb{B}_{p,(1-q)r+q}(\mu)$ by (\[formula\]), Proposition \[prop2.1\](4) and (\[1\]) imply the assertion (4). Letting $r=1$ in (4) yields the last assertion.
Observe that if $\mu$ is $\boxplus$-infinitely divisible then $\mu\in\mathbb{B}(\mathcal{M})$, i.e., the measure $\mathbb{B}^{-1}(\mu)=(\mu^{\uplus2})^{\boxplus1/2}$ is defined. In order to investigate the measure of the form $\mu^{\boxplus p}$, $0<p<1$ (that is, $\mu=\nu^{\boxplus1/p}$ for some $\nu\in\mathcal{M}$ ), we need the following lemma. This lemma was also provided in \[\[Japan\]\]; however, the case $\mathrm{Ind}(\mu)=\infty$ was not considered there.
\[3.4\] For any measure $\mu\in\mathcal{M}$ and any number $q>0$, we have $$\mathrm{Ind}\left(\mu^{\uplus q}\right)=\frac{\mathrm{Ind}(\mu)}{q}.$$
First claim the inequality $\mathrm{Ind}(\mu^{\uplus q})\geq\mathrm{Ind}(\mu)/q$ holds. It clearly holds if $\mathrm{Ind}(\mu)=0$. Next, consider the case $\mathrm{Ind}(\mu)>0$. Then for any finite $r$ with $0<r<\mathrm{Ind}(\mu)$ pick a measure $\nu\in\mathcal{M}$ such that $\mu=\mathbb{B}_r(\nu)$, from which we obtain that $$\mathrm{Ind}\left(\mu^{\uplus q}\right)=\mathrm{Ind}\left(\left(\nu^{\boxplus(r+1)}\right)^{\uplus
\frac{q}{r+1}}\right)=\mathrm{Ind}\left(\mathbb{B}_{r/q}(\nu_1)\right)\geq
\frac{r}{q},$$ where $\nu_1\in\mathcal{M}$ and (\[t\]) is used in the second equality above. If $\mathrm{Ind}(\mu)=\infty$ then letting $r\uparrow\infty$ gives $\mathrm{Ind}(\mu^{\uplus
q})=\infty$ as well, which implies the desired inequality. Otherwise, letting $r\uparrow\mathrm{Ind}(\mu)<\infty$ yields the claim. By considering the identity $\mu=\left(\mu^{\uplus
q}\right)^{\uplus1/q}$ and using the claim, we obtain the opposite inequality, and then the proof is complete.
Now we are able to determine for what value of $p\in(0,1)$ the $p$-th $\boxplus$-convolution power of a measure is defined. The following implication that (2) implies (1) was proved in \[\[BN1\]\].
\[3.5\] Suppose that $\mu\in\mathcal{M}$ and fix a number $p\in(0,1)$. Then the following statements $(1)$-$(3)$ are equivalent:
1. [$\mu^{\boxplus p}$ is defined, that is, $\mu=\nu^{\boxplus1/p}$ for some $\nu\in\mathcal{M}$;]{}
2. [$1-p\leq\mathrm{Ind}(\mu)$;]{}
3. [$\mu^{\uplus(1-p)}$ is $\boxplus$-infinitely divisible.]{}
If $(1)$-$(3)$ hold and $\Omega_p=F_{\mu^{\uplus(1-p)}}(\mathbb{C}^+)$ then the following statements are true.
1. [The reciprocal Cauchy transform $F_\mu$ extends continuously to $\mathbb{C}^+\cup\mathbb{R}$.]{}
2. [The identity $F_{\mu^{\boxplus
p}}\left(F_{\mu^{\uplus(1-p)}}(z)\right)=F_\mu(z)$ holds for $z\in\mathbb{C}^+\cup\mathbb{R}$.]{}
3. [The identity $F_{\mu^{\boxplus
p}}(z)=F_\mu\left(F_{\mu^{\uplus(1-p)}}^{-1}(z)\right)$ holds for $z\in\overline{\Omega_p}$.]{}
4. [The Voiculescu transform of $\mu^{\uplus(1-p)}$ can be expressed as $$\phi_{\mu^{\uplus(1-p)}}=E_{\left(\mu^{\boxplus
p}\right)^{\uplus(1/p-1)}}=E_{\mathbb{B}^{-1}(\mu^{\uplus(1-p)})}.$$]{}
If $\nu^{\boxplus1/p}=\mu$ then by Lemma \[3.4\] we have $$\mathrm{Ind}(\mu)=p
\mathrm{Ind}\left(\mathbb{B}_{1/p-1}(\nu)\right)\geq
p\left(\frac{1}{p}-1\right)=1-p,$$ which shows that (1) implies (2). Applying Proposition \[3.1\] to $\nu$ and $1/p$ yields the assertions (3). If (3) holds, i.e., $\phi_{\mu^{\uplus(1-p)}}\in\mathcal{E}$ then the following function $$F(z)=\frac{-p\phi_{\mu^{\uplus(1-p)}}(z)+(1-p)z}{1-p},\;\;\;\;z\in\mathbb{C}^+,$$ belongs to $\mathcal{F}$, i.e., $F=F_\nu$ for some $\nu\in\mathcal{M}$, by which $F_{\mu^{\uplus(1-p)}}^{-1}$ can be written as $$\label{p<1o}
F_{\mu^{\uplus(1-p)}}^{-1}(z)=\frac{1}{p}z+\left(1-\frac{1}{p}\right)F_\nu(z),\;\;\;\;\;z\in\mathbb{C}^+.$$ Then by Proposition 2.1 and the definition of the $\uplus$-convolution power we have $$F_{\nu^{\boxplus1/p}}(z)=\frac{\frac{1}{p}F_{\mu^{\uplus(1-p)}}(z)-z}{\frac{1}{p}-1}
=F_\mu(z),\;\;\;\;\;z\in\mathbb{C}^+,$$ whence (1) holds. The assertion (a) holds since $\mu=\nu^{\boxplus1/p}$ and $1/p>1$, while (b)-(d) follow from the preceding discussions, (\[bijection\]), and Proposition \[prop2.1\](5).
The proof of the preceding proposition also gives the construction of the measure $\mu^{\boxplus p}$ whenever it is defined for $p\in(0,1)$. Indeed, by (\[p<1o\]) the right inverse $\omega_p$ of the function $H_p(z)=pz+(1-p)F_\mu(z)$ ($H_p=F_{\mu^{\uplus(1-p)}}$) satisfies the relation $$\label{p<1} F_{\mu^{\boxplus
p}}(z)=\frac{p\omega_p(z)-z}{p-1},\;\;\;\;z\in\mathbb{C}^+,$$ and we have $F_{\mu^{\boxplus p}}(z)=F_\mu(\omega_p(z))$ for $z\in H_p(\mathbb{C}^+)$.
The following proposition can be proved by \[\[BN1\], Proposition 3.1\]. It can be also obtained by using (\[formula\]), (\[general\]), and (\[p<1\]), and we leave the proof for the reader.
\[3.6\] Let $\mu\in\mathcal{M}$ and for $p,q>0$ let $q'=1+pq-p$ and $p'=pq/q'$.
1. [If $\mu^{\boxplus p}$ is defined and $q'>0$ then we have the following identity $$\label{formula2}\left(\mu^{\boxplus p}\right)^{\uplus q}=\left(\mu^{\uplus q'}\right)^{\boxplus
p'}.$$]{}
2. The formula $(\ref{formula})$ holds for either
1. [$p\geq1$ or]{}
2. [$1-\mathrm{Ind}(\mu^{\uplus q})\leq p<1$ and $1+pq-q>0$.]{}
It was proved in \[\[BN1\]\] that $\mu\in\mathbb{B}_t(\mathcal{M})$ for any finite $t$ with $0\leq t\leq\mathrm{Ind}(\mu)$. In the following proposition we give an explicit expression for the measure $\mu_t$ so that $\mu=\mathbb{B}_t(\mu_t)$. The reader should be aware of that this conclusion holds under the essential condition that $t$ has to be finite and this condition may not be noticed without caution.
If $\mu\in\mathcal{M}$ then for any finite number $t$ with $-1<t\leq\mathrm{Ind}(\mu)$ there exists a unique measure $\mu_t\in\mathcal{M}$ such that $$\label{N}
\mu=\left(\mu_t^{\boxplus(1+t)}\right)^{\uplus\frac{1}{1+t}},$$ in which case $\mu_t$ can be expressed as $$\label{N1}
\mu_t=\left(\mu^{\uplus(t+1)}\right)^{\boxplus\frac{1}{t+1}}.$$ Particularly, we have $\mu=\mathbb{B}_t(\mu_t)$ if $t\geq0$. In addition, if $0<t\leq\mathrm{Ind}(\mu)$ then the measure $\mu^{\uplus t}$ is $\boxplus$-infinitely divisible and its Voiculescu transform can be expressed as $$\label{N2}
\phi_{\mu^{\uplus t}}=E_{\mu_t^{\uplus t}}=
E_{(\mu^{\uplus(2t)})^{\boxplus1/2}}.$$
It is clear that the measure $\mu_t$ in (\[N1\]) is defined and (\[N\]) holds if $-1<t\leq0$. If $t=\mathrm{Ind}(\mu)<\infty$ then $1-\mathrm{Ind}(\mu^{\uplus(t+1)})=1/(t+1)$ by Lemma \[3.4\], whence the measure $\mu_t$ in (\[N1\]) is defined by Proposition \[3.5\]. The same result also holds for $0<t<\mathrm{Ind}(\mu)\in(0,\infty]$, and hence the identity $\mu=\mathbb{B}_t(\mu_t)$ holds. Next, observe that $\mathrm{Ind}(\mu^{\uplus t})\geq1$ for $0<t\leq\mathrm{Ind}(\mu)$, and therefore $\mu^{\uplus t}$ is $\boxplus$-infinitely divisible. The first equality in (\[N2\]) follows by replacing $\mu$ with $\mu^{\uplus(t+1)}$ and letting $p=1/(t+1)$ in Proposition \[3.5\], while the second equality follows from (\[bijection\]).
Next, we relate the limit laws to $\boxplus$-divisibility indicators.
\[limit\] Let $q>0$ and $\{\mu_n\}$ be a sequence of measures in $\mathcal{M}$ such that $\mu_n\to\mu$ weakly as $n\to\infty$ for some $\mu\in\mathcal{M}$. Then the following statements hold.
1. [The inequality $\lim\sup_n\mathrm{Ind}(\mu_n)\leq\mathrm{Ind}(\mu)$ holds.]{}
2. [For any $p>0$ with $1-\inf_n\mathrm{Ind}(\mu_n)\leq p$, $\mu_n^{\boxplus
p}\to\mu^{\boxplus p}$ weakly as $n\to\infty$.]{}
3. [The measures $\mu_n^{\uplus q}\to\mu^{\uplus q}$ weakly as $n\to\infty$.]{}
The measure $\mu_n^{\boxplus p}$ in (2) is defined for all $n$ by Proposition \[3.5\], whence (2) holds by \[\[HV2\], Proposition 5.7\]. The assertion (3) holds by \[\[BP\], Proposition 6.2\]. To prove (1), first consider the case that $0<t:=\lim\sup_n\mathrm{Ind}(\mu_n)<\infty$. Then for sufficiently small $\epsilon>0$ we have $1<\lim\sup_n\mathrm{Ind}(\mu_n^{\uplus(t-\epsilon)})$ by Lemma \[3.4\], whence there exists a subsequence $\{\mu_{n_k}\}$ such that $\mu_{n_k}^{\uplus(t-\epsilon)}$ is $\boxplus$-infinitely divisible for all $k$. Since the set of $\boxplus$-infinitely divisible measures is weakly closed, we see that $\mathrm{Ind}(\mu^{\uplus(t-\epsilon)})\geq1$ by (3), which yields $t-\epsilon\leq\mathrm{Ind}(\mu)$. Letting $\epsilon\to0$ shows $t\leq\mathrm{Ind}(\mu)$. If $t=\infty$ then by similar arguments it is easy to see that $m\leq\mathrm{Ind}(\mu)$ for any $m>0$, and therefore $\mathrm{Ind}(\mu)=\infty$. The assertion (1) clearly holds if $t=0$, and hence the proof is complete.
It was shown in Proposition \[3.1\] that the subordination function for the $\boxplus$-convolution power appearing in (\[p-power\]) is in fact the reciprocal Cauchy transform of some $\boxplus$-infinitely divisible measure. The following theorem states that the converse is also true. For other related results about the $\boxplus$-infinite divisibility of the subordination functions, we refer the reader to \[\[G4\]\] and \[\[Nica\]\].
\[sub\] If $\mu\in\mathcal{M}$ then the following statements $(1)$ and $(2)$ are equivalent.
1. [The measure $\mu$ is $\boxplus$-infinitely divisible.]{}
2. [The function $F_\mu$ is the right inverse of some function $H\in\mathcal{H}$.]{}
If $(1)$ and $(2)$ hold then $F_\mu$ extends continuously to $\mathbb{C}^+\cup\mathbb{R}$, $H$ can be written as $$\label{H}
H(z)=F_\mu^{-1}(z)=pz+(1-p)F_{\mu_p}(z),\;\;\;\;\;z\in\mathbb{C}^+,$$ $\phi_\mu=E_{\mathbb{B}^{-1}(\mu)}$, and $$F_{\mu^{\uplus
p^*}}(z)=F_{\mu_p}(F_\mu(z)),\;\;\;\;\;z\in\mathbb{C}^+,$$ where $$\label{mup} \mu_p=\left(\mu^{\uplus
p^*}\right)^{\boxplus\frac{1}{p}},\;\;\;\;\;p>1.$$ Moreover, for $r>0$ the measure $\mu^{\boxplus r}$ is $\boxplus$-infinitely divisible and $$\phi_{\mu^{\boxplus
r}}=E_{\left(\mu^{\uplus(1+r)}\right)^{\boxplus\frac{r}{1+r}}}.$$
First suppose that (2) holds, i.e., there exists some $\nu\in\mathcal{M}$ such that $H(z)=2z-F_\nu(z)$ and $H(F_\mu(z))=z$, $z\in\mathbb{C}^+$. By Proposition \[prop2.1\](5) we see that $F_\mu(z)=\left[F_{\nu^{\boxplus2}}(z)+z\right]/2$ or, equivalently, $\mu=\mathbb{B}_1(\nu)$, whence (1) holds by Proposition \[3.1\]. Conversely, if $\mu$ is $\boxplus$-infinitely divisible then the measure $\mu_p$ in (\[mup\]) is defined by Lemma \[3.4\] and Proposition \[3.5\]. Moreover, by the fact $\mathbb{B}_{p,1/p^*}(\mu_p)=\mu$ and Proposition \[3.1\], we obtain $\phi_\mu=E_{\mu_p^{\uplus(p-1)}}$, which yields the implications that (1) implies (2), and (\[H\]). The last assertion follows from (\[bijection\]) and Proposition \[3.6\](1). Indeed, we have $$\phi_{\mu^{\boxplus r}}=rE_{\mathbb{B}^{-1}(\mu)}=E_{((\mu^{\uplus2})^{\boxplus1/2})^{\uplus r}}
=E_{(\mu^{\uplus(1+r)})^{\boxplus r/(1+r)}},$$ as desired. This finishes the proof.
Next, we analyze the supports and regularity of $\boxplus$-infinitely divisible measures. Given such a measure $\mu$, let $\Omega=F_\mu(\mathbb{C}^+)$. Then by Proposition \[prop2.1\](1) and \[sub\], $\Omega=\{z\in\mathbb{C}^+:\Im
F_\mu^{-1}(z)>0\}$ is a simply connected domain and $\partial\Omega=F_\mu(\mathbb{R})$ is the graph of the continuous function $$\begin{aligned}
f(x)&=\inf\left\{y>0:\Im F_\mu^{-1}(x+iy)>0\right\} \\
&=\inf\left\{y>0:\frac{\Im
E_{\mathbb{B}^{-1}(\mu)}(x+iy)}{y}>-1\right\},\;\;\;\;\;x\in\mathbb{R}.\end{aligned}$$ Then Theorem \[Hthm\](1) shows that the function $\psi(x)=F_\mu^{-1}(x+if(x))$, $x\in\mathbb{R}$, is homeomorphism on $\mathbb{R}$. With the help of Proposition \[prop2.1\], we have the following conclusions.
\[3.10\] Suppose that $\mu\in\mathcal{M}$ is $\boxplus$-infinitely divisible.
1. [The function $\phi_\mu$ has a continuous extension to $\partial\Omega$ and for any $z_1,z_2\in\overline{\Omega}$, $$|\phi_\mu(z_1)-\phi_\mu(z_2)|\leq|z_1-z_2|.$$]{}
2. [For any $z_1,z_2\in\mathbb{C}^+\cup\mathbb{R}$, $$\frac{|z_1-z_2|}{2}\leq|F_\mu(z_1)-F_\mu(z_2)|.$$ Consequently, $G_\mu$ has a continuous extension to $\mathbb{R}$ except one point and the measure $\mu$ has at most one atom.]{}
3. [The measure $\mu$ has an atom if and only if $0\in\partial\Omega$ and $$\lim_{\epsilon\downarrow0}\frac{F_\mu^{-1}(i\epsilon)-F_\mu^{-1}(0)}{i\epsilon}=m>0,$$ in which case the point $F_\mu^{-1}(0)$ is an atom of $\mu$ with mass $m$.]{}
4. [The nonatomic part of $\mu$ is absolutely continuous $($with respect to Lebesgue measure$)$.]{}
5. [The measure $\mu^{\mathrm{ac}}$ is concentrated on the set $\psi(\overline{V^+})$, where $V^+=\{x:f(x)>0\}$.]{}
6. [At the point $\psi(x)$, $x\in V^+$, the density of $\mu^{\mathrm{ac}}$ is analytic and given by $$\frac{d\mu^{\mathrm{ac}}}{dx}(\psi(x))=\frac{f(x)}{\pi(x^2+f^2(x))}.$$]{}
7. [The measure $\mu$ is compactly supported if and only if so is $f$.]{}
By letting $p=2$ in Proposition \[prop2.1\] and Theorem \[sub\], we have $H(z)=F_\mu^{-1}(z)=2z-F_{\mathbb{B}^{-1}(\mu)}(z)$, $z\in\mathbb{C}^+$. Then it follows from \[prop2.1\](2) that $$\label{in}
\int_\mathbb{R}\frac{s^2+1}{|s-z|^2}\;d\sigma(s)\leq1,\;\;\;\;\;z\in\overline{\Omega}.$$ where $\sigma$ is the measure in the Nevanlinna representation of $F_{\mathbb{B}^{-1}(\mu)}$. Since $\phi_\mu=E_{\mathbb{B}^{-1}(\mu)}$, the inequality in (1) holds for $z\in\Omega$ by Hölder inequality and (\[in\]), whence (1) holds by continuous extension. The assertion (2) follows from Proposition \[prop2.1\] (3). Observer that $\mu$ has an atom at $\alpha$ if and only if $F_\mu(\alpha)=0$ and the Julia-Carathéodory derivative $F_\mu'(\alpha)<\infty$, which happens if and only if $0\in\partial\Omega$ and $$0<\frac{1}{F_\mu'(\alpha)}=(F_\mu^{-1})'(0),$$ where $(F_\mu^{-1})'(0)$ is the Julia-Carathéodory derivative of $F_\mu^{-1}$ at $0$. Hence $\mu(\{\alpha\})=(F_\mu^{-1})'(0)$ and (3) holds. Next, note that for any $x\in\mathbb{R}$ we have $F_\mu(\psi(x))=x+if(x)$. Since $F_\mu$ extends continuously to $\mathbb{C}^+\cup\mathbb{R}$, applying the inversion formula (\[inversion\]) gives $$\frac{d\mu^{\mathrm{ac}}}{dx}(\psi(x))=\frac{-1}{\pi}\Im G_\mu(\psi(x))=
\frac{f(x)}{\pi(x^2+f^2(x))},\;\;\;\;\;x\in V^+,$$ which, along with \[prop2.1\](4) gives (5) and (6). As noted above, $F_\mu(x)=0$ a.e. relative to the singular part of $\mu$, from which we deduce that the singular part of $\mu$ is atomic, which gives (4). That (7) follows from (5) and the fact that $\mu$ has at most one atom.
The constants appearing in \[3.10\](1) and (2) are sharp. Indeed, by considering the standard semicircular distribution we have $\Omega=\{z\in\mathbb{C}^+:|z|>1\}$, and then taking $z_1=1$ and $z_2=-1$ shows that $1$ is the best constant in (1), whence the same conclusion for (2) follows immediately.
Recall that the compound free Poisson distribution $p(\lambda,\nu)$ with the rate $\lambda>0$ and jump distribution $\nu$is defined as the weak limit as $n\to\infty$ of $\mu_n^{\boxplus n}$, where $$\mu_n=\left(1-\frac{\lambda}{n}\right)\delta_0+\frac{\lambda}{n}\nu$$ and $\nu$ is compactly supported. The next proposition generalizes the jump distribution with compact support to any measure in $\mathcal{M}$.
\[Poisson\] Given $\nu\in\mathcal{M}$, define $$d\rho(s)=\frac{s^2}{s^2+1}\;d\nu(s).$$ Then $p(\lambda,\nu)=\mathbb{B}_{1+\lambda,1/(1+\lambda)^*}(\mu_0)$, where $\mu_0$ is a measure in $\mathcal{M}$ whose reciprocal Cauchy transform satisfies $$F_{\mu_0}(z)=-\int_\mathbb{R}\frac{s}{s^2+1}\;d\nu(s)+z+\int_\mathbb{R}\frac{1+sz}{s-z}\;d\rho(s).$$ Consequently, $p(\lambda,\nu)$ is a $\boxplus$-infinitely divisible measure with an atom at $0$ of mass $1-\lambda$ for $\lambda<1$ and no atom for $\lambda\geq1$, $$\phi_{p(\lambda,\nu)}(z)=\lambda E_{\mu_0}(z)=\lambda z\int_\mathbb{R}\frac{s}{z-s}\;d\nu(s),$$ and $$\mathrm{Ind}(p(\lambda,\nu))=\frac{\mathrm{Ind}(\mu_0)+\lambda}{\lambda}.$$
Since $s^2/(s^2+1)\in L^1(d\nu)$, the measure $\rho$ is finite and positive, and the limit $$\lim_{n\to\infty}\int_\mathbb{R}\frac{ns}{s^2+1}\;d\mu_n(s)=\int_\mathbb{R}\frac{\lambda s}{s^2+1}\;d\nu(s)$$ exists. Moreover, it is easy to see that $$\frac{ns^2}{s^2+1}\;d\mu_n(s)\to \lambda d\rho(s)$$ weakly. By Theorem \[thm2.2\], the measure $\mu_n^{\boxplus n}$ converges weakly to $p(\lambda,\nu)$, which satisfies $$\phi_{p(\lambda,\nu)}(z)=\int_\mathbb{R}\frac{\lambda s}{s^2+1}\;d\nu(s)+
\int_\mathbb{R}\frac{\lambda(1+sz)}{z-s}\;d\rho(s)=\lambda
z\int_\mathbb{R}\frac{s}{z-s}\;d\nu(s).$$ On the other hand, the definition of $\mu_0$ and Proposition 3.1 show that $$\phi_{\mathbb{B}_{1+\lambda,1/(1+\lambda)^*}
(\mu_0)}=\lambda E_{\mu_0}=\phi_{p(\lambda,\nu)}.$$ Then by Lemma \[3.4\] and (\[Nindicator\]) we have $$\mathrm{Ind}(p(\lambda,\nu))=\mathrm{Ind}(\mathbb{B}_\lambda(\mu_0)^{\uplus \lambda})
=\frac{\mathrm{Ind}(\mu_0)+\lambda}{\lambda}.$$ Next, we apply Theorem \[3.10\](3) to locate the atom of $p(\lambda,\nu)$. Since $\phi_{p(\lambda,\nu)}(0)=0$, $0\in\partial
F_{p(\lambda,\nu)}(\mathbb{C}^+)$. Moreover, by the dominated convergence theorem we obtain $$\lim_{\epsilon\downarrow0}\frac{\phi_{p(\lambda,\nu)}(i\epsilon)-\phi_{p(\lambda,\nu)}(0)}{i\epsilon}
=\lambda\lim_{\epsilon\downarrow0}\int_\mathbb{R}\frac{s}{i\epsilon-s}\;d\nu(s)=-\lambda,$$ which gives the desired result. This completes the proof.
Since the $\boxplus$-divisibility indicator is zero for any measure with finite support, we have the following result.
We have $p(\lambda,\delta_a)=\mathbb{B}_{1+\lambda,1/(1+\lambda)^*}(\mu_0)$, where $\mu_0=(\delta_0+\delta_{2a})/2$, $\mathrm{Ind}(p(\lambda,\delta_a))=1$, and $\phi_{p(\lambda,\delta_a)}(z)=a\lambda z/(z-a)$.
We finish this section with an interesting observation. If $\mathrm{Ind}(\mu)>1$ then $\mathrm{Ind}(\mathbb{B}^{-1}(\mu))=\mathrm{Ind}(\mu)-1>0$ by (\[Nindicator\]) and (\[bijection\]). This implies that $\phi_\mu=E_{\mathbb{B}^{-1}(\mu)}$ has a continuous extension to $\mathbb{C}^+\cup\mathbb{R}$ by Proposition \[3.5\], whence we have the following proposition.
If $\mu\in\mathcal{M}$ with $\mathrm{Ind}(\mu)>1$ then $\phi_\mu$ has a continuous extension to $\mathbb{C}^+\cup\mathbb{R}$.
Measures with mean zero and finite variance
===========================================
Recall that for $\mu\in\mathcal{M}$ with mean zero and unit variance, $\Phi(\mu)$ is the unique measure in $\mathcal{M}$ satisfying the Eq. (\[EMaa\]) with $\sigma^2=1$, i.e.,$
E_\mu=G_{\Phi(\mu)}$. In general, a measure $\mu$ has mean $m$ and finite variance $\sigma^2$ if and only if $\mu\boxplus\delta_{-m}$ has mean zero and variance $\sigma^2$ because $d(\mu\boxplus\delta_{-m})(s)=d\mu(s+m)$, and hence $E_{\mu\boxplus\delta_{-m}}=\sigma^2G_{\Phi((\mu\boxplus\delta_{-m})^{\uplus1/\sigma^2})}$. Since $\mathrm{Ind}(\mu)=\mathrm{Ind}(\mu\boxplus\delta_a)$ for any $a\in\mathbb{R}$ by \[\[Japan\], Proposition 3.7\], in what follows we only consider measures with mean zero and finite variance.
Recall that the free Brownian motion started at $\nu\in\mathcal{M}$ is the process $\{\nu\boxplus\gamma_t:t\geq0\}$. The connection among this process, the map $\mathbb{B}_t$, and the subordination function of the $\boxplus$-convolution powers is described in the following theorem, which was proved in \[\[BN1\]\] and \[\[Biane1\]\]. For the completeness, we provide its statement and proof.
\[Brownian\] If $\mu\in\mathcal{M}$ has mean zero and variance $\sigma^2$, and $\nu=\Phi(\mu^{\uplus1/\sigma^2})$ then $$\label{Gmotion}
G_{\nu\boxplus\gamma_{t\sigma^2}}(z)=
G_\nu(F_{\mathbb{B}_{t+1,t/(t+1)}(\mu)}(z))=\frac{E_{\mathbb{B}_{t+1,t/(t+1)}(\mu)}(z)}{t\sigma^2},\;\;\;\;\;
z\in\mathbb{C}^+\cup\mathbb{R},$$ where $t>0$. Consequently, we have $\phi_{\mathbb{B}_{t+1,t/(t+1)}(\mu)}=t\sigma^2G_\nu$ and $$\label{motion}
E_{\mathbb{B}_t(\mu)}=\sigma^2G_{\nu\boxplus\gamma_{t\sigma^2}}.$$
Let $p=t+1>1$. Since $E_\mu=\sigma^2G_\nu$, it follows that $$H_p(z):=pz+(1-p)F_\mu(z)=z+(p-1)\sigma^2G_\nu(z),\;\;\;\;\;z\in\mathbb{C}^+.$$ If $\omega_p$ is the right inverse of $H_p$ then \[\[Biane1\], Proposition 2\] shows that $$G_{\nu\boxplus\gamma_{(p-1)\sigma^2}}(z)=G_\nu(\omega_p(z))=\frac{z-\omega_p(z)}{(p-1)\sigma^2},
\;\;\;\;\;z\in\mathbb{C}^+\cup\mathbb{R}.$$ Since $\omega_p=F_{\mathbb{B}_{p,1/p^*}(\mu)}$ by Proposition \[3.1\], the above identity yields (\[Gmotion\]). Finally, the rest assertions follow from $\phi_{\mathbb{B}_{p,1/p^*}}=E_{\mu^{\uplus(p-1)}}=(p-1)\sigma^2G_\nu$ and (\[Gmotion\]).
The identity (\[motion\]) indicates that $\mu^{\boxplus p}$ has mean zero and finite variance $p\sigma^2$ if $p\geq1$. The next result shows that this is also true for the measure $\mu^{\boxplus
p}$ whenever it is defined.
\[4.1\] Suppose that $\mu\in\mathcal{M}$ has mean zero and variance $\sigma^2$. If the measure $\mu^{\boxplus p}$ is defined for some $p>0$ then it has mean zero and variance $p$, in which case $$\begin{aligned}
&\Phi\left(\left(\mu^{\boxplus
p}\right)^{\uplus1/(p\sigma^2)}\right)=\Phi\left(\mu^{\uplus1/\sigma^2}\right)
\boxplus\gamma_{(p-1)\sigma^2},\;\;\;\;\;p\geq1, \\
&\Phi\left(\left(\mu^{\boxplus
p}\right)^{\uplus1/(p\sigma^2)}\right)\boxplus\gamma_{(1-p)\sigma^2}=\Phi
\left(\mu^{\uplus1/\sigma^2}\right),\;\;\;\;\;p<1.\end{aligned}$$
By (\[motion\]), it suffices to show the lemma for the case $1-\mathrm{Ind}(\mu)\leq p<1$. Let $\nu=\Phi(\mu^{\uplus1/\sigma^2})$, $\mu_p=\mu^{\boxplus p}$, and $H(z)=z/p+(1-1/p)F_{\mu_p}(z)$. Then it follows from (\[p<1\]) that $F_{\mu_p}(iy)=F_\mu(H(iy))$ or, equivalently, $E_{\mu_p}(iy)=iy-H(iy)+\sigma^2G_\nu(H(iy))$ for sufficiently large $y>0$. Since $z-H(z)=(1-1/p)E_\mu(z)$, we see that $E_{\mu_p}(iy)=p\sigma^2G_\nu(H(iy))$ for sufficiently large $y>0$. Next, we claim that $E_{\mu_p}/(p\sigma^2)\in\mathcal{G}$. Indeed, since $\lim_{y\to\infty}H(iy)/(iy)=1$, for any $\alpha>0$ there exists a number $\beta>0$ such that $$\left|\frac{H(iy)}{iy}-1\right|<c_\alpha:=\frac{\alpha}{\sqrt{1+\alpha^2}},\;\;\;\;\;y>\beta,$$ from which we deduce that $H(iy)\in\Gamma_{\alpha,\beta'}$ for $y>\beta$, where $\beta'=(1-c_\alpha)\beta$. By \[\[HV2\], Proposition 5.1\], we obtain $$\lim_{y\to\infty}iyE_{\mu_p}(iy)=p\sigma^2\left(\lim_{y\to\infty}\frac{iy}{H(iy)}\right)
\left(\lim_{y\to\infty}H(iy)G_\nu(H(iy))\right)=p\sigma^2,$$ which yields that $E_{\mu_p}/(p\sigma^2)\in\mathcal{G}$, as desired. Finally, let $\nu_p=\Phi((\mu^{\boxplus p})^{\uplus1/(p\sigma^2)})$. Then $E_{\mu^{\boxplus p}}=p\sigma^2G_{\nu_p}$ and (\[motion\]) show that $$p\sigma^2G_{\Phi(\mu^{\uplus1/\sigma^2})}=E_{\mu^{\uplus
p}}=E_{\mathbb{B}_{1/p-1}(\mu^{\boxplus
p})}=p\sigma^2G_{\nu_p\boxplus\gamma_{(1-p)\sigma^2}},$$ which gives the last assertion. If $p>1$ then $E_\mu=\sigma^2G_{\Phi(\mu^{\uplus1/\sigma^2})}$ and (\[motion\]) yield $$E_{\mathbb{B}_{p-1}(\mu)}=\sigma^2G_{\Phi(\mu^{\uplus1/\sigma^2})\boxplus\gamma_{(p-1)\sigma^2}},$$ as desired. This completes the proof.
\[meanbasic\] Suppose that $\mu\in\mathcal{M}$ has mean zero and finite variance $\sigma^2$. If $t$ is a finite number with $0\leq
t\leq \varphi(\mu)$ and $\mu_t$ is the measure defined in $(\ref{N1})$ then $$E_{\mu_t}=\sigma^2G_{\nu_t}\;\;\;\;\;\mathrm{and}\;\;\;\;\;
E_\mu=\sigma^2G_{\nu_t\boxplus\gamma_{t\sigma^2}},$$ where $\nu_t=\Phi\left(\mu_t^{\uplus1/\sigma^2}\right)$.
By Lemma \[4.1\], it is clear that $\mu_t$ has mean zero and variance $\sigma^2$, whence the conclusions follows from (\[motion\]).
The preceding proposition gives a reformulation for the $\boxplus$-divisibility indicator of measures with mean zero and finite variance.
\[Ind\] If $\mu\in\mathcal{M}$ has mean zero and finite variance $\sigma^2$ then $$\mathrm{Ind}(\mu)=\sup\left\{t\geq0:E_\mu=\sigma^2G_{\nu_t\boxplus\gamma_{t\sigma^2}}\;\;\mathrm{for}\;\;
\mathrm{some}\;\;\nu_t\in\mathcal{M}\right\}.$$
The preceding corollary enables us to associate to each measure $\nu\in\mathcal{M}$ a nonnegative number: $$C(\nu)=\sup\{t\geq0:\nu=\nu_t\boxplus\gamma_t\;\;\mathrm{for\;\;some\;\;}\nu_t\in\mathcal{M}\}.$$ We will call $C(\nu)$ the semicircular decomposition indicator of $\nu$. The connection between $\boxplus$-divisibility indicator and semicircular decomposition indicator is described in the next result.
\[BInd\] For any $\nu\in\mathcal{M}$ we have $B(\nu)=\mathrm{Ind}(\Phi^{-1}(\nu))$.
We now characterize $\boxplus$-infinitely divisible measures with mean zero and finite variance.
\[divisible\] If $\mu\in\mathcal{M}$ and $\sigma\in(0,\infty)$ then the following statements are equivalent:
1. [$\mu$ is a $\boxplus$-infinitely divisible measure with mean zero and variance $\sigma^2$;]{}
2. [there exists a measure $\nu\in\mathcal{M}$ such that $\phi_\mu=\sigma^2G_\nu$;]{}
3. [$F_\mu$ is the right inverse of some $H\in\mathcal{H}$ satisfying $\lim_{y\to\infty}iy(H(iy)-iy)=\sigma^2$;]{}
4. [there exists a measure $\nu\in\mathcal{M}$ such that $E_\mu=\sigma^2G_{\nu\boxplus\gamma_{\sigma^2}}$.]{}
If $(1)$-$(4)$ hold and $p=1+\sigma^2$ then the measure $\nu$ in $(2)$ and $(4)$ can be expressed as $$\nu=\Phi\left(\left(\mu^{\uplus p^*}\right)^{\boxplus1/p}\right).$$ The function $H$ in $(3)$ can be expressed as $$\label{HG} H(z)=z+\sigma^2G_\nu(z),$$ and $$\label{HG2} G_{\nu\boxplus\gamma_{\sigma^2}}(z)
=G_\nu(F_\mu(z)),\;\;\;\;\;z\in\mathbb{C}^+\cup\mathbb{R}.$$ Moreover, for any $r>0$ we have $$E_{\mu^{\boxplus r}}=r\sigma^2G_{\nu\boxplus\gamma_{r\sigma^2}}.$$
First suppose that (1) holds. Then the measure $(\mu^{\uplus2})^{\boxplus1/2}=\mathbb{B}^{-1}(\mu)$ has mean zero and variance $\sigma^2$ by Lemma \[4.1\], whence $\phi_\mu=E_{\mathbb{B}^{-1}(\mu)}=\sigma^2G_\nu$ for some $\nu\in\mathcal{M}$ and (2) follows. The definition of $\Phi$ shows that $\nu$ can be expressed as $$\nu=\Phi\left((\mathbb{B}^{-1}(\mu))^{\uplus1/\sigma^2}\right)=\Phi\left(\left(\mu^{\uplus q^*}\right)^
{\boxplus1/q}\right),$$ where the Eq. (\[formula2\]) is used in the second equality above. If (2) holds then $H(z)=F_\mu^{-1}(z)=\phi_\mu(z)+z$, which implies (3). If the statement (3) holds then $H(z)=z+\sigma^2G_{\nu_1}$ for some $\nu_1\in\mathcal{M}$. Then \[\[Biane1\], Proposition 2\] shows that $F_\mu$ is the subordination function of $\nu\boxplus\gamma_{\sigma^2}$ with respect to $\nu$, whence we have $$G_{\nu_1\boxplus\gamma_{\sigma^2}}(z)=G_{\nu_1}(F_\mu(z))=\frac{z-F_\mu(z)}{\sigma^2},\;\;\;\;\;z\in\mathbb{C}^+,$$ and the assertion (4) holds. The implication that (4) implies (1) follows from Corollary \[Ind\]. Moreover, the identity (\[motion\]) shows that $E_\mu=E_{\mathbb{B}(\mathbb{B}^{-1}(\mu))}=\sigma^2G_{\nu_2\boxplus\gamma_{\sigma^2}}$, whence the assertions (\[HG\]) and (\[HG2\]) hold by the preceding discussions. For the last assertion it suffices to show that $\nu_r:=\Phi((\mu^{\boxplus r})^{\uplus1/(r\sigma^2)})=
\nu\boxplus\gamma_{r\sigma^2}$. If $r<1$ then $\nu_r\boxplus\gamma_{(1-r)\sigma^2}=\Phi(\mu^{\uplus1/\sigma^2})$ by Lemma \[4.1\]. Since $\Phi(\mu^{\uplus1/\sigma^2})=\nu\boxplus\gamma_{\sigma^2}$, the desired equality follows. Similarly, if $r>1$ then $\nu_r=\Phi(\mu^{\uplus1/\sigma^2})\boxplus\gamma_{(r-1)\sigma^2}=
\nu\boxplus\gamma_{r\sigma^2}$, as desired.
Let $H$ be the function defined as in (\[HG\]) and $$\Omega=\{z\in\mathbb{C}^+:\Im H(z)>0\}.$$ It was shown in \[\[Biane1\]\] that the function $G_\nu$ extends continuously to $\overline{\Omega}$ and this extension is Lipschitz continuous on $\overline{\Omega}$ with the Lipschitz constant $1/\sigma^2$. Moreover, $$|G_\nu(z)|\leq\frac{1}{\sigma},\;\;\;\;z\in\overline{\Omega}.$$ Combining these facts and Theorem \[divisible\] gives the following result.
If $\mu\in\mathcal{M}$ is a $\boxplus$-infinitely divisible measure with mean zero and finite variance $\sigma^2$ then $$|G_{\nu\boxplus\gamma_{\sigma^2}}(z_1)-G_{\nu\boxplus\gamma_{\sigma^2}}(z_2)|\leq
\frac{1}{\sigma^2}|F_\mu(z_1)-F_\mu(z_2)|,\;\;\;\;\;z_1,z_2\in\mathbb{C}^+\cup\mathbb{R},$$ and $$|\phi_\mu(z)|\leq\sigma,\;\;\;\;\;
z\in\overline{\Omega},$$ where $\nu=\Phi(\mu^{\uplus1/\sigma^2})$ and $\Omega=F_\mu(\mathbb{C}^+)$.
It was shown before that $E_\mu$ has a continuous extension to $\mathbb{C}^+\cup\mathbb{R}$ if $\mathrm{Ind}(\mu)>0$. In general, the converse is not true. Indeed, let $\mu\in\mathcal{M}$ be so that $E_\mu=G_N=1/(z+i)$, where $N$ is the Cauchy distribution. Since $\phi_N=-i$, it is easy to see that $N$ cannot be written as a free Brownian motion stated at some measure, whence $B(N)=0$, which yields $\mathrm{Ind}(\mu)=0$ by Theorem \[BInd\]. In the following theorem, we improve this result for measures with mean zero and finite variance.
\[NandS\] If $\mu\in\mathcal{M}$ has mean zero and finite variance $\sigma^2$ then
1. [$\mathrm{Ind}(\mu)>0$ if and only if $E_\mu=\sigma^2G_{\nu\boxplus\gamma_t}$ for some $\nu\in\mathcal{M}$ and $t>0$;]{}
2. [$\mathrm{Ind}(\mu)>1$ if and only if $\phi_\mu=\sigma^2G_{\nu\boxplus\gamma_t}$ for some $\nu\in\mathcal{M}$ and $t>0$]{}.
The assertion (1) was proved in Proposition \[meanbasic\]. Since $\phi_\mu=E_{\mathbb{B}^{-1}(\mu)}$ and $\mathrm{Ind}(\mu)=1+\mathrm{Ind}(\mathbb{B}^{-1}(\mu))$ if $\mu$ is $\boxplus$-infinitely divisible, the assertion (2) follows (1).
For $a\in\mathbb{R}$, by the fact $(\mu\boxplus\delta_a)^{\boxplus
p}=\mu^{\boxplus p}\boxplus\delta_{pa}$ and the identity $(\mu\boxplus\delta_a)^{\uplus q}=(\mu^{\uplus
q}\boxplus\delta_a)\uplus\delta_{(q-1)a}$ shown in \[\[Japan\], Proposition 3.7\] we have $$\label{Bpq} \mathbb{B}_{p,q}(\mu\boxplus\delta_a)=
(\mathbb{B}_{p,q}(\mu)\boxplus\delta_{pa})\uplus\delta_{p(q-1)a}.$$ Next, we use (\[Bpq\]) to investigate the free compound Poisson distribution $p(\lambda,\nu)$, where $\nu$ has finite variance.
Suppose that $\nu\in\mathcal{M}$ has mean $m$ and finite variance $\sigma^2$. Then $$E_{p(\lambda,\nu)\boxplus\delta_{-\lambda m}}=
\lambda m_2G_{\nu_0\boxplus\gamma_{\lambda m_2}}$$ and $$\phi_{p(\lambda,\nu)\boxplus\delta_{-\lambda
m}}=\lambda m_2G_{\nu_0},$$ where $m_2=m^2+\sigma^2$ is the second moment of $\nu$ and $d\nu_0(s)=s^2/m_2d\nu(s)$. Consequently, $p(\lambda,\nu)$ has mean $\lambda m$ and variance $\lambda m_2$, and $\mathrm{Ind}(p(\lambda,\nu))>1$ if $B(\nu_0)>0$.
If $\mu_0$ is the measure defined in Proposition \[Poisson\] then $$\label{4.2} E_{\mu_0}(z)=\int_\mathbb{R}s\;d\nu(s)+
\int_\mathbb{R}\frac{s^2}{z-s}\;d\nu(s)=m+m_2G_{\nu_0}(z),$$ from which we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
E_{\mu_0\boxplus\delta_{-m}}(z)&=E_{\mu_0}(z+m)-m \\
&=m_2G_{\nu_0}(z+m)=m_2G_{\nu_0\boxplus\delta_{-m}}(z).\end{aligned}$$ Then Theorem \[Brownian\] shows that for any $p>1$ we have $$\label{4.3} E_{\mathbb{B}_{p,1/p^*(\mu_0\boxplus\delta_{-m})}}
=(p-1)E_{\mathbb{B}_{p-1}(\mu_0\boxplus\delta_{-m})}
=(p-1)m_2G_{\nu_0\boxplus\delta_{-m}\boxplus\gamma_{(p-1)m_2}}.$$ On the other hand, by (\[Bpq\]) we have $$E_{\mathbb{B}_{p,1/p^*(\mu_0\boxplus\delta_{-m})}}(z)
=E_{\mathbb{B}_{p,1/p^*}(\mu_0)}(z-pm)+(1-p)m,$$ from which, along with (\[4.3\]), we deduce that $$E_{\mathbb{B}_{p,1/p^*}(\mu_0)}(z)+(1-p)m=(p-1)m_2G_{\nu_0\boxplus\delta_{-m}\boxplus\gamma_{(p-1)m_2}}(z-pm)$$ or, equivalently, $$E_{\mathbb{B}_{p,1/p^*}(\mu_0)\boxplus\delta_{(1-p)m}}=
(p-1)m_2G_{\nu_0\boxplus\delta_{(p-1)m}\boxplus\gamma_{(p-1)m_2}}.$$ Letting $p=\lambda+1$ in the above identity gives that $p(\lambda,\nu)$ have mean $\lambda m$ and variance $\lambda m_2$. Since $\phi_{p(\lambda,\nu)}=\lambda E_{\mu_0}$, it follows from (\[4.2\]) that $$\phi_{p(\lambda,\nu)\boxplus\delta_{-\lambda
m}}=\lambda m_2G_{\nu_0}.$$ The last assertion follows from \[\[Japan\], Proposition 3.7\] and Corollary \[NandS\].
From the preceding proposition, it is easy to see that $p(\lambda,\delta_a)$ has mean $\lambda a$ and variance $\lambda
a^2$, and $\mathrm{Ind}(p(\lambda,\delta_a))=1$ since $\nu_0=\delta_a$.
Support and regularity for measures in $\mathbb{B}_{p,q}(\mathcal{M})$
======================================================================
If $p,q>0$ then the measure $\mathbb{B}_{p,q}(\mu)$ (if $\mu^{\boxplus p}$ is defined) is a Dirac measure $\delta_a$ if and only if $\mu=\delta_{a/(pq)}$. For the rest of the paper we confine our attention to the case of $\mu\in\mathcal{M}$ which is not a point mass and follow the notations used in Proposition \[prop2.1\] and \[Hthm\]. We denote by $\rho$ the unique nonzero (because $\mu\neq\delta_a$) measure in the Nevanlinna representation (\[NeF\]) of $F_\mu$. Therefore, the Nevanlinna representation of $F_{\mu^{\uplus q}}$ is $$\label{Neq}
F_{\mu^{\uplus q}}(z)=q\Re
F_\mu(1)+z+q\int_\mathbb{R}\frac{1+sz}{s-z}\;d\rho(s),\;\;\;\;\;z\in\mathbb{C}^+.$$
In certain situation, $F_\mu$ is defined and takes a real value at some $x\in\mathbb{R}$ (for instance, $x$ is an atom of $\mu$), in which case we write $F_\mu(x)\in\mathbb{R}$. The following result shows that for $p>1,q>0$, $F_{\mu^{\uplus q}}$ is Lipschitz continuous on $\overline{\Omega_p}$ and takes real values on $\overline{\Omega_p}\cap\mathbb{R}$.
\[Lip\] For $p>1,q>0$, $F_{\mu^{\uplus
q}}$ extends continuously to $\overline{\Omega_p}$ and satisfies $$\left|\frac{F_{\mu^{\uplus q}}(z_1)-F_{\mu^{\uplus q}}(z_2)}{z_1-z_2}\right|
\leq1+\frac{q}{p-1},\;\;\;\;z_1,z_2\in\overline{\Omega_p}.$$ Moreover, $(\ref{Neq})$ holds for $z\in\overline{\Omega_p}$ and the Julia-Carathéodory derivative $F_{\mu^{\uplus q}}'$ is $$\label{JCq}
F_{\mu^{\uplus
q}}'(z)=1+q\int_\mathbb{R}\frac{s^2+1}{(s-z)^2}\;d\rho(s),\;\;\;\;\;z\in\overline{\Omega_p}.$$
First, applying Proposition \[prop2.1\](2) and the Hölder inequality to $E_\mu$ gives $$\left|\frac{E_\mu(z_1)-E_\mu(z_2)}{z_1-z_2}\right|\leq\int_\mathbb{R}\frac{(s^2+1)d\rho(s)}{|s-z_1||s-z_2|}
\leq\frac{1}{p-1},\;\;\;\;\;z_1,z_2\in\Omega_p.$$ Then by the continuous extension, the above inequality holds for $z_1,z_2\in\overline{\Omega_p}$, and therefore the Nevanlinna representation (\[NeE\]) of $E_\mu$ holds for $z\in\overline{\Omega_p}$. Using the dominated convergence theorem, the Julia-Carathéodory $E_\mu'$ is then given by $$E_\mu'(z)=\lim_{\epsilon\downarrow0}
\frac{E_\mu(z+i\epsilon)-E_\mu(z)}{i\epsilon}
=-\int_\mathbb{R}\frac{s^2+1}{(s-z)^2}\;d\rho(s),\;\;\;\;\;z\in\overline{\Omega_p},$$ whence the desired results follow from the identities $E_{\mu^{\uplus q}}=qE_\mu$ and $F_{\mu^{\uplus
q}}'=1-E_{\mu^{\uplus q}}'$.
The following lemma plays an important role in the investigation of atoms of the measure $\mathbb{B}_{p,q}(\mu)$.
\[basic\] Let $x\in\mathbb{R}$ and $f_\mu$ be the function defined as in $(\ref{fmu})$. Then\
$(1)$ $F_\mu(x)\in\mathbb{R}$ and the Julia-Carathéodory derivative $F_\mu'(x)\in(1,\infty)$\
if and only if\
$(2)$ $F_\mu(x)\in\mathbb{R}$ and $f_\mu(x)\in(0,\infty)$,\
in which case $(\ref{NeF})$ holds for $z=x$ and $F_\mu'(x)=1+f_\mu(x)$.
First, suppose that (2) holds. Then $x\in\overline{\Omega_p}$ for some $p>1$ and (\[NeF\]) holds for $z=x$ by Proposition \[prop2.1\](2). As shown in Proposition \[Lip\], we have the Julia-Catathéodory $E_\mu'(x)=f_\mu(x)$, whence Julia-Carathéodory derivative $F_\mu'(x)=1+f_\mu(x)\in(1,\infty)$ and (1) follows. On the other hand, if both $F_\mu(x)$ and the Julia-Carathéodory derivative $F_\mu'(x)$ are real numbers then $$\begin{aligned}
F_\mu'(x)&=\lim_{\epsilon\downarrow0}\frac{\Re[F_\mu(x+i\epsilon)-F_\mu(x)]}{i\epsilon}
+\lim_{\epsilon\downarrow0}\frac{i\Im[F_\mu(x+i\epsilon)-F_\mu(x)]}{i\epsilon} \\
&=\lim_{\epsilon\downarrow0}\frac{\Im[F_\mu(x+i\epsilon)-F_\mu(x)]}{\epsilon}
=\lim_{\epsilon\downarrow0}\frac{\Im F_\mu(x+i\epsilon)}{\epsilon} \\
&=\lim_{\epsilon\downarrow0}\left(1+\int_{\mathbb{R}}\frac{s^2+1}{(s-x)^2+\epsilon^2}\;d\rho(s)\right) \\
&=1+\int_{\mathbb{R}}\frac{s^2+1}{(s-x)^2}\;d\rho(s),\end{aligned}$$ where the monotone convergence theorem is used in the last equality. This yields the implication that (1) implies (2) and the proof is complete.
Recall that $\alpha$ is an atom of a measure $\nu$ if and only if $F_\nu(\alpha)=0$ and the Julia-Carathéodory derivative $F_\nu'(\alpha)\in[1,\infty)$, in which case $\nu(\{\alpha\})=1/F_\nu'(\alpha)$. The atoms of $\mu^{\uplus q}$, $q>0$, are characterized in the following proposition, which is a direct consequence of Lemma \[basic\] and the identity $F_{\mu^{\uplus q}}'=qF_\mu'+1-q$, where $F_{\mu^{\uplus q}}'$ and $F_\mu'$ are the Julia-Carathéodory derivatives.
\[qatom\] If $\mu\in\mathcal{M}$ $(\mu\neq\delta_a)$, $q>0$, and $\alpha\in\mathbb{R}$ then $(1)$-$(3)$ are equivalent:
1. [the point $\alpha$ is an atom of the measure $\mu^{\uplus
q}$;]{}
2. [$F_\mu(\alpha)=\alpha/q^*$ and the Julia-Carathéodory derivative $F_\mu'(\alpha)\in(1,\infty)$;]{}
3. [$F_\mu(\alpha)=\alpha/q^*$ and $f_\mu(\alpha)\in(0,\infty)$.]{}
If $r=(1-\mu^{\uplus q}(\{\alpha\}))^{-1}>1$ then $(\ref{NeF})$ holds for $z=\alpha$ and $$F_\mu'(\alpha)=1+f_\mu(\alpha)=1+\frac{1}{q(r-1)}.$$
Using the identity $\mu=(\mu^{\uplus q})^{\uplus 1/q}$, $q>0$, gives the following corollary.
If $q>0$, $r>1$, and $\alpha\in\mathbb{R}$ then the following statements are equivalent:
1. [$\alpha$ is an atom of $\mu$;]{}
2. [$F_\mu(\alpha)=0$ and $f_\mu(\alpha)\in(0,\infty)$;]{}
3. [$F_{\mu^{\uplus q}}(\alpha)=(1-q)\alpha$ and the Julia-Carathéodory derivative $F_{\mu^{\uplus
q}}'(\alpha)\in(1,\infty)$;]{}
4. [$F_{\mu^{\uplus1/q}}(\alpha)=\alpha/q^*$ and the Julia-Carathéodory derivative $F_{\mu^{\uplus1/q}}'(\alpha)\in(1,\infty)$.]{}
If $\mu(\{\alpha\})=1-r^{-1}$ then $f_\mu(\alpha)=1/r-1$, $F_{\mu^{\uplus q}}'(\alpha)=1+q/(r-1)$, and $F_{\mu^{\uplus1/q}}'(\alpha)=1+[q(r-1)]^{-1}$.
Next, we characterize the points in $\mathbb{R}$ at which $F_\mu$ is defined, takes real values, and has finite Julia-Carathéodory derivatives.
\[preal\] Let $p>1$ and let $x,\alpha$, and $\beta$ be real numbers. If $px+(1-p)\beta=\alpha$ then $(1)$-$(4)$ are equivalent:
1. [$F_\mu(x)=\beta$ and $0<f_\mu(x)<1/(p-1)$;]{}
2. [$F_\mu(x)=\beta$ and Julia-Carathéodory derivative $F_\mu'(x)\in(1,p^*)$;]{}
3. [$H_p(x)=\alpha$ and the Julia-Carathéodory derivative $H_p'(x)\in(0,1)$;]{}
4. [$\omega_p(\alpha)=x$ and the Julia-Carathéodory derivative $\omega_p'(\alpha)\in(1,\infty)$;]{}
5. [$F_{\mu^{\boxplus p}}(\alpha)=\beta$ and the Julia-Carathéodory derivative $F_{\mu^{\boxplus
p}}'(\alpha)\in(1,\infty)$.]{}
If $(1)$-$(5)$ holds then $(2.1)$ holds for $z=x$ and $$F_\mu'(x)=1+f_\mu(x)=\frac{p-H_p'(x)}{p-1}=\frac{p\omega_p'(\alpha)-1}{(p-1)\omega_p'(\alpha)}=\frac{pF_{\mu^{\boxplus
p}}'(\alpha)}{1+(p-1)F_{\mu^{\boxplus p}}'(\alpha)}.$$
The equivalence of (1) and (2) was proved in Lemma \[basic\]. The equivalence of (2) and (3) and that of (4) and (5) follow from the identities of Julia-Carathéodory derivatives $H_p'(x)=p+(1-p)F_\mu'(x)$ and $F_{\mu^{\boxplus p}}'(\alpha)=(p\omega_p'(\alpha)-1)/(p-1)$, respectively. The implication that (4) implies (3) holds by the fact $\omega_p'(\alpha)=1/H_p'(x)$, where the Julia-Carathéodory derivative $\omega_p'(\alpha)$ must be understood as $+\infty$ if the Julia-Carathéodory derivative $H_p'(x)=0$. Conversely, if (3) holds, i.e., (1) holds (because (1) and (3) was proved to be equivalent) then $x\in\overline{\Omega_p}$, whence we have $\omega_p(H_p(x))=x$ by Proposition \[prop2.1\] (3), and the statement (4) holds by the equality $\omega_p'(\alpha)=1/H_p'(x)$. The last assertion follows from the preceding discussions.
We are now in a position to characterize the atoms of the measures in $\mathbb{B}_{p,q}(\mathcal{M})$.
\[pqatom\] Suppose $\alpha\in\mathbb{R}$, $p>1$, and $q>0$, and let $p',q'$ be the numbers defined in Proposition $\ref{3.6}$. If $p^*q\neq1$ then the following statements are equivalent:
1. [the point $\alpha$ is an atom of $\mathbb{B}_{p,q}(\mu)$;]{}
2. [$F_{\mu^{\boxplus p}}(\alpha)=\alpha/q^*$ and the Julia-Carathéodory derivative $F_{\mu^{\boxplus
p}}'(\alpha)\in(1,\infty)$;]{}
3. [$F_\mu(\alpha/p')=\alpha/q^*$ and the Julia-Carathéodory derivative $F_\mu'(\alpha/p')\in(1,p^*)$;]{}
4. [$F_\mu(\alpha/p')=\alpha/q^*$ and $0<f_\mu(\alpha/p')<1/(p-1)$.]{}
Moreover, if $\mathbb{B}_{p,q}(\mu)(\{\alpha\})=1-r^{-1}$ for some $r>1$ then $$F'_{\mu^{\boxplus p}}(\alpha)=1+\frac{1}{q(r-1)}$$ and $$F_\mu'(\alpha/p')=1+f_\mu(\alpha/p')=\frac{pq(r-1)+p}{pq(r-1)+p-1}=1+\frac{1}{q'(rp'-1)}.$$ In addition, if $p^*q<1$ then $\mathbb{B}_{p,q}(\mu)$ has at most one atom. Particularly, the above assertions hold for $\mathbb{B}_t$, $t\in(0,\infty)\backslash\{1\}$, as well.
The equivalence of (1) and (2) follows from Proposition \[qatom\]. Next, note that the hypothesis $p^*q\neq1$ shows that $p'\neq\infty$. Then letting $x=\alpha/p'$ and $\beta=\alpha/q^*$ gives the equivalence of (2) and (3) by Proposition \[preal\]. By Lemma \[basic\] we see that (3) and (4) are equivalent. By simple computations, the rest desired equalities also follow from Lemma \[basic\], Proposition \[qatom\], and \[preal\]. That the measure $\mathbb{B}_{p,q}(\mu)$, $p^*q<1$, has at most one atom is a direct consequence of Theorem \[3.3\] and \[3.10\].
Proposition \[pqatom\] indicates that the Julia-Carathéodory derivative $F_\mu'<p^*$ is one of the necessary conditions to guarantee the existence of an atom of $\mathbb{B}_{p,q}(\mu)$, $p^*q\neq1$. Indeed, consider the symmetric Bernoulli distribution $\mu=\frac{1}{2}(\delta_{-1}+\delta_1)$ and the arcsine law of distribution $\mathbb{B}_{1/2}(\mu)$ whose density is given by $$d(\mathbb{B}_{1/2}(\mu))(x)=\frac{1}{\pi\sqrt{2-x^2}}\;dx,\;\;\;\;\;[-\sqrt{2},\sqrt{2}].$$ In this case $(p=3/2,q=2/3,p'=2,q'=1/2,p^*=3,\;\mathrm{and}\;q^*=-2)$, if $\alpha=\pm\sqrt{2}$ then it is easy to check that $F_\mu(\alpha/2)=-\alpha/2$ and the Julia-Carathéodory derivative $F_\mu'(\alpha/2)=3$. However, the points $\pm\sqrt{2}$ fail to be atoms of $\mathbb{B}_{1/2}(\mu)$. This example also reveals an inaccuracy in the statement of \[Proposition 5.1(2), \[BN1\]\], which only requires the Julia-Carathéodory derivative $F_\mu'\leq p^*$.
Now we are ready to state the main theorem in this section whose proof is basically based on Proposition \[prop2.1\] and Theorem \[Hthm\].
\[main\] Suppose that $\mu$ is a measure $(\mu\neq\delta_a)$ in $\mathcal{M}$, and that $p>1,q>0$ such that $p^*q\neq1$ $(q'=1+pq-p\neq0)$. Using the notations in Proposition $\ref{prop2.1}$ and Theorem $\ref{Hthm}$, the following statements hold.
1. [The nonatomic part of the measure $\mathbb{B}_{p,q}(\mu)$ is absolutely continuous.]{}
2. [The measure $(\mathbb{B}_{p,q}(\mu))^{\mathrm{ac}}$ is concentrated on the closure of $\psi_p(V_p^+)$.]{}
3. [The density of $\mathbb{B}_{p,q}(\mu))^{\mathrm{ac}}$ on the set $\psi_p(V_p^+)$ is given by $$\frac{d(\mathbb{B}_{p,q}(\mu))^{\mathrm{ac}}}{dx}
(\psi_p(x))=\frac{(p-1)pqf_p(x)}{\pi|pqx-q'\psi_p(x)+ipqf_p(x)|^2}.$$]{}
4. [The density of $(\mathbb{B}_{p,q}(\mu))^{\mathrm{ac}}$ is analytic on the set $\psi_p(V_p^+)$.]{}
5. [Let $n(p,q)$ be the number of the components in the support of $(\mathbb{B}_{p,q}(\mu))^{\mathrm{ac}}$. Then $n(p_1,q_1)\geq
n(p_2,q_2)$ whenever $p_1\leq p_2$ and $q_1,q_2>0$.]{}
Particularly, the statements $(1)$-$(5)$ holds for $\mathbb{B}_t(\mu)$, $t\in(0,\infty)\backslash\{1\}$.
Since the function $\psi_p$ defined in Theorem \[Hthm\] is a homeomorphism on $\mathbb{R}$ and $\omega_p$ extends continuously to $\mathbb{R}$ by Proposition \[prop2.1\](3), it follows from (\[general\]) that $$\label{F}
F_{\mathbb{B}_{p,q}(\mu)}(\psi_p(x))=\frac{pqx-q'\psi_p(x)+ipqf_p(x)}{p-1},\;\;\;\;\;x\in\mathbb{R}.$$ Since $F_{\mathbb{B}_{p,q}}(\mu)$ extends continuously to $\mathbb{C}^+\cup\mathbb{\mathbb{R}}$, by the inversion formula (\[inversion\]) we obtain $$\frac{d(\mathbb{B}_{p,q}(\mu))^{\mathrm{ac}}}{dx}
(\psi_p(x))=\frac{(p-1)pqf_p(x)}{\pi|pqx-q'\psi_p(x)+ipqf_p(x)|^2},\;\;\;\;\;x\in
V_t^+.$$ Comparing the above formula with (\[density\])shows that the supports of $(\mu^{\boxplus p})^{\mathrm{ac}}$ and $(\mathbb{B}_{p,q}(\mu))^{\mathrm{ac}}$ coincide for any $q>0$. Observe that $\Im\omega_p(\psi_p(x))=f_p(x)>0$ for $x\in V_p^+$, whence $\omega_p$ is analytic on $V_p^+$ by Proposition \[prop2.1\](4). From the preceding discussion, we deduce that statements (2)-(5) hold by Theorem \[Hthm\].
Next, let $p'=pq/q'$. We claim that if a point $\alpha\in\mathbb{R}$ such that $F_{\mathbb{B}_{p,q}(\mu)}(\alpha)=0$ and the Julia-Carathéodory derivative $F_{\mathbb{B}_{p,q}(\mu)}'(\alpha)=\infty$ or, equivalently, $F_\mu(\alpha/p')=\alpha/q^*$ and the Julia-Carathéodory derivative $F_\mu'(\alpha/p')=p^*$, then $\alpha$ belongs to the set $\psi_p\left(\overline{V_p^+}\right)$, which is the closure of $\psi_p(V_p^+)$. Note that we have $f_p(\alpha/p')=0$ by Proposition \[prop2.1\](2) and Lemma \[basic\], and there does not exist an open interval $I$ containing $\alpha/p'$ such that $f_p(x)=0$ for all $x\in I$. Indeed, if such an interval $I$ exists then $\rho(I)=0$ by \[Corollary 3.6, \[Huang\]\]. This implies that the second order derivative of $f_\mu$ on $I$ is positive, whence $f_\mu$ is strictly convex on $I$. But $f_\mu(x)\leq(p-1)^{-1}$ for all $x\in I$ and $f_\mu(\alpha/p')=(p-1)^{-1}$, a contradiction. This particularly implies that the point $\alpha/p'\in\overline{V_p^+}$, whence $$\psi_p(\alpha/p')=H_p(\alpha/p')=\frac{p\alpha}{p'}+(1-p)F_\mu(\alpha/p')=\alpha\in\psi_p
\left(\overline{V_p^+}\right),$$ and the claim follows. Moreover, we see that the set $$\{x\in\mathbb{R}:f_p(x/p')=0,\;\;\psi_p(x/p')=x\;\;\mathrm{and}\;\;F_\mu'(x/p')<p^*\}$$ is the collection of all atoms of $\mathbb{B}_{p,q}(\mu)$ by Proposition \[pqatom\], and the set $$\{\psi_p(x/p'):x\in\mathbb{R},\;f_p(x/p')=0,\;\;\mathrm{and}\;\;\psi_p(x/p')\neq x\}$$ has $\mathbb{B}_{p,q}(\mu)$-measure zero by the established result (2). Then the preceding discussions and the established results (2) and (3) show that $\mathbb{R}=\psi_p(\mathbb{R})$ consists of the atoms of $\mathbb{B}_{p,q}(\mu)$ and the support of $(\mathbb{B}_{p,q}(\mu))^{\mathrm{ac}}$, and therefore the assertion (1) follows.
For the rest of the paper, we turn the attention to numbers $p>1$ and $q>0$ such that $p^*q=1$. The following proposition follows from Lemma \[basic\], Proposition \[qatom\], and \[preal\] and the proof is left to the reader.
\[p\*\] If $p>1$ and $\alpha\in\mathbb{R}$ then the following statements are equivalent:
1. [the point $\alpha$ is an atom of the measure $\mathbb{B}_{p,1/p^*}(\mu)$;]{}
2. [$F_{\mu^{\boxplus p}}(\alpha)=\alpha/(1-p)$ and the Julia-Carathéodory derivative $F_{\mu^{\boxplus p}}'(\alpha)\in(1,\infty)$.]{}
3. [$F_\mu(0)=\alpha/(1-p)$ and the Julia-Carathéodory derivative $F_\mu'(0)\in(1,p^*)$;]{}
4. [$F_\mu(0)=\alpha/(1-p)$ and $0<f_\mu(0)<1/(p-1)$.]{}
If $\mathbb{B}_{p,1/p^*}(\mu)(\{\alpha\})=1-r^{-1}$ for some $r>1$ then $$F_\mu'(0)=1+f_\mu(0)=1+\frac{1}{r(p-1)}\;\;\;
\mathrm{and}\;\;\;F_{\mu^{\boxplus
p}}'(\alpha)=1+\frac{p}{(p-1)(r-1)}.$$ Particularly, the above statements also holds for $\mathbb{B}_1$.
If $\mu_0$ is the measure defined in Proposition \[Poisson\] then it is clear that $F_{\mu_0}(0)=0$ and $f_{\mu_0}(0)=1$. This yields that the compound free Poisson distribution $p(\lambda,\nu)$ has an atom at $0$ of mass $1-\lambda$ for $0<\lambda<1$ and no atom for $\lambda\geq1$ by Proposition \[p\*\].
The following theorem is a reformulation of Theorem \[3.10\] since $\Omega=\Omega_p$, $\psi=\psi_p$, and $f=f_p$. Therefore, its proof is practically identical with that of Theorem \[3.10\] or Theorem \[main\], and is omitted.
\[main1\] If $\mu\in\mathcal{M}$ and $p>1$ then the following statements hold.
1. [The nonatomic part of $\mathbb{B}_{p,1/p^*}(\mu)$ is absolutely continuous.]{}
2. [The measure $(\mathbb{B}_{p,1/p^*}(\mu))^{\mathrm{ac}}$ is concentrated on the closure of $\psi_p(V_p^+)$.]{}
3. [The density of $(\mathbb{B}_{p,1/p^*}(\mu))^{\mathrm{ac}}$ on the set $\psi_p(V_p^+)$ is given by $$\frac{d(\mathbb{B}_{p,1/p^*}(\mu))^{\mathrm{ac}}}{dx}(\psi_p(x))=\frac{f_p(x)}{\pi(x^2+f_p^2(x))}.$$]{}
4. [The density of $(\mathbb{B}_{p,1/p^*}(\mu))^{\mathrm{ac}}$ is analytic on the set $\psi_p(V_p^+)$.]{}
5. [The number of the components in the support of $(\mathbb{B}_{p,1/p^*}(\mu))^{\mathrm{ac}}$ is a decreasing function of $p$.]{}
Particularly, the above statements also holds for $\mathbb{B}_1$.
Since $\mu=\nu^{\boxplus p}$ for some $\nu\in\mathcal{M}$ and $p>1$ if $\mathrm{Ind}(\mu)>0$ by Proposition \[3.5\], we have the next result by Theorem \[main\] and \[main1\].
If $\mu\in\mathcal{M}$ with $\mathrm{Ind}(\mu)>0$ then $(\mu^{\uplus
q})^{\mathrm{ac}}$ and $\mu^{\mathrm{ac}}$ contain the same number of components in their supports for any $q>0$.
It was shown in \[\[Huang\]\] that there exists a measure $\mu\in\mathcal{M}$ such that $\mu^{\boxplus p}$ contains infinitely many components in the support for any $p>1$. Since $(\mathbb{B}_{p,q}(\mu))^{\mathrm{ac}}$ and $(\mu^{\boxplus
p})^{\mathrm{ac}}$ have the number of components in their supports, we have the following result.
For any $t>0$, there exists a measure $\mu_t\in\mathcal{M}$ such that $\mathrm{Ind}(\mu_t)=t$ and the support of $\mu_t$ contains infinitely many components.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
The author wishes to thank his advisor, Professor Hari Bercovici, for his generosity, and invaluable discussion during the course of the investigation.
[99]{}
\[moment\] N. I. Achieser, [*The classical moment problem*]{}, in Russian, Fizmatgiz, Moscow, 1961.
\[Japan\] O. Arizmendi, T. Hasebe, Semigroups related to additive and multiplicative, free and Boolean convolutions. Arxiv:1105.3344v3.
\[BB1\] S.T. Belinschi, H. Bercovici, Atoms and regularity for measures in a partially defined free convolution semigroup, [*Math. Z.*]{} [**248**]{} (4) 665-674 (2004).
\[BB2\] S.T. Belinschi, H. Bercovici, Partially defined semigroups relative to multiplicative free convolution, [*Int. Math. Res. Not.*]{} [**2**]{} 65-101 (2005).
\[BN1\] S.T. Belinschi, A. Nica, On a remarkable semigroup of homomorphisms with respect to free multiplicative convolution, [*Indiana. Univ. Math J.*]{} [**57**]{} (4) 1679-1713 (2008).
\[BN2\] S.T. Belinschi, A. Nica, Free Brownian motion and evolution towards $\boxplus$-infinitely divisibility for $k$-tuples, [*Int. J. Math.*]{} [**20**]{} (3) 309-338 (2009).
\[BP\] H. Bercovici, V. Pata, Stable laws and domains of attraction in free probability theory, [*Ann. of Math.*]{}, [**149**]{}, 1023-1060 (1999).
\[HV1\] H. Bercovici, D. Voiculescu, Lévy-Hinčin type theorems for multiplicatrive and additive free convolution [*Pacific Journal of Mathematics*]{} [**153**]{} No.2 217-248 (1992).
\[HV2\] H. Bercovici, D. Voiculescu, Free Convolutions of measures with unbounded support, [*Indiana Univ. Math. J.*]{} [**42**]{} (3) 733-773 (1993).
\[HV3\] H. Bercovici, D. Voiculescu, Superconvergence to the central limit and failure of the Cramér theorem for free random variables, [*Probab. Theory Relat. Fields*]{} [**103**]{} 215-222 (1995).
\[BV4\] H. Bercovici, D. Voiculescu, Regularity questions for free convolution, in: Nonselfadjoint Operator Algebras, Operator Theory, and Related Topics, in: Oper. Theory Adv. Appl., vol. 104, Birkhauser, Basel, 1998, pp. 37-47.
\[Biane1\] P. Biane, On the free convolution with a semi-circular distribution, [*Indiana Univ. Math. J.*]{} [**46**]{} (3) 705-718 (1997).
\[Biane2\] P. Biane, Processes with free increments, [*Math. Z.*]{} [**227**]{} (1) 143-174 (1998).
\[G1\] G. P. Chistyakov, F. Götze, Limit theorems in free probability theory. I, [*Ann. Probab.*]{} [**36**]{} No.1 54-90 (2008).
\[G4\] G. P. Chistyakov, F. Götze, The arithmetic of distributions in free probability theory, [*Cent. Eur. J. Math.*]{} [**9**]{} No.5 997-1050 (2011).
\[G2\] G. P. Chistyakov, F. Götze, Asymptotic Expansions in the CLT in Free Probability. ArXiv: 1109.4844.
\[G3\] G. P. Chistyakov, F. Götze, Rate of Convergence in the entropic free CLT. ArXiv: 1112.5087.
\[Huang\] H.-W., Huang, Supports of measures in a free additive convolution semigroup. Arxiv:1205.5542.
\[Maa\] H. Maassen, Addition of freely independent random variables, [*J. Funct. Anal.*]{} [**106**]{} 409-438 (1992).
\[Nica\] A. Nica, Multi-variable subordination distributions for free additive convolution, [*J. Funct. Anal.*]{} [**257**]{} 428-463 (2009).
\[NS\] A. Nica, R. Speicher, On the multiplication of free $N$-tuples of noncommutative random variables. [*Amer. J. Math.*]{} [**118**]{}(4), 799-837 (1996).
\[Boolean\] R. Speicher, R. Woroudi, Boolean convolution, in free probability theory, Ed. D. Voiculescu, [*Fields. Inst. Commun.*]{} [**12**]{} 267-280 (1997).
\[V1\] D.V. Voiculescu, Addition of certain non-commuting random variables, [*J. Funct. Anal.*]{} [**66**]{} 323-346(1986).
\[V2\] D.V. Voiculescu, The analogues of entropy and of Fisher’s information measure in free probability theory I, [*Comm. Math. Phys.*]{} [**155**]{} (1) 411-440 (1993).
\[V3\] D.V. Voiculescu, The coalgebra of the free difference quotient and free probability, [*Internat. Math. Res. Notices*]{} [**2**]{} 79-106 (2000).
\[V4\] D.V. Voiculescu, K.J. Dykema, A. Nica, Free Random Variables. CRM Monograph Series, Vol. 1 Am. Math. Soc. Providence, RI, (1992).
|
---
abstract: 'Refractive processes in strong-field QED are pure quantum processes, which involve only external photons and the background electromagnetic field. We show analytically that such processes occurring in a plane-wave field and involving external real photons are all characterized by a surprisingly modest net exchange of energy and momentum with the laser field, corresponding to a few laser photons, even in the limit of ultra-relativistic laser intensities. We obtain this result by a direct calculation of the transition matrix element of an arbitrary refractive QED process and accounting exactly for the background plane-wave field. A simple physical explanation of this modest net exchange of laser photons is provided, based on the fact that the laser field couples with the external photons only indirectly through virtual electron-positron pairs. For stronger and stronger laser fields, the pairs cover a shorter and shorter distance before they annihilate again, such that the laser can transfer to them an energy corresponding to only a few photons. These results can be relevant for future experiments aiming to test strong-field QED at present and next-generation facilities.'
address: 'Max-Planck-Institut für Kernphysik, Saupfercheckweg 1, 69117 Heidelberg, Germany'
author:
- 'A. Di Piazza'
bibliography:
- 'Refr\_AP.bib'
title: On refractive processes in strong laser field quantum electrodynamics
---
QED in strong laser fields, vacuum polarization effects
Introduction
============
Nonlinear processes have always played a fundamental role in different areas of physics, spanning from hydrodynamics, atomic and laser physics to plasma and high-energy physics [@Scott_b_2005]. From a theoretical point of view the description of such nonlinear processes, though attractive, is also particularly challenging. Since the invention of the laser, it was manifest that one of its unique features, the coherence, would allow for the experimental investigation of nonlinear phenomena. In a laser beam, in fact, a large number of photons propagate in phase and, depending on the laser intensity and on the process at hand, they may act cooperatively. One example is atomic high-order harmonic generation (HHG), in which a large number of laser photons is absorbed by a single atom and only one high-energy photon is emitted (see the reviews [@Agostini_2004; @Midorikawa_2011]). When laser-driven electrons (mass $m$ and charge $e<0$) are bound in atoms, nonlinear phenomena start at laser field amplitudes $E_0$ of the order of the typical atomic binding field $E_{\text{at}}=m^2|e|^5$, which corresponds to a laser intensity of $I_{\text{at}}=E_{\text{at}}^2/4\pi=7.0\times 10^{16}\;\text{W/cm$^2$}$ (units with $\hbar=c=1$ are employed throughout). In this case the average number of photons absorbed from the laser by the electron is of the order of $U_p/\omega_0$, where $U_p=e^2E_0^2/m\omega_0^2$ is its ponderomotive energy and $\omega_0$ is the central laser photon energy. HHG has also been observed for free electrons driven by an intense laser beam, being named nonlinear Thomson or nonlinear Compton scattering, depending on if quantum effects are negligible or not [@Moore_1995; @Bula_1996]. In both nonlinear Thomson and Compton scattering, the typical electric field strength, at which nonlinear effects set on, is given by $E_{\text{rel}}=m\omega_0/|e|$. The corresponding intensity is of the order of $10^{18}\;\text{W/cm$^2$}$ at optical photon energies $\omega_0\approx 1\;\text{eV}$. An electron in a laser field with central laser photon energy $\omega_0$ and electric field strength of the order of $E_{\text{rel}}$ is accelerated to relativistic velocities already within one laser period and its dynamic becomes highly nonlinear with respect to the laser field amplitude [@Landau_b_2_1975]. On the other hand, quantum effects such as the recoil of the photons emitted by the laser-driven electron, strongly modify the emission process when the electric field strength of the laser in the initial rest frame of the incoming electron is of the order of the so-called critical field $E_{\text{cr}}=m^2/|e|$ of QED, corresponding to the laser intensity $I_{\text{cr}}=4.6\times 10^{29}\;\text{W/cm$^2$}$ [@Di_Piazza_2012]. Relativistic quantum effects also allow for the nonlinear interaction of a photon with a laser field, as in the case of electron-positron pair photo-production (nonlinear Breit-Wheeler pair production (NBWPP)) [@Ritus_1985; @Heinzl_2010; @Titov_2012; @Krajewska_2013]. This process, as well as any QED process occurring in the collision of a photon with a strong laser field[^1], is essentially controlled by the two Lorentz- and gauge-invariant parameters $\xi=E_0/E_{\text{rel}}$ and $\varkappa=[(k_0k)/m\omega_0]E_0/E_{\text{cr}}$. Here, $(k_0k)=\omega_0\omega-\bm{k}_0\cdot\bm{k}$, with $k_0^{\mu}=(\omega_0,\bm{k}_0)$ and $k^{\mu}=(\omega,\bm{k})$ being the four-momentum of the laser photons and of the incoming photon, respectively. It is worth observing that in the so-called “ultra-relativistic” limit $\xi\to \infty$, the net number of laser photons absorbed in NBWPP is very large and of the order of $\xi^3$ [@Ritus_1985]. Since presently available optical lasers allow for values of $\xi$ of the order of $10^2$ [@Yanovsky_2008], unprecedented degrees of nonlinearity of the order of one million are in principle achievable.
Refractive QED processes in a strong laser field involve only initial and final photons, and the background field [@Dittrich_b_2000]. Such processes of genuinely quantum nature are a unique tool for testing the predictions of strong-field QED on the nonlinear evolution of the electromagnetic field in vacuum. Vacuum polarization [@Baier_1976_b] and photon splitting [@Di_Piazza_2007] in a laser field are two examples of refractive QED processes, which have been considered in the literature. It has been observed in both cases, that the net number of laser photons exchanged with the laser field is very small (of the order of unity) even in the ultra-relativistic limit $\xi\to \infty$. As a general remark to be kept in mind throughout in the paper, we observe that the laser field is treated as a classical field in those papers and here as well. Thus, an expression like “the net number of laser photons exchanged with the laser field is very small” has to be intended more precisely as “the net energy and momentum exchanged with the laser field is very small, corresponding to a few laser photons.”
In the present paper, by analyzing the amplitude of a general refractive QED effect, we indicate analytically that this is a general feature of such processes in a strong laser field. The physical origin of this effect lies in the fact that in a refractive QED process, the laser field couples to the external photons only indirectly via a virtual electron-positron pair. As we will see below, at higher and higher laser intensities the distance covered by the virtual electron and positron before annihilating decreases accordingly, in such a way that the process occurs with a net exchange of a low number of laser photons. This is in contrast, as we have mentioned, to the NBWPP, which is also primed in the collision of a (real) photon and a laser field. However, in NBWPP the final electron and positron are on the mass shell, requiring a large amount of laser photons to be absorbed for the process to occur at all in the presence of an ultra-relativistic laser field. Although the analysis is limited to the one-loop amplitude of a refractive QED effects and does not cover observable quantities as cross-sections or rates, the present results can be of relevance for future experimental campaigns, aiming to measure strong-field QED effects in the presence of a background laser field. As we will see, they indicate, for example, that, in order to detect refractive QED effects in a regime where higher-order effects in the laser-field amplitude are important, it is more convenient to measure the yield of final photons, rather than to measure the angular distribution or the energies of the final photons.
Calculation of the amplitude of a generic refractive QED process
================================================================
Refractive QED processes in a laser field involve in general $N_i$ incoming, $N_o$ outgoing photons, with $N_i+N_o>1$, and the laser photons (the special case $N_i+N_o=1$, corresponding to the tadpole diagram, is trivial in the case of a background plane-wave field [@Schwinger_1951] and it will not be considered here). However, for the sake of notational simplicity, we consider here the abstract case of only incoming photons ($N_o=0$) and we set $N_i=N$. The external photons have momenta $k_j^{\mu}$ and polarization four-vectors $e_j^{\mu}$, with $j=1,\ldots,N$ (see Fig. 1): the $j$th incoming photon can be “transformed” into an outgoing one via the substitutions $k_j^{\mu}\to -k_j^{\mu}$ and $e_j^{\mu}\to e_j^{\mu\,*}$ in the amplitude (see Eq. (\[M\]) below). As it will be clear below, the results of the paper are unaffected by this particular choice. Moreover, we limit here to the case of external real photons ($k_j^2=0$), although the analysis and the conclusions can be correspondingly extended to the case of off-shell external photons, as those representing external fields as, for example, a Coulomb field.
{width="0.9\linewidth"}
The mentioned process is described by the sum of all Feynman diagrams, which can be obtained from the one in the left side of Fig. 1 by permuting the labels in the photon legs. Among them, we consider here only the one in the right part of Fig. 1, and the treatment of the remaining diagrams can be performed in an analogous way (any diagram contributing to a refractive QED process can always be considered together with the other one, differing only in the direction of circulation of the four-momentum through the electron loop)[^2]. The reason for considering these two diagrams together is that this allows to formulate a simple set of substitution rules, which in turn clearly show the general structure of the amplitude of the process (see the discussions below Eq. (\[M\_s\]) here below and between Eqs. (\[T\_p\_3\]) and (\[T\_3\_T\]) in Appendix A). The amplitude $M$ corresponding to the diagrams in Fig. 1 is given by [@Landau_b_4_1982] $$\label{M}
\begin{split}
M=&-e^N\int d^4x_1\cdots d^4x_Ne^{-i[(k_1x_1)+\cdots+(k_Nx_N)]}\\
&\times\text{Tr}[\hat{e}_1G(x_1,x_2|A)\hat{e}_2G(x_2,x_3|A)\cdots\hat{e}_NG(x_N,x_1|A)]+\circlearrowleft,
\end{split}$$ where the “hat” indicates the contraction of a four-vector with the Dirac gamma matrices $\gamma^{\mu}$ and where the symbol $\circlearrowleft$ indicates the amplitude corresponding to the diagram on the right in Fig. 1. In Eq. (\[M\]) the quantity $G(x,y|A)$ is the dressed electron propagator in the laser field. The latter is described by the four-vector potential $A^{\mu}=A^{\mu}(\phi)$, where $\phi=(nx)$, with $n^{\mu}=(1,\bm{n})$ and $\bm{n}$ being the propagation direction of the laser field. By working in the Lorentz gauge, the four-vector potential $A^{\mu}(\phi)$ of the laser field can be chosen in the form $A^{\mu}(\phi)=(0,\bm{A}(\phi))$, with $\bm{n}\cdot\bm{A}(\phi)=0$. Let $\bm{a}_1$ and $\bm{a}_2$ indicate the two possible independent laser polarization directions, such that $\bm{a}_r\cdot\bm{a}_s=\delta_{rs}$, with $r,s=1,2$, and that $\bm{a}_1\times\bm{a}_2=\bm{n}$. Then, the four-vector potential $A^{\mu}(\phi)$ can be written as $A^{\mu}(\phi)=A_0[a^{\mu}_1\psi_1(\phi)+a^{\mu}_2\psi_2(\phi)]$, where $A_0=-E_0/\omega_0$, $a^{\mu}_r=(0,\bm{a}_r)$, and the two shape-functions $\psi_r(\phi)$ are arbitrary, smooth functions except that they satisfy the relation $\sqrt{\psi^{\prime 2}_1(\phi)+\psi^{\prime 2}_2(\phi)}\le 1$ for all values of $\phi$, with $\psi'_{1/2}(\phi)=d\psi_{1/2}(\phi)/d\phi$. Here, $E_0$ and $\omega_0$ indicate the laser-electric-field amplitude and its central angular frequency, respectively[^3]. Since the interaction of the $j$th photon with the laser field is controlled by the parameter $\varkappa_j=\eta_j\xi$, with $\eta_j=\omega_0k_{j,X}/m^2$ [@Ritus_1985; @Di_Piazza_2012], it is natural to assume here that $\varkappa_j\ne 0$ for all $j$s, which means $k_{j,X}\ne 0$ for all $j$s. This means that none of the external photons propagate along the same direction of the laser photons (of course, we exclude the trivial case of an external photon with vanishing energy).
In order to calculate the amplitude $M$, we employ below the operator technique, developed in [@Baier_1976_a; @Baier_1976_b] for the case of a background plane-wave laser field (the calculation of the amplitude can of course also be performed by employing the standard Feynman rules in the Furry picture [@Landau_b_4_1982], the advantage of the operator technique being to provide a more suitable expression of the amplitude to estimate the net number of photons exchanged with the laser field (see, in particular, the discussion below Eq. (\[Exp\_2\]))). In the operator technique the electron propagator in the laser field is written as $G(x,y|A)=\langle x|G(A)|y\rangle$, where $$G(A)=\frac{1}{\hat{\Pi}-m+i\epsilon},$$ with $\Pi^{\mu}=\Pi^{\mu}(A)=P^{\mu}-eA^{\mu}(\phi)$ and with $\epsilon$ being a positive infinitesimal quantity. Here, the four-vector $P^{\mu}$ is the four-momentum operator, satisfying the commutation rules $[x^{\mu},P^{\nu}]=-ig^{\mu\nu}$, where $g^{\mu\nu}=\text{diag}(+1,-1,-1,-1)$. By employing the above representation of the electron propagator and by using the cyclic property of the trace, the amplitude in Eq. (\[M\]) can be simply written as $$\label{M_op}
M=-e^N\int d^4x\,\text{Tr}\,\langle x\vert G_1(A)\cdots G_N(A)\vert x\rangle+\circlearrowleft,$$ where we have introduced the block operators $G_j(A)=G(A)\hat{e}_j\exp[-i(k_jx)]$. It is convenient to express the amplitude $M$ in terms of the “square” propagator $$\label{D_0}
D(A)=\frac{1}{\hat{\Pi}^2-m^2+i\epsilon}$$ rather than in terms of $G(A)$. The details of the procedure to carry this out are reported in the Appendix A. Here, we only provide a summary of this procedure in terms of substitution rules. The amplitude $M$, in fact, turns out to be expressed as $$\label{M_s}
M=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^{[N/2]+1}(M^{(i)}+\{1\ldots N\to N\ldots 1\}),$$ where $M^{(i)}$ are partial amplitudes, with $[N/2]$ indicating the integer part of $N/2$. The quantity $\{1\ldots N\to N\ldots 1\}$ refers to the fact that each partial amplitude $M^{(i)}$ will have $N$ indexes corresponding to the $N$ ordered operators $G_j(A)$ in Eq. (\[M\_op\]), and it indicates that the same partial amplitude $M^{(i)}$ has to be added, but with the indexes $1,\ldots,N$ appearing in the opposite order $N,\ldots,1$. In turn, each partial amplitude $M^{(i)}$ is expressed as a sum $\sum_{J=1}^{J_i} M_J^{(i)}$ of terms $M_J^{(i)}$ and the number $J_i$ of terms in each partial amplitude depends on the partial amplitude itself. Each term $M_J^{(i)}$ has the form $-e^N\int d^4x\,\text{Tr}\,\langle x\vert O_J^{(i)}\vert x\rangle$, with the operator $O_J^{(i)}$ being obtained from the original operator product $G_1(A)\cdots G_N(A)$ by means of the following substitution rules:
1. Partial amplitude $M^{(1)}$: substitute each block $G_j(A)$ by $D_j(A)\equiv D(A)\exp[-i(k_jx)][2(\Pi e_j)+\hat{k}_j\hat{e}_j]$ (this partial amplitude contains one term).
2. Partial amplitude $M^{(2)}$: combine two successive blocks $G_j(A) G_{j+1}(A)$ (for $j=1,\ldots, N$) and substitute this quantity with the “contraction”\
$-C_{j,j+1}(A)=-D(A)\hat{e}_j\exp[-i(k_jx)] \hat{e}_{j+1}\exp[-i(k_{j+1}x)]$, then substitute the remaining blocks as in 1.; it is understood that $G_{N+1}(A)\equiv G_1(A)$ and that $C_{N,N+1}(A)\equiv C_{N,1}(A)$; this partial amplitude contains $N$ terms.
3. Partial amplitude $M^{(3)}$: combine twice two successive blocks $G_j(A)G_{j+1}(A)$ and $G_{j'}(A)G_{j'+1}(A)$ (for $j=1,\ldots,N-2$, and for $j'=3,\ldots,N-1$ (if $j=1$) or for $j'=j+2,\ldots,N$ (if $j>1$)), and substitute these quantities with the contractions $-C_{j,j+1}(A)$ and $-C_{j',j'+1}(A)$, respectively; then substitute the remaining blocks as in 1.; it is understood that $G_{N+1}(A)\equiv G_1(A)$ and that $C_{N,N+1}(A)\equiv C_{N,1}(A)$; this partial amplitude has to be considered only if $N\ge 4$ and it contains $N(N-3)/2$ terms.
4. The above procedure continues by increasing by one the number of combinations of successive blocks. The last partial amplitude $M^{([N/2]+1)}$ contains the two terms $(-1)^{N/2}C_{1,2}(A)C_{3,4}(A)\cdots C_{N-1,N}(A)$ and\
$(-1)^{N/2}C_{N,1}(A)C_{2,3}(A)\cdots C_{N-2,N-1}(A)$ with $N/2$ contractions if $N$ is even, or the $N$ terms $(-1)^{(N-1)/2}D_1(A)C_{2,3}(A)\cdots C_{N-1,N}(A)$,\
$(-1)^{(N-1)/2}C_{N,1}(A)D_2(A)C_{3,4}(A)\cdots C_{N-2,N-1}(A)$,...,\
$(-1)^{(N-1)/2}C_{1,2}(A)C_{3,4}(A)\cdots C_{N-2,N-1}(A)D_N(A)$ with $(N-1)/2$ contractions if $N$ is odd.
Now, a useful exponential representation of the square propagator $D(A)$ has been found in [@Baier_1976_a; @Baier_1976_b] (see also [@Di_Piazza_2007][^4]): $$\label{D}
\begin{split}
D(A)=&-i\int_0^{\infty}ds\, e^{is(\hat{\Pi}^2-m^2+i\epsilon)}=-i\int_0^{\infty}ds\, e^{-i(m^2-i\epsilon)s}\\
&\times \bigg\{1+\frac{e\hat{n}}{2P_X}
[\hat{A}(\phi+2sP_X)-\hat{A}(\phi)]\bigg\}\\
&\times e^{-i\int_0^sds'\left[{\bm P}_\perp-e{\bm
A}(\phi+2s'P_X)\right]^2}e^{-2isP_\phi P_X},
\end{split}$$ where we have introduced the operators $P_{\phi}=(P_t+P_{x_{\parallel}})/2$ and $P_X=-(P_t-P_{x_{\parallel}})=-(nP)$ of the conjugated momenta to the coordinates $\phi=t-x_{\parallel}$ and $X=(t+x_{\parallel})/2$, with $x_{\parallel}=\bm{n}\cdot\bm{x}$, such that $\phi$ and $X$ can be interpreted as a “time” and a “space” coordinate, respectively, i.e., $[\phi,P_{\phi}]=-i$ and $[X,P_{X}]=i$. Note that $t=X+\phi/2$, $x_{\parallel}=X-\phi/2$, $P_t=P_{\phi}-P_X/2$, and $P_{x_{\parallel}}=P_{\phi}+P_X/2$.
Out of the different partial amplitudes which arise from the above substitutions, we work out only the following one $$\label{M_op_1}
\begin{split}
M^{(1)}=&-e^N\int d^4x\,\text{Tr}\,\langle x|D(A)\text{e}^{-i(k_1x)}[2(\Pi e_1)+\hat{k}_1\hat{e}_1]\cdots \\
&\times D(A)\text{e}^{-i(k_Nx)}[2(\Pi e_N)+\hat{k}_N\hat{e}_N]|x\rangle,
\end{split}$$ which arises from the substitution in 1.. This partial amplitude is always present, independently of the number of the external photons and, as it will also be clear from the considerations below, the analysis of the other partial amplitudes proceeds analogously. By looking at the expression of the operators $D(A)$ (see Eq. (\[D\])), the coordinate operators $X$ and $\bm{x}_{\perp}$ appear to occur only in the exponentials relative to the external photons. By employing the operator identity $e^{i(k_jx)}f(P)e^{-i(k_jx)}=f(P+k_j)$, we can move all the operators $e^{i(k_{j,X}X+\bm{k}_{j,\perp}\cdot\bm{x}_{\perp})}$ to the left and let them act on the bra $\langle x|$. The result is $$\label{M_op_2}
\begin{split}
M^{(1)}=&-e^N\int d^4x\,e^{i(K_XX+\bm{K}_{\perp}\cdot\bm{x}_{\perp})}\text{Tr}\,\langle x|e^{-ik_{1,\phi}\phi}\{2[(\Pi^{\mu}+\kappa^{\mu}_2) e_{1,\mu}]+\hat{k}_1\hat{e}_1\}D_2(A)\\
&\cdots\times e^{-ik_{N-1,\phi}\phi}\{2[(\Pi^{\mu}+\kappa^{\mu}_N) e_{N-1,\mu}]+\hat{k}_{N-1}\hat{e}_{N-1}\}D_N(A)\\
&\times e^{-ik_{N,\phi}\phi}[2(\Pi e_N)+\hat{k}_N\hat{e}_N]D(A)|x\rangle,
\end{split}$$ where $K^{\mu}=\sum_{j=1}^Nk_j^{\mu}$, $\kappa_j^{\mu}=\sum_{i=j}^Nk_i^{\mu}$ (note that $\kappa_1^{\mu}=K^{\mu}$), and $D_l(A)=D(A)\vert_{P_X\to P_X+\kappa_{l,X},\bm{P}_{\perp}\to \bm{P}_{\perp}+\bm{\kappa}_{l,\perp}}$, with $l=2,\ldots,N$. Now, the operators between the bra $\langle x|$ and the ket $|x\rangle$ do not contain the coordinates $X$ and $\bm{x}_{\perp}$, and the identities $$\begin{aligned}
\label{x_f_x}
\langle X|f(P_X)|X\rangle=\int\frac{dp_X}{2\pi}f(p_X), && \langle \bm{x}_{\perp}|g(\bm{P}_{\perp})|\bm{x}_{\perp}\rangle=\int\frac{d^2p_{\perp}}{(2\pi)^2}g(\bm{p}_{\perp})\end{aligned}$$ valid for arbitrary functions $f(P_X)$ and $g(\bm{P}_{\perp})$ can be applied (we assumed here that the eigenstates $|p\rangle$ of the four-momentum operator $P^{\mu}$, i.e., $P^{\mu}|p\rangle=p^{\mu}|p\rangle$, are such that $\langle x\vert p\rangle=e^{-i(px)}$ and $\langle p|p'\rangle=(2\pi)^4\delta^4(p-p')$). Moreover, the integrals in $X$ and $\bm{x}_{\perp}$ are easily taken and the partial amplitude $M^{(1)}$ becomes $$\label{M_op_3}
\begin{split}
M^{(1)}=&-(-ie)^N\delta(K_X)\delta^2(\bm{K}_{\perp})\int d\phi \int d p_X \int d^2 p_{\perp} \int_0^{\infty} ds_1\cdots ds_N\, e^{-i(m^2-i\epsilon)S} \\
&\times\text{Tr}\,\langle \phi|\{2[(p^{\mu}-eA^{\mu}(\phi)) e_{N,\mu}]+\hat{k}_N\hat{e}_N\}\\
&\times\left\{1+\frac{e}{2p_X}\hat{n}[\hat{A}(\phi+2s_1p_X))-\hat{A}(\phi)]\right\}\\
&\times e^{-i\int_0^{s_1}ds'_1[\bm{p}_{\perp}-e\bm{A}(\phi+2s'_1p_X)]^2}e^{-2is_1P_{\phi}p_X}e^{-i\kappa_{1,\phi}\phi}\\
&\times \{2[(p^{\mu}-eA^{\mu}(\phi)+\kappa^{\mu}_1) e_{1,\mu}]+\hat{k}_1\hat{e}_1\}\\
&\times\left\{1+\frac{e}{2(p_X+\kappa_{2,X})}\hat{n}[\hat{A}(\phi+2s_2(p_X+\kappa_{2,X}))-\hat{A}(\phi)]\right\}\\
&\times e^{-i\int_0^{s_2}ds'_2[\bm{p}_{\perp}+\bm{\kappa}_{2,\perp}-e\bm{A}(\phi+2s'_2(p_X+\kappa_{2,X}))]^2}e^{-2is_2P_{\phi}(p_X+\kappa_{2,X})}e^{-i\kappa_{2,\phi}\phi}\\
&\cdots\times \{2[(p^{\mu}-eA^{\mu}(\phi)+\kappa^{\mu}_{N-1}) e_{N-1,\mu}]+\hat{k}_{N-1}\hat{e}_{N-1}\}\\
&\times\left\{1+\frac{e}{2(p_X+\kappa_{N,X})}\hat{n}[\hat{A}(\phi+2s_N(p_X+\kappa_{N,X}))-\hat{A}(\phi)]\right\}\\
&\times e^{-i\int_0^{s_N}ds'_N[\bm{p}_{\perp}+\bm{\kappa}_{N,\perp}-e\bm{A}(\phi+2s'_N(p_X+\kappa_{N,X}))]^2}e^{-2is_NP_{\phi}(p_X+\kappa_{N,X})}e^{-i\kappa_{N,\phi}\phi}|\phi\rangle,
\end{split}$$ where $S=s_1+\cdots+s_N$. We note that in this expression of the amplitude, we have substituted the operator $P^{\mu}$ with the number $p^{\mu}+\kappa^{\mu}_j$ in the four-dimensional scalar products $(Pe_j)$. First, we observe that, since $(k_je_j)=0$, then it is $(\kappa_je_j)=(\kappa_{j+1}e_j)$, for $j=1,\ldots,N-1$ and $(\kappa_Ne_N)=0$. Moreover, although the substitution $(Pe_j)\to (p^{\mu}+\kappa^{\mu}_j)e_{j,\mu}$ is evident for the components $p_X$ and $\bm{p}_{\perp}$ (see Eq. (\[x\_f\_x\]) and the definition of the operators $D_l(A)$ below Eq. (\[M\_op\_2\])), it is in principle not justified for the remaining component $P_{\phi}$. However, we show in the Appendix B that gauge invariance implies that the four-dimensional scalar products $(Pe_j)$ actually do not involve the component $P_{\phi}$. The remaining matrix element can be calculated by employing the identity $$\begin{aligned}
e^{-i\phi_0P_\phi}|\phi\rangle=|\phi-\phi_0\rangle,\end{aligned}$$ where $\phi_0$ is a constant, and the fact that $\langle \phi|\phi'\rangle=\delta(\phi-\phi')$. The resulting $\delta$-function $\delta(2s_1(p_X+\kappa_{1,X})+\cdots+2s_N(p_X+\kappa_{N,X}))$ can be exploited to perform the integral in $p_X$ and the result is $$\label{M_op_4}
\begin{split}
M^{(1)}=&-\frac{(-ie)^N}{2}\delta(K_X)\delta^2(\bm{K}_{\perp})\int d\phi \int d^2 p_{\perp}\int_0^{\infty} \frac{ds_1\cdots ds_N}{S}\, e^{-i(m^2-i\epsilon)S} e^{-iK_{\phi}\phi}\\
&\times e^{-i\sum_{j=1}^N\int_0^{s_j}ds'_j\{\delta\kappa_{j,\phi}\delta\kappa_{j,X}+[\bm{p}_{\perp}+\bm{\pi}_{j,\perp}(\phi,s'_j)]^2\}}\\
&\times\text{Tr}\,\left\langle \{2[(p^{\mu}-eA^{\mu}(\phi)) e_{N,\mu}]+\hat{k}_N\hat{e}_N\}\left\{1+\frac{e}{2\delta\kappa_{1,X}}\hat{n}[\hat{A}(\phi+\phi_1)-\hat{A}(\phi)]\right\}\right.\\
&\times \{2[(p^{\mu}-eA^{\mu}(\phi+\phi_1)+\kappa^{\mu}_1) e_{1,\mu}]+\hat{k}_1\hat{e}_1\}\\
&\times\left\{1+\frac{e}{2\delta\kappa_{2,X}}\hat{n}[\hat{A}(\phi+\phi_2)-\hat{A}(\phi+\phi_1)]\right\}\\
&\cdots\times\{2[(p^{\mu}-eA^{\mu}(\phi+\phi_{N-1})+\kappa^{\mu}_{N-1}) e_{N-1,\mu}]+\hat{k}_{N-1}\hat{e}_{N-1}\}\\
&\left.\times\left\{1+\frac{e}{2\delta\kappa_{N,X}}\hat{n}[\hat{A}(\phi+\phi_N)-\hat{A}(\phi+\phi_{N-1})]\right\}\right\rangle.
\end{split}$$ In this expression we have simplified the notation by introducing the “average” $$\label{Av}
\bar{f}=\frac{1}{S}\sum_{j=1}^N\int_0^{s_j}ds'_jf_j(s'_j)$$ of $N$ arbitrary functions $f_j(s'_j)$, the residuals $$\label{Res}
\delta f_j(s'_j)=f_j(s'_j)-\bar{f},$$ and the quantities $$\label{phi_l}
\phi_j=2\sum_{i=1}^j\delta\kappa_{i,X}s_i$$ and $$\label{pi_j}
\pi^{\mu}_j(\phi,s'_j)=\kappa_j^{\mu}-eA^{\mu}(\phi+\phi'_j),$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\label{phi_p_1}
\phi'_1&=2\delta\kappa_{1,X}s'_1\\
\label{phi_p_l}
\phi'_l&=2\sum_{i=1}^{l-1}\delta\kappa_{i,X}s_i+2\delta\kappa_{l,X}s'_l, &&l=2,\ldots,N.\end{aligned}$$ Note also that $p_X=-\bar{\kappa}_X$, that $\phi_N=0$ and that in our gauge $\pi_{j,X/\phi}(\phi,s'_j)=\kappa_{j,X/\phi}$. Moreover, in Eq. (\[M\_op\_4\]) and in the successive expressions of $M^{(1)}$, the quantity $p_X$ in the trace has to be interpreted as $-\bar{\kappa}_X$.
In order to take the integral in $\bm{p}_{\perp}$, it is convenient first to shift $\bm{p}_{\perp}$ as $\bm{p}_{\perp}\to\bm{p}_{\perp}-\bar{\bm{\pi}}_{\perp}(\phi,\{s\})$, where $\{s\}=s_1,\ldots, s_N$. In this way, the resulting expression of the amplitude can be written as $$\label{M_op_5}
\begin{split}
M^{(1)}=&-\frac{(-ie)^N}{2}\delta(K_X)\delta^2(\bm{K}_{\perp})\int d\phi \int d^2 p_{\perp}\int_0^{\infty} \frac{ds_1\cdots ds_N}{S}\, e^{-i[K_{\phi}\phi-F(\phi,\{s\})]}\\
&\times e^{-iS\bm{p}_{\perp}^2}\text{Tr}\bigg\langle\prod_{j=1}^N\{2[(p^{\mu}+\delta\pi_j^{\mu}(\phi,s_j)) e_{j,\mu}]+\hat{k}_j\hat{e}_j\}\\
&\left.\times\left\{1+\frac{e}{2\delta\kappa_{j+1,X}}\hat{n}[\hat{A}(\phi+\phi_{j+1})-\hat{A}(\phi+\phi_j)]\right\}\right\rangle,
\end{split}$$ where $$\label{F}
F(\phi,\{s\})=\sum_{j=1}^N\int_0^{s_j}ds'_j[\delta\pi^{\mu}_j(\phi,s'_j)\delta\pi_{j,\mu}(\phi,s'_j)-m^2+i\epsilon],$$ where $\delta\kappa_{N+1}\equiv\delta\kappa_1$ and $\phi_{N+1}\equiv\phi_1$. The integral in $\bm{p}_{\perp}=(p_1,p_2)$ can be written as a sum of integrals of the form $$I_{n_1,n_2}=\int d^2p_{\perp}\, p_1^{n_1}p_2^{n_2}\, e^{-iS\bm{p}_{\perp}^2},$$ where $n_1$ and $n_2$ are two non-negative integers. The integral $I_{n_1,n_2}$ vanishes if $n_1$ and/or $n_2$ are odd, whereas it is equal to $$I_{n_1,n_2}=2\pi\frac{(n_1-1)!!(n_2-1)!!}{(2iS)^{(n_1+n_2+2)/2}}$$ if $n_1$ and $n_2$ are both even. In conclusion, we can write the partial amplitude $M^{(1)}$ in the compact form $$\label{M_op_5_C}
\begin{split}
M^{(1)}=&\frac{i\pi}{2}(-ie)^N\delta(K_X)\delta^2(\bm{K}_{\perp})\int d\phi \int_0^{\infty} \frac{ds_1\cdots ds_N}{S^2}\, e^{-i[K_{\phi}\phi-F(\phi,\{s\})]}\\
&\times\text{Tr}\bigg\langle\prod_{j=1}^N\{2[(p^{\mu}+\delta\pi_j^{\mu}(\phi,s_j)) e_{j,\mu}]+\hat{k}_j\hat{e}_j\}\\
&\left.\times\left\{1+\frac{e}{2\delta\kappa_{j+1,X}}\hat{n}[\hat{A}(\phi+\phi_{j+1})-\hat{A}(\phi+\phi_j)]\right\}\right\rangle,
\end{split}$$ where the substitution rules $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Sub_X}
p_X\to&-\bar{\kappa}_X\\
\label{Sub_perp}
\left(\frac{(pa_1)}{\sqrt{-a_1^2}}\right)^{n_1}\left(\frac{(pa_2)}{\sqrt{-a_2^2}}\right)^{n_2}\to&
\begin{cases}
0 & \text{if $n_1$ and/or $n_2$ are odd}\\
\frac{(n_1-1)!!(n_2-1)!!}{(2iS)^{(n_1+n_2)/2}} & \text{if $n_1$ and $n_2$ are even}
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ in the expression of the trace are understood. The amplitude in Eq. (\[M\_op\_5\_C\]) may diverge for $N<5$ [@Landau_b_4_1982; @Liang_2012]. The case $N=2$ (polarization operator) has been explicitly investigated in [@Baier_1976_b] and the case $N=3$ has been considered in [@Di_Piazza_2007; @Di_Piazza_2008_a]. The regularization procedure can be carried out by first subtracting and adding the corresponding amplitude $M_0^{(1)}$ at zero external field, i.e. by writing $M^{(1)}=(M^{(1)}-M_0^{(1)})+M_0^{(1)}$. Gauge invariance ensures that the quantity $M^{(1)}-M_0^{(1)}$ is finite and that only the vacuum-term $M_0^{(1)}$ needs to be regularized (see, in particular, [@Baier_1976_b]). The same procedure can be applied to the remaining case $N=4$, where the divergences are in general less severe than, e.g., for $N=2$. As it will be clear below, the present analysis is based essentially on the behavior of the field-dependent phase function $F(\phi,\{s\})$, then the conclusions, drawn starting from the unregularized amplitude $M^{(1)}$, also apply to the regularized one $M^{(1)}-M_0^{(1)}$. Since the regularization procedure is necessary only for $N<5$, in order to keep general the following formulas, we will still analyze the unregularized amplitude $M^{(1)}$, being understood, however, that for $N<5$, actually, the regularized amplitude $M^{(1)}-M_0^{(1)}$ has to be considered.
Before passing to the estimation of the net number of laser photon exchanged in a refractive QED process, we observe here that the integral representation $$\label{Prop}
\prod_{j=1}^N\frac{1}{p_j^2-m^2+i\epsilon}=(-i)^N\int_0^{\infty}ds_1\cdots ds_N\,e^{i\sum_{j=1}^N\int_0^{s_j}ds'_j(p_j^2-m^2+i\epsilon)},$$ of the electron propagator in vacuum in momentum space, suggests to interpret the quantity $\delta\pi^{\mu}_j(\phi,s'_j)$ as an “effective” instantaneous four-momentum of the virtual particle flowing between the $(j-1)$th and the $j$th vertex (see Eqs. (\[M\_op\_5\_C\]) and (\[F\])).
Estimation of the net number of exchanged laser photons {#Estimation}
=======================================================
If there were no external laser field, the remaining integral in $\phi$ in Eq. (\[M\_op\_5\_C\]) would provide the $\delta$-function $\delta(K_{\phi})$, which, together with the other three $\delta$-functions, would imply the overall energy-momentum conservation $K^{\mu}=0$, as expected. In the presence of the laser field, a measure of the net number of photons exchanged with the laser field during the refractive QED process is determined by the quantity $K_{\phi}/\omega_0$, where $\omega_0$ is the central laser angular frequency. In order to estimate the net number of laser photons exchanged, we recall that the multiphoton nature of the process is controlled by the parameter $\xi=|e|E_0/m\omega_0$, where $E_0$ is the amplitude of the electric field of the laser [@Ritus_1985; @Di_Piazza_2012]. From the physical meaning of this parameter, in fact, it is not surprising that if $\xi\lesssim 1$, the net number of photons exchanged with the laser field is of the order of unity. This regime is the relevant one for present and future x-ray laser facilities [@Di_Piazza_2012], for which the parameter $\xi$ is not expected to exceed unity due to the relatively large photon energy ($\omega_0\gtrsim 1\;\text{KeV}$). Thus, we directly consider below the ultra-relativistic limit where $\xi\to \infty$, having in mind an optical laser system with $\omega_0\sim 1\;\text{eV}$. In order to further specify the physical regime, we have also to consider the parameters $\varkappa_j$ (see the discussion below Eq. (\[M\])). If $\varkappa_j$ largely exceeds unity, an electron-positron pair can be in principle created in the collision of the laser field and the $j$th external photon. The subsequent emission of radiation by such a pair would represent a background for the refractive QED process. Thus, we limit here to the case where the parameters $\varkappa_j$ are fixed and less or of the order of unity, such that electron-positron pair production from laser-external photons is negligible. Correspondingly, we also exclude the possibility that electron-positron pairs can be created only by the external photons, even though, as it will be clear below, the following considerations will not depend formally on this condition.
It is convenient to write explicitly $$\delta\pi^{\mu}_j(\phi,s'_j)\delta\pi_{j,\mu}(\phi,s'_j)=-2\delta\kappa_{j,X}\delta\kappa_{j,\phi}-[\delta\bm{\pi}_{j,\perp}(\phi,s'_j)]^2$$ and to shift the variable $\phi$ as $\phi\to\phi+\Phi$, with $\Phi$ such that $$\label{Shift}
K_{\phi}\Phi+2\sum_{j=1}^N\delta\kappa_{j,X}\delta\kappa_{j,\phi}s_j=0.$$ In this way, the the partial amplitude $M^{(1)}$ can be written in the convenient form $$\label{M_f}
\begin{split}
M^{(1)}=&\frac{i\pi}{2}(-ie)^N\delta(K_X)\delta^2(\bm{K}_{\perp})\int d\phi \int_0^{\infty} \frac{ds_1\cdots ds_N}{S^2}\, e^{-i[K_{\phi}\phi+F_{\phi}(\phi+\Phi,\{s\})]}\\
&\times\text{Tr}\bigg\langle\prod_{j=1}^N\{2[(p^{\mu}+\delta\pi_j^{\mu}(\phi+\Phi,s_j)) e_{j,\mu}]+\hat{k}_j\hat{e}_j\}\\
&\left.\times\left\{1+\frac{e}{2\delta\kappa_{j+1,X}}\hat{n}[\hat{A}(\phi+\Phi+\phi_{j+1})-\hat{A}(\phi+\Phi+\phi_j)]\right\}\right\rangle,
\end{split}$$ where $$\label{F_perp}
F_{\phi}(\phi+\Phi,\{s\})=\sum_{j=1}^N\int_0^{s_j}ds'_j\{[\delta\bm{\pi}_{j,\perp}(\phi+\Phi,s'_j)]^2+m^2-i\epsilon\}.$$ The advantage of this form with respect to that in Eq. (\[M\_op\_5\_C\]) is that all the $N$ integrands in $F_{\phi}(\phi+\Phi,\{s\})$ are strictly positive and therefore that $F_{\phi}(\phi+\Phi,\{s\})\ge 0$. This implies, in fact, that the integration region in $ds_1\cdots ds_N$ mainly contributing to the partial amplitude $M^{(1)}$ is confined to sufficiently small values of $s_j$ such that that $F_{\phi}(\phi+\Phi,\{s\})\lesssim 1$, as otherwise the function $\exp(-iF_{\phi}(\phi+\Phi,\{s\}))$ would be highly oscillating. From what we mentioned at the beginning of this section, this would already indicate that the net number of photon exchanged during the refractive QED process is of the order of unity. However, in order to complete the proof, we have still to analyze the pre-exponential function. In fact, if $N$ is small, then the different powers of the external field present in this function would not essentially change the net number of laser photons exchanged. However, this could in principle occur for large $N$s. In order to show that this is not the case, we recall that in the considered regime, the parameters $\eta_j=\varkappa_j/\xi$ are much smaller than unity and therefore, in the effective integration region with respect to the variables $s_1,\ldots,s_N$, it is $\omega_0|\delta\kappa_{j,X}|s_j\lesssim\omega_0|\delta\kappa_{j,X}|/m^2\ll 1$, where we used the fact that $s_j\lesssim 1/m^2$ (see Eq. (\[F\_perp\])). Consequently, it results that $\omega_0|\phi_j|,\omega_0|\phi'_j|\ll 1$ and, by assuming that $|k_{j,\phi}|\lesssim |K_{\phi}|$ for all $j$s, that $\omega_0|\Phi|\ll 1$ (see Eq. (\[Shift\])). This observation allows one to expand the four-vector potential in Eq. (\[M\_f\]) as[^5] $$\begin{aligned}
A^{\mu}(\phi+\Phi+\phi_j)\approx &A^{\mu}(\phi)-2E^{\mu}(\phi)\bigg(\Phi+\sum_{i=1}^j\delta\kappa_{i,X}s_i\bigg)\\
A^{\mu}(\phi+\Phi+\phi'_j)\approx &A^{\mu}(\phi)-2E^{\mu}(\phi)\bigg(\Phi+\sum_{i=1}^{j-1}\delta\kappa_{i,X}s_i+\delta\kappa_{j,X}s'_j\bigg),\end{aligned}$$ where $E^{\mu}(\phi)=-dA^{\mu}(\phi)/d\phi$ (note that $E^{\mu}(\phi)$ is not a four-vector). Analogously, one obtains $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Exp_1}
\hat{A}(\phi+\Phi+\phi_{j+1})-\hat{A}(\phi+\Phi+\phi_j)\approx &-2\hat{E}(\phi)\delta\kappa_{j+1,X}s_{j+1}\\
\label{Exp_2}
\begin{split}
\delta\pi_j^{\mu}(\phi+\Phi,s'_j)\approx &\delta \kappa_j^{\mu}+2eE^{\mu}(\phi)\bigg[\sum_{i=1}^{j-1}\delta\kappa_{i,X}s_i+\delta\kappa_{j,X}s'_j\\
&-\frac{1}{S}\sum_{l=1}^Ns_l\bigg(\sum_{i=1}^{l-1}\delta\kappa_{i,X}s_i+\frac{1}{2}\delta\kappa_{l,X}s_l\bigg)\bigg].
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ Now, the fact that $F_{\phi}(\phi+\Phi,\{s\})\lesssim 1$ implies, as an order-of-magnitude estimate, that $[\delta\bm{\pi}_{j,\perp}(\phi+\Phi,s_j)]^2s_j\lesssim 1/N$. Thus, the above expansions, together with the fact that $|\bm{p}_{\perp}|\sim 1/\sqrt{S}$ (see Eq. (\[Sub\_perp\])), indicate that in the effective formation region of the process, the ratio between the terms in the pre-exponent proportional to the laser field and those which do not contain the laser field itself is less than unity. Therefore, terms containing higher powers of the external field are subdominant and, in conclusion, the probability of an exchange of a net number of photons much larger than unity is suppressed also for large values of $N$.
In order to make our analysis more concrete, we consider the particular case of a monochromatic, circularly polarized laser field. In this case, the vector potential is given by $\bm{A}(\phi)=-(E_0/\omega_0)[\cos(\omega_0\phi)\bm{a}_1+\sin(\omega_0\phi)\bm{a}_2]$. Starting again from the general expression in Eq. (\[M\_f\]) (see also Eq. (\[F\_perp\])), it is convenient to introduce the vectors $$\begin{aligned}
\bm{a}_{j,c}(s'_j)&=C_j(s'_j)\bm{a}_1+S_j(s'_j)\bm{a}_2\\
\bm{a}_{j,s}(s'_j)&=-S_j(s'_j)\bm{a}_1+C_j(s'_j)\bm{a}_2,\end{aligned}$$ where $C_j(s'_j)=\cos(\omega_0(\Phi+\phi'_j))$ and $S_j(s'_j)=\sin(\omega_0(\Phi+\phi'_j))$. In this way, we obtain $$\delta\bm{\pi}_{j,\perp}(\phi+\Phi,s'_j)=\delta\bm{\kappa}_{j,\perp}-m\xi[\cos(\omega_0\phi)\delta\bm{a}_{j,c}(s'_j)+\sin(\omega_0\phi)\delta\bm{a}_{j,s}(s'_j)]$$ and the function $F_{\phi}(\phi+\Phi,\{s\})$ can be written as $$F_{\phi}(\phi+\Phi,\{s\})=F_0(\{s\})+F_c(\{s\})\cos(\omega_0\phi)+F_s(\{s\})\sin(\omega_0\phi),$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
F_0(\{s\})=&\sum_{j=1}^N\int_0^{s_j}ds'_j\bm{(}(\delta\bm{\kappa}_{j,\perp})^2+m^2\{1+\xi^2[(\delta C_j(s'_j))^2+(\delta S_j(s'_j))^2]\}-i\epsilon\bm{)},\\
F_{c/s}(\{s\})=&-2m\xi\sum_{j=1}^N\int_0^{s_j}ds'_j\delta\bm{\kappa}_{j,\perp}\cdot\delta\bm{a}_{j,c/s}(s'_j).\end{aligned}$$ Note that the integrals in $ds'_j$ in $F_0(\{s\})$ and $F_{c/s}(\{s\})$ can be easily taken in the present case, which is however not necessary here. The discussion below Eq. (\[F\_perp\]) indicates that in the effective integration region it is $F_0(\{s\}),|F_{c/s}(\{s\})|\lesssim 1$. We consider now the prototype integral in $\phi$ $$\label{I}
\mathcal{I}(\{s\})=\int d\phi\, \text{e}^{-i[K_{\phi}\phi+F_{\phi}(\phi+\Phi,\{s\})]},$$ which is present in the partial amplitude $M^{(1)}$. After introducing the quantities $F_A(\{s\})$ and $\varphi_0(\{s\})$ according to the definitions $$\begin{aligned}
F_c(\{s\})&=F_A(\{s\})\cos(\varphi_0(\{s\})),\\
F_s(\{s\})&=F_A(\{s\})\sin(\varphi_0(\{s\})),\end{aligned}$$ and after passing to the variable $\varphi=\omega_0\phi-\varphi_0(\{s\})$, we obtain $$\label{I_f}
\mathcal{I}(\{s\})=2\pi \text{e}^{-i[(K_{\phi}/\omega_0)\varphi_0(\{s\})+F_0 (\{s\})]}\sum_{n_l=-\infty}^{\infty}i^{-n_l}\delta(K_{\phi}-n_l\omega_0)J_{n_l}(F_A(\{s\})),$$ where we employed the identity $\exp(iz\cos\varphi)=\sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty}i^nJ_n(z)\exp(in\varphi)$ in terms of the ordinary Bessel functions $J_n(z)$ of integer order $n$, valid for an arbitrary complex number $z$ [@Gradshteyn_b_2000]. Equation (\[I\_f\]) shows that $n_l$ indicates the net number of photons absorbed from (if $n_l<0$) or ceded to (if $n_l>0$) the laser field. The well-known property of ordinary Bessel functions $J_n(x)$ of a real (positive) argument of being much smaller than unity at $n\gg x$ and the fact that $F_A(\{s\})=\sqrt{F^2_c(\{s\})+F^2_s(\{s\})}\lesssim 1$ shows, at least for the terms in the pre-exponent independent of the laser field, that the net number of photons exchanged with the laser field is of the order of unity. The general observation below Eq. (\[Exp\_2\]) indicates that also high-order terms in the laser field in the pre-exponential will not essentially increase the net number of laser photons exchanged during the refractive QED process. Note that the fact that only a low net number of laser photons are exchanged during a refractive QED effects implies that the strong background laser field is practically not altered by the process itself. This is in agreement with the use here of the Furry picture, which includes the external field as a “given” field.
Before discussing the obtained results, it is worth observing that in the special case where $N=2$ and with two external real photons the net exchange of laser photons is exactly zero, due to *kinematical* reasons [@Baier_1976_b; @Dittrich_b_2000]. Our results show that there is a *dynamical* reason such that the net exchange of laser photons is small also for arbitrary $N$.
Discussion {#Discussion}
==========
As we have already mentioned above, it is interesting to compare the low net exchange of laser photon in a refractive QED process with what happens in the case of the NBWPP, which does also occur in the collision of a real photon and a laser field. Again, we limit in particular to the strong-field limit corresponding to $\xi\gg 1$ at fixed invariant parameters $\varkappa_j\sim 1$. The real electron and positron created via the NBWPP at $\xi\gg 1$ are already ultra-relativistic and a large net number of laser photons of the order of $\xi^3$ are absorbed from the laser field in order to fulfill energy-momentum conservation [@Ritus_1985]. On the other hand, a refractive QED process occurs via a virtual electron-positron pair and this manifests itself in the appearance of the integrals in $ds_1\cdots ds_N$ in the partial amplitude $M^{(1)}$. At larger and larger values of the electric field amplitude, the effective integration region in $ds_1\cdots ds_N$ reduces accordingly, in such a way that the function $F_{\phi}(\phi+\Phi,\{s\})$ is always of the order of or less than unity, and then that the net number of laser photons exchanged is of the order of unity, too. More specifically, we recall that if $p^{\mu}=(\varepsilon,\bm{p})$ is the momentum of a classical electron at the initial value $\phi=0$ ($\bm{A}(0)=\bm{0}$), then the component $p_{\phi}(\phi)$ of the four-momentum $p^{\mu}(\phi)=(\varepsilon(\phi),\bm{p}(\phi))$ at $\phi$ is given by [@Landau_b_2_1975] $$p_{\phi}(\phi)=-\frac{m^2+[\bm{p}_{\perp}-e\bm{A}(\phi)]^2}{2p_X}.$$ By performing the change of variable $\phi'_j=2\delta\kappa_{j,X}s'_j$ in Eq. (\[F\_perp\]), we see that $F_{\phi}(\phi+\Phi,\{s\})$ qualitatively corresponds to the quantity $\sum_{j=1}^N\int_{\phi_{j-1}}^{\phi_j}d\phi'_j\mathcal{P}_{j,\phi}(\phi'_j)$, where $\phi_0=0$ and where $\mathcal{P}_{j,\phi}(\phi'_j)$ is the component $\phi$ of the four-momentum of the virtual electron/positron flowing between the $(j-1)$th vertex and the $j$th vertex. Thus, the condition $F_{\phi}(\phi+\Phi,\{s\})\lesssim 1$ corresponds to the fact that, according to Heisenberg uncertainty principle, the virtual electron-positron pair annihilates after an interval $\Delta\phi'_j$ in $\phi'_j$ given by $\Delta\phi'_j\sim 1/\mathcal{P}_{\phi,j}$, where $\mathcal{P}_{\phi,j}$ indicates the order of magnitude of the momentum flowing between the $(j-1)$th vertex and the $j$th vertex. This corroborates the interpretation that in a refractive QED process, the stronger is the laser field, the higher is the four-momentum flowing through the electron-positron loop. Accordingly, the virtual electron-positron pair propagates for a shorter distance inside the laser field, such that the net number of photons, that can be exchanged in the process is always of the order of unity.
This difference between the net number of photons exchanged with the laser field in a general refractive QED process, inferred here from the investigation of the amplitude of such processes, and in NBWPP could appear at first sight not to be compatible with the optical theorem, when the imaginary part of the (reduced) amplitude of a refractive QED process can be related to the total rate of the corresponding pair-production process (e.g., the refractive QED process corresponding to NBWPP is essentially the polarization operator) [@Landau_b_4_1982]. However, this is not the case, because the *total* rate of a pair-production process does not contain information on the net number of photons exchanged with the laser field, as the rate is integrated over the whole phase space of the created electron and positron. More quantitatively, since a plane-wave field depends only on the spacetime variable $\phi$, it is possible to write th $S$-matrix element $S_{fi}$ of an arbitrary process occurring in such a background field as $$S_{fi}=\delta_{fi}+i(2\pi)^3\delta^2(\bm{P}_{f,\perp}-\bm{P}_{i,\perp})\delta(P_{f,X}-P_{i,X})R_{fi},$$ where $P_{i/f}^{\mu}$ indicates the total initial/final four-momentum. The optical theorem [@Landau_b_4_1982] here reads $$2\,\text{Im}(R_{ii})=\sum_f(2\pi)^3\delta^2(\bm{P}_{f,\perp}-\bm{P}_{i,\perp})\delta(P_{f,X}-P_{i,X})|R_{fi}|^2$$ and we are interested to the case in which in the initial state there are a certain number of photons, whereas in the final state an electron-positron pair is present. By limiting, for simplicity, to the case of a monochromatic laser field with angular frequency $\omega_0$, we can expand the amplitude $R_{fi}$ as $$\label{R_fi}
R_{fi}=\sum_{n_l=-\infty}^{\infty}(2\pi)\delta(P_{f,\phi}-P_{i,\phi}-n_l\omega_0)T_{n_l,fi},$$ and the optical theorem provides the relation $$2\,\text{Im}(T_{0,ii})=\sum_{n_l=-\infty}^{\infty}\sum_f(2\pi)^4\delta(P_f^{\mu}-P_i^{\mu}-n_l\omega_0n^{\mu})|T_{n_l,fi}|^2.$$ On the one hand, this identity shows that only the quantity $T_{0,ii}$ corresponding to no net exchange of laser photons in a refractive QED process is relevant for the optical theorem. On the other hand, as already mentioned, all the quantities $|T_{n_l,fi}|^2$ corresponding to a given net exchange of an arbitrary number of laser photons in the pair-production process are summed up in the right-hand side of Eq. (\[R\_fi\]), in such a way that the resulting quantity does not contain any information on the typical number of laser photons net-exchanged during the process. In the specific example of NBWPP, the above conclusion is confirmed by the fact that the total pair production rate at $\xi\gg 1$ becomes independent of the parameter $\xi$ (it depends only on the parameter $\varkappa=(\omega_0k_X/m^2)(E_0/E_{cr})$, where $k^{\mu}$ is the four-momentum of the external photon), and it coincides with the corresponding total rate in a “phase-dependent” constant-crossed field but averaged over the laser phase [@Ritus_1985].
It is also worth observing that, although, according to the analysis above of the amplitude of a refractive QED process, the net number of laser photons exchanged in such a process is of the order of unity, high-order terms in the laser field amplitude contribute to the process (as, for example, in the Bessel functions in Eq. (\[I\_f\])). Such nonlinear terms stem for the exchange of laser photons without a net absorption or emission during the process. The fact that $F_{\phi}(\phi+\Phi,\{s\})\lesssim 1$ (that $F_A(\{s\})\lesssim 1$ in Eq. (\[I\_f\]) for the case of a circularly-polarized, monochromatic laser field) suggests that in general the exchange of a large number of laser photons is suppressed. At the same time, however, such higher-order nonlinear effects can strongly modify the amplitude of a refractive QED process. This observation suggests that, in general, in order to detect higher-order nonlinear effects in the laser amplitude in a refractive QED process, it is more convenient to measure yields of final photons, rather than to measure, for example, the energy or the angular distribution of the final photons (note that refractive QED processes involving an odd number of external photons cannot occur in vacuum, i.e., in the absence of any background field, due to parity conservation (Furry theorem [@Furry_1937])). In fact, the optimal regime of parameters to detect higher-order nonlinear effects in the laser-field amplitude in a refractive QED process is at $\varkappa_j\sim 1$, as $if \varkappa_j\ll 1$ the amplitude is approximately equal to its corresponding expression including only the leading-order term(s) in $\varkappa_j$. Now, even considering next generation of 10-PW optical laser systems [@Di_Piazza_2012], providing an intensity of the order of $10^{23}\;\text{W/cm$^2$}$, the ratio $E_0/E_{\text{cr}}$ is smaller that $5\times 10^{-4}$. Thus, in order to have $\varkappa_j\sim 1$, initial photon energies are required of the order of $1\;\text{GeV}$. For final photon energies of this order of magnitude, if only a few photons from an optical laser ($\omega_0\sim 1\;\text{eV}$) are effectively exchanged, it is not feasible in practice at $\varkappa_j\sim 1$ to detect higher-order effects in the laser-field amplitude by measuring the final photons’ energies and/or angular distribution (note that the typical energy and angular resolutions of electromagnetic calorimeters in the GeV range are of the order of 100 MeV and of a few mrad, respectively [@CMS_ECAL], whereas the energy and the angle resolutions required here would be of the order of $\omega_0\sim 1\;\text{eV}$ and of $\omega_0/1\;\text{GeV}\sim 10^{-9}\;\text{rad}$, respectively). On the other hand, at $\varkappa_j\sim 1$ the amplitude of a refractive QED effect is expected to be substantially altered by higher-order terms in $\varkappa_j$ (see, for example, the Bessel functions in Eq. (\[I\_f\])), indicating that the measurement of the photon yield could be a more convenient observable to detect such higher-order effects. However, since the above discussion does not contain an estimate of the expected cross section or rate of a general refractive QED process, it cannot be considered as an experimental proposal but rather as an observation on what it could be convenient to measure, in order to detect higher-order nonlinear effects in refractive QED effects. If one is not interested in detecting higher-order effects in the laser-field amplitude, one can also allow for $\varkappa_j\ll 1$ and try to measure only leading-order effects. In fact, there are already more concrete suggestions in order to detect leading-order refractive QED effects at $N=2$ (vacuum polarization effects), e.g., by measuring the change in polarization of a probe photon passing through a laser field [@Heinzl_2006; @Di_Piazza_2006], or by directly detecting photon-photon scattering [@Bernard_2000; @Lundstroem_2006; @Tommasini_2008; @King_2010; @Kryuchkyan_2011] (see [@Di_Piazza_2012] for a more complete review on such experimental suggestions). We also shortly mention analogous experiments to detect vacuum polarization effects in a magnetic field [@Bregant_2008; @Zavattini_2012] and in waveguides [@Brodin_2001]. The mentioned experiments employ low-energy photons (optical and/or x-ray) such that they are not suitable to detect *higher-order* nonlinear effects in the laser field, because, in the notation of the present manuscript, $\varkappa_j\ll 1$ there. However, this does not imply that the processes themselves cannot be observed. On the contrary, it has already been noticed (see, e.g., [@Varfolomeev_1966; @Bernard_2000; @Lundstroem_2006]) that, employing intense optical lasers, leads to a large enhancement of the photon-photon scattering signal, by exploiting the stimulated emission of a photon in the presence of a large number of photons in the same mode.
In the analysis carried out so far, it has been assumed that radiative corrections are negligible. In the presence of an ultra-relativistic external plane-wave field this is the case if $\alpha\varkappa_j^{2/3}\ll 1$ for all $j$, where $\alpha=e^2\approx 1/137$ is the fine-structure constant, i.e., if $\varkappa_j\ll 1/\alpha^{3/2}\approx 10^3$ [@Ritus_1985]. However, radiative corrections and high-order diagrams would in any case involve only virtual particles in such a way that the physical argument given above and concerning the net number of laser photon exchanged would again apply. On the other hand, as we have already mentioned, the regime $\varkappa_j\gg 1$ is not suitable for observing a refractive QED process, due to the background photons emitted by the produced electron-positron pairs.
Conclusions
===========
In conclusion, by employing the operator technique, we have shown that refractive QED processes in a laser field are likely to occur with a net absorption/emission of only a few laser photons even in the ultra-relativistic regime $\xi\gg 1$. The above analysis has been carried out only on the one-loop amplitude of a general refractive QED process and, for a final, conclusive answer, observables as the cross sections or the rates should be investigated. However, the present investigation can be already of relevance for experimental campaigns at future laser facilities. On this respect, our main conclusion is that in order to experimentally observe higher-order nonlinear effects in the laser-field amplitude in such processes, it is more convenient to measure yields of final photons in a refractive QED process, rather than, for example, to measure the energies or the angular distribution of the final photons.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The author is grateful to K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, S. Meuren, and A. I. Milstein for useful discussions and to C. H. Keitel and F. Mackenroth for reading the manuscript.
In the present appendix we will indicate how to express the amplitude (\[M\_op\]) in such a way that it contains only the square propagators $D(A)$ (see Eq. (\[D\_0\])). It is convenient to introduce here the notation (note that some of the above symbols have been already introduced between Eq. (\[M\_op\]) and Eq. (\[D\])) $$\begin{aligned}
G_j(A)=&G(A)\hat{e}_j\exp[-i(k_jx)],\\
D_j(A)=&D(A)\exp[-i(k_jx)][2(\Pi e_j)+\hat{k}_j\hat{e}_j],\\
Q_j(A)=&D(A)\hat{e}_j\exp[-i(k_jx)]G^{-1}(A),\\
C_{j,j+1}(A)=&D(A)\hat{e}_j\exp[-i(k_jx)] \hat{e}_{j+1}\exp[-i(k_{j+1}x)].\end{aligned}$$ The following identities can be easily proven $$\begin{aligned}
\label{GDQ}
G_j(A)=&D_j(A)-Q_j(A),\\
\label{QD}
Q_j(A)D_{j+1}(A)=&Q_j(A)Q_{j+1}(A)+C_{j,j+1}(A),\end{aligned}$$ where for $j=N$, the index $N+1$ has to be intended as $1$ (recall the cyclic property of the trace). In order to further simplify the notation, we also define the generalized trace of a matrix operator $O$ $$\text{Tr}_x(O)=\int d^4x \text{Tr}\langle x|O|x\rangle$$ such that it is sufficient to analyze the quantity $$T_N(A)=\text{Tr}_x[G_1(A)\cdots G_N(A)]+\circlearrowleft.$$ Since, as will be clear, the procedure to transform the quantity $T_N(A)$ only depends on if $N$ is odd or even, we explicitly work out only the cases $N=3$ and $N=4$, being the cases $N>4$ completely analogous. Now, $$\begin{split}
T_3(A)&=\text{Tr}_x[G_1(A)G_2(A)G_3(A)]+\circlearrowleft\\
&=\text{Tr}_x[(D_1(A)-Q_1(A))(D_2(A)-Q_2(A))(D_3(A)-Q_3(A))]+\circlearrowleft\\
&=\text{Tr}_x[D_1(A)D_2(A)D_3(A)]-\text{Tr}_x[Q_1(A)D_2(A)D_3(A)]\\
&\quad-\text{Tr}_x[D_1(A)Q_2(A)D_3(A)]-\text{Tr}_x[D_1(A)D_2(A)Q_3(A)]\\
&\quad+\text{Tr}_x[D_1(A)Q_2(A)Q_3(A)]+\text{Tr}_x[Q_1(A)D_2(A)Q_3(A)]\\
&\quad+\text{Tr}_x[Q_1(A)Q_2(A)D_3(A)]-\text{Tr}_x[Q_1(A)Q_2(A)Q_3(A)]+\circlearrowleft.\\
\end{split}$$ The first term already contains only square propagators and, by applying the identity (\[QD\]) to the three terms containing only one operator $Q_j(A)$, we see that the contributions coming from the first term in Eq. (\[QD\]) exactly cancel the terms containing two operators $Q_j(A)Q_{j+1}(A)$. Thus, we obtain $$\begin{split}
T_3(A)&=\text{Tr}_x[D_1(A)D_2(A)D_3(A)]-\text{Tr}_x[C_{1,2}(A)D_3(A)]-\text{Tr}_x[D_1(A)C_{2,3}(A)]\\
&\quad-\text{Tr}_x[C_{3,1}(A)D_2(A)]-\text{Tr}_x[Q_1(A)Q_2(A)Q_3(A)]+\circlearrowleft.
\end{split}$$ Now, we consider separately the quantity $$\label{T_p_3}
\begin{split}
T_{+,3}(A)&=\text{Tr}_x[Q_1(A)Q_2(A)Q_3(A)]\\
&=\text{Tr}_x\left[G_+(A)\hat{e}_1e^{-i(k_1x)}G_+(A)\hat{e}_2e^{-i(k_2x)}G_+(A)\hat{e}_3e^{-i(k_3x)}\right],
\end{split}$$ where we have introduced the quantity $G_+(A)=(\hat{\Pi}+m+i\epsilon)^{-1}$, which corresponds to the electron propagator but with $m\to -m$. By imagining to work in the Dirac representation of the gamma matrices [@Landau_b_4_1982], we consider the unitary matrix $U=\gamma^0\gamma^2\gamma^5$ and we note that $U\gamma^{\mu}U^{\dag}=\gamma^{\mu,t}$, where the upper index $t$ indicates the transpose with respect to the Dirac-matrices indexes. Since the four-momentum operator is hermitian, it is easy to show that $UG_+(A)U^{\dag}=-[G(-A)]^{t_x}$, where the upper index $t_x$ indicates the transpose with respect to the Dirac-matrices and to the spacetime indexes. In this way, by inserting the unity operator $UU^{\dag}$ in Eq. (\[T\_p\_3\]) before and after each $\hat{e}_j$ and by exploiting the fact that $\text{Tr}_x(O^{t_x}_1O^{t_x}_2)=\text{Tr}_x[(O_2O_1)^{t_x}]=\text{Tr}_x(O_2O_1)$ for arbitrary operators $O_1$ and $O_2$, we obtain $$\begin{split}
T_{+,3}(A)=&\text{Tr}_x[Q_1(A)Q_2(A)Q_3(A)]=\\
=&-\text{Tr}_x\left[G(-A)\hat{e}_3e^{-i(k_3x)}G(-A)\hat{e}_2e^{-i(k_2x)}G(-A)\hat{e}_1e^{-i(k_1x)}\right]\\
=&-\text{Tr}_x[G_3(-A)G_2(-A)G_1(-A)].
\end{split}$$ Now, we recall that, in general, the quantity $T_N(A)$ also contain the contribution from the Feynman diagram where the electron arrows are reversed (see Fig. 1) and that, due to Furry theorem [@Landau_b_4_1982], only terms proportional to an odd power of laser amplitude effectively contribute to $T_3(A)$, i.e., $T_3(A)=-T_3(-A)$. Therefore, by applying the same above procedure to the additional contribution from the Feynman diagram where the electron arrows are reversed, we obtain $$\label{T_3_T}
\begin{split}
T_3(A)=&\frac{1}{2}\{\text{Tr}_x[D_1(A)D_2(A)D_3(A)]-\text{Tr}_x[C_{1,2}(A)D_3(A)]\\
&-\text{Tr}_x[D_1(A)C_{2,3}(A)]-\text{Tr}_x[C_{3,1}(A)D_2(A)]+\{123\to 321\})\},
\end{split}$$ where the quantity $\{123\to 321\}$ means that the previous terms have to be added, but with the indexes $1,2$ and $3$ appearing in the opposite order $3,2$ and $1$. This result exactly corresponds to the general procedure given in the main text below Eq. (\[M\_op\]) for the case $N=3$.
The case with $N=4$ can be worked out in a completely analogous way and we only stress the differences with respect to the case $N=3$. The starting point is the quantity $$\begin{split}
T_4(A)&=\text{Tr}_x[G_1(A)G_2(A)G_3(A)G_4(A)]+\circlearrowleft\\
&=\text{Tr}_x[(D_1(A)-Q_1(A))(D_2(A)-Q_2(A))(D_3(A)-Q_3(A))\\
&\quad\times(D_4(A)-Q_4(A))]+\circlearrowleft\\
&=\text{Tr}_x[D_1(A)D_2(A)D_3(A)D_4(A)]-\text{Tr}_x[Q_1(A)D_2(A)D_3(A)D_4(A)]\\
&\quad-\text{Tr}_x[D_1(A)Q_2(A)D_3(A)D_4(A)]-\text{Tr}_x[D_1(A)D_2(A)Q_3(A)D_4(A)]\\
&\quad-\text{Tr}_x[D_1(A)D_2(A)D_3(A)Q_4(A)]+\text{Tr}_x[Q_1(A)Q_2(A)D_3(A)D_4(A)]\\
&\quad+\text{Tr}_x[Q_1(A)D_2(A)Q_3(A)D_4(A)]+\text{Tr}_x[Q_1(A)D_2(A)D_3(A)Q_4(A)]\\
&\quad+\text{Tr}_x[D_1(A)Q_2(A)Q_3(A)D_4(A)]+\text{Tr}_x[D_1(A)Q_2(A)D_3(A)Q_4(A)]\\
&\quad+\text{Tr}_x[D_1(A)D_2(A)Q_3(A)Q_4(A)]-\text{Tr}_x[D_1(A)Q_2(A)Q_3(A)Q_4(A)]\\
&\quad-\text{Tr}_x[Q_1(A)D_2(A)Q_3(A)Q_4(A)]-\text{Tr}_x[Q_1(A)Q_2(A)D_3(A)Q_4(A)]\\
&\quad-\text{Tr}_x[Q_1(A)Q_2(A)Q_3(A)D_4(A)]+\text{Tr}_x[Q_1(A)Q_2(A)Q_3(A)Q_4(A)]+\circlearrowleft.
\end{split}$$ By applying the identity (\[QD\]) in the terms containing only one operator $Q_j(A)$, four of the six terms with two operators $Q_j(A)$ and $Q_{j'}(A)$ cancel, and we obtain $$\begin{split}
T_4(A)&=\text{Tr}_x[D_1(A)D_2(A)D_3(A)D_4(A)]-\text{Tr}_x[C_{1,2}(A)D_3(A)D_4(A)]\\
&\quad-\text{Tr}_x[D_1(A)C_{2,3}(A)D_4(A)]-\text{Tr}_x[D_1(A)D_2(A)C_{3,4}(A)]\\
&\quad-\text{Tr}_x[C_{4,1}(A)D_2(A)D_3(A)]+\text{Tr}_x[Q_1(A)D_2(A)Q_3(A)D_4(A)]\\
&\quad+\text{Tr}_x[D_1(A)Q_2(A)D_3(A)Q_4(A)-\text{Tr}_x[D_1(A)Q_2(A)Q_3(A)Q_4(A)]]\\
&\quad-\text{Tr}_x[Q_1(A)D_2(A)Q_3(A)Q_4(A)]-\text{Tr}_x[Q_1(A)Q_2(A)D_3(A)Q_4(A)]\\
&\quad-\text{Tr}_x[Q_1(A)Q_2(A)Q_3(A)D_4(A)]+\text{Tr}_x[Q_1(A)Q_2(A)Q_3(A)Q_4(A)]+\circlearrowleft.
\end{split}$$ By applying the identity (\[QD\]) in the remaining terms containing two operators $Q_j(A)$ and $Q_{j'}(A)$, two of the four terms with three operators $Q_j(A)$, $Q_{j'}(A)$ and $Q_{j''}(A)$ cancel, and we obtain $$\begin{split}
T_4(A)&=\text{Tr}_x[D_1(A)D_2(A)D_3(A)D_4(A)]-\text{Tr}_x[C_{1,2}(A)D_3(A)D_4(A)]\\
&\quad-\text{Tr}_x[D_1(A)C_{2,3}(A)D_4(A)]-\text{Tr}_x[D_1(A)D_2(A)C_{3,4}(A)]\\
&\quad-\text{Tr}_x[C_{4,1}(A)D_2(A)D_3(A)]+\text{Tr}_x[C_{1,2}(A)Q_3(A)D_4(A)]\\
&\quad+\text{Tr}_x[D_1(A)C_{2,3}(A)Q_4(A)]-\text{Tr}_x[Q_1(A)D_2(A)Q_3(A)Q_4(A)]\\
&\quad-\text{Tr}_x[Q_1(A)Q_2(A)D_3(A)Q_4(A)]+\text{Tr}_x[Q_1(A)Q_2(A)Q_3(A)Q_4(A)]+\circlearrowleft.
\end{split}$$ Finally, by applying again the identity (\[QD\]) in the two terms containing two operators $Q_j(A)$ and $Q_{j'}(A)$, the new terms containing three operators $Q_j(A)$, $Q_{j'}(A)$ and $Q_{j''}(A)$ combine to the remaining two terms also containing three operators $Q_j(A)$, $Q_{j'}(A)$ and $Q_{j''}(A)$, and give two terms $\text{Tr}_x[Q_1(A)Q_2(A)Q_3(A)Q_4(A)]$ with a minus sign. In conclusion, we have $$\begin{split}
T_4(A)&=\text{Tr}_x[D_1(A)D_2(A)D_3(A)D_4(A)]-\text{Tr}_x[C_{1,2}(A)D_3(A)D_4(A)]\\
&\quad-\text{Tr}_x[D_1(A)C_{2,3}(A)D_4(A)]-\text{Tr}_x[D_1(A)D_2(A)C_{3,4}(A)]\\
&\quad-\text{Tr}_x[C_{4,1}(A)D_2(A)D_3(A)]+\text{Tr}_x[C_{1,2}(A)C_{3,4}(A)]\\
&\quad+\text{Tr}_x[C_{4,1}(A)C_{2,3}(A)]-\text{Tr}_x[Q_1(A)Q_2(A)Q_3(A)Q_4(A)]+\circlearrowleft.
\end{split}$$ The trace $\text{Tr}_x[Q_1(A)Q_2(A)Q_3(A)Q_4(A)]$ can be manipulated exactly as in the case $N=3$ and we arrive to the final result $$\begin{split}
T_4(A)&=\frac{1}{2}\{\text{Tr}_x[D_1(A)D_2(A)D_3(A)D_4(A)]-\text{Tr}_x[C_{1,2}(A)D_3(A)D_4(A)]\\
&\quad-\text{Tr}_x[D_1(A)C_{2,3}(A)D_4(A)]-\text{Tr}_x[D_1(A)D_2(A)C_{3,4}(A)]\\
&\quad-\text{Tr}_x[C_{4,1}(A)D_2(A)D_3(A)]+\text{Tr}_x[C_{1,2}(A)C_{3,4}(A)]\\
&\quad+\text{Tr}_x[C_{4,1}(A)C_{2,3}(A)]+\{1234\to 4321\}\},
\end{split}$$ which again corresponds to the substitution rules given below Eq. (\[M\_op\]) for the case $N=4$.
In this appendix, we show that the four-dimensional scalar products $(Pe_j)$ do not contain the operator $P_{\phi}$. We temporarily assume that ${k_j}^2\neq 0$ for all $j$s. In this way, by introducing the quantities $f_r^{\mu\nu}=n^{\mu}a_r^{\nu}-n^{\nu}a_r^{\mu}$, with $r=1,2$, the four-vector $e_j^{\mu}$ can be expanded with respect to the basis [@Baier_1976_b] $$\begin{aligned}
\Lambda_j^{(1),\mu}&=-\frac{k_{j,\lambda}f_1^{\lambda\mu}}{k_{j,X}}, & \Lambda_j^{(2),\mu}&=-\frac{k_{j,\lambda}f_2^{\lambda\mu}}{k_{j,X}},\\
\label{Lambda_34}
\Lambda_j^{(3),\mu}&=\frac{k_j^{\mu}}{\sqrt{{k_j}^2}}, &\Lambda_j^{(4),\mu}&=-\frac{n^{\mu}{k_j}^2+k_j^{\mu}k_{j,X}}{k_{j,X}\sqrt{{k_j}^2}}\end{aligned}$$ as $e_j^{\mu}=\sum_{u=1}^4b^{(u)}_j\Lambda_j^{(u),\mu}$, with $b^{(u)}_j=-(\Lambda_j^{(u)}e_j)$ (note that $(\Lambda_j^{(u)}\Lambda_j^{(v)})=-\delta_{uv}$, with $u,v=1,\ldots,4$). If we write the total amplitude $M$ as $M=e_{1,\mu_1}\cdots e_{N,\mu_N}M^{\mu_1\cdots\mu_N}$, then $$\label{M_exp}
M=\sum_{u_1,\ldots,u_N=1}^4b^{(u_1)}_1\cdots b^{(u_N)}_N\Lambda_{1,\mu_1}^{(u_1)}\cdots\Lambda_{N,\mu_N}^{(u_N)}M^{\mu_1\cdots\mu_N}$$ and gauge invariance requires that $k_{1,\mu_1}M^{\mu_1\cdots\mu_N}=\cdots=k_{N,\mu_N}M^{\mu_1\cdots\mu_N}=0$ [@Landau_b_4_1982]. This implies that the terms proportional to the four-vectors $\Lambda_{j,\mu_j}^{(3)}$ and those proportional to the divergent part of the four-vectors $\Lambda_{j,\mu_j}^{(4)}$ in the limits ${k_j}^2\to 0$, do not contribute to $M$. Thus, the amplitude $M$ remains finite in the same limits ${k_j}^2\to 0$. Moreover, the quantities $(Pe_j)$ only effectively involve contractions of $P^{\mu}$ either with $n^{\mu}$ or with $a^{\mu}_{1/2}$, so that they do not contain the operator $P_{\phi}$. It is also worth pointing out here that in the limit ${k_j}^2\to 0$, although the contributing part of $\Lambda_{j,\mu_j}^{(4)}$ goes to zero as $\sqrt{{k_j}^2}$, the corresponding contribution to the amplitude $M$ remains finite because the quantity $b^{(4)}_j=-(\Lambda_j^{(4)}e_j)$ diverges as $1/\sqrt{{k_j}^2}$ in the same limit (see Eq. (\[Lambda\_34\])). In conclusion, by means of the above limiting procedure, our analysis can also be applied to the case in which the external photons are real, i.e., on-shell..
[^1]: The expressions “laser field” and “plane wave” will be used as synonyms throughout.
[^2]: In the case $N=2$ the two diagrams in Fig. 1 coincide. Thus, if the amplitude $M$ is employed to calculate a rate, it has to be first divided by two to avoid over-counting.
[^3]: More abstractly, but more in general, the quantity $\omega_0$ can be defined as a parameter characterizing the time dependence of the laser field and such that $\omega_0\phi$ is a dimensionless Lorentz scalar.
[^4]: Due to a typographical misprint, the quantity $s$ is missing in the last exponent in Eq. (16) in [@Di_Piazza_2007].
[^5]: We note that the above expansions also hold for larger values of the parameters $\varkappa_j$. In fact, instead of assuming that the parameters $\eta_j$ are much smaller than unity as in the text, we assume here that they are such that $\delta \kappa_{j,X}s_j\sim 1$. In this case, one cannot perform the mentioned expansions and the condition $F_{\phi}(\phi+\Phi,\{s\})\lesssim 1$ would imply that $s_j\lesssim 1/m^2\xi^2$. In turn, the condition $\delta \kappa_{j,X}s_j\sim 1$ would require that $\varkappa_j\sim \xi^3$. However, since it is assumed that $\xi\gg 1$, then in order the mentioned expansions not to be valid, it should be $\varkappa_j\sim 10^3$, where even the perturbative approach in the photon-electron interaction in QED in the presence of the laser field would break down [@Ritus_1985] (see also the discussion at the end of sec. \[Discussion\]).
|
---
abstract: 'In this expository paper, we give a complete proof of van den Essen’s theorem that the de Rham cohomology spaces of a holonomic ${\mathcal{D}}$-module are finite-dimensional in the case of a formal power series ring over a field of characteristic zero. This proof requires results from at least five of van den Essen’s papers as well as his unpublished thesis, and until now has not been available in a self-contained document.'
address: |
School of Mathematics\
University of Minnesota\
127 Vincent Hall\
206 Church St. SE\
Minneapolis, MN 55455
author:
- Nicholas Switala
title: 'Van den Essen’s theorem on the de Rham cohomology of a holonomic ${\mathcal{D}}$-module over a formal power series ring'
---
[^1]
Introduction {#intro}
============
Let $k$ be a field of characteristic zero, let $R = k[x_1, \ldots, x_n]$ be a polynomial ring over $k$, and let ${\mathcal{D}}= {\mathcal{D}}(R,k)$ be the ring of $k$-linear differential operators on $R$ (the *Weyl algebra*). To any finitely generated left ${\mathcal{D}}$-module $M$, we can associate its *dimension* $d(M)$: if $M$ is nonzero, this dimension is an integer between $n$ and $2n$. The left ${\mathcal{D}}$-modules of minimal dimension (those for which $d(M) = n$) are called *holonomic*. A basic result in the theory of ${\mathcal{D}}$-modules, due to Bernstein, states that the de Rham cohomology spaces of a holonomic left ${\mathcal{D}}$-module $M$ are finite-dimensional over $k$. These spaces are the cohomology objects of a complex defined using the usual exterior derivative formulas with respect to the action of the partial derivatives $\partial_1, \ldots, \partial_n \in {\mathcal{D}}$ on $M$. The key idea in the proof of this finiteness is that the kernel and cokernel of $\partial_n$ acting on $M$ are holonomic ${\mathcal{D}}_{n-1}$-modules, where ${\mathcal{D}}_{n-1} = {\mathcal{D}}(k[x_1, \ldots, x_{n-1}],k)$; with this statement in hand, the finiteness of the de Rham cohomology follows by a routine induction.
Now consider the case where $R$ is a formal power series ring $k[[x_1, \ldots, x_n]]$, again over a field of characteristic zero. We again have the ring ${\mathcal{D}}= {\mathcal{D}}(R,k)$ of $k$-linear differential operators on $R$, and a well-defined notion of dimension for finitely generated left ${\mathcal{D}}$-modules (hence a notion of holonomy for left ${\mathcal{D}}$-modules). In this case, the analogue of Bernstein’s result is due to van den Essen. If $M$ is a holonomic left ${\mathcal{D}}$-module, its de Rham cohomology spaces are again finite-dimensional over $k$, just as in the polynomial case; in contrast to this case, however, it is not true in general that the cokernel of $\partial_n$ acting on $M$ is a holonomic ${\mathcal{D}}_{n-1}$-module, which makes the proof more difficult. The kernel of $\partial_n$ is again holonomic, and the cokernel is holonomic whenever $M$ satisfies a certain generic condition called *$x_n$-regularity*. It turns out that if $M$ is holonomic, we can always make a linear change of coordinates (which does not affect de Rham cohomology) after which $M$ becomes $x_n$-regular. The same routine induction argument used by Bernstein is then sufficient to prove finiteness of the de Rham cohomology in the formal power series case as well:
[@essen Prop. 2.2]\[mainthm\] Let $k$ be a field of characteristic zero, let $R = k[[x_1, \ldots, x_n]]$ be a formal power series ring over $k$, and let ${\mathcal{D}}= {\mathcal{D}}(R,k)$ be the ring of $k$-linear differential operators on $R$. If $M$ is a holonomic left ${\mathcal{D}}$-module, its de Rham cohomology spaces $H^i_{dR}(M)$ are finite-dimensional over $k$ for all $i$.
Van den Essen’s proof is not contained in a single paper. The complete argument requires results from at least five of his papers, as well as his (unpublished) thesis. Moreover, some of the necessary results are proved more than once in these papers, with simpler and better proofs superseding more complicated ones. The purpose of this expository paper is to assemble these preliminary results and proofs in one place, giving only the shortest argument in each case.
Ideally, this paper would be entirely self-contained except for basic commutative algebra, but the amount of necessary background material on ${\mathcal{D}}$-modules is too large for this ideal to be reasonable. Our compromise is the following. Björk’s book [@bjork] is our basic reference for the theory of ${\mathcal{D}}$-modules (it is also the basic reference cited in van den Essen’s papers), and we freely quote without proof results appearing in this book. We will also appeal to Gabber’s deep result [@gabber Thm. I] on the involutivity of characteristic ideals without providing a proof. We will, however, give full proofs for all preliminary results taken from van den Essen’s papers. We stress that nothing in this paper is original, neither the results nor the proofs; our goal in writing it is merely to make available a complete proof of Theorem \[mainthm\] in one document.
In this paper, we only state and prove precisely what we need for Theorem \[mainthm\]. The papers of van den Essen cited here contain many more results on kernels and cokernels of differential operators that are not strictly necessary for the proof of this theorem, and we encourage the interested reader to investigate further.
The structure of this paper is as follows. In section \[prelim\], we collect preliminary material on formal power series rings, ${\mathcal{D}}$-modules, de Rham cohomology, and Gabber’s theorem. In section \[kernels\], we give the proof that the kernel of $\partial_n$ acting on a holonomic ${\mathcal{D}}$-module is again holonomic (with no further conditions on the module). In section \[regularity\], we define the $x_n$-regularity condition for a holonomic ${\mathcal{D}}$-module and prove some technical results concerning the consequences of this condition. In section \[cokernels\], we give the proof that (possibly after a linear change of coordinates) the cokernel of $\partial_n$ acting on a holonomic ${\mathcal{D}}$-module is again holonomic, and then complete the proof of Theorem \[mainthm\].
Preliminaries {#prelim}
=============
Throughout the paper, $k$ denotes a field of characteristic zero, $R$ denotes the formal power series ring $k[[x_1, \ldots, x_n]]$, and $R_{n-1}$ denotes the subring $k[[x_1, \ldots, x_{n-1}]]$. The rings $R$ and $R_{n-1}$ are commutative, Noetherian, regular local rings. We denote by $\mathfrak{m}$ the unique maximal ideal $(x_1, \ldots, x_n)$ of $R$ (similarly, $\mathfrak{m}_{n-1}$ is the unique maximal ideal of $R_{n-1}$). Since $R$ is local, any element of $R$ with a nonzero constant term is a unit.
\[xnregf\] A formal power series $f \in R$ is said to be *$x_n$-regular* if $f(0,0,\ldots, 0, x_n) \neq 0$ in $k[[x_n]]$, that is, if a term $c_{0,\ldots, 0, i}x_n^i$ with $c_{0,\ldots, 0, i} \in k \setminus \{0\}$ occurs in $f$.
The following theorem clarifies the significance of the $x_n$-regularity hypothesis:
[@lang Thm. IV.9.2]\[weierprep\] Suppose that $f \in R$ is $x_n$-regular. There exists a unique expression $f = u(x_n^d + b_{n-1}x_n^{d-1} + \cdots + b_0)$ where $u \in R$ is a unit and each $b_i \in \mathfrak{m}_{n-1}$.
\[wpfingen\] The Weierstrass preparation theorem has the following consequence: if $f \in R$ is $x_n$-regular, then $R/fR$ is finitely generated (by the classes of $x_n^i$ with $0 \leq i \leq d-1$) as a module over $R_{n-1}$. It follows that *any* finitely generated $R/fR$-module is in fact a finitely generated $R_{n-1}$-module. In the sequel, our appeals to the “Weierstrass preparation theorem” will in fact be appeals to this consequence.
We now review some definitions and properties of ${\mathcal{D}}$-modules and de Rham complexes. Our basic reference for what follows is [@bjork]. The ring ${\mathcal{D}}= {\mathcal{D}}(R,k)$ of $k$-linear differential operators, a subring of $\operatorname{End}_k(R)$, takes the form ${\mathcal{D}}= R\langle \partial_1, \ldots, \partial_n \rangle$, where $\partial_i = \frac{\partial}{\partial x_i}$. (This notation is meant to indicate that, after adjoining the new variables $\partial_i$ to $R$, we do *not* obtain a commutative ring.) As a left $R$-module, ${\mathcal{D}}$ is free on monomials in the $\partial_i$. If $R$ is any commutative ring and $A \subset R$ any commutative subring, there is a more general definition ([@EGAIV §16]) of the ring ${\mathcal{D}}(R,A)$ of $A$-linear differential operators on $R$. See [@EGAIV Thm. 16.11.2] for a proof that our definition coincides with this more general one in the formal power series case.
Unless expressly indicated otherwise, by a *${\mathcal{D}}$-module* we will always mean a *left* module over ${\mathcal{D}}$.
The ring ${\mathcal{D}}$ has an increasing, exhaustive filtration $\{{\mathcal{D}}_j\}$, called the *order filtration*, where ${\mathcal{D}}_j$ is the $R$-submodule consisting of those differential operators of order $\leq j$ (the order of an element of ${\mathcal{D}}$ is the maximum of the orders of its summands, and the order of a single summand $\rho \partial_1^{a_1} \cdots \partial_n^{a_n}$ with $\rho \in R$ is $\sum a_i$). Note that for all $f \in R$ and for all $i$, we have the relation $$[\partial_i, f] = \partial_i f - f \partial_i = \partial_i(f) \in R \subset {\mathcal{D}},$$ where $[,]$ denotes the commutator of two elements of ${\mathcal{D}}$ and the operator $\partial_i(f) \in {\mathcal{D}}$ is *multiplication* by $\partial_i(f) \in R$. Consequently, the associated graded object $\operatorname{gr}{\mathcal{D}}= \oplus_j {\mathcal{D}}_j/{\mathcal{D}}_{j-1}$ with respect to the order filtration is isomorphic to the polynomial ring $R[\zeta_1, \ldots, \zeta_n]$, where $\zeta_i$ is the image of $\partial_i$ in ${\mathcal{D}}_1/{\mathcal{D}}_0 \subset \operatorname{gr}{\mathcal{D}}$. (In particular, $\operatorname{gr}{\mathcal{D}}$ is commutative.) For all $i$, $\zeta_i$ is called the *principal symbol* of $\partial_i$, and we write $\zeta_i = \sigma(\partial_i)$. More generally, if $\delta \in {\mathcal{D}}_j \setminus {\mathcal{D}}_{j-1}$, its principal symbol $\sigma(\delta)$ is its class in $\operatorname{gr}^j {\mathcal{D}}= {\mathcal{D}}_j/{\mathcal{D}}_{j-1} \subset \operatorname{gr}{\mathcal{D}}$.
If $M$ is a finitely generated ${\mathcal{D}}$-module, there exists an increasing, exhaustive filtration $\{M_j\}$ of $M$ such that $M$ becomes a filtered ${\mathcal{D}}$-module with respect to the order filtration on ${\mathcal{D}}$ (so ${\mathcal{D}}_i \cdot M_j \subset M_{i+j}$ for all $i$ and $j$) *and* $\operatorname{gr}M = \oplus_j M_j/M_{j-1}$ is a finitely generated $\operatorname{gr}{\mathcal{D}}$-module. We call such a filtration *good*. Let $J$ be the radical of $\operatorname{Ann}_{\operatorname{gr}{\mathcal{D}}} \operatorname{gr}M$ (the *characteristic ideal* of $M$) and set $d(M) = \dim \, (\operatorname{gr}{\mathcal{D}})/J$ where $\dim$ denotes Krull dimension. The ideal $J$, and hence the number $d(M)$, is independent of the choice of good filtration on $M$. By *Bernstein’s theorem*, if $M$ is a (nonzero) finitely generated ${\mathcal{D}}$-module, we have $n \leq d(M) \leq 2n$. In the case where $d(M) = n$ we say that $M$ is *holonomic*.
Some basic facts about holonomic modules are the following: submodules and quotients of holonomic ${\mathcal{D}}$-modules are holonomic, an extension of a holonomic ${\mathcal{D}}$-module by another holonomic ${\mathcal{D}}$-module is holonomic, holonomic ${\mathcal{D}}$-modules are of finite length over ${\mathcal{D}}$, and holonomic ${\mathcal{D}}$-modules are cyclic (generated over ${\mathcal{D}}$ by a single element). We will use these basic facts below without comment.
If $M$ is a ${\mathcal{D}}$-module, the operator $\partial_n \in {\mathcal{D}}$ acts on $M$ via a ${\mathcal{D}}_{n-1}$-linear map, and so its kernel and cokernel are ${\mathcal{D}}_{n-1}$-modules. The main question we will be concerned with in this paper is the following: if $M$ is holonomic, are the kernel and cokernel of $\partial_n$ acting on $M$ holonomic ${\mathcal{D}}_{n-1}$-modules?
Exactly the same question can be asked about the operator $x_n \in {\mathcal{D}}$. This question is easier, and we have the following unconditional affirmative answer:
[@bjork Thm. 3.4.2, Prop. 3.4.4]\[bjorkxn\] Let $M$ be a holonomic ${\mathcal{D}}$-module. The kernel and cokernel of $x_n$ acting on $M$ are holonomic ${\mathcal{D}}_{n-1}$-modules.
We remark that in the polynomial ring case, $x_n$ and $\partial_n$ play essentially symmetric roles, and so the question for $\partial_n$ is no more difficult than the question for $x_n$ (and has the same unconditional affirmative answer). The symmetry between $x_n$ and $\partial_n$ does not persist in the formal power series case, which is why the question for $\partial_n$ is significantly more difficult.
We next discuss the *de Rham complex* of a ${\mathcal{D}}$-module $M$. This is a complex of length $n$, denoted $M \otimes \Omega_R^{\bullet}$, whose objects are $R$-modules but whose differentials are merely $k$-linear. It is defined as follows: for $0 \leq i \leq n$, $M \otimes \Omega^i_R$ is a direct sum of $n \choose i$ copies of $M$, indexed by $i$-tuples $1 \leq j_1 < \cdots < j_i \leq n$. The summand corresponding to such an $i$-tuple will be written $M \, dx_{j_1} \wedge \cdots \wedge dx_{j_i}$.
The $k$-linear differentials $d^i: M \otimes \Omega_R^i \rightarrow M \otimes \Omega_R^{i+1}$ are defined by $$d^i(m \,dx_{j_1} \wedge \cdots \wedge dx_{j_i}) = \sum_{s=1}^n \partial_s(m)\, dx_s \wedge dx_{j_1} \wedge \cdots \wedge dx_{j_i},$$ with the usual exterior algebra conventions for rearranging the wedge terms, and extended by linearity to the direct sum. The cohomology objects $h^i(M \otimes \Omega_R^{\bullet})$, which are $k$-spaces, are called the *de Rham cohomology spaces* of the ${\mathcal{D}}$-module $M$, and are denoted $H^i_{dR}(M)$.
We have defined the de Rham complex of a ${\mathcal{D}}$-module using a chosen regular system of parameters $x_1, \ldots, x_n$ for the formal power series ring $R$. There is an alternate definition from which it is easier to see that this complex does not depend on the chosen parameters, based on the characterization of ${\mathcal{D}}$-modules in terms of *integrable connections*. Let $\Omega_R^1$ be the $R$-module of ($\mathfrak{m}$-adically) *continuous* Kähler differentials of $R$ over $k$ [@EGAIVa 20.7.14], and $d: R \rightarrow \Omega_R^1$ the corresponding universal continuous derivation. In coordinates, if $x_1, \ldots, x_n$ is a regular system of parameters for $R$, we have $\Omega_R^1 \simeq \oplus_i R \, dx_i$ and $d(f) = \sum_i \partial_i(f) \, dx_i$ for all $f \in R$. However, $\Omega_R^1$ and $d$ can also be defined using a universal property, with no reference to coordinates: every $\mathfrak{m}$-adically continuous derivation $\delta: R \rightarrow M$ where $M$ is an $R$-module factors uniquely through $d$. Now recall that a *connection* on an $R$-module $M$ is a $k$-linear map $\nabla: M \rightarrow \Omega_R^1 \otimes_R M$ such that $\nabla(rm) = dr \otimes m + r \cdot \nabla(m)$ for all $r \in R$ and $m \in M$. A connection $\nabla = \nabla^0$ on $M$ induces $k$-linear maps $\nabla^l: \Omega_R^l \otimes_R M \rightarrow \Omega_R^{l+1} \otimes_R M$ for all $l \geq 0$, where $\Omega_R^l$ is the $l$th exterior power of $\Omega_R^1$. If $\nabla^1 \circ \nabla^0$ is the zero map, the connection $\nabla$ is said to be *integrable*, in which case $\nabla^{l+1} \circ \nabla^l$ is the zero map for all $l$. Since ${\mathcal{D}}$ is generated over $R$ by derivations, the data of a left ${\mathcal{D}}$-module structure on an $R$-module $M$ is equivalent to that of an integrable connection on $M$ [@bjork 3.2.9], and the complex $(\Omega_R^{\bullet} \otimes_R M, \nabla^{\bullet})$ induced by $\nabla$ is the *de Rham complex* of $M$, which in coordinates $\{x_i\}$ is exactly the complex $M \otimes \Omega^{\bullet}_R$ defined above. The only use we will have in this paper for this alternate definition of $M \otimes \Omega^{\bullet}_R$ is the following obvious consequence:
\[dRind\] The de Rham cohomology spaces $H^i_{dR}(M)$ of any ${\mathcal{D}}$-module $M$ are independent of the choice of a regular system of parameters $x_1, \ldots, x_n$ for $R$.
There is a long exact sequence relating the de Rham cohomology of a ${\mathcal{D}}$-module $M$ with the de Rham cohomology of the kernel and cokernel of $\partial_n$ acting on $M$ (which are ${\mathcal{D}}_{n-1}$-modules):
[@bjork Prop. 2.4.13]\[derhamles\] Let $M$ be a ${\mathcal{D}}$-module. Let $M_*$ (resp. $\overline{M}$) be the kernel (resp. cokernel) of $\partial_n$ acting on $M$. Then there is a long exact sequence $$\cdots \rightarrow H^{i-2}_{dR}(\overline{M}) \rightarrow H^i_{dR}(M_*) \rightarrow H^i_{dR}(M) \rightarrow H^{i-1}_{dR}(\overline{M}) \rightarrow \cdots$$ of $k$-spaces, where $H^j_{dR}(M_*)$ and $H^j_{dR}(\overline{M})$ are de Rham cohomology spaces of the ${\mathcal{D}}_{n-1}$-modules $M_*$ and $\overline{M}$, defined using only $\partial_1, \ldots, \partial_{n-1}$.
Finally, we will need Gabber’s theorem on involutivity of characteristic ideals, originally proved in [@gabber]. We need to introduce the Poisson bracket (see [@gabber] or [@hotta App. D]). Its definition makes sense, and Gabber’s theorem holds, for more general filtered rings, but we content ourselves here with stating everything for the ring ${\mathcal{D}}$ and its order filtration $\{{\mathcal{D}}_j\}$. Suppose that $\delta \in \operatorname{gr}^i {\mathcal{D}}$ and $\delta' \in \operatorname{gr}^j {\mathcal{D}}$ for some $i$ and $j$. Then we can write $\delta = \sigma(d)$ and $\delta' = \sigma(d')$ for some $d \in {\mathcal{D}}_i$ and $d' \in {\mathcal{D}}_j$, where $\sigma$ denotes the principal symbol. Since $\operatorname{gr}{\mathcal{D}}$ is commutative, the commutator $[d,d']$ belongs to ${\mathcal{D}}_{i+j-1}$, and we define $\{\delta, \delta'\} \in \operatorname{gr}^{i+j-1} {\mathcal{D}}$ to be the principal symbol of $[d,d']$. It is easy to check that $\{\delta, \delta'\}$ does not depend on the choices of $d$ and $d'$. The unique biadditive extension $$\{,\}: \operatorname{gr}{\mathcal{D}}\times \operatorname{gr}{\mathcal{D}}\rightarrow \operatorname{gr}{\mathcal{D}}$$ is called the *Poisson bracket* on $\operatorname{gr}{\mathcal{D}}$, and, in particular, is a biderivation. An ideal $I \subset \operatorname{gr}{\mathcal{D}}$ is called *involutive* if it is closed under the Poisson bracket, that is, if $\{I,I\} \subset I$.
[@gabber Thm. I]\[gabber\] Let $M$ be a finitely generated left ${\mathcal{D}}$-module. Let $\operatorname{gr}M$ be the associated graded $\operatorname{gr}{\mathcal{D}}$-module of $M$ with respect to a chosen good filtration on $M$. Let $J = \sqrt{\operatorname{Ann}_{\operatorname{gr}{\mathcal{D}}} \operatorname{gr}M} \subset \operatorname{gr}{\mathcal{D}}$ be the *characteristic ideal* of $M$ (as stated earlier, $J$ does not depend on the choice of good filtration). Then $J$ is involutive.
[@essen Lemma 1.12]\[primeinvol\] With the notation of Theorem \[gabber\], let $\mathfrak{p}$ be a minimal prime ideal over $J$. Then $\mathfrak{p}$ is again involutive.
As $J$ is a radical ideal in a Noetherian ring, we can write $J$ as an intersection $J = \mathfrak{p}_1 \cap \cdots \cap \mathfrak{p}_t$ of prime ideals of $\operatorname{gr}{\mathcal{D}}$, and we may assume that each $\mathfrak{p}_i$ is minimal over $J$. If $t=1$, $J$ is prime and there is nothing to prove. Otherwise, fix $i$, write $\mathfrak{p}$ for $\mathfrak{p}_i$, and let $\mathfrak{q} = \cap_{j \neq i} \mathfrak{p}_j$. There exists some $c \in \mathfrak{q} \setminus \mathfrak{p}$. Let $a, b \in \mathfrak{p}$ be given. We have $ac, bc \in \cap_j \mathfrak{p}_j = J$, and hence $\{ac,bc\} \in J$, since $J$ is involutive by Theorem \[gabber\]. We now use the fact that the Poisson bracket is a biderivation, which gives $$\{ac,bc\} = a\{c,b\}c + a\{c,c\}b + c\{a,b\}c + c\{a,c\}b.$$ The first, second, and fourth summands on the right-hand side all have a factor of $a$ or $b$ and thus belong to $\mathfrak{p}$. Since the sum belongs to $\mathfrak{p}$, the third summand, $c^2\{a,b\}$, belongs to $\mathfrak{p}$ as well. As $\mathfrak{p}$ is prime and $c^2 \notin \mathfrak{p}$, we must have $\{a,b\} \in \mathfrak{p}$, and so $\mathfrak{p}$ is involutive.
\[zetahom\] If $M$, $J$, and $\mathfrak{p}$ are as above, we note that $J$ is homogeneous with respect to $\zeta_1, \ldots, \zeta_n$ by definition, and by [@matsumura Thm. 13.7(i)], $\mathfrak{p}$ is homogeneous with respect to the $\zeta_i$ as well.
Kernels
=======
In this section, we prove that the kernel $M_*$ of $\partial_n$ acting on a holonomic ${\mathcal{D}}$-module $M$ is a holonomic ${\mathcal{D}}_{n-1}$-module, with no further conditions on $M$. After some reductions, it suffices to check that the *cokernel* of $x_n$ is holonomic, which is Proposition \[bjorkxn\]. These reductions are made possible by the following key lemma, which states that $R$-linear dependence relations among elements of $M_*$ hold homogeneously in $x_n$. (We write $\partial$ for $\partial_n$; this shorthand will be used throughout the rest of the paper.)
[@kernel Lemme 1]\[kerlemma\] Let $M$ be any ${\mathcal{D}}$-module, and let $M_* = \ker(\partial: M \rightarrow M)$. Suppose that $m_1, \ldots, m_l \in M_*$ are such that $f_1m_1 + \cdots + f_lm_l = 0$ for some $f_1, \ldots, f_l \in R$. Then $f_{1,j}m_1 + \cdots + f_{l,j}m_l = 0$ for every $j \geq 0$, where $f_{i,j} \in R_{n-1}$ denotes the coefficient of $x_n^j$ in $f_i$.
We first assume that the statement holds for $j = 0$ and prove that it follows for all $j > 0$. Note that for any $j \geq 0$ and any $f \in R$, we have $f_j = \frac{1}{j!}(\partial^j f)_0$, where the subscript $0$ denotes the constant term with respect to $x_n$. If $m_1, \ldots, m_l \in M_*$ and $f_1m_1 + \cdots + f_lm_l = 0$, then $\partial^j(f_1m_1 + \cdots + f_lm_l) = 0$. By the Leibniz rule, $$\partial^j(\sum_{i=1}^l f_im_i) = \sum_{i=1}^l (\partial^j(f_i)) m_i,$$ as all other terms have a factor of $\partial^{\alpha}(m_i)$ for some $\alpha > 0$ and some $i$ and hence vanish since $m_i \in M_*$. Multiplying by a harmless constant, we see that $\frac{1}{j!} \sum_{i=1}^l (\partial^j(f_i)) m_i = 0$. By our assumption, $\sum_{i=1}^l (\frac{1}{j!}\partial^j(f_i))_0 m_i = 0$, but this sum is nothing but $\sum_{i=1}^l f_{i,j}m_i$. We have thus reduced ourselves to the case $j=0$.
Let $m = \sum_{i=1}^l f_{i,0} m_i$, and let $E$ be the $R$-submodule of $M$ generated by $\{m_1, \ldots, m_l\}$. We claim that $m \in x_n^q E$ for all $q \geq 1$. As $E$ is a finitely generated $R$-module and $R$ is a Noetherian local domain (whose maximal ideal contains $x_n$), this will imply that $m = 0$ [@matsumura Thm. 8.10(ii)], as desired. We prove $m \in x_n^q E$ for all $q$ by induction on $q$. For the base case, $q=1$, consider the difference $\sum_{i=1}^l f_i m_i - \sum_{i=1}^l f_{i,0}m_i$. On the one hand, by definition, this difference belongs to $x_nE$, as we have removed all terms which *a priori* may lack an $x_n$ factor. On the other hand, the first term is $0$ by hypothesis and the second is $m$, so $-m \in x_nE$. Now suppose that $m \in x_n^qE$ for some $q \geq 1$, and write $m = x_n^q \sum_{i=1}^l r_im_i$ for some $r_1, \ldots, r_l \in R$. As $m$ is an $R_{n-1}$-linear combination of elements of $M$ killed by $\partial$, we have $\partial(m) = 0$, so $\frac{1}{q!}x_n^q\partial^q m = 0$. Substituting $x_n^q \sum_{i=1}^l r_im_i$ for $m$ in the left-hand side of this equation and using the Leibniz rule, we see that the only terms which *a priori* may lack an $x_n^{q+1}$ factor are those in the sum $\sum_{i=1}^l r_{i,0}x_n^qm_i$: we obtain, for some $\mu \in E$, an expression $$0 = \frac{1}{q!}x_n^q\partial^q m = \frac{1}{q!}x_n^q\partial^q(x_n^q \sum_{i=1}^l r_im_i) = \sum_{i=1}^l r_{i,0}x_n^qm_i + x_n^{q+1}\mu,$$ so that $\sum_{i=1}^l r_{i,0}x_n^qm_i \in x_n^{q+1}E$. It follows that $m \in x_n^{q+1}E$, as $$m - \sum_{i=1}^l r_{i,0}x_n^qm_i = \sum_{i=1}^l(\sum_{s=1}^{\infty} r_{i,s}x_n^{s+q}m_i)$$ and we have an $x_n^{q+1}$ factor in every remaining term. This completes the proof.
[@kernel Thm. (iii)]\[holkernel\] Let $M$ be a holonomic ${\mathcal{D}}$-module. Then $M_*$ is a holonomic ${\mathcal{D}}_{n-1}$-module.
Consider the $R$-submodule $R \cdot M_*$ of $M$ generated by $M_*$. If $r \in R$ and $m \in M_*$, then $\partial(rm) = \partial(r)m + r\partial(m) = \partial(r)m$; since $M_*$ is already a ${\mathcal{D}}_{n-1}$-submodule of $M$, this calculation shows that $R \cdot M_*$ is a ${\mathcal{D}}$-submodule of $M$. Furthermore, it is clear that $\ker(\partial: R \cdot M_* \rightarrow R \cdot M_*)$ coincides with $M_*$. Therefore, we may assume that $M = R \cdot M_*$. With this assumption, we conclude at once that $M = M_* + x_nM$ as ${\mathcal{D}}_{n-1}$-modules, since $M_*$ is an $R_{n-1}$-module. We claim that this sum is direct. Suppose that $m \in M_* \cap x_nM$. Since $x_nM = x_n(R \cdot M_*)$, we can write $m = x_n(\sum r_im_i)$ for some $r_i \in R$ and $m_i \in M_*$. From this, we obtain an equation $m - x_n(\sum r_im_i) = 0$ where $m$ and all the $m_i$ belong to $M_*$. By Lemma \[kerlemma\], the constant term of the left-hand side with respect to $x_n$, which is simply $m$, also vanishes. Thus $M_* \cap x_nM = 0$, and so $M = M_* \oplus x_nM$. This direct sum decomposition implies that $M_* \simeq M/x_nM$, which is a holonomic ${\mathcal{D}}_{n-1}$-module by Proposition \[bjorkxn\]. This completes the proof.
Regularity
==========
In this section, we define what it means for a ${\mathcal{D}}$-module $M$ to be *$x_n$-regular*. If $M$ is holonomic, this is a weak condition that is always satisfied up to a linear change of variables in $R$. This is the technical assumption necessary for the cokernel of $\partial$ acting on a holonomic ${\mathcal{D}}$-module to again be holonomic.
[@essthesis p. 21]\[E\] Let $M$ be a ${\mathcal{D}}$-module, let $m \in M$, and suppose that $\tau \in {\mathcal{D}}$ is a $k$-linear derivation. We write $E_{\tau}(m)$ for the $R$-submodule $\sum_{i=0}^{\infty} R \cdot \tau^i(m)$ of $M$ generated by the family $\{\tau^i(m)\}$. If $N \subset M$ is an $R$-submodule, $E_{\tau}(N)$ is the $R$-submodule of $M$ generated by $E_{\tau}(n)$ for $n \in N$.
For a given $\tau$ and $m$, if $E_{\tau}(m)$ is a finitely generated $R$-module, then there exists $p$ such that $\tau^p(m) \in \sum_{i=0}^{p-1} R \cdot \tau^i(m)$. In this case, $E_{\tau}(m) = \sum_{i=0}^{p-1} R \cdot \tau^i(m)$.
[@essthesis Ch. II, Prop. 1.16]\[reglink\] Let $M$ be a ${\mathcal{D}}$-module, and suppose there exists a nonzero $f \in R$ such that the localization $M_f$ is a finitely generated $R_f$-module. Then for any $m \in M$, there exists $s \geq 0$ such that $E_{f^s \partial}(m)$ is a finitely generated $R$-module.
Let $m \in M$ be given. Since $R$ (and hence $R_f$) is Noetherian, any $R$-submodule of $M_f$ is also finitely generated over $R$. In particular, this is true of the $R$-submodule $E_{\partial}(R_f \cdot m) \subset M_f$, where here we are regarding $M_f$ as a ${\mathcal{D}}$-module in the obvious way (and replacing $R$ with $R_f$ in our definition of the $E_{\partial}$ construction). Therefore, for some $p \geq 1$, $E_{\partial}(R_f \cdot m) = R_f \cdot m + R_f \cdot \partial(m) + \cdots + R_f \cdot \partial^{p-1}(m)$, and consequently $\partial^p(m)$ can be written $\rho_0 m + \rho_1 \partial(m) + \cdots + \rho_{p-1} \partial^{p-1}(m)$ for some $\rho_0, \ldots, \rho_{p-1} \in R_f$. Clearing denominators (and multiplying by a further power of $f$ if necessary), we see that there exists $s \geq 0$ such that $f^s \partial^p(m) = r_0 m + r_1 \partial(m) + \cdots r_{p-1} \partial^{p-1}(m)$ for some $r_0, \ldots, r_{p-1} \in R$. Write $N$ for the $R$-submodule $\sum_{i=0}^{p-1} R \cdot \partial^i(m)$ of $M$. Then the fact that $f^s \partial^p(m) \in N$ implies that $f^s \partial(N) \subset N$, from which it follows at once that $E_{f^s \partial}(N) \subset N$. By definition, $N$ is a finitely generated $R$-module, so $E_{f^s \partial}(N)$ and its $R$-submodule $E_{f^s \partial}(m)$ are finitely generated $R$-modules, completing the proof.
Lemma \[reglink\] is useful because its hypothesis is satisfied for *every* holonomic ${\mathcal{D}}$-module.
[@example Prop. 1]\[fgloc\] Let $M$ be a holonomic ${\mathcal{D}}$-module. There exists a nonzero $f \in R$ such that $M_f$ is a finitely generated $R_f$-module.
We first consider two special cases. If $M$ is $R$-torsionfree, this is [@bjork Lemma 3.3.19]. If $M$ is simple as a ${\mathcal{D}}$-module and is not $R$-torsionfree, there exist nonzero $f \in R$ and $m \in M$ such that $fm = 0$. By the simplicity of $M$, $M = {\mathcal{D}}\cdot m$, from which it follows that $M_f$ is zero and *a fortiori* finitely generated. To prove the proposition for all holonomic ${\mathcal{D}}$-modules $M$, we use the fact that any such $M$ is of finite length as a ${\mathcal{D}}$-module. If $$0 \rightarrow M' \rightarrow M \rightarrow M'' \rightarrow 0$$ is a short exact sequence of ${\mathcal{D}}$-modules and there exist nonzero $g,h \in R$ such that $M'_f$ (resp. $M''_g$) is a finitely generated $R_f$- (resp. $R_g$-) module, then $M_{fg}$ is a finitely generated $R_{fg}$-module. Therefore induction on length, which reduces us to the case of a simple ${\mathcal{D}}$-module and hence to the previous two special cases, completes the proof.
Recall from section \[prelim\] that $f \in R$ is said to be *$x_n$-regular* if $f(0,0,\ldots, 0, x_n) \neq 0$, in which case $f$ can be written as the product of a unit and a “Weierstrass polynomial” in $x_n$.
[@cokernel p. 903]\[Mreg\] Let $M$ be a ${\mathcal{D}}$-module. We say that $M$ is *$x_n$-regular* if for every $m \in M$, there exists an $x_n$-regular $f \in R$ such that $E_{f \partial}(m)$ is a finitely generated $R$-module. (Any $m \in M$ for which this holds is said to be an *$x_n$-regular element*.)
\[holMreg\] In what follows, we will frequently consider ${\mathcal{D}}$-modules $M$ which are holonomic, hence cyclic, together with a choice of $m$ such that $M = {\mathcal{D}}\cdot m$. It is not hard to check that if $E_{\tau}(m)$ is a finitely generated $R$-module for some derivation $\tau \in {\mathcal{D}}$, then $E_{\tau}(\delta(m))$ is also finitely generated for every $\delta \in {\mathcal{D}}$. It follows that if $M = {\mathcal{D}}\cdot m$ is cyclic, then $M$ is $x_n$-regular as long as $E_{\tau}(m)$ is finitely generated over $R$, and this does not depend on the choice of ${\mathcal{D}}$-module generator $m$ for $M$.
Having now stated all necessary definitions, we begin working toward the crucial technical result (Lemma \[coklemma\]) on the cokernel of $\partial$ acting on a holonomic, $x_n$-regular ${\mathcal{D}}$-module. The following proposition can be viewed as a generalization of the Weierstrass preparation theorem (which we recover by taking $l=0$):
[@several2 Thm. 1]\[weiergen\] Let $\Delta: R \rightarrow R$ be a differential operator of the form $\Delta = \sum_{i=0}^{l} r_i \partial^i$ where $r_i \in R$ for all $i$ and $r_l$ is $x_n$-regular. Then $R/\Delta(R)$ is a finitely generated $R_{n-1}$-module.
We state and prove a special case of Proposition \[weiergen\], due to Malgrange, separately:
[@malgrange Prop. 1.3]\[malglem\] Let $R = k[[x]]$ and let $\Delta: R \rightarrow R$ be a nonzero differential operator. Then $R/\Delta(R)$ is a finite-dimensional $k$-space.
For any formal power series $r = \sum \alpha_i x^i \in R$, we let $\nu(r) = \min{\{i | \alpha_i \neq 0\}}$. The differential operator $\Delta$ takes the form $\Delta = \sum_{i=0}^{l} r_i \partial^i$ where $r_l \neq 0$. Set $s = \max{\{i - \nu(r_i)\}}$, and let $I \subset \{0, \ldots, l\}$ be the set of indices for which this maximum is attained, that is, for which $s = i - \nu(r_i)$. For each $i \in I$, $r_i = x^{i-s}\rho_i$ for some $\rho_i \in R$ such that $\rho_i(0) \neq 0$. For any integer $t \geq s$, we have $$\Delta(x^t) = \sum_{i \in I} t(t-1)\cdots (t-i+1) \rho_i(0) x^{t-s} + \textrm{higher order terms}.$$ The coefficient of $x^{t-s}$ in the above expression, namely $\sum_{i \in I} t(t-1)\cdots (t-i+1) \rho_i(0)$, is a polynomial in $t$ whose leading term is $\rho_{\max I}(0) t^{\max I}$. Since $\max I \in I$, we have $\rho_{\max I}(0) \neq 0$, and so for large enough $t$, this leading term dominates the polynomial: there exists $t_0$ such that for all $t \geq t_0$, $$\Delta(x^t) = (\textrm{nonzero})x^{t-s} + \textrm{higher order terms}.$$ Since $k$ is of characteristic zero, it follows that if $t \geq t_0$, given any $g \in R$ such that $\nu(g) \geq t-s$ (that is, $g \in \mathfrak{m}^{t-s}$, where $\mathfrak{m} \subset R$ is the maximal ideal), we can solve the equation $\Delta(f) = g$ uniquely for $f \in R$ by recursion on the coefficients, and the unique solution $f$ belongs to $\mathfrak{m}^t$. Therefore the restriction of $\Delta$ is an isomorphism of $k$-spaces $\mathfrak{m}^t \xrightarrow{\sim} \mathfrak{m}^{t-s}$ for any $t \geq t_0$. Fix such a $t$, and consider the commutative diagram $$\begin{CD}
0 @>>> \mathfrak{m}^t @>>> R @>>> R/\mathfrak{m}^t @>>> 0\\
@. @VV \Delta V @VV \Delta V @VV \overline{\Delta} V @.\\
0 @>>> \mathfrak{m}^{t-s} @>>> R @>>> R/\mathfrak{m}^{t-s} @>>> 0\\
\end{CD}$$ of $k$-spaces with exact rows, where $\overline{\Delta}$ is the map induced on quotients by $\Delta$. We know that the left vertical arrow is an isomorphism, and the source and target of the right vertical arrow are finite-dimensional $k$-spaces. It follows at once from the snake lemma that the middle vertical arrow has finite-dimensional cokernel, as desired.
We proceed by induction on $n$. In the base case $n = 1$, the hypothesis that $r_l$ be $x_n$-regular reduces to the hypothesis that $r_l \neq 0$, and so we are done by Lemma \[malglem\]. Now assume that the proposition holds over $R_{n-1}$. Let $R'$ be the formal power series ring $k[[x_1, \ldots, x_{n-2}, x_n]]$, and define a differential operator $\Delta': R' \rightarrow R'$ by $$\Delta' = \sum_{i=0}^l r_i(x_1, \ldots, x_{n-2}, 0, x_n) \partial^i.$$ Since $r_l$ is $x_n$-regular by hypothesis, so is $r_l(x_1, \ldots, x_{n-2}, 0, x_n)$. Therefore, by the inductive hypothesis, $R'/\Delta'(R')$ is a finitely generated $R_{n-2}$-module. As we have isomorphisms $$\frac{R'}{\Delta'(R')} \simeq \frac{R}{x_{n-1}R + \Delta'(R)} \simeq \frac{R}{\Delta(R) + x_{n-1}R}$$ of $R'$-modules (and hence of $R_{n-2}$-modules) it follows that $R/(\Delta(R) + x_{n-1}R)$ is a finitely generated $R_{n-2}$-module. Let $f_1, \ldots, f_m \in R$ be such that $R \subset \sum_{j=1}^m R_{n-2} \cdot f_j + x_{n-1}R + \Delta(R)$. If $r \in R$ is given, then there exist $\alpha_1, \ldots, \alpha_m \in R_{n-2}$ and $g,h \in R$ such that $$r = \sum_{j=1}^m \alpha_j f_j + x_{n-1}g + \Delta(h).$$ Likewise, since $g \in R$, there exist $\beta_1, \ldots, \beta_m \in R_{n-2}$ and $g',h' \in R$ such that $g = \sum_{j=1}^m \beta_j f_j + x_{n-1}g' + \Delta(h')$. Substituting this expression for $g$ in the previous equation gives $$r = \sum_{j=1}^m (\alpha_j + \beta_j x_{n-1})f_j + x_{n-1}^2 g' + \Delta(h + x_{n-1}h'),$$ and we can find a similar expression to substitute for $g'$ and continue. Since $R$ and $R_{n-1}$ are Noetherian complete local rings and $x_{n-1}$ belongs to their maximal ideals, this process converges to an expression $$r = \sum_{j=1}^m \rho_j f_j + 0 + \Delta(\eta)$$ where $\eta \in R$ and all $\rho_j \in R_{n-1}$; that is, we have $R \subset \sum_{j=1}^m R_{n-1} \cdot f_j + \Delta(R)$, so $R/\Delta(R)$ is a finitely generated $R_{n-1}$-module, completing the proof.
The following is the key technical result in our study of the cokernel of $\partial$ acting on a holonomic, $x_n$-regular ${\mathcal{D}}$-module:
[@cokernel Cor. 2]\[coklemma\] Let $M$ be a ${\mathcal{D}}$-module, and let $m \in M$ be an $x_n$-regular element. There exists $p \geq 1$ and a finitely generated $R_{n-1}$-submodule $E_0$ of $R \cdot m$ such that $R \cdot m \subset E_0 + \sum_{i=1}^p \partial^i(R \cdot m)$. In particular, $R \cdot m \subset E_0 + \partial(M)$.
We remark that $E_0$ can be taken to be the $R_{n-1}$-submodule generated by $m, x_n m, \ldots, x_n^N m$ for some $N$ [@several Thm. 3.2]; however, we will not need this more precise statement, and its proof is more complicated than the proof below.
By the definition of $x_n$-regularity of $m$, there exists an $x_n$-regular $f \in R$ such that $E_{f\partial}(m)$ is a finitely generated $R$-module. Write $E$ for $E_{f\partial}(m)$ and $\tau$ for the derivation $f\partial: R \rightarrow R$. The finite generation of $E_{\tau}(m)$ over $R$ implies that for some $p$, $\tau^p(m) \in \sum_{i=0}^{p-1} R \cdot \tau^i(m)$ (so that $E$ can be identified with the $R$-module on the right-hand side). We claim that $E/\tau(E)$ is a finitely generated $R_{n-1}$-module. Let $r_0, \ldots, r_{p-1} \in R$ be such that $\tau^p(m) = r_0m + r_1\tau(m) + \cdots + r_{p-1}\tau^{p-1}(m)$. Define $\delta: R \rightarrow R$ to be the differential operator $\tau^p - \sum_{i=0}^{p-1} r_i\tau^i$. Then $\delta(m) = 0$, and therefore $E$ is a quotient of the $R$-module $N = R\langle \tau \rangle/(R\langle\tau\rangle \cdot \delta)$. It will suffice to show that $N/\tau(N)$ is a finitely generated $R_{n-1}$-module. As we have isomorphisms $$\frac{N}{\tau(N)} \simeq \frac{R\langle\tau\rangle/(R\langle\tau\rangle \cdot \delta)}{\tau(R\langle\tau\rangle/(R\langle\tau\rangle \cdot \delta))} \simeq \frac{R\langle\tau\rangle}{R\langle\tau\rangle \cdot \delta + \tau R\langle\tau\rangle} \simeq \frac{R}{R \cap (R \cdot \delta + \tau R\langle\tau\rangle)}$$ of $R_{n-1}$-modules, it suffices to show $R/(R \cap (R \cdot \delta + \tau R\langle\tau\rangle))$ is a finitely generated $R_{n-1}$-module. We claim that this module can be identified with $R/\Delta(R)$ for some choice of differential operator $\Delta$ satisfying the hypothesis of Proposition \[weiergen\].
To this end, we introduce a “transposition” operation on the ring $R\langle\tau\rangle$. Let $\phi: R\langle\tau\rangle \rightarrow R\langle\tau\rangle$ be the unique additive map such that $\phi(\tau) = -\tau$, $\phi(g) = g$ for all $g \in R$, and $\phi(ST) = \phi(T)\phi(S)$ for all $S,T \in R\langle\tau\rangle$. We will use the notation $S^*$ for $\phi(S)$. For all $g \in R$ and $S \in R\langle\tau\rangle$, we have $gS \equiv S^*g$ mod $\tau R\langle\tau\rangle$ (this follows by induction on the $\tau$-degree of $S$: if $\deg_{\tau}(S) = 0$, then $S^* = S \in R$ and the statement is immediate). Therefore $$R \cap (R \cdot \delta + \tau R\langle\tau\rangle) = \delta^*R.$$ Since $(\tau^p)^* = (-1)^p\tau^p$, the leading term of $\delta^*$ with respect to $\partial$ is $(-f)^p\partial^p$. By hypothesis, $f$ is $x_n$-regular, and so $(-f)^p$ is $x_n$-regular as well. It follows that $\Delta = \delta^*$ satisfies the hypotheses of Proposition \[weiergen\], and so $$\frac{N}{\tau(N)} \simeq \frac{R}{R \cap (R \cdot \delta + \tau R\langle\tau\rangle)} \simeq \frac{R}{\Delta(R)}$$ is a finitely generated $R_{n-1}$-module. As explained above, this proves that $E/\tau(E) = E/f \partial(E)$ is finitely generated over $R_{n-1}$.
The ring $R_{n-1}$ is Noetherian, so the $R_{n-1}$-submodule $$(fE + f\partial (E))/f\partial (E) \subset E/f \partial(E)$$ is also finitely generated. This implies that there exists a finitely generated $R_{n-1}$-submodule $G \subset E$ such that $fE \subset fG + f\partial(E)$. Now define $K = (0 :_{E + \partial(E)} f)$. Clearly $K$ is a finitely generated $R$-module, since $E$ is. As $K$ is annihilated by $f$, $K$ is in fact a finitely generated $R/fR$-module. Since $f$ is $x_n$-regular by assumption, it follows from the Weierstrass preparation theorem that $K$ is a finitely generated $R_{n-1}$-module.
We assert now that $E \subset G + K + \partial(E)$. Given $\mu \in E$, we have $f\mu \in fE \subset fG + f\partial(E)$, so there exist $\mu' \in G$ and $\mu'' \in E$ such that $f\mu = f\mu' + f\partial(\mu'')$. Rewrite this equation as $$f(\mu-\mu') + f\partial(-\mu'') = f((\mu-\mu') + \partial(-\mu'')) = 0$$ to see that, by definition, $(\mu-\mu') + \partial(-\mu'')$ is an element of $K$ (since $\mu-\mu' \in E$). Then $\mu = \mu' + ((\mu-\mu') + \partial(-\mu'')) + \partial(\mu'') \in G + K + \partial(E)$, as desired. If we define $E_0 = G + K$, a finitely generated $R_{n-1}$-module (being the sum of two such), we have $E \subset E_0 + \partial(E)$, so that $R \cdot m \subset E \subset E_0 + \partial(E)$.
By the Leibniz rule, it is straightforward to see that $$\partial(E) = \partial(\sum_{i=0}^{p-1} R \cdot (f\partial)^i(m)) \subset \sum_{i=1}^p \partial^i(R \cdot m),$$ so all that remains to check is that the finitely generated $R_{n-1}$-module $E_0$, which we have shown satisfies $R \cdot m \subset E_0 + \sum_{i=1}^p \partial^i(R \cdot m)$, can be replaced with another finitely generated $R_{n-1}$-module which is actually a submodule of $R \cdot m$. This can be done since every element of $E_0$ is a sum of terms belonging either to $E = \sum_{i=0}^{p-1} R \cdot (f\partial)^i(m)$ or to $\partial(E)$ and is thus congruent modulo $\sum_{i=1}^p \partial^i(R \cdot m)$ to an element of $R \cdot m$: given a finite set of $R_{n-1}$-generators for $E_0$, if we replace each of them by an element of $R \cdot m$ in the same $(\sum_{i=1}^p \partial^i(R \cdot m))$-congruence class and then replace $E_0$ with the $R_{n-1}$-module having these new generators, we obtain the statement of the proposition.
Cokernels
=========
In light of Proposition \[holkernel\], we may be led to conjecture that the analogue holds for cokernels: that if $M$ is a holonomic ${\mathcal{D}}$-module, then $\overline{M} = \operatorname{coker}(\partial: M \rightarrow M)$ is a holonomic ${\mathcal{D}}_{n-1}$-module. This conjecture is false:
[@example Thm.]\[counterex\] There exists a holonomic ${\mathcal{D}}$-module $M$ such that $\overline{M} = M/\partial(M)$ is not a holonomic ${\mathcal{D}}_{n-1}$-module. Specifically, take $n=4$, let $f = x_1x_4 + x_2 + x_3x_4e^{x_4}$, and define $M = R_f$. Then $M/\partial_4(M)$ is not a holonomic ${\mathcal{D}}_3$-module.
As the details of this counterexample are not necessary for the proof of Theorem \[mainthm\], we omit them here, contenting ourselves with the following outline.
1. If $f = x_1x_4 + x_2 + x_3x_4e^{x_4}$, then $R_3 \cap (R \cdot f + R \cdot \partial_4 f) = 0$ (a tricky but explicit calculation).
2. For any $f \in R$, if $R_f/\partial_4(R_f)$ is a holonomic ${\mathcal{D}}_3$-module, then there exists a nonzero $g \in R_3$ such that $(R_f/\partial_4(R_f))_g$ is a finitely generated $(R_3)_g$-module (by Proposition \[fgloc\]).
3. For any $f \in R$, if $f$ is irreducible and coprime to $\partial_4(f)$ and $(R_f/\partial_4(R_f))_g$ is a finitely generated $(R_3)_g$-module for some nonzero $g \in R_3$, then $$R_3 \cap (R \cdot f + R \cdot \partial_4 f) \neq 0$$ (another tricky calculation).
4. If $f = x_1x_4 + x_2 + x_3x_4e^{x_4}$, then $f$ is irreducible and coprime to $\partial_4(f)$. It follows that if $R_f/\partial_4(R_f)$ were a holonomic ${\mathcal{D}}_3$-module, (1), (2), and (3) above would produce a contradiction.
It follows that the analogue of Proposition \[holkernel\] will only hold under additional hypotheses on $M$. In this section, we will show that an $x_n$-regularity hypothesis suffices. If $M = {\mathcal{D}}\cdot m$ is a holonomic ${\mathcal{D}}$-module, there is a natural choice of good filtration on $M$ defined using the chosen generator $m$ and the order filtration on ${\mathcal{D}}$. This filtration descends to a filtration on the cokernel $\overline{M} = M/\partial(M)$. The import of our key lemma for cokernels, Lemma \[coklemma\], is that if $m$ is an *$x_n$-regular* element, this filtration is also good:
[@cokernel Cor. 3]\[goodfil\] Let $M = {\mathcal{D}}\cdot m$ be a holonomic ${\mathcal{D}}$-module, and suppose that $m$ is an $x_n$-regular element. Let $\{M_j\}$ be the good filtration on $M$ defined by $M_j = {\mathcal{D}}_j \cdot m$ for all $j$, and let $\{\overline{M}_j\}$ be the corresponding filtration on $\overline{M} = M/\partial(M)$ defined by $\overline{M}_j = (M_j + \partial(M))/\partial(M)$ for all $j$. Then $\overline{M}$ is a finitely generated ${\mathcal{D}}_{n-1}$-module, and $\{\overline{M}_j\}$ is a good filtration on $\overline{M}$.
By Lemma \[coklemma\], there exists $p \geq 1$ and a finitely generated $R_{n-1}$-submodule $E_0$ of $R \cdot m$ such that $R \cdot m \subset E_0 + \partial(M)$. Suppose that $m_1, \ldots, m_l$ are $R_{n-1}$-generators of $E_0$, so that $R \cdot m \subset (\sum_{i=1}^l R_{n-1} \cdot m_i) + \partial(M)$. Then if $\overline{m_i}$ is the class of $m_i$ in $\overline{M}$, we have $\overline{M} = \sum_{i=1}^l {\mathcal{D}}_{n-1} \cdot \overline{m_i}$ (so $\overline{M}$ is a finitely generated ${\mathcal{D}}_{n-1}$-module) and $\overline{M}_j = \sum_{i=1}^l ({\mathcal{D}}_{n-1})_j \overline{m_i}$, so that $\{\overline{M}_j\}$ is a good filtration (the associated graded $\operatorname{gr}{\mathcal{D}}_{n-1}$-module is generated by the images of the $\overline{m_i}$).
We can now state and prove the analogue of Proposition \[holkernel\] with a suitable additional hypothesis:
[@essen Cor. 1.7]\[coker\] Let $M$ be a holonomic, $x_n$-regular ${\mathcal{D}}$-module. Then $\overline{M} = M/\partial(M)$ is a holonomic ${\mathcal{D}}_{n-1}$-module.
Fix $m \in M$ such that $M = {\mathcal{D}}\cdot m$. Let $L \subset {\mathcal{D}}$ be the annihilator of $m$ in ${\mathcal{D}}$ (a left ideal) so that $M \simeq {\mathcal{D}}/L$ as (left) ${\mathcal{D}}$-modules. By hypothesis, there exists an $x_n$-regular $f \in R$ such that $E_{f\partial}(m)$ is a finitely generated $R$-module. Let $\{M_j\}$ and $\{\overline{M}_j\}$ be the good filtrations defined (on $M$ and $\overline{M}$, respectively) in the statement of Lemma \[goodfil\].
We now consider various associated graded objects. Let $S_{n-1} = R_{n-1}[\zeta_1, \ldots, \zeta_{n-1}]$ be the associated graded ring $\operatorname{gr}{\mathcal{D}}_{n-1}$ of ${\mathcal{D}}_{n-1}$ with respect to the order filtration, where $\zeta_i$ is the principal symbol of $\partial_i$. Similarly, let $S = \operatorname{gr}{\mathcal{D}}= R[\zeta_1, \ldots, \zeta_n]$. Let $\sigma(L) \subset S$ be the ideal generated by the principal symbols of the elements of $L$. Let $\operatorname{gr}M$ be the associated graded $S$-module of $M$ with respect to the filtration $\{M_j\}$, and $\operatorname{gr}\overline{M}$ the associated graded $S_{n-1}$-module of $\overline{M}$ with respect to the filtration $\{\overline{M}_j\}$. Since $M \simeq {\mathcal{D}}/L$, we have $\operatorname{gr}M \simeq \operatorname{gr}({\mathcal{D}}/L) \simeq S/\sigma(L)$ as $S$-modules. Consider the natural surjective map $\operatorname{gr}M \rightarrow \operatorname{gr}\overline{M}$ defined by associating, to the class of an element of $M_j$ modulo $M_{j-1}$, its class modulo $M_{j-1} + \partial(M)$. This map is $S_{n-1}$-linear, and as the principal symbol of $\partial$ is $\zeta_n$, it is clear that $\zeta_n \operatorname{gr}M$ lies in its kernel. We therefore obtain an $S_{n-1}$-linear surjection $$\operatorname{gr}M/\zeta_n \operatorname{gr}M \rightarrow \operatorname{gr}\overline{M}.$$ Since $\operatorname{gr}M \simeq S/\sigma(L)$, the source of this surjection can be identified with $S/(\sigma(L) + (\zeta_n))$ as an $S$-module, and since this surjection is $S_{n-1}$-linear, we see that $$S_{n-1} \cap (\sigma(L) + (\zeta_n)) \subset \operatorname{Ann}_{S_{n-1}} \operatorname{gr}\overline{M},$$ where both sides are ideals of $S_{n-1}$. Therefore we have $$d(\overline{M}) = \dim \, S_{n-1}/(\operatorname{Ann}_{S_{n-1}} \operatorname{gr}\overline{M}) \leq \dim \, S_{n-1}/(S_{n-1} \cap (\sigma(L) + (\zeta_n))),$$ where the equality holds by the definition of dimension of a ${\mathcal{D}}_{n-1}$-module (as $\{\overline{M}_j\}$ is a good filtration) and the inequality follows from the containment of ideals above.
We now state two basic facts about radicals of ideals, whose proofs are immediate and which hold in general for commutative rings. Let $\mathfrak{a}$ and $\mathfrak{b}$ be ideals of $S$. Then $$\sqrt{\mathfrak{a} + \mathfrak{b}} = \sqrt{\sqrt{\mathfrak{a}} + \mathfrak{b}} = \sqrt{\sqrt{\mathfrak{a}} + \sqrt{\mathfrak{b}}},$$ and if $\sqrt{\mathfrak{a}} = \sqrt{\mathfrak{b}}$, then $\sqrt{S_{n-1} \cap \mathfrak{a}} = \sqrt{S_{n-1} \cap \mathfrak{b}}$. Together, these facts imply that if $J = \sqrt{\sigma(L)}$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\dim \, S_{n-1}/(S_{n-1} \cap (\sigma(L) + (\zeta_n))) &= \dim \, S_{n-1}/(S_{n-1} \cap (J + (\zeta_n)))\\ &= \dim \, S_{n-1}/(S_{n-1} \cap \sqrt{J + (\zeta_n)}),\end{aligned}$$ since the three denominators all have the same radical. In particular, we have $$d(\overline{M}) \leq \dim \, S_{n-1}/(S_{n-1} \cap (J + (\zeta_n))).$$ Note that $J = \sqrt{\operatorname{Ann}_S \operatorname{gr}M}$. Since $M$ is a holonomic ${\mathcal{D}}$-module, $d(M) = \dim \, S/J = n$. By Bernstein’s inequality, $d(\overline{M}) \geq n-1$, and so it suffices to prove that $d(\overline{M}) \leq n-1 = \dim \, S/J - 1$. That is, we have reduced ourselves to showing that $$\dim \, S_{n-1}/(S_{n-1} \cap (J + (\zeta_n))) \leq \dim \, S/J - 1.$$ As $J \subset S$ is a radical ideal in a Noetherian ring, we can write it as an intersection of finitely many prime ideals: let $J = \mathfrak{p}_1 \cap \cdots \cap \mathfrak{p}_t$ be such an expression where each $\mathfrak{p}_i$ is minimal over $J$. We claim that $$\sqrt{J + (\zeta_n)} = \cap_{i=1}^t \sqrt{\mathfrak{p}_i + (\zeta_n)}.$$ One containment is obvious. For the other, let $x$ belong to $\sqrt{\mathfrak{p}_i + (\zeta_n)}$ for all $i$, and suppose $m$ is large enough that $x^m \in \mathfrak{p}_i + (\zeta_n)$ for all $i$. Then there exist $y_i \in \mathfrak{p}_i$ and $z_i \in R$ such that $$x^m = y_1 + z_1\zeta_n = \cdots = y_t + z_t\zeta_n,$$ and so $x^{mt} - y_1 \cdots y_t \in (\zeta_n)$. Since $y_1 \cdots y_t \in \cap_{i=1}^t \mathfrak{p}_i = J$, it follows that $x \in \sqrt{J + (\zeta_n)}$, as claimed. Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
\dim \, S_{n-1}/(S_{n-1} \cap (J + (\zeta_n))) &= \dim \, S_{n-1}/(S_{n-1} \cap \sqrt{J + (\zeta_n)})\\ &= \dim \, S_{n-1}/(S_{n-1} \cap (\cap_{i=1}^t \sqrt{\mathfrak{p}_i + (\zeta_n)})),\end{aligned}$$ and so it suffices to prove $$\dim \, S_{n-1}/(S_{n-1} \cap (\mathfrak{p} + (\zeta_n))) \leq \dim \, S/\mathfrak{p} - 1$$ where $\mathfrak{p}$ is a minimal prime ideal containing $J$.
First suppose that $f \in \mathfrak{p}$. As $f$ is $x_n$-regular, $R/fR$ is a finitely generated $R_{n-1}$-module by the Weierstrass preparation theorem. Therefore, since $f \in \mathfrak{p}$, $S/\mathfrak{p}$, and, *a fortiori*, $S/(\mathfrak{p} + (\zeta_n))$, is a finitely generated $S_{n-1}$-module. It follows that $$S_{n-1}/(S_{n-1} \cap (\mathfrak{p} + (\zeta_n))) \subset S/(\mathfrak{p} + (\zeta_n))$$ is a finite (hence integral) extension of Noetherian rings, and so both rings have the same dimension [@matsumura Ex. 9.2]. We have therefore reduced ourselves to proving that $$\dim \, S/(\mathfrak{p} + (\zeta_n)) \leq \dim \, S/\mathfrak{p} - 1,$$ that is (since $S/\mathfrak{p}$ is an integral domain), that $\zeta_n \notin \mathfrak{p}$. Suppose for contradiction that $\zeta_n \in \mathfrak{p}$. The ideal $J = \sqrt{\operatorname{Ann}_S \operatorname{gr}M}$ is involutive by Gabber’s theorem, and so $\mathfrak{p}$ is also involutive by Corollary \[primeinvol\]. Since $f$ and $\zeta_n$ both belong to $\mathfrak{p}$, so does the Poisson bracket $\{\zeta_n, f\} = \partial(f)$; continuing in this way, $\partial^l(f) \in \mathfrak{p}$ for all $l$. Taking $l$ to be the smallest index such that $x_n^l$ appears in the expansion of $f$ with a nonzero scalar coefficient (such $l$ exists since $f$ is $x_n$-regular), we see that $\mathfrak{p}$ contains a unit, a contradiction. Therefore $\zeta_n \notin \mathfrak{p}$, as desired.
For the other (harder) case, suppose that $f \notin \mathfrak{p}$. Recall that by hypothesis $E_{f \partial}(m)$ is a finitely generated $R$-module, so there exists $q$ such that $(f \partial)^q(m)$ belongs to the $R$-submodule of $M$ generated by $\{(f \partial)^j(m)\}_{j=0}^{q-1}$. Let $\rho_0, \ldots, \rho_{q-1} \in R$ be such that $$(f \partial)^q(m) = \sum_{j=0}^{q-1} \rho_j (f \partial)^j(m);$$ it follows that $(f \partial)^q - \sum_{j=0}^{q-1} \rho_j (f \partial)^j \in {\mathcal{D}}$ annihilates $m$, and hence its principal symbol $(f \zeta_n)^q$ belongs to $\sigma(L)$. Therefore $f\zeta_n \in \sqrt{\sigma(L)} = J \subset \mathfrak{p}$. As we have assumed that $f \notin \mathfrak{p}$ and $\mathfrak{p}$ is prime, this implies that $\zeta_n \in \mathfrak{p}$.
For any $\alpha \in \mathfrak{p}$, let $\alpha_{\circ} = \alpha(x_1, \ldots, x_{n-1}, 0, \zeta_1, \ldots, \zeta_{n-1}, 0) \in S_{n-1}$, and let $\mathfrak{p}_{\circ}$ be the ideal of $S_{n-1}$ consisting of all $\alpha_{\circ}$ where $\alpha$ ranges over $\mathfrak{p}$. We have $$\mathfrak{p}_{\circ} + (x_n, \zeta_n) = \mathfrak{p} + (x_n, \zeta_n) = \mathfrak{p} + (x_n)$$ as ideals of $S$, since $\zeta_n \in \mathfrak{p}$. We note that $\mathfrak{p} + (x_n) \neq S$ as a consequence of the fact that $\mathfrak{p}$ is homogeneous with respect to $\zeta_1, \ldots, \zeta_n$ (Remark \[zetahom\]): if $1 + sx_n \in \mathfrak{p}$ for some $s \in S$, then $1 + s_0x_n \in \mathfrak{p}$ where $s_0 \in R$ is the constant term of $s$ with respect to the $\zeta_i$; but then $\mathfrak{p}$ contains a unit of $R$, a contradiction.
It is clear that $\mathfrak{p} \cap S_{n-1} \subset \mathfrak{p}_{\circ}$, and we claim that equality holds, that is, that $\mathfrak{p}_{\circ} \subset \mathfrak{p}$. Since $\zeta_n \in \mathfrak{p}$, it suffices to check that if $a \in \mathfrak{p}$ is of the form $\sum_{i=0}^{\infty} a_i x_n^i$ with $a_i \in S_{n-1}$, then the $x_n$-constant term $a_0$ belongs to $\mathfrak{p}$. We will verify this by showing that $a_0 \in \mathfrak{p} + x_n^q S'$ for all $q \geq 1$, where $S' = R[\zeta_1, \ldots, \zeta_{n-1}] \subset S$. This suffices because then $$a \in \cap_{q=1}^{\infty} \mathfrak{p} + (x_n^q) \subset S,$$ and the right-hand side is simply $\mathfrak{p}$ by Krull’s intersection theorem [@matsumura Thm. 8.10(ii)] applied to the integral domain $S/\mathfrak{p}$ and its ideal $(\mathfrak{p} + (x_n))/\mathfrak{p}$, which is a proper ideal since we have already checked that $\mathfrak{p} + (x_n) \neq S$.
It is clear that $a_0 \in \mathfrak{p} + x_nS'$. Now assume for some $q \geq 1$ that $a_0 = g + x_n^q h$ for some $g \in \mathfrak{p}$ and $h \in S'$, and let $h_0$ be the $x_n$-constant term of $h$. On the one hand, since $a_0$ belongs to $S'$, the Poisson bracket $\{\zeta_n, a_0\}$ is zero. On the other hand, using the biderivation property, we see that $$0 = \{\zeta_n, a_0\} = \{\zeta_n, g\} + x_n^q\{\zeta_n, h\} + qx_n^{q-1}h.$$ Since $\mathfrak{p}$ is involutive by Corollary \[primeinvol\], we have $\{\zeta_n, g\} \in \mathfrak{p}$, from which it follows that $qx_n^{q-1}h_0 \in \mathfrak{p} + x_n^qS'$, hence $x_n^qh_0 \in \mathfrak{p} + x_n^{q+1}S'$, and finally $a_0 = g + x_n^qh \in \mathfrak{p} + x_n^{q+1}S'$, completing the induction. We conclude that $\mathfrak{p}_{\circ} = \mathfrak{p} \cap S_{n-1}$.
We can now finish the proof. We have isomorphisms of rings $$\frac{S_{n-1}}{S_{n-1} \cap (\mathfrak{p} + (\zeta_n))} \simeq \frac{S_{n-1}}{\mathfrak{p}_{\circ}} \simeq \frac{S}{\mathfrak{p}_{\circ} + (x_n, \zeta_n)} \simeq \frac{S}{\mathfrak{p} + (x_n)},$$ and hence $\dim \, S_{n-1}/(S_{n-1} \cap (\mathfrak{p} + (\zeta_n))) = \dim \, S/(\mathfrak{p} + (x_n))$. We need only show that $\dim \, S/(\mathfrak{p} + (x_n)) \leq \dim \, S/\mathfrak{p} - 1$, that is (since $S/\mathfrak{p}$ is an integral domain) that $x_n \notin \mathfrak{p}$. But this is immediate: if $x_n \in \mathfrak{p}$, then since $\mathfrak{p}$ is involutive, $\{\zeta_n, x_n\} = 1 \in \mathfrak{p}$, a contradiction. This completes the proof.
We now have all we need for the proof of Theorem \[mainthm\]:
We proceed by induction on $n$. The case $n=0$ is obvious, since a holonomic ${\mathcal{D}}_0$-module is nothing but a finite-dimensional $k$-space. Now suppose that $n > 0$ and $M$ is a holonomic ${\mathcal{D}}$-module. By Proposition \[fgloc\], there exists a nonzero $f \in R$ such that $M_f$ is a finitely generated $R_f$-module. After a linear change of coordinates, we may assume $f$ is $x_n$-regular; by Proposition \[dRind\], this change of coordinates does not affect the de Rham cohomology of $M$. Assuming this change of coordinates has been made, $M$ is $x_n$-regular by Lemma \[reglink\]. By Propositions \[holkernel\] and \[coker\], the kernel $M_*$ and cokernel $\overline{M}$ of $\partial$ acting on $M$ are holonomic ${\mathcal{D}}_{n-1}$-modules, and by the inductive hypothesis have finite-dimensional de Rham cohomology. The exact sequences $$\cdots \rightarrow H_{dR}^i(M_*) \rightarrow H_{dR}^i(M) \rightarrow H_{dR}^{i-1}(\overline{M}) \rightarrow \cdots$$ of Lemma \[derhamles\] finish the proof.
[99]{} J.-E. Björk, [*Rings of differential operators*]{}, North-Holland Mathematical Library **21**, North-Holland Publishing, Amsterdam-New York, 1979. A. van den Essen, [*Fuchsian modules*]{}, thesis, Katholieke universiteit Nijmegen (1979). A. van den Essen, ‘Le noyau de l’opérateur $\frac{\partial}{\partial x_n}$ agissant sur un $\mathcal{D}_n$-module’, [*C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris*]{} **288** (1979), 687-690. A. van den Essen, ‘Un $\mathcal{D}$-module holonome tel que le conoyau de l’opérateur $\frac{\partial}{\partial x_n}$ soit non-holonome’, [*C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris*]{} **295** (1982), 455-457. A. van den Essen, ‘Le conoyau de l’opérateur $\frac{\partial}{\partial x_n}$ agissant sur un $\mathcal{D}_n$-module holonome’, [*C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris*]{} **296** (1983), 903-906. A. van den Essen, ‘The kernel and cokernel of a differential operator in several variables’, [*Indag. Math.*]{} **45** (1) (1983), 67-76. A. van den Essen, ‘The kernel and cokernel of a differential operator in several variables II’, [*Indag. Math.*]{} **45** (4) (1983), 403-406. A. van den Essen, ‘The cokernel of the operator $\frac{\partial}{\partial x_n}$ acting on a $\mathcal{D}_n$-module II’, [*Compos. Math.*]{} **56** (2) (1985), 259-269. O. Gabber, ‘The integrability of the characteristic variety’, [*Amer. Journal of Math.*]{} **103** (3) (1981), 445-468. A. Grothendieck J. Dieudonné, ‘Eléments de géométrie algébrique IV: Étude locale des schémas et des morphismes de schémas, première partie’, [*Publ. Math. IHES*]{}, **20** (1964). A. Grothendieck J. Dieudonné, ‘Eléments de géométrie algébrique IV: Étude locale des schémas et des morphismes de schémas, quatrième partie’, [*Publ. Math. IHES*]{}, **32** (1967). R. Hotta, K. Takeuchi, T. Tanisaki, [*${\mathcal{D}}$-modules, perverse sheaves, and representation theory*]{}, Progress in Mathematics **236**, Birkhäuser, Boston, 2008. S. Lang, [*Algebra*]{}, revised third edition, Graduate Texts in Mathematics **211**, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2002. B. Malgrange, ‘Sur les points singuliers des équations differentielles’, [*L’Enseignement Math.*]{} **20** (1974), 147-176. H. Matsumura, [*Commutative ring theory*]{}, Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics **8**, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1986.
[^1]: NSF support through grant DMS-0701127 is gratefully acknowledged.
|
ibvs2.sty
Eclipsing cataclysmic variables (CVs) are important because through detailed modeling of the eclipses it is possible to deduce the physical properties of the system. This paper reports the discovery of two new eclipsing CVs: PHL1445 and GALEXJ003535.7+462353.
PHL1445 (= PB9151) is listed in the Palomar-Haro-Luyten catalogue as a faint blue object (Haro & Luyten, 1962). A spectrum (6dFGSg0242429-114646) taken by the 6dF Galaxy Survey (Jones et al., 2004 and 2009) showed it to be a cataclysmic variable (Wils, 2009). Because of the split emission lines and a number of anomalously faint points in the light curve of the Catalina Real-time Transient Survey (CRTS; Drake et al., 2009), it was suspected to be an eclipsing variable as well. Follow-up observations at the Astrokolkhoz Observatory with a C14 Schmidt-Cassegrain and an unfiltered CCD camera, showed this indeed to be the case. As shown in Fig. 1, the light curve shows deep eclipses lasting about 6 minutes, with an amplitude of more than two magnitudes. In addition the period is very short, 76.3 minutes, near the minimum orbital period for CVs (Gänsicke et al., 2009). Such a short orbital period is usually observed in WZSagittae type dwarf novae like GWLib (orbital period 76.8 minutes) and SDSSJ074531.91+453829.5 (76.0 minutes), with rare large amplitude outbursts. Only SDSSJ150722.30+523039.8 has a shorter orbital period among the eclipsing CVs (Savoury et al., 2011).
Table \[ToM\] lists the observed times of eclipses. From these, the following eclipse ephemeris was derived: $$\label{PHL1445}
HJD Min = 2455202.5579(1) + 0\fday05298466(8) \times E$$
Since not many deeply eclipsing CVs are known at this orbital period, high speed photometry of the eclipses, such as done by Southworth and Copperwheat (2011) and Savoury et al. (2011) would certainly be of value for this object.
\[ToM\]
----------- ----------- ------------
PHL1445
SuperWASP This paper
5202.5579 4330.553 5477.5621
5202.6108 4331.589 5478.4228
5202.6640 4332.622 5478.5954
5202.7169 4333.655 5479.4560
5241.6075 4334.688 5479.6284
5242.6144 4335.551 5480.6625
4360.703 5481.3519
4407.388 5481.5239
4408.424 5482.3856
5483.4192
5486.6920
5495.3052
5495.6516
5576.6190
5577.6526
5579.7207
----------- ----------- ------------
: Observed times of eclipse for PHL1445 and GALEXJ003535.7+462353. The times are given as HJD - 2450000 (UTC based). The uncertainty on the times is about 0.0001 days for PHL1445 and 0.0005 days for GALEXJ003535.7+462353 for the minima obtained from our data, and 0.001 days for the minima obtained from SuperWASP data.
GALEXJ003535.7+462353 was discovered as a variable source by the GALEX satellite (Martin et al., 2005) on 30 August 2008. Although the object is too faint itself, both the Northern Sky Variability Survey (NSVS; Woźniak et al., 2004) and SuperWASP (Butters et al., 2010) observed the combined magnitude of GALEXJ003535.7+462353 and GSC3249-1603, which lies some $18\arcs$ to the West. Both surveys show a number of brightenings in the combined light curve, lasting several days, with an amplitude of up to 0.2 magnitudes from the normal combined magnitude of 12.9, indicating the possible variability of GALEXJ003535.7+462353 rising to about magnitude 14.5, from its normal magnitude of around 16.5. These may be an indication of a dwarf nova outburst with a fairly small amplitude. In addition, during these bright phases SuperWASP showed short periodic dimmings back to the normal combined magnitude with a period of around 0.1723 days. The likely cause of these periodic fadings are eclipses of the variable.
GALEXJ003535.7+462353 was therefore followed extensively by the authors. The eclipses with a duration of about 30 minutes, could be easily confirmed. At quiescence the eclipse depth is about 2 magnitudes in $V$, but varying slightly. In a timespan of three months one definite outburst was observed, lasting about a week (see Fig. 2), and possibly a few shorter outbursts. At the end of the observing season, the object was entering another outburst. The rise to outburst seems to be more gradual, like in some other dwarf novae with a short outburst cycle and relatively small amplitude (often classified as Z Cam type variables). During the long outburst, the eclipses could also be observed with a similar amplitude as during quiescence. Fig. 3 shows eclipses observed during quiescence, during a rise to outburst and one during outburst.
From the list of observed times of eclipse in Table \[ToM\], together with the times of minimum that could be derived from the SuperWASP data, the following eclipse ephemeris was deduced:
$$\label{J003535}
HJD Min = 2455477.5615(4) + 0\fday17227503(11) \times E$$
[**Acknowledgements:**]{} This study made use of the Simbad and VizieR databases (Ochsenbein et al., 2000), and of data provided by the NASA GALEX mission. Part of the data were obtained through AAVSONet, run by the American Association of Variable Star Observers, through the Tzec Maun Foundation and by using the Bradford Robotic Telescope.
Butters O.W., West R.G., Anderson D.R., et al., 2010, [*A&A*]{} [**520**]{}, L10
Drake A.J., Djorgovski S.G., Mahabal A., Beshore E., Larson S., Graham M.J., Williams R., Christensen E., Catelan M., Boattini A., Gibbs A., Hill R., Kowalski R., 2009, [*ApJ*]{} [**696**]{}, 870
Gänsicke B.T., Dillon M., Southworth J., et al., 2009, [*MNRAS*]{} [**397**]{}, 2170
Haro G., Luyten W.J., 1962, [*Bol. Inst. Tonantzintla*]{} [**3**]{}, 37
Jones D.H., Saunders W., Colless M. et al., 2004, [*MNRAS*]{} [**355**]{}, 747
Jones D.H., Read M.A., Saunders W. et al., 2009, [*MNRAS*]{} [**399**]{}, 683
Martin D.C., Fanson J., Schiminovich D., Morrissey P., Friedman P.G., Barlow T.A., Conrow T., Grange R., Jelinsky P.N., Milliard B., Siegmund O.H.W., Bianchi L., Byun Y.-I., Donas J., Forster K., Heckman T.M., Lee Y.-W., Madore B.F., Malina R.F., Neff S.G., Rich R.M., Small T., Surber F., Szalay A.S., Welsh B., Wyder T.K., 2005, [*ApJ Letters*]{} [**619**]{}, 1
Ochsenbein F., Bauer P., Marcout J., 2000, [*A&A Suppl.*]{} [**143**]{}, 221
Savoury C.D.J., Littlefair S.P., Dhillon V.S. et al., 2011, arXiv:1103.2713v1 \[astro-ph.SR\]
Southworth J., Copperwheat C.M., 2011, arXiv:1101.2534v1 \[astro-ph.SR\]
Wils P., 2009, [*IBVS*]{} [**5916**]{}
Woźniak P.R., Vestrand W.T., Akerlof C.W., et al., 2004, [*AJ*]{} [**127**]{}, 2436
|
---
abstract: 'It is argued in a recent letter [@PhysRevLett.123.131302] that the effect of a large cosmological constant can be naturally hidden in Planck scale curvature fluctuations. We point out that there are problems with the author’s arguments. The hiding of the cosmological constant proposed in [@PhysRevLett.123.131302] by choosing a suitable lapse function is just an illusion maintained by external forces. In particular, it can not be achieved if the cosmological constant is positive. Fortunately, it works for a negative cosmological constant in a different way, and, interestingly, the sign of the cosmological constant just needs to be negative to make the average spatial curvature $\langle R\rangle$ small.'
author:
- Qingdi Wang
- 'William G. Unruh'
bibliography:
- 'how\_vacuum\_gravitates.bib'
title: How the cosmological constant is hidden by Planck scale curvature fluctuations
---
Introduction
============
The cosmological constant problem is a long standing problem in mordern physics. The huge vacuum energy is usually expected to produce a large cosmological constant which leads to a disastrous gravitaional effect. In a recent letter [@PhysRevLett.123.131302] the author argues that the fluctuations in the metric at Planck scales (Wheeler’s spactime foam) make it possible to hide the effect of a large cosmological constant.
We certainly agree with the author of [@PhysRevLett.123.131302] that the fluctuations in the metric must be taken into account, and have previously suggested how this might come about [@PhysRevD.95.103504; @Qingdi:2019; @Wang:2019mee]. Unfortunately the author’s proposal suffers from some problems. In this paper, we first show in Sec.\[comment\] that the above arguments have problems and thus the hiding actually does not work in the way proposed in [@PhysRevLett.123.131302]. We then investigate whether it is possible to make the idea of hiding the cosmological constant in Planck scale curvature fluctuations work in other ways. We show in Sec.\[positive lambda\] that this idea does not work for a positive cosmological constant due to the universal divergences of the geodesics. The small scale spacetime fluctuations do not help in this situation. Fortunately, this idea works for a negative cosmological constant in a different way. It is interesting that the sign of the cosmological constant just needs to be negative to make the average spatial curvature $\langle R\rangle$ small. We show this different way of hiding the cosmological constant in Sec.\[negative lambda1\].
Problems with the author’s arguments {#comment}
====================================
The author of [@PhysRevLett.123.131302] employs the initial value formulation of general relativity and takes the shift vector to be zero for simplicity. This is essentially assuming the metric of the form $$\label{metric}
ds^2=-N^2dt^2+g_{ij}dx^idx^j.$$ He considers the volume averaging on the initial hypersurface $t=0$ $$\label{definition}
\left\langle X\right\rangle_{\mathcal{U}}=\frac{1}{V_\mathcal{U}}\int_{\mathcal{U}}X\sqrt{g}d^3x\quad\text{with}\quad V_{\mathcal{U}}=\int_{\mathcal{U}}\sqrt{g}d^3x,$$ where the region $\mathcal{U}$ is defined in some time-independent way.
It is argued that a large class of initial data on the hypersurface $t=0$ can exhibit zero average expansion $\langle K\rangle=0$. It is further argued that the classical time evolution can preserve this property since one can choose a suitable lapse function $N$ to make $d^n\langle K\rangle/dt^n=0$ for all $n>0$.
More concretely, the author uses the equation for the rate of change of $K$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{K derivative equation}
\frac{dK}{dt}&=&N\left(-K^2-R+3\Lambda\right)+D^iD_iN\nonumber\\
&=&N\left(-\frac{K^2}{3}-2\sigma^2+\Lambda\right)+D^iD_iN\end{aligned}$$ and the relation $$\frac{d\sqrt{g}}{dt}=NK\sqrt{g}$$ to obtain the rate of change of the average expansion $\langle K\rangle$ with respect to the coordinate time $t$ : $$\begin{aligned}
\label{correct}
\frac{d\langle K\rangle}{dt}=&&\frac{1}{V_{\mathcal{U}}}\int_{\mathcal{U}}N\left(-R+3\Lambda+\frac{D^iD_iN}{N}\right)\sqrt{g}d^3x\\
=&&\frac{1}{V_{\mathcal{U}}}\int_{\mathcal{U}}N\left(\frac{2K^2}{3}-2\sigma^2+\Lambda+\frac{D^iD_iN}{N}\right)\sqrt{g}d^3x.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The corresponding Eq.(7) in [@PhysRevLett.123.131302] omitted the term $D^iD_iN$ since it is a total derivative that reduces to a surface integral. We keep this term in since it is not necessarily to be zero after integration.
It is then argued that since the integrand in doesn’t have a definite sign, there will be infinite choices of $N$ for which the right-hand side of vanishes. Similar arguments are also made for higher order time derivatives of $\langle K\rangle$. In this way, the author finds a foliation of spacetime by slices of vanishing average expansion and then concludes that the effect of the large cosmological constant is nearly invisible at observable scales.
Unfortunately there are problems with the above arguments. In fact, a choice of lapse corresponds to a choice of coordinates, and no physics can depend purely on the choice of coordinates. If distances between geodesics, or more importantly, the wavelengths of fields, grow with time (usually proper time, not coordinate time) they will do so in all coordinate systems, and cannot be hidden by a coordinate choice.
As a counterexample we can look at the de Sitter space which is a vacuum solution of the Einstein equations with a positive cosmological constant $\Lambda$. In this spacetime one can choose the static slicing coordinate $$\label{static coordinate}
ds^2=-\left(1-\frac{\Lambda}{3}r^2\right)dt^2+\frac{1}{1-\frac{\Lambda}{3}r^2}dr^2+r^2d\Omega^2.$$ The spatial slices $t=Constants$ of have expansion $K\equiv 0$ but physically the de Sitter spacetime is exponentially expanding. This exponential expansion can be seen by transforming the static coordinate to the following flat slicing coordinate (FLRW) $$\label{flat slicing}
ds^2=-d\tau^2+e^{2\sqrt{\frac{\Lambda}{3}}\tau}\left(dx^2+dy^2+dz^2\right).$$
The lesson learned from this counterexample is that we should not choose the lapse function $N$ arbitrarily. In fact, $K$ is the local volume expansion rate perceived by the stationary observers defined by $x^i=Constants$ (Eulerian observers). In the static slicing $N$ is position dependent, $x^i=Constants$ are not geodesics, so that these observers are accelerating. There are external forces acting on them to maintain their constant spatial positions. In the flat slicing $N=1$, $x^i=Constants$ are geodesics so that these observers are free falling. The expansion $K\equiv 0$ in because the gravitational repulsions caused by the positive $\Lambda$ are balanced by the external forces, it does not mean the effect of $\Lambda$ is invisible.
Therefore, we should use free falling observers who only feel gravity to test physically whether the space is expanding or contracting. Technically, the acceleration of the stationary observer is tangent to the hypersurfaces $t=Constants$ with the $i$th component of the accelearation given by $a_i=D_iN/N$ (see Eq.(3.17) in [@Gourgoulhon:2007ue]). So the lapse function $N$ should be chosen to be spatially independent to make sure $x^i=Constants$ are geodesics. In this case, the rate of change of the average expansion $\langle K\rangle$ perceived by these free falling observers given by is $$\label{geodesic average}
\frac{d\langle K\rangle}{d\tau}=3\Lambda,$$ where $\tau=\int Ndt$ is the proper time of these observers and we have used the requirement that the average spatial curvature $\langle R\rangle=0$.
On the initial hypersurface $\Sigma$, these free falling observers have the same unit tangent vectors with the Eulerian observers defined by $x^i=Constants$ when the lapse $N$ is position dependent, i.e., they have the same initial velocities. The only difference is that they have different accelerations—the free falling observers have zero accelerations while the Eulerian observers have accelerations $a_i=D_iN/N$ produced by the external forces. We see from that the free falling observers still see the effect of the cosmological constant, the hiding of the cosmological constant seen by the Eulerian observers is just an illusion maintained by the external forces. This result is quite natural since one should not try to hide the cosmological constant by choosing $N$ in the first place.
Moreover, even for the non-inertial Eulerian observers, $d\langle K\rangle/dt$ is not a physical quantity observed by them. One should use the Eulerian observers’ proper times $\tau$ instead of the coordinate time $t$. In fact, the infinitesimal local volume element observed by each Eulerian observer is $\sqrt{g}d^3x$. The rate of change of $\sqrt{g}$ and the rate of change of $d\sqrt{g}/d\tau$ perceived by each Eulerian observer are $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d\sqrt{g}}{d\tau}&=&K\sqrt{g},\\
\frac{d^2\sqrt{g}}{d\tau^2}&=&\left(-R+3\Lambda+\frac{D^iD_iN}{N}\right)\sqrt{g}.\end{aligned}$$ Note that the proper times $\tau$ are different from point to point.
The quantities $\sqrt{g}$, $d\sqrt{g}/d\tau$ and $d^2\sqrt{g}/d\tau^2$ are physical quantities that actually observed by each Eulerian observer. Integrating $\sqrt{g}$ over the region $\mathcal{U}$ gives $$V_{\mathcal{U}}=\int_{\mathcal{U}}\sqrt{g}d^3x,$$ which is just the macroscopic volume defined by the second equation in . Integrating $d\sqrt{g}/d\tau$ over $\mathcal{U}$ and then divide the volume $V_{\mathcal{U}}$ gives the average of $d\sqrt{g}/d\tau$: $$\overline{\frac{d\sqrt{g}}{d\tau}}=\frac{1}{V_{\mathcal{U}}}\int_{\mathcal{U}}K\sqrt{g}d^3x,$$ which is just the average expansion $\langle K\rangle$ defined by the first equation in .
However, integrating $d^2\sqrt{g}/d\tau^2$ over $\mathcal{U}$ and then divide the volume $V_{\mathcal{U}}$ gives the average of $d^2\sqrt{g}/d\tau^2$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{physical effect}
\overline{\frac{d^2\sqrt{g}}{d\tau^2}}&=&\frac{1}{V_{\mathcal{U}}}\int_{\mathcal{U}}\left(-R+3\Lambda+\frac{D^iD_iN}{N}\right)\sqrt{g}d^3x\nonumber\\
&=&3\Lambda+\frac{1}{V_{\mathcal{U}}}\int_{\mathcal{U}}\frac{D^iD_iN}{N}\sqrt{g}d^3x,\end{aligned}$$ where we have used the requirement that the average spatial curvature $\langle R\rangle=0$ in obtaining the second line of . The integration of the term $D^iD_iN/N$ in represents the average effect of the external forces acting on the Eulerian observers.
Comparing to , the above expression does not have the factor $N$ in the integrand and since $N$ is position dependent as supposed in [@PhysRevLett.123.131302], we would have $$\frac{d\langle K\rangle}{dt}\neq\overline{N}\overline{\frac{d^2\sqrt{g}}{d\tau^2}}.$$ In other words, the unphysical quantity $d\langle K\rangle/dt$ is in general different from the physical quantity $\overline{d^2\sqrt{g}/d\tau^2}$ and one can not choose $N$ in the way proposed in [@PhysRevLett.123.131302] to make $\overline{d^2\sqrt{g}/d\tau^2}=0$. One may still choose $N$ in different ways to make $\overline{d^2\sqrt{g}/d\tau^2}=0$, for example, one can choose $N$ to be the eigenfunction of the Laplace operator corresponding to the eigenvalue $3\Lambda$, i.e., $-D^iD_iN=3\Lambda N$. However, again, this choice of $N$ is just a coordinate choice, the hiding of $\Lambda$ in this way is just an illusion maintained by the external force.
In summary, we have shown that the author’s argument is problamatic. As a result, the hiding does not work in the way proposed in [@PhysRevLett.123.131302]. Does it work in other ways? Further investigations will be given in the following sections.
$\Lambda>0$ does not work {#positive lambda}
=========================
In this section we show from a different perspective that the inhomogeneous Planck scale curvature fluctuations can not hide the effect of a positive $\Lambda$.
Consider a free falling observer $\gamma$ in a spacetime with $\Lambda>0$. The dynamics of an infinitesimally nearby free falling test particle observed in $\gamma$’s own local inertial frame is given by the geodesic deviation equation (see e.g. pages 47, 225 of [@Wald:1984rg]): $$\label{geodesic deviation1}
\frac{d^2\xi^i}{d\tau^2}=-\sum_{j=1}^3 R^i_{0j0}(\tau)\xi^j, \quad i=1, 2, 3,$$ where $\tau$ is $\gamma$’s proper time, $\xi^i$ is the coordinate of the deviation vector from $\gamma$ to the test particle in $\gamma$’s local inertial frame, $R^i_{0j0}$ are components of the Riemann curvature tensor along $\gamma$.
The Riemann tensor can be expressed in terms of the Weyl tensor and the Ricci tensor: $$R^a_{bcd}=C^a_{bcd}+\delta^a_{[c}R_{d]b}-g_{b[c}R^a_{d]}-\frac{1}{3}R\delta^a_{[c}g_{d]b}.$$ In $\gamma$’s own local inertial frame the metric components $g_{\mu\nu}$ along $\gamma$ is exactly $\eta_{\mu\nu}=\text{diag}(-1, 1, 1, 1)$ so that we have $$\label{Weyl}
R^i_{0j0}=C^i_{0j0}-\frac{1}{2}R^i_j+\frac{1}{2}\delta^i_jR_{00}+\frac{1}{6}R\delta^i_j.$$
The Ricci tensor is determined by the Einstein equations: $$\label{EFE}
R_{ab}=\Lambda g_{ab}.$$ Plugging into gives $$R^i_{0j0}=C^i_{0j0}-\frac{\Lambda}{3}\delta^i_j.$$ Then the geodesic deviation equation can be written as $$\label{geodesic deviation}
\frac{d^2\mathbf{x}}{d\tau^2}=\left(\frac{\Lambda}{3}I-C\right)\mathbf{x},$$ where $\mathbf{x}=(\xi^1, \xi^2, \xi^3)^t$, $I=\mathrm{diag}(1, 1, 1)$ is the identity matrix, $C=(C^i_{0j0})_{3\times 3}$ is a matrix whose elements $C^i_{0j0}$ are components of the Weyl tensor along the world line of $\gamma$. One important property of the Weyl tensor is that it is trace free: $$\label{trace free}
C^a_{0a0}=\sum_{i=1}^3C^i_{0i0}=0,$$ where we have used $C^0_{000}=0$ which is required by the symmetry property of the Weyl tensor.
The Planck scale curvature fluctuations are encoded in the Weyl tensor. These fluctuations are inhomogeneous and anisotropic. However, the statistical properties of these fluctuations should still be homogeneous and isotropic, i.e., the observer $\gamma$ should see the same magnitude of fluctuations in every point and in every direction. Thus we would have the expectation values of the off-diagonal components $$\left\langle C^i_{0j0}\right\rangle=0,\quad i\neq j,$$ and the diagonal components $$\langle C^1_{010}\rangle=\langle C^2_{020}\rangle=\langle C^3_{030}\rangle. \label{equal diagonal component}$$ Taking expectation values on both sides of and use the property we obtain that the diagonal components $\left\langle C^i_{0i0}\right\rangle=0$. Thus the Weyl tensor term $C$ in fluctuates around $0$ and provides a fluctuating tidal force on the test particle. On average the test particle would move along a smooth path driven by the cosmological constant term $\Lambda/3$ and at the same time execute oscillations around this path due to the fluctuations of the Weyl tensor term $C$. This averaged smooth path is given by the solution of when the fluctuation term $C$ is excluded: $$\label{solution}
\bar{\xi}^i= c_ie^{\sqrt{\frac{\Lambda}{3}}\tau}+c'_ie^{-\sqrt{\frac{\Lambda}{3}}\tau}, \quad i=1, 2, 3,$$ where $c_i$ and $c'_i$ are integration constants. The constant $c_i$ is zero only for the very special case when initially the test particle is moving toward $\gamma$ with a speed $\frac{d\bar{\xi}^i}{d\tau}(0)=-\sqrt{\frac{\Lambda}{3}}\bar{\xi}^i(0)$. Consider the perpetual perturbation from the fluctuations of the Weyl tensor term $C$, this special initial condition is impossible to be satisfied so that $c_i$ must be nonzero. Then the first term in would quickly become dominant that the averaged smooth path goes as $$\bar{\xi}^i\sim c_ie^{\sqrt{\frac{\Lambda}{3}}\tau}, \quad i=1, 2, 3.$$ So repulsive force produced by the positive $\Lambda$ would accelerate the nearby test particle away from $\gamma$ exponentially fast. The Planck scale curvature fluctuations encoded in $C$ make the test particle oscillate around this exponential path.
The deviation vector describes how the infinitesimal distances between neighboring geodesics evolve with time. The distances between two far away geodesics in a geodesic congruence can be obtained by integrating these infinitesimal distances. Of course there are ambiguities in doing the integration since, in curved spacetime, the spatial distance is only well defined for infinitesimal distances. There is no unique definition for large spatial distances. However, since on average all the infinitesimal distances grow exponentially, any sensible definition of the integration would give, on average, exponential growth between large-distance geodesics.
In other words, consider a macroscopic ball of free falling test particles, each particle in this ball would be wildly fluctuating in response to the Weyl curvature fluctuations, and the average distance between any two nearby particles would finally be exponentially increasing. Since this average distance increasing is universal for any two neighboring particles, the volume of the macroscopic ball must also be exponentially increasing. This means that the effect of a positive $\Lambda$ can not be hidden in Planck scale curvature fluctuations—the spacetime would still explode.
$\Lambda<0$ works {#negative lambda1}
=================
It seems that from the hiding does not work no matter the sign of $\Lambda$. We have also shown in the last section that it is impossible for $\Lambda>0$ to work by a more general proof. Fortunately, this is not the end of the story. $\Lambda<0$ may work in a different way.
Define the local scale factor $a$ which describes the local “size" of space by $g=a^6$, then the expansion $K=\frac{3}{a}\frac{da}{d\tau}$ and Eq. becomes $$\label{evolution equation}
\frac{d^2a}{d\tau^2}+\frac{1}{3}\left(2\sigma^2-\Lambda-\frac{D^iD_iN}{N}\right)a=0.$$ As discussed in Sec.II that the lapse function $N$ needs to be spatially independent or at least the average of the term $D^iD_iN/N$ needs to be zero. Then since we always have $2\sigma^2-\Lambda>0$, $a$ must oscillate around $0$. Every time when $a$ crosses $0$, $K$ jumps discontinuously from $-\infty$ to $+\infty$. Similar to the derivative of the step function who jumps from $0$ to $1$ is a $\delta$ function, $dK/d\tau$ at $a=0$ is also a $\delta$ function: $$\frac{dK}{d\tau}|_{a=0}=\mu\delta(a),$$ where $\mu=+\infty$ because $K$ jumps from $-\infty$ to $+\infty$. Then we have $$\frac{d^2\sqrt{g}}{d\tau^2}|_{a=0}=\mu\delta(a)\sqrt{g}$$ and becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\label{correct average}
\overline{\frac{d^2\sqrt{g}}{d\tau^2}}=\frac{1}{V_{\mathcal{U}}}\Bigg(&&\int_{\mathcal{U}\cap \{a\neq 0\}}\left(-R+3\Lambda+\frac{D^iD_iN}{N}\right)\sqrt{g}d^3x\nonumber\\
+&&\int_{\mathcal{U}\cap \{a=0\}}\mu\delta(a)\sqrt{g}d^3x\Bigg).\end{aligned}$$ The first term on the right hand side of is negative while the second term is positive. They can cancel each other to make $\overline{\frac{d^2\sqrt{g}}{d\tau^2}}=0$ if the average oscillation amplitude of $a$ is a constant.
In this picture, $a=0$ are actually curvature singularities. It has been proved that the singularities must occur for a globally hyperbolic vacuum spacetime with a negative cosmological constant [@1976ApJ...209...12T]. Physically, the negative cosmological constant produces attractive effect which makes $\frac{d^2\sqrt{g}}{d\tau^2}<0$ (the first term on the right hand side of ) at points away from the singularities, and at the singularities bounces happen which produces repulsive effect which makes $\frac{d^2\sqrt{g}}{d\tau^2}>0$ (the second term on the right hand side of ). Macroscopically, the attractions at points away from the singularities are balanced by the the repulsions at the singularities. In this way, the effect of a large negative cosmological constant can be hidden in Planck scale curvature fluctuations. On the contrary, the effect of a large positive cosmological constant can not be hidden because a positive $\Lambda$ always produce repulsive effects, no mechanisms to produce attractive effects to balance the repulsiveness.
In addition, the sign of the cosmological constant just needs to be negative to make the average spatial curvature $\langle R\rangle$ small. In fact, taking average on Eq.(1a) of [@PhysRevLett.123.131302] we have $$\label{average constraint}
\left\langle R\right\rangle=2\Lambda+\left\langle K_{ij}K^{ij}-K^2\right\rangle.$$ In order to make $\langle R\rangle\approx 0$, we must have $$\Lambda\approx -\frac{1}{2}\left\langle K_{ij}K^{ij}-K^2\right\rangle.$$ Expanding the terms $K_{ij}K^{ij}-K^2$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{kab-ksquare}
&&K_{ij}K^{ij}-K^2 \\
=&&\sum_{i\neq j\neq k}M_kK_{ij}^2+\sum_{\{i, j\}\neq\{k, l\}}\left(g^{ik}h^{jl}-g^{ij}g^{kl}\right)K_{ij}K_{kl}, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $$M_k=g^{ii}g^{jj}-\left(g^{ij}\right)^2, \quad k\neq i\neq j,$$ is the $k$th principal minor of $g^{ij}$. Since by definition the metric matrix $g^{ij}$ is positive definite, we have $M_k>0$.
According to [@PhysRevLett.123.131302], $K_{ij}$ and $-K_{ij}$ are equally likely, thus, for $\{i, j\}\neq\{k,l\}$, the following four pairs of components $$(K_{ij}, K_{kl}),\,(K_{ij}, -K_{kl}),\,(-K_{ij}, K_{kl}),\,(-K_{ij}, -K_{kl}) \nonumber$$ are also equally likely. Then because in general, there is no particular relationship between the components of the extrinsic curvature, we have, for the second term in , the above four cases would statistically cancel each other that the macroscopic spatial average $$\label{zero macroscpic average}
\left\langle\left(g^{ik}g^{jl}-g^{ij}g^{kl}\right)K_{ij}K_{kl}\right\rangle=0, \quad \{i, j\}\neq\{k, l\}.$$ So only the first term in survives after the spatial averaging that we have $$\label{negative lambda}
\Lambda\approx -\sum_{\substack{1\leq i<j\leq 3\\i\neq j\neq k}}\langle M_kK_{ij}^2\rangle<0.$$
The cosmological constant $\Lambda$ in [@PhysRevLett.123.131302] is generated by quantum fields vacuum fluctuations. Its sign and magnitude depend on the exact particle content of the Universe, while the right hand side of depends on the Planck scale gravity fluctuations. There is no known physical mechanism to make them equal. So it is necessary to introduce the bare cosmological constant $\Lambda_B$ so that we can adjust $\Lambda_B$ to guarantee a negative cosmological constant and the following equation is satisfied to make $\langle R\rangle$ small: $$\Lambda_{\mathrm{eff}}=\Lambda_B+\Lambda\approx -\sum_{\substack{1\leq i<j\leq 3\\i\neq j\neq k}}\langle M_kK_{ij}^2\rangle<0.$$ This approach to tackle the cosmological constant problem has been presented in [@Qingdi:2019; @Wang:2019mee].
More interestingly, the cosmological constant $\Lambda$ generated by the quantum fields vacuum fluctuations is actually not a constant. $\Lambda$ itself also fluctuates since the vacuum state is not an eigenstate of the stress energy tensor operator and the magnitude of this fluctuation is as large as $\Lambda$ itself. This would lead to a parametric resonance effect on the oscillation of the local scale factor $a$ and the oscillation amplitude of $a$ would grow exponentially. When $\Lambda_B$ is dominant over $\Lambda$, the fluctuation in $\Lambda$ serves as a perturbation on the Planck scale spacetime fluctuations and the parametric resonance effect is weak. This leads to the slowly accelerating expansion of the Universe which may explain the mysterious “dark energy". In this scenario, no fine-tuning of the bare cosmological constant $\Lambda_B$ is needed. See more details about how this effect of fluctuations in $\Lambda$ gives a small effective cosmological constant in references [@Qingdi:2019; @Wang:2019mee].
On the other hand, the phase transitions in the early Universe may effectively shift $\Lambda_B$ to values comparable to the fluctuations of $\Lambda$. In this case the parametric resonance becomes strong and thus be able to produce the inflation. This might explain the “inflaton field" which deserves further studies.
Conclusion
==========
We have shown that the idea of hiding the cosmological constant in Planck scale curvature fluctuations does not work in the way proposed in [@PhysRevLett.123.131302]. The hiding is just an illusion maintained by the external forces acting on the Eulerian observers. In particular, it does not work for a positive cosmological constant due to the universal divergences of the geodesics. The small scale spacetime fluctuations do not help in this situation. Fortunately, this idea works for a negative cosmological constant in a different way. Interestingly, following the argument that the initial data $K_{ij}$ and $-K_{ij}$ are equally likely, the sign of the cosmological constant just needs to be negative to make the average spatial curvature $\langle R\rangle$ small.
The essential idea of [@PhysRevLett.123.131302] is that we should consider the inhomogeneity of spacetime at Planck scale and the expansion and contraction of space at that scale are equally likely so that they can cancel each other to hide the cosmological constant. This idea was originally presented in [@PhysRevD.95.103504] and further developed in [@Qingdi:2019; @Wang:2019mee], although there are some crucial differences.
|
---
abstract: 'A relativistic effective charge model has been developed for computation of observable characteristics of multi-electron atoms and ions. A complete and orthogonal Dirac hydrogen basis set, depending on one parameter — effective nuclear charge $Z^{*}$ — identical for all single-electron wave functions of a given atom or ion, is employed for the construction of the secondary-quantized representation. The effective charge is uniquely determined by the charge of the nucleus and a set of electron occupation numbers for a given state. We thoroughly study the accuracy of the leading-order approximation for the total binding energy and demonstrate that it is independent of the number of electrons of a multi-electron atom. In addition, it is shown that the fully analytical leading-order approximation is especially suited for the description of highly charged ions since our wave functions are almost coincident with the Dirac-Hartree-Fock ones for the complete spectrum. Finally, we envision that our effective charge model is more accurate and thus can replace the Thomas-Fermi-Dirac model for all applications where it is still utilized.'
author:
- 'K. Dzikowski'
- 'O. D. Skoromnik'
- 'I. D. Feranchuk'
- 'N. S. Oreshkina'
- 'C. H. Keitel'
bibliography:
- 'relativistic\_zeroth.bib'
title: 'Relativistic effective charge model of a multi-electron atom'
---
Introduction {#sec:introduction}
============
Despite great advances in the accuracy and efficiency of modern numerical methods [@filippin_multiconfiguration_2016; @puchalski_relativistic_2017; @peach_fractional_2015; @jensen2007introduction], simple analytical models for describing multi-electron atoms and ions are still actively developed [@gomez_simple_2019; @tatewaki_relativistic_2018; @karpov_atomic-number_2017; @hey_forms_2017]. The most popular of them include the multi-parametric screening hydrogen orbitals [@hau2012high; @seaton_quantum_1983], Slater orbitals [@slater_atomic_1930] and the semi-classical Thomas-Fermi (TF) model [@thomas_1927; @landau1981quantum]. These models are widely used, whenever certain level of precision has to be sacrificed for improved computation time, e.g. in computational plasma physics [@ciricosta_direct_2012; @starrett_thomas-fermi_2017; @lee_model_1987; @scott_cretinradiative_2001; @chung_flychk:_2005; @dyachkov_region_2016], semiconductors [@schulze-halberg_position-dependent_2013; @smith_electronic_2014], screening effects in the cross sections of bremsstrahlung and pair production [@tsai_pair_1974; @olsen_photon_1959; @davies_theory_1954; @seltzer_bremsstrahlung_1985; @poskus_brems:_2018], X-ray scattering and diffraction [@hau2012high; @feranchuk_new_2002] and crystallography [@toraya_new_2016].
In addition, the wave functions obtained from these simple analytical models are used as the initial approximation for the solution of Hartree-Fock (HF) [@FockA1930naeherungs; @fischer1977hartree; @grant2007relativistic; @jonsson_new_2013] and post HF equations [@bostock_fully_2011], convergence of which is strongly dependent on the choice of the trial functions. Therefore, improving the choice of the initial wave functions can significantly reduce the number of iterations required for obtaining the desired solution or enable the convergence at all.
At the same time a lot of effort has gone into improving the accuracy of these models, while keeping their complexity low. For example, the inclusion of relativistic corrections [@dolg_relativistic_2012; @nakajima_douglaskrollhess_2012; @marini_relativistic_1981; @waber_relativistic_1975] and inhomogeneity corrections [@chau_systematic_2018] into the TF model was performed. However, solving the TF equation to produce numerically stable results of electronic densities is in general nontrivial problem and is an active area of research [@akgul_constructing_2017; @parand_accurate_2017; @liu_laguerre_2015].
Consequently, finding a set of analytical wave functions, which provide better accuracy than the models described above would be advantageous. As was recently demonstrated for nonrelativistic atoms or ions, this can be achieved within the effective charge model [@skoromnik_analytic_2017], where the hydrogen-like wave functions can be used to analytically describe observable characteristics with high accuracy. In this approach, one specifies a complete and orthonormal hydrogen-like basis set with a single parameter — effective nuclear charge $Z^{*}$ — identical for all single-electron wave functions of a given atom. The basis completeness allows one to perform a transition into the secondary quantized representation, which is especially suited for the description of many-body problems.
Then in order to compute observable characteristics one specifies the set of occupation numbers for the state in question and the charge of the nucleus. This allows one to determine the effective charge from the vanishing first-order correction to the energy of the system analytically. Then observable characteristics are expressed through the expectation values, computed with the hydrogen-like wave functions of this charge.
We point out here that perturbation theory in $Z^{-1}$ was developed in many works (see [@vainshtein_energy_1985; @fischer1977hartree] and citations therein), however, exactly the introduction of the effective charge $Z^{*}$, instead of the usage of the nuclear charge $Z$, significantly increases the accuracy of the leading zeroth-order approximation, while keeping the complexity of all calculations low as it contains the first-order correction implicitly.
As a result, it was demonstrated that the analytical leading-order approximation describes the whole spectrum of a nonrelativistic multi-electron atom or ion and the associated perturbation theory series was constructed, which converges fast with the rate of $\sim 1/10$. The accuracy of these results does not depend on the number of electrons in an atom, i.e., the effective charge model is uniformly available for all states, both ground and excited ones, of all atoms or ions. Moreover, the results via second-order perturbation theory are comparable with those via multi-configuration HF (MCHF) [@fischer1977hartree].
We emphasize that the effective charge model is a completely *ab-initio* theory and thus crucially distinct from semi-empirical models, such as those based on quantum defects of Rydberg atoms [@foot2005atomic], screened hydrogen [@hau2012high] or empirical interpolation of X-ray measurements [@genoni_can_2017]. In addition, contrary to numerical methods such as solving the Hatree-Fock equations [@hartree_1928], the effective charge model provides analytical expressions for electron densities and scattering factors.
So far, the effective charge description has only been performed for the nonrelativistic Schrödinger equation. However, it is well-known that when a product of a fine structure constant $\alpha$ and the charge of the nucleus $Z$, i.e., $\alpha Z$ is not much smaller than unity the relativistic corrections become important. Since the Dirac equation for the hydrogen-like atom can be solved exactly and the Dirac-Coulomb Green’s function is known in closed form, it is possible to develop a relativistic version of the effective charge model. Consequently, this generalization is the main achievement of the present work.
Similarly to the nonrelativistic case, we employ Dirac hydrogen basis set with a single parameter — the effective charge and require it to be identical for all wave functions of a given atom. The basis completeness allows us to work in the secondary-quantized representation. We characterize states via electron occupation numbers and determine the value of the effective charge, by requiring the first-order perturbative correction to the energy of the system to vanish. With this we obtain a description of energy spectra, both ground and excited states together with wave functions. We have shown that the analytical description within the effective charge model agrees with the high accuracy with the numerical solution of Dirac-Hartree-Fock (DHF) equations for all ions and atoms of the periodic table.
The article is organized in the following way: in Sec. \[sec:relat-effect-charge\] we introduce the effective charge description and construct a perturbation theory series. In Sec. \[sec:zeroth-order-appr\] we analyze the accuracy of the zeroth- and first-order approximations. Consequently, we start from computing numerical values of effective charges by solving Eq. (\[eq:13\]). After this in Sec. \[sec:ground-state-energ\] we determine the ground state energies for 118 atoms of the periodic table and the electronic densities for some selected atoms. In Sec. \[sec:atom-scatt-fact\] we analyze atomic scattering factors. In Sec. \[sec:highly-charged-ions\] we demonstrate that the leading-order approximation is especially suited for the description of highly charged ions, where our analytical functions are almost coincident with numerical DHF wave functions. In Sec. \[sec:conclusions\] we provide conclusions and outlook. Finally, the details of the calculations are summarized in Appendices \[sec:appendix-a.-details\]-\[sec:solut-relat-tf\] and values of the energies are given in Appendix \[sec:values-ground-state\] and the atomic units with $\hbar = m = e
= 1$ are employed through the paper.
Relativistic effective charge model {#sec:relat-effect-charge}
===================================
As was discussed in the introduction, we can write down the Hamiltonian of the relativistic multi-electron atom in the secondary-quantized representation, using the complete and orthonormal Dirac hydrogen-like basis set, with a single parameter — effective charge $Z^{*}$ — identical for all wave functions of the basis set. Consequently, the Hamiltonian of the system reads $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{H}
&= \hat{H}_0 + \hat{W} = \hat{H}_{0} + \hat{W}_{1} +
\hat{W}_{2},\label{eq:1}
\\
\hat{H}_0
&=\int \hat{\Psi}^\dag({\boldsymbol}{r}) \left(c{\boldsymbol}{\alpha} \cdot
\hat{{\boldsymbol}{p}} + \beta c^{2} - \frac{Z^*}{|{\boldsymbol}{r}|}\right)
\hat{\Psi}({\boldsymbol}{r})d{\boldsymbol}{r}, \label{eq:2}
\\
\hat{W}_1
&=\int \hat{\Psi}^\dag({\boldsymbol}{r}) \frac{Z^*-Z}{|{\boldsymbol}{r}|}
\hat{\Psi}({\boldsymbol}{r})d{\boldsymbol}{r}, \label{eq:3}
\\
\hat{W}_2
&= \frac{1}{2}\int \frac{\hat{\Psi}^\dag({\boldsymbol}{r})
\hat{\Psi}^\dag({\boldsymbol}{r'}) \hat{\Psi}({\boldsymbol}{r})
\hat{\Psi}({\boldsymbol}{r'})}{|{\boldsymbol}{r}-{\boldsymbol}{r}'|}
d{\boldsymbol}{r}d{\boldsymbol}{r'}, \label{eq:4}\end{aligned}$$ where $c$ is the speed of light ($c = 1/\alpha = 137.035999084$), $Z$ the charge of the nucleus, $Z^{*}$ the effective charge, which will be determined later, $\hat{{\boldsymbol}p} = -{\mathrm{i}}\boldsymbol{\nabla}$ the momentum operator, ${\boldsymbol}\alpha$, $\beta$ the Dirac matrices and $\hat\Psi({\boldsymbol}r)$ the secondary-quantized wave function [@FeynmanB1998statistical]. Furthermore, we split the perturbation operator $\hat{W}$ into the sum of single-electron $\hat{W}_1$ and double-electron $\hat{W}_2$ operator components. Moreover, we do not take into account the Breit part in the potential of the electron-electron interaction and radiative quantum electrodynamics corrections, thus limiting ourselves to the description of the multi-electron atom within DHF approximation. However, we mention here that for large $Z$ these corrections become relevant and would have to be included for all models. We stress here that Eq. (\[eq:1\]) is the exact transformation of the Hamiltonian of the multi-electron atom, since we just added and subtracted the term proportional to $Z^{*}$. The eigenvalues of $\hat{H}$ define the values of the energy $E$ of a multi-electron atom.
The secondary-quantized wave function $\hat{\Psi}({\boldsymbol}r)$ is expanded in the complete Dirac hydrogen-like basis, which is dependent on $Z^{*}$ $$\hat{\Psi}({\boldsymbol}r) = \sum_\nu\left( \hat{a}_\nu \Psi_\nu^\epsilon(Z^{*},
{\boldsymbol}r) + \hat{b}^\dag_\nu \Psi_\nu^{-\epsilon}(Z^{*}, {\boldsymbol}r)\right), \label{eq:5}$$ with $\Psi^\epsilon_{\nu}(Z^{*}, {\boldsymbol}r)$ and $\Psi^{-\epsilon}_{\nu}(Z^{*}, {\boldsymbol}r)$ being the positive and negative energy eigenstates of the single-particle Dirac Hamiltonian respectively, identified by the set of collective quantum numbers $\nu=n_r l j m_{j}$ and $\nu = {\boldsymbol}p l j m_{j}$ for the discrete and continuous spectra correspondingly (actual expressions for the functions are given in Appendix \[sec:appendix-a.-details\]). The fermionic operators of positive and negative energies satisfy the standard anticommutation relations $\{a_\nu, a^\dag_{\nu'}\}=\{b_\nu, b^\dag_{\nu'}\}=\delta_{\nu,\nu'}$, which ensures that multi-particle states $|\nu_1...\nu_N\rangle$ correspond to fully antisymmetric Slater determinants. In the following, we will denote electron occupation numbers with $\lambda_{i}$ and negative energy occupation numbers as $\mu_{i}$.
In order to compute the energy of the system we specify a set of $N$ occupation numbers $\lambda_{1}, \ldots, \lambda_{N}$, which characterizes the state of $N$ electrons $|\lambda_{1},\ldots,\lambda_{N}\rangle$ and construct a perturbation series by considering the operator $\hat{W} = \hat{W}_{1} + \hat{W}_{2}$ as a perturbation $$\begin{aligned}
E
&= E^{(0)} (Z^*) + \Delta E^{(1)} (Z^*) + ... , \label{eq:6}
\\
\Delta E^{(1)} (Z^*)
&= \langle\lambda_{1},\ldots,\lambda_{N}| \hat{W}
|\lambda_{1},\ldots,\lambda_{N}\rangle. \label{eq:7}\end{aligned}$$
Since the state $|\lambda_{1},\ldots,\lambda_{N}\rangle$ is the eigenstate of $\hat{H}_{0}$ the zeroth-order energy $E^{(0)}(Z^{*})$ is a sum of hydrogen-like Dirac energies over the occupied states. The expression for the Dirac energy of the hydrogen-like atom is well-known [@flugge_practical_1971] and is given by $$E^D_{n_{r}jm_j} (Z^*) = \frac{c^{2}}{\sqrt{1 +
\left(\frac{\alpha Z^{*}}{n_{r} + \sqrt{(j+1/2)^{2} - (\alpha
Z^{*})^{2}}}\right)^{2}}}. \label{eq:8}$$ For this reason the energy $E^{(0)}(Z^{*})$ reads $$\begin{aligned}
E^{(0)}(Z^{*}) = \sum_{{\lambda_{i}}}
E_{n_{r}jm_{j}}^{D}(Z^{*}). \label{eq:9} \end{aligned}$$
Evaluation of the first-order correction to the energy of the system is straightforward: $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta E^{(1)} (Z^*)
&= \langle \lambda_{1},...,\lambda_{N} | \hat{W}
|\lambda_{1},...,\lambda_{N}\rangle \nonumber
\\
&= (Z^*-Z)\sum_{k = 1}^{N} A_{\lambda_k}(Z^*) \label{eq:10}
\\
&+ \sum_{k<l = 1}^{N}
\left(B_{\lambda_k,\lambda_l}^{\lambda_k,\lambda_l}(Z^*) -
B_{\lambda_k,\lambda_l}^{\lambda_l,\lambda_k}(Z^*)\right),
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where we have defined: $$\begin{aligned}
A_{\lambda_{k}}
&= \int
\frac{|\Psi_{\lambda_{k}}^{\epsilon}({\boldsymbol}{r})|^2}{|{\boldsymbol}{r}|}
d{\boldsymbol}{r}, \label{eq:11}
\\
B_{\lambda_3,\lambda_4}^{\lambda_1,\lambda_2}
&=
\int\frac{\Psi_{\lambda_1}^{\epsilon*}({\boldsymbol}{r})
\Psi^{\epsilon*}_{\lambda_3}({\boldsymbol}{r}')
\Psi_{\lambda_2}^{\epsilon}({\boldsymbol}{r})
\Psi_{\lambda_4}^{\epsilon}({\boldsymbol}{r}')}{|{\boldsymbol}{r}-{\boldsymbol}{r}'|}
d{\boldsymbol}{r} d{\boldsymbol}{r}', \label{eq:12}\end{aligned}$$ with the implied dependence on the effective charge ommited for simplicity. The $A_{\lambda_{k}}$ describes the contribution from the single-particle operator $\hat{W}_{1}$, while $B_{\lambda_3,\lambda_4}^{\lambda_1,\lambda_2}$ from the double-particle one $\hat{W}_{2}$. The last term in Eq. (\[eq:10\]) is the difference of the Coulomb and exchange integrals. Both $A_{\lambda_{k}}$ and $B_{\lambda_3,\lambda_4}^{\lambda_1,\lambda_2}$ can be evaluated analytically for a given set of occupation numbers (See Appendix \[sec:appendix-a.-details\]).
![(Color online) The relative difference between the values of ground state energies of the first 118 neutral atoms obtained via the effective charge model ($E^{(0)}$) and by solving the Dirac-Hartree-Fock equations ($E_{\mathrm{DHF}}$)[@DESCLAUX1973311].[]{data-label="accuracy"}](error_comparison.pdf){width="80mm"}
In addition, we mention here that fermionic operators of negative energies do not contribute to the energy of the system in the zeroth- and first-order as we are considering the corrections only to the electronic states, that is the states that do not contain $\mu_{i}$ occupation numbers. However, starting from second-order perturbation theory, the negative energy states will contribute to the observable characteristics, since there exist nonvanishing matrix elements due to the structure of the interaction operator $\hat{W}$.
a\) b) c) d)
To find the effective charge we proceed in analogy with Ref. [@skoromnik_analytic_2017] and choose it from the condition that the first-order correction to the energy of the system for a given state is vanishing, i.e., $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta E^{(1)}(Z^*) = 0. \label{eq:13}\end{aligned}$$ For this reason the expression for the energy of the system in first-order perturbation theory is given via a sum of hydrogen-like energies, Eq. (\[eq:9\]) with the effective charge $Z^{*}$, defined as a solution of Eq. (\[eq:13\]).
It is worth noting here, that the nontrivial dependence of Dirac hydrogen wave functions on the nuclear charge makes it impossible to separate the effective charge from the above integrals. This means that contrary to the nonrelativistic case, $A_{\lambda_{k}}$ and $B^{\lambda_{1},\lambda_{2}}_{\lambda_{3},\lambda_{4}}$ are implicitly dependent on $Z^*$. This is related to the fact that the Dirac equation, unlike the Schrödinger equation, is not scale invariant. In fact, rescaling the radial variable $r$ in a Schrödinger hydrogen atom, effectively changes its charge, while in the Dirac hydrogen atom, it effectively changes its mass. Therefore, in order to solve Eq. (\[eq:13\]) a numerical method has to be used.
Following the procedure of calculating the effective charge of the nucleus, we can easily obtain expressions for electronic densities of any atom or ion. Using the density operator: $\hat{\rho}({\boldsymbol}r) = \hat{\Psi}^\dag({\boldsymbol}r)\hat{\Psi}({\boldsymbol}r)$, we get the zeroth-order density of a given multi-electron state as: $$\begin{aligned}
\rho^{(0)}({\boldsymbol}r)
&= \langle \lambda_1, \ldots, \lambda_N | \hat{\rho}({\boldsymbol}{r})
|\lambda_1, \ldots, \lambda_N\rangle \nonumber
\\
&= \sum_{k=1}^{N}
|\Psi_{\lambda_k}^{\epsilon}(Z^{*}, {\boldsymbol}{r})|^2, \label{eq:14}\end{aligned}$$ with the explicit expressions for hydrogen-like wave functions $\Psi_{\lambda_k}^{\epsilon}({\boldsymbol}r)$ given in Appendix \[sec:appendix-a.-details\]. In fact, expression (\[eq:14\]) represents very simple products of exponentials and polynomials, thus allowing its use in numerical plasma [@chung_flychk:_2005] or description of ionization in particle-in-cell (PIC) computer codes that describe laser-matter interactions [@arber_contemporary_2015].
Accuracy of the zeroth-order approximation {#sec:zeroth-order-appr}
==========================================
Ground state energies and electronic densities of neutral atoms {#sec:ground-state-energ}
---------------------------------------------------------------
In order to calculate the ground-state energies of multi-electron atoms or ions, one needs to specify a set of occupation numbers, characterizing the state within our Dirac hydrogen-like basis. However, in the zeroth-order approximation the particular choice may not have the correct ordering due to relatively low ionization energies of heavy atoms.
The comparison of our analytical expressions obtained via Eq. (\[eq:9\]) for the values of ground state energies with the results obtained via solutions of DHF equations demonstrates that similarly to the nonrelativistic case, the optimal choice of the occupation numbers is given according to the “Aufbau” or Madelung–Janet–Klechkovskii rule [@Madelung1936; @KlechkovskiiA1962justification; @doi:10.1021/ed056p714], as it provides a simple and consistent choice of occupation numbers for any number of electrons, while resulting in the lowest zeroth-order ground state energies in almost all cases. For example, from the three sets of occupation numbers $[\mathrm{Xe}]6\mathrm{s}^{1}$, $[\mathrm{Xe}]4\mathrm{f}^{1}$ and $[\mathrm{Xe}]5\mathrm{d}^{1}$ for cesium ($Z=55$), the first state possesses the lowest energy, while the remaining two are excited states. Compare the values for the energy $E_{[\mathrm{Xe}]6\mathrm{s}^{1}} = -7361.18$ a.u versus $E_{[\mathrm{Xe}]4\mathrm{f}^{1}} = -7346.19$ a.u and $E_{[\mathrm{Xe}]5\mathrm{d}^{1}} = -7354.40$ a.u, which corresponds to the “Aufbau” rule.
The accuracy of the zeroth-order calculation is presented in Fig. \[accuracy\] and numerical values of effective charges and energies are given in Appendix \[sec:values-ground-state\] in Tab. \[tab:ground\_state\_energies\]. We compare our results with solutions of DHF equations from Ref. [@DESCLAUX1973311]. As can be concluded from Fig. \[accuracy\] the effective charge description leads to a uniform approximation, i.e., the relative accuracy is independent of the number of electrons of an atom and $\sim 6.5\%$ with respect to DHF for all elements of the periodic table. This is considerably better than the TF approximation [@landau1981quantum].
We point out here that if we take the energy of the system in first-order perturbation theory and consider the effective charge to be equal to the full nuclear charge, one obtains the perturbation theory over $Z^{-1}$. For this reason, we have compared the values of energies from the effective charge model with the ones from $Z^{-1}$ expansion. For example, for He one gets $-2.75$ a.u vs $-2.86$ a.u using $Z^{-1}$ expansion and effective charge model respectively, while for larger atoms the accuracy drops significantly.
In order to compute the electronic density, one needs to use Eq. (\[eq:14\]), i.e., to compute the sum of squares of absolute values of Dirac hydrogen-like wave functions. After simplification, this sum is just a product of exponentials and polynomials. Consequently, our method, unlike the DHF and TF calculations, provides fully analytical expressions for electronic densities and is therefore particularly useful for applications requiring repeated calculations. Relatively simple expressions resulting from our model can, therefore, be incorporated into existing software, used in the description of X-ray scattering on Mössbauer crystals [@Sturhahn2000].
In Fig. \[fig:densities\_neutral\_atoms\] we plot the resulting dependence of electronic densities on the radial coordinate $r$ for selected neutral atoms. It is immediately clear that the zeroth-order approximation correctly reproduces all qualitative features of the corresponding DHF result and contrary to the relativistic TFD model provides density oscillations and a correct asymptotic behavior for large values of $r$. In addition, we point out that the relativistic TFD model [@dolg_relativistic_2012; @nakajima_douglaskrollhess_2012; @marini_relativistic_1981; @waber_relativistic_1975], unlike its nonrelativistic counterpart [@landau1981quantum], does not have a universal dependence on the charge of the nucleus. For this reason, in order to obtain the electronic density, the relativistic TFD equation needs to be repeatedly solved numerically, which is a nontrivial procedure. (See Appendix \[sec:solut-relat-tf\]).
Atomic scattering factors {#sec:atom-scatt-fact}
-------------------------
Another observable characteristics that can be extracted from the effective charge model are the atomic scattering factors. According to their definition [@hau2012high], they are expressed by the Fourier transforms of electronic density [@prince_international_2006]: $$\begin{aligned}
f({\boldsymbol}{q}) = \int \rho({\boldsymbol}{r})e^{i {\boldsymbol}{q} \cdot {\boldsymbol}{r}}
d{\boldsymbol}{r}, \label{eq:15}\end{aligned}$$ which in our approach can be calculated analytically (see Appendix \[sec:appendix-a.-details\]).
The atomic scattering factors are very important for crystallography and X-ray physics, since the crystal polarizability $\chi$ as the function of X-ray frequency $\omega_{\mathrm{r}}$, can be evaluated by employing the relation [^1] [@ahmadi_parametric_2013; @baryshevsky2005parametric] $$\begin{aligned}
\chi({\boldsymbol}g, \omega_{\mathrm{r}}) = \frac{4 \pi S({\boldsymbol}g)}{\Omega_{0}
\omega_{\mathrm{r}}^{2}}
\left(-\frac{e^{2}}{m}f({\boldsymbol}g)\right), \label{eq:17}\end{aligned}$$ where $\Omega_0$ is the volume of a crystal cell, ${\boldsymbol}g$ the reciprocal lattice vector, $S({\boldsymbol}g)$ the structure factor of the crystal, $m$ the electron mass and $e$ the electron charge.
In Fig. \[fig:ASF\] we present the results for gold, lead, uranium and xenon. Our analytical expressions for atomic scattering factors are comparable to the DHF calculation to within $25\%$.
As a realistic example, we also evaluated the relative difference for the emission intensity of parametric X-ray radiation (PXR) [@feranchuk_theoretical_1985; @baryshevsky2005parametric; @skoromnik_radical_2017] from relativistic electrons in a tungsten crystal. The intensity of PXR is proportional to the square of the absolute value of crystal polarizability. Therefore, the relative difference for the intensity of radiation with crystal polarizabilities from DHF calculation and from effective charge model is given by $(|\chi^{(0)}|^{2} -
|\chi_{\mathrm{DHF}}|^{2})/|\chi_{\mathrm{DHF}}|^{2}$. Consequently, for the relevant range of frequencies and Bragg’s angles the relative accuracy was $\sim 20\%$.
Highly charged ions {#sec:highly-charged-ions}
===================
The effective charge model is also suitable for the description of ions, since it does not require the charge of the nucleus to be equal to the number of electrons of an atom. Consequently, we fix the nuclear charge as $Z$ and use a state vector $|\lambda_{1},\ldots,\lambda_{N}\rangle$, where $N \neq Z$. As an example we evaluated energies of ground and excited states of He-, Li- and B-like uranium ($Z = 92$) ions.
We want to stress here again, that the effective charge $Z^{*}$ is identical for all single particle states from a set that specifies the state. However, two different states will have different charges. For example, the He-like uranium ground state $1s_{\uparrow}1s_{\downarrow}$ and the He-like uranium excited state $1s_{\uparrow}2s_{\downarrow}$ possess unequal effective charges.
The results of the calculation of electronic densities are presented in Fig. \[fig:HCI\]. The electronic densities, despite being analytical expressions in the zeroth-order approximation, coincide remarkably well with the ones obtained from numerical solutions of the DHF equations.
Furthermore, the energy eigenvalues are presented in Tab. \[tab:Ions\]. It is clear that the accuracy is significantly better (below $0.02\%$) than for neutral atoms and in fact sufficient to obtain correct ordering, even for very closely spaced excited states. It is worth pointing out that the accuracy can be further improved by forming linear combinations of all sub-configurations arising from the single $JLS$ configuration and subsequently diagonalizing the Hamiltonian exactly in such finite basis — a technique that has been successfully employed in the nonrelativistic case [@skoromnik_analytic_2017].
Finally, we note that $Z^{-1}$ expansion gives reasonable results for highly charged ions. However, it is less accurate than the effective charge model by at least $50\%$.
Conclusions and Outlook {#sec:conclusions}
=======================
We have demonstrated that the relativistic effective charge model describes multi-electron atoms and ions and provides analytic expressions for energies, electronic densities and scattering factors with accuracy comparable to the numerical solutions of Dirac-Hartree-Fock equations. We have also shown that our approach is suitable for the description of arbitrary excited states and provides accuracy independent of the number of electrons already in the zeroth-order approximation. Furthermore, the zeroth-order approximation can be easily modified to include interactions with external fields.
[|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|]{} Configuration, $J^{\pm}$ & $Z^{*}$ & $E^{(0)}$ & $E_{\mathrm{DHF}}$ & $\Delta E/E_{\mathrm{DHF}} \cdot 100\%$ & CI\
$1s^2,J=0^+$ & 91.7130 & -9651.35 & -9651.39 & 0.0004$\%$&-9651.45\
$1s^1 2s^1,J=1^+$ & 91.8623 &-6096.96 & -6097.01 & 0.0008$\%$&-6097.01\
$1s^1 2s^1,J=0^+$ & 91.8404 &-6093.51 & -6093.41 & -0.0016$\%$&-6097.01\
$1s^1 2p^1_{1/2},J=0^-$ & 91.8148 & -6089.50 & -6090.16 &0.0108$\%$ & -6090.17\
$1s^1 2p^1_{1/2},J=1^-$ & 91.8113 & -6088.95 & -6089.10 & 0.0025$\%$ & -6089.11\
$1s^1 2p^1_{3/2},J=2^-$ & 91.8487 & -5928.36 & -5928.44 & 0.0013$\%$ & -5928.44\
$1s^1 2p^1_{3/2},J=1^-$ & 91.8395 & -5927.00 & -5926.68 &-0.0054$\%$ & -5928.44\
$1s^1 3s^1,J=1^+$ & 91.9086 & -5389.83 & -5389.88 & 0.0009$\%$ & -5389.88\
$1s^1 3s^1,J=0^+$ & 91.9177 & -5388.95 & -5388.73 & -0.0041$\%$ & -5389.88\
$1s^2 2s^1,J=\frac{1}{2}^+$ & 91.5805 &-10862.2 & -10862.4 & 0.0018$\%$&-10862.5\
$1s^2 2p^1_{1/2},J=\frac{1}{2}^-$ & 91.5378 & -10850.3 & -10849.1 & -0.0104$\%$&-10850.8\
$1s^2 2p^1_{3/2},J=\frac{3}{2}^-$ & 91.5685 & -10694.8 & -10693.9 & -0.0084$\%$&-10695.2\
$1s^2 3s^1,J=\frac{1}{2}^+$ & 91.6447 & -10168.7 & -10168.9 & 0.0020$\%$&-10169.0\
$1s^2 3p^1_{1/2},J=\frac{1}{2}^-$ & 91.6323 & -10165.5 & -10165.4 & -0.0015$\%$ &-10165.8\
$1s^2 3p^1_{3/2},J=\frac{3}{2}^-$ & 91.6429 & -10119.2 & -10119.0 & 0.0004$\%$&-10119.4\
$1s^2 3d^1_{3/2},J=\frac{3}{2}^+$ & 91.6399 & -10118.4 & -10118.6 & -0.0020$\%$&-10118.7\
$1s^2 3d^1_{5/2},J=\frac{5}{2}^+$ & 91.6435 & -10106.7 & -10106.9 & 0.0022$\%$ &-10107.0\
$1s^2 2s^2 2p^1_{1/2},J=\frac{1}{2}^-$ & 91.2080 & -13221.1 & -13222.5 & 0.0104$\%$&-13222.7\
$1s^2 2s^1 2p^2_{1/2},J=\frac{1}{2}^+$ & 91.1604 & -13204.8 & -13206.7 & 0.0140$\%$&-13206.9\
$1s^2 2s^2 2p^1_{3/2},J=\frac{3}{2}^-$ & 91.2339 & -13068.9 & -13070.2 & 0.0099$\%$&-13070.6\
$1s^2 2s^1 2p^1_{1/2} 2p^1_{3/2},J=\frac{3}{2}$ & 91.1972 & -13056.6 & -13058.8 & 0.0168$\%$&-13058.9\
$1s^2 2s^1 2p^1_{1/2} 2p^1_{3/2},J=\frac{5}{2}$ & 91.1914 & -13054.7 & -13056.3 & 0.0128$\%$&-13056.5\
$1s^2 2p^2_{1/2} 2p^1_{3/2},J=\frac{3}{2}^-$ & 91.1327 & -13035.1 & -13037.2 & 0.0159$\%$ &-13037.1\
$1s^2 2s^2 3s^1,J=\frac{1}{2}^+$ & 91.3255 & -12556.2 & -12557.2 & 0.0080$\%$&-12557.7\
Exactly the introduction of the effective charge $Z^{*}$, instead of the usage of the nuclear charge $Z$, i.e., $Z^{*} \neq Z$ significantly increases the accuracy of the zeroth-order approximation, while rendering the complexity of all calculations low.
However, the fully relativistic description becomes much more complicated due to the structure of Dirac equation. First, the Dirac equation possesses negative energy states and, therefore, there exist matrix elements between electronic states and negative energy ones. This significantly increases the number of required matrix elements to be taken into account. Second, due to the mass term of the Dirac equation the energy of the system does not have a universal behavior of the quadratic function of the effective charge as in the nonrelativistic case. Therefore, it is impossible to separate explicitly the dependence of the matrix elements on the effective charge. For this reason, before investigating the second-order correction to the energy of the system we focused on the zeroth-order approximation first.
At the same time, we point out that since the Dirac-Coulomb Green’s function is known in analytical closed-form [@wong_dirac_1985; @swainson_unified_1991], it is still possible to express all sums over intermediate states through it and therefore to perform calculations of higher-order perturbative corrections.
ODS is grateful to A. Leonau, S. Bragin and U. Sinha for helpful discussions. This article comprises parts of the PhD thesis work of Kamil Dzikowski to be submitted to the Heidelberg University, Germany.
Details of the calculation {#sec:appendix-a.-details}
==========================
Here, we present all formulas needed for the fully analytical evaluation of all integrals encountered in the calculation of the first-order correction to the energy of the system, as well as the computation of atomic scattering factors and electronic densities.
The key idea, allowing for the analytic calculation is the observation that both the basis wave functions and all appearing potentials can be split into their radial and angular components by simple expansion in spherical harmonics. Thus we get the hydrogen-like Dirac wave functions as [@flugge_practical_1971] $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi_{n_{r}ljm}
&({\boldsymbol}{r},Z^*) \nonumber
\\
&=
\frac{1}{r} \left(
\begin{array}{c}
G_{n_{r},\kappa}(r,Z^*)\Omega_{\kappa,m}(\theta,\phi)
\\
F_{n_{r},\kappa}(r,Z^*)\Omega_{-\kappa,m}(\theta,\phi)
\end{array}
\right), \label{eq:28}\end{aligned}$$ with the angular part given by spherical harmonics $$\begin{aligned}
\Omega_{\kappa,m}
&(\theta,\phi) \nonumber
\\
&= \left(
\begin{array}{c}
\sqrt{\frac{1}{2} - \frac{m}{2\kappa+1}}
Y_\kappa^{m-1/2}(\theta,\phi)
\\
-\frac{\kappa}{|\kappa|}\sqrt{\frac{1}{2} + \frac{m}{2\kappa+1}}
Y_\kappa^{m+1/2}(\theta,\phi)
\end{array}
\right), \label{eq:29}\end{aligned}$$ and the radial part by the Whittaker functions $M_{\kappa,\mu}(z)$ of the first kind [@whittaker_expression_1903]
$$\begin{aligned}
\begin{pmatrix}
G_{n_r,\kappa}(Z^{*}, r)
\\
F_{n_r,\kappa}(Z^{*}, r)
\end{pmatrix}
= N\left\{\frac{n_r}{2\gamma}\left(
\begin{array}{c}
Z^*\alpha
\\
i (\gamma-\kappa)
\end{array}\right) M_{\gamma+n_r,\gamma+\frac{1}{2}}(2 \chi Z^*r)
-\rho(1+2\gamma)\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\frac{\gamma-\kappa}{Z^* \alpha}
\\
i\end{array}
\right) M_{\gamma+n_r,\gamma-\frac{1}{2}}(2 \chi
Z^*r)\right\}, \label{eq:30}
\end{aligned}$$
where $$\begin{aligned}
\rho
&=\frac{1}{n_r+2\gamma} \left(\kappa(n_r+\gamma) -
\frac{\gamma}{\chi}\right),
\\
\chi
&=(n_r^2+\kappa^2+2n_r\gamma)^{-\frac{1}{2}},
\\
\gamma
&= \sqrt{\kappa^2-(Z^* \alpha)^2},\end{aligned}$$ and $N$ is the corresponding normalization constant $$\begin{aligned}
N=\frac{\chi}{\Gamma(2\gamma+2)} \sqrt{\Gamma(2\gamma+n_r+1)
\frac{(\kappa+\gamma)}{n_r!} \frac{\chi Z^*}{\rho}}.\end{aligned}$$
The quantity $\kappa$ is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\kappa = \left\{
\begin{aligned}
l, \quad \mathrm{if}\ j = l - \frac{1}{2},
\\
-(l+1), \quad \mathrm{if}\ j = l + \frac{1}{2},
\end{aligned}\right. \label{eq:31}\end{aligned}$$ and $\Gamma(z)$ is the Gamma function. In addition, we employ the spherical harmonics with a negative first index, which is used in Mathematica [@Mathematica] and is defined by the following identity $Y_{l}^{m} = Y_{-(l+1)}^{m}$ for $l \leq -1$ and $(l+1) \leq m \leq -(l+1)$ for $l \leq -1$.
We also mention here that for the convenience we expressed the Dirac wave functions through the Whittaker functions and not through more commonly used hypergeometric ones [@flugge_practical_1971]. However, our definition in Eq. (\[eq:30\]) is in full agreement with the commonly used wave functions from [@flugge_practical_1971].
Now, by noting that $$\int M_{a+\gamma,\gamma-1/2}(r) M_{a+\gamma,\gamma-1/2}(r)
\frac{dr}{r} = \frac{\Gamma(2\gamma)^2 a!}{\Gamma(a-2\gamma)},$$ we get (after lengthy but straightforward simplifications) $$\begin{aligned}
A_{n_r \kappa}(Z^*) =
Z^*\chi ^3\left(n_r+\frac{\kappa^2}{\gamma}\right). \label{eq:32}\end{aligned}$$
Furthermore, in order to evaluate $B_{\nu_2,\nu_4}^{\nu_1,\nu_3}$, we employ the expansion of the electron-electron interaction potential in spherical harmonics [@landau1981quantum] $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{|{\boldsymbol}{r}-{\boldsymbol}{r}'|} = \sum_{l=0}^\infty \sum_{m=-l}^{l}
\frac{4\pi}{2l+1} \frac{r_<^l}{r_>^{l+1}} Y_{l}^{m*}(\Omega)
Y_{l}^{m}(\Omega')\end{aligned}$$ and note that the integration of three spherical harmonics yields $3j$ symbols [@Brink:104381]:
$$\begin{aligned}
\int Y_{l_{1}}^{m_{1}}(\Omega) Y_{l_{2}}^{m_{2}}(\Omega)
Y_{l_{3}}^{m_{3}}(\Omega) d\Omega =
\sqrt{\frac{(2l_1+1)(2l_2+1)(2l_3+1)}{4 \pi}}
\begin{pmatrix}
l_1 & l_2 & l_3
\\
0 & 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
l_1 & l_2 & l_3
\\
m_1 & m_2 & m_3
\end{pmatrix}. \label{eq:34}
\end{aligned}$$
This allows us to split the result into the radial and angular parts as $$\begin{aligned}
B_{\nu_2,\nu_4}^{\nu_1,\nu_3} =
-\delta_{m_{j2}-m_{j1}}^{m_{j3}-m_{j4}} (-1)^{2
m_{j1}-m_{j2}-m_{j3}} \sum_p \left( \Phi_{\nu_1,\nu_2}^p \otimes
\Phi_{\nu_3,\nu_4}^p \right) \cdot
\sigma_{\nu_1,\nu_2,\nu_3,\nu_4}^p, \label{eq:35}
\end{aligned}$$ with the angular part given by $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_{\nu_1,\nu_2}^p = \left(
\begin{array}{c}
\begin{pmatrix}
\kappa_1 & \kappa_2 & p
\\
0 & 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix}
\left(
\phi_{\kappa_1,m_{j1} -
\frac{1}{2}}^{\kappa_2,m_{j2}-\frac{1}{2}}
(p) -
\phi_{\kappa_1,\frac{1}{2} -
m_{j1}}^{\kappa_2,\frac{1}{2}-m_{j2}}
(p)\right)
\\
\begin{pmatrix}
-\kappa_1 & -\kappa_2 & p
\\ 0 & 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix}
\left(\phi_{-\kappa_1,m_{j1} -
\frac{1}{2}}^{-\kappa_2,m_{j2}-\frac{1}{2}}(p) -
\phi_{-\kappa_1,\frac{1}{2} -
m_{j1}}^{-\kappa_2,\frac{1}{2}-m_{j2}}(p)\right)
\end{array}\right), \label{eq:36}
\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\phi_{k_1,m_1}^{k_2,m_2}(p) = \sqrt{(k_1-m_1)(k_2-m_2)}
\begin{pmatrix}
\kappa_1 & \kappa_2 & p
\\
-m_{1} & m_{2} & m_{1}-m_{2}
\end{pmatrix}. \label{eq:37}
\end{aligned}$$
Furthermore, the radial part is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma_{\nu_1,\nu_2,\nu_3,\nu_4}^p = \int
{{G_{\nu_1}^{*}(r)G_{\nu_2}(r)}\choose{F_{\nu_1}^{*}(r) F_{\nu_2}(r)}}
\otimes
{{G_{\nu_3}^{*}(r')G_{\nu_4}(r')}\choose{F_{\nu_3}^{*}(r') F_{\nu_4}(r')}}
\frac{r_<^p}{r_>^{p+1}}drdr', \label{eq:38}
\end{aligned}$$ where the dependence on $Z^*$ has been omitted for clarity. Eq. (\[eq:38\]) can be calculated analytically by noting that the integral of the four Whittaker functions reads [@gradstejn_table_2009] $$\begin{aligned}
\int
&M_{a_1+b_1,b_1-1/2}(q_1 r) M_{a_2+b_2,b_2-1/2}(q_2 r)
M_{a_3+b_3,b_3-1/2}(q_3 r') M_{a_4+b_4,b_4-1/2}(q_4 r')
\frac{r_<^l}{r_>^{l+1}} dr dr' \nonumber
\\
&=\sum_{i_1=0}^{a_1} \sum_{i_2=0}^{a_2} \sum_{i_3=0}^{a_3}
\sum_{i_4=0}^{a_4} T_{{\boldsymbol}{a},{\boldsymbol}{b},{\boldsymbol}{q}}({\boldsymbol}{i})
\left(f_{i_1+i_2+b_1+b_2+l+1}^{i_3+i_4+b_3+b_4-l}
\left(\frac{q_3+q_4}{2},\frac{q_1+q_2}{2}\right)
+ f_{i_3+i_4+b_3+b_4+l+1}^{i_1+i_2+b_1+b_2-l}
\left(\frac{q_1+q_2}{2},\frac{q_3+q_4}{2}\right)\right),
\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
T_{{\boldsymbol}{a},{\boldsymbol}{b},{\boldsymbol}{q}}({\boldsymbol}{i}) =
\prod_{k=1}^4{{a_k}\choose{i_k}}
\frac{\Gamma(2b_k)}{\Gamma(2b_k+i_k)}
(-1)^{i_k}q_k^{b_k+i_k}
\end{aligned}$$ and we have made use of $$\begin{aligned}
f_{a}^{b}(x,y) = \int_0^\infty \int_r^\infty e^{-\lambda r -
\lambda' r'} r^{a-1}
{r'}^{b-1} dr' dr=\frac{\Gamma(a+b)}{a{\lambda'}^{a+b}}
{_2F_1}\left(a, a+b, a + 1, -\frac{\lambda}{\lambda'}\right).
\end{aligned}$$ The properties of $f_{a}^{b}(x,y)$ functions are described in some detail in [@dzikowski_generating_2019]. The bold ${\boldsymbol}a$, ${\boldsymbol}b$, ${\boldsymbol}q$ and ${\boldsymbol}i$ are lists of four values, i.e., ${\boldsymbol}a = \{a_{1}, a_{2}, a_{3}, a_{4}\}$ with similar expressions for ${\boldsymbol}b$, ${\boldsymbol}q$ and ${\boldsymbol}i$.
Now we would like to compute the scattering factors. For this we consider the electronic density, which is averaged over the angular variables. By using the orthogonality of spherical spinors the angular dependence integrates out trivially. Therefore, we get the radial density as $$\begin{aligned}
r^2 \rho_{n_r,\kappa} (r,Z^*) =
|G_{n_r,\kappa}(r,Z^*)|^2 + |F_{n_r,\kappa}(r,Z^*)|^2, \label{eq:39}
\end{aligned}$$ which gives the scattering factors as $$\begin{aligned}
f_{n_r,\kappa}(q,Z^*) = \int \left(|G_{n_r,\kappa}(r,Z^*)|^2 +
|F_{n_r,\kappa}(r,Z^*)|^2\right) e^{i {{\boldsymbol}q\cdot{\boldsymbol}r}}
d{\boldsymbol}{r}. \label{eq:40}
\end{aligned}$$ Expanding Whittaker functions in a finite series in Eq. (\[eq:30\]) and using [@gradstejn_table_2009] $$\begin{aligned}
\int e^{-\alpha r}r^{n-2} e^{i {\boldsymbol}{q} \cdot {\boldsymbol}{r}} d{\boldsymbol}{r} =
4\pi \Gamma(n) \frac{\sin(n
\tan^{-1}(\frac{q}{\alpha}))}{\sqrt{(\alpha^2+q^2)^n}}.
\label{eq:42}
\end{aligned}$$ we get $$\begin{aligned}
f_{n_r,\kappa}(q,Z^*) = (N(2\gamma+1)\Gamma(2\gamma))^2 \left(
2\kappa (\kappa-\gamma) n_r^2\sigma_1 + 4(\kappa-\gamma) \rho n_r
\sigma_2 +
\frac{2\kappa}{\kappa+\gamma}\rho^2\sigma_3\right), \label{eq:41}
\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma_{1}
&= \sum_{\substack{i=1\\j=1}}^{n_r} {{n_r-1}\choose{i-1}}
{{n_r-1}\choose{j-1}}
\frac{\Gamma(i+j+2\gamma)}{\Gamma(2\gamma+i+1)!
\Gamma(2\gamma+j+1)!} \xi_{i,j}(q,Z^*),
\\
\sigma_{2}
&= \sum_{\substack{i=1\\j=0}}^{n_r} {{n_r-1}\choose{i-1}}
{{n_r}\choose{j}} \frac{\Gamma(i+j+2\gamma)}{\Gamma(2\gamma+i+1)!
\Gamma(2\gamma+j)!} \xi_{i,j}(q,Z^*),
\\
\sigma_{3}
&= \sum_{\substack{i=0\\j=0}}^{n_r} {{n_r}\choose{i}}
{{n_r}\choose{j}}
\frac{\Gamma(i+j+2\gamma)}{\Gamma(2\gamma+i)!\Gamma(2\gamma+j)!}
\xi_{i,j}(q,Z^*),
\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\xi_{i,j}(q,Z^*)
&= \frac{(-1)^{i+j}}{q} \sin\left((i+j+2\gamma)
\tan^{-1}\left(\frac{q}{2\chi Z^*}\right)\right) \left(\frac{2 \chi
Z^*}{\sqrt{(2\chi Z^*)^2+q^2}}\right)^{i+j+2\gamma}.
\end{aligned}$$
Solution of the relativistic Thomas-Fermi equation {#sec:solut-relat-tf}
==================================================
In this appendix we describe the solution of the relativistic TF equation [@gilvarry_relativistic_1954]. The equation written in atomic units reads [@waber_relativistic_1975] $$\begin{aligned}
x^{1/2}\chi''(x) = \chi^{3/2}(x)\left(1 +
\left(\frac{128}{9\pi^{2}}\right)^{1/3} \frac{Z^{4/3}}{c^{2}}
\chi'(x) \left(1 - \frac{x
\chi'(x)}{2\chi(x)}\right)\right)^{3/2}, \label{eq:18}
\end{aligned}$$
where $x = r / (b Z^{-1/3})$, $b = (9\pi^{2} / 128)^{1/3}$ and the dimensionless self-consistent potential $\chi(x)$ is related to the self-consistent potential of the TF model as $\phi(r) = Z \chi(rZ^{1/3}/b) - \phi_{0}$, with the constant $\phi_{0}$ defined from the normalization. For neutral atoms $\phi_{0}$ equals zero. For ions it is chosen such that the self-consistent potential vanishes not at infinity, but rather at some finite value $x_{c}$. In the nonrelativistic limit, i.e., when the speed of light tends to infinity the relativistic TF equation coincides with its nonrelativistic counterpart.
The TF equation must be complemented with boundary conditions, which for neutral atoms are given by [@waber_relativistic_1975] $$\begin{aligned}
\chi(0) = 1, \quad \chi(\infty) = 0, \label{eq:19}\end{aligned}$$ and for ions [@marini_relativistic_1981] $$\begin{aligned}
\chi(0) = 1, \quad -x_{c}\chi'(x_{c}) = 1 - N/Z, \label{eq:20}\end{aligned}$$ respectively. Here we also employed the fact that $\chi(x_{c}) = 0$.
As was mentioned in the introduction solution of the TF equation is a nontrivial mathematical problem since it represents a boundary value problem on a semi-infinite interval. In order to solve the equation, we used the shooting method. For neutral atoms we reformulated the boundary value problem as an initial value one $$\begin{aligned}
\chi(0) = 1, \quad \chi'(0) = \mu, \label{eq:21}\end{aligned}$$ where $\mu$ represents a parameter. Consequently, we were seeking for the root of the equation $\chi(X, \mu) = 0$, where $X$ we changed from some small value to the very large one. For every $X$ we were solving Eq. (\[eq:21\]) by varying $\mu$. With this we obtained the following solutions $$\begin{aligned}
\mu_{\mathrm{Xe}}
&= -1.50965873266, \quad \chi(80,
\mu_{\mathrm{Xe}}) \approx 10^{-6}, \label{eq:22}
\\
\mu_{\mathrm{U}}
&= -1.49103044294, \quad \chi(80,
\mu_{\mathrm{U}}) \approx 10^{-6} \label{eq:23}\end{aligned}$$ for atoms.
For ions we used a similar strategy, however, we “shot” from infinity. In this case the boundary value problem is already written as the initial value one $$\begin{aligned}
\chi(x_{c}) = 0, \quad \chi'(x_{c}) =
-\frac{1-N/Z}{x_{c}}. \label{eq:24}\end{aligned}$$
For this reason we simply varied the value of $x_{c}$ till the value of $\chi$ at zero becomes one. With this we got $$\begin{aligned}
x_{c}
&= 0.34635, \quad \chi(10^{-6}) \approx 1, \label{eq:25}
\\
x_{c}
&= 0.47890, \quad \chi(10^{-6}) \approx 1. \label{eq:26}\end{aligned}$$
Finally, the density of the atom or ion is expressed through the self-consistent potential as
$$\begin{aligned}
\rho(r) = \frac{8\sqrt{2}}{3\pi} \left(\frac{Z
\chi(x)}{r} - \phi_{0}\right)^{3/2} \left(1 +
\left(\frac{128}{9\pi^{2}}\right)^{1/3} \frac{Z^{4/3}}{c^{2}}
\chi'(x) \left(1 - \frac{x
\chi'(x)}{2\chi(x)}\right)\right)^{3/2}. \label{eq:27}
\end{aligned}$$
Values of ground state energies {#sec:values-ground-state}
===============================
[|ccccc|ccccc|]{} $Z$ &$Z^{*}_{\mathrm{R}}$ & $E^{(0)}_{\mathrm{NR}}$ & $E^{(0)}_{\mathrm{R}}$ & $E_{\mathrm{DHF}}$ & $Z$ & $Z^{*}_{\mathrm{R}}$ & $E^{(0)}_{\mathrm{NR}}$ & $E^{(0)}_{\mathrm{R}}$ & $E_{\mathrm{DHF}}$\
1 & 1.00000 & -0.50000 & -0.50000 & -0.50000 & 51 & 40.7062 & -5974.00 & -6160.94 & -6475.24\
2 & 1.68749 & -2.84766 & -2.84772 & -2.86175 & 52 & 41.5615 & -6259.79 & -6461.59 & -6788.06\
3 & 2.54539 & -7.28906 & -7.28951 & -7.43327 & 53 & 42.4156 & -6553.19 & -6770.65 & -7109.76\
4 & 3.37163 & -14.2096 & -14.2121 & -14.5752 & 54 & 43.2653 & -6854.26 & -7087.18 & -7440.46\
5 & 4.15118 & -23.6936 & -23.7003 & -24.5350 & 55 & 44.1573 & -7165.57 & -7415.35 & -7779.91\
6 & 4.90693 & -36.2016 & -36.1296 & -37.6732 & 56 & 45.0484 & -7484.40 & -7752.08 & -8128.34\
7 & 5.64987 & -52.0662 & -51.8941 & -54.3229 & 57 & 45.7984 & -7804.64 & -8083.37 & -8485.87\
8 & 6.42240 & -71.2844 & -72.2209 & -74.8172 & 58 & 46.5481 & -8125.81 & -8423.60 & -8852.82\
9 & 7.17595 & -94.4525 & -96.6125 & -99.4897 & 59 & 47.2966 & -8447.55 & -8772.63 & -9229.40\
10 & 7.88116 & -121.908 & -124.316 & -128.674 & 60 & 48.0432 & -8783.92 & -9130.29 & -9615.86\
11 & 8.72835 & -154.020 & -156.740 & -162.053 & 61 & 48.7880 & -9127.99 & -9496.65 & -10012.3\
12 & 9.56796 & -190.415 & -193.471 & -199.901 & 62 & 49.5310 & -9479.96 & -9871.77 & -10418.8\
13 & 10.3870 & -230.579 & -234.059 & -242.286 & 63 & 50.2713 & -9839.95 & -10255.2 & -10835.5\
14 & 11.1991 & -275.254 & -279.124 & -289.403 & 64 & 51.0151 & -10216.4 & -10649.8 & -11262.6\
15 & 12.0048 & -324.603 & -328.816 & -341.420 & 65 & 51.7609 & -10582.4 & -11055.1 & -11700.3\
16 & 12.8193 & -378.517 & -384.172 & -398.503 & 66 & 52.5067 & -10965.9 & -11470.4 & -12148.7\
17 & 13.6272 & -437.400 & -444.551 & -460.821 & 67 & 53.2510 & -11357.4 & -11895.2 & -12607.8\
18 & 14.4170 & -501.418 & -509.263 & -528.540 & 68 & 53.9927 & -11757.1 & -12329.1 & -13078.0\
19 & 15.2858 & -571.305 & -579.971 & -601.352 & 69 & 54.7306 & -12165.2 & -12771.4 & -13559.3\
20 & 16.1505 & -646.244 & -655.816 & -679.502 & 70 & 55.4635 & -12581.8 & -13221.8 & -14051.9\
21 & 16.9029 & -723.779 & -734.443 & -763.133 & 71 & 56.2925 & -13017.6 & -13695.5 & -14555.9\
22 & 17.6518 & -806.609 & -818.525 & -852.531 & 72 & 57.1215 & -13462.0 & -14179.9 & -15071.3\
23 & 18.3949 & -894.773 & -907.982 & -947.852 & 73 & 57.9500 & -13915.1 & -14674.8 & -15598.3\
24 & 19.1329 & -984.973 & -1002.97 & -1049.21 & 74 & 58.7777 & -14376.8 & -15180.3 & -16136.9\
25 & 19.8643 & -1087.71 & -1103.38 & -1156.87 & 75 & 59.6048 & -14847.3 & -15696.0 & -16687.4\
26 & 20.6041 & -1192.25 & -1211.07 & -1270.88 & 76 & 60.4345 & -15326.2 & -16224.1 & -17249.9\
27 & 21.3454 & -1302.72 & -1325.53 & -1391.42 & 77 & 61.2652 & -15813.9 & -16764.2 & -17824.6\
28 & 22.0817 & -1419.13 & -1446.14 & -1518.64 & 78 & 62.0954 & -16300.8 & -17315.4 & -18400.7\
29 & 22.8086 & -1536.57 & -1572.35 & -1652.71 & 79 & 62.9241 & -16806.4 & -17877.3 & -19011.3\
30 & 23.5219 & -1670.43 & -1703.53 & -1793.78 & 80 & 63.7501 & -17330.8 & -18449.2 & -19623.5\
31 & 24.3524 & -1809.22 & -1845.33 & -1941.63 & 81 & 64.6315 & -17861.7 & -19042.6 & -20248.3\
32 & 25.1804 & -1954.42 & -1993.69 & -2096.42 & 82 & 65.5128 & -18401.7 & -19647.9 & -20886.0\
33 & 26.0059 & -2106.13 & -2148.64 & -2258.28 & 83 & 66.3952 & -18950.8 & -20264.7 & -21536.7\
34 & 26.8353 & -2264.11 & -2311.42 & -2427.30 & 84 & 67.2796 & -19508.5 & -20894.9 & -22200.7\
35 & 27.6621 & -2428.77 & -2481.13 & -2603.59 & 85 & 68.1641 & -20075.4 & -21537.4 & -22878.2\
36 & 28.4813 & -2600.19 & -2656.87 & -2787.28 & 86 & 69.0467 & -20651.5 & -22191.1 & -23561.1\
37 & 29.3581 & -2780.21 & -2841.74 & -2978.07 & 87 & 69.9636 & -21241.1 & -22863.5 & -24237.8\
38 & 30.2331 & -2966.85 & -3033.62 & -3176.18 & 88 & 70.8808 & -21839.6 & -23548.8 & -24992.3\
39 & 31.0303 & -3155.02 & -3227.45 & -3381.68 & 89 & 71.6925 & -22437.9 & -24221.6 & -25724.9\
40 & 31.8263 & -3350.00 & -3428.61 & -3594.81 & 90 & 72.5050 & -23045.4 & -24907.7 & -26471.9\
41 & 32.6201 & -3546.33 & -3636.95 & -3815.67 & 91 & 73.3179 & -23639.5 & -25606.9 & -27233.7\
42 & 33.4115 & -3755.01 & -3852.55 & -4044.45 & 92 & 74.1309 & -24254.1 & -26319.2 & -28010.5\
43 & 34.2000 & -3976.23 & -4075.25 & -4281.19 & 93 & 74.9439 & -24878.0 & -27044.6 & -28802.9\
44 & 34.9923 & -4192.63 & -4306.84 & -4526.11 & 94 & 75.7568 & -25499.2 & -27783.2 & -29610.8\
45 & 35.7855 & -4422.14 & -4546.83 & -4779.23 & 95 & 76.5699 & -26141.7 & -28534.8 & -30434.9\
46 & 36.5766 & -4652.44 & -4794.58 & -5040.71 & 96 & 77.3858 & -26805.4 & -29302.3 & -31275.1\
47 & 37.3634 & -4902.97 & -5049.59 & -5310.66 & 97 & 78.2039 & -27466.1 & -30085.3 & -32132.1\
48 & 38.1440 & -5160.83 & -5311.30 & -5589.05 & 98 & 79.0232 & -28124.0 & -30883.5 & -33006.0\
49 & 38.9993 & -5424.43 & -5586.42 & -5875.84 & 99 & 79.8430 & -28803.8 & -31696.2 & -33897.2\
50 & 39.8532 & -5695.47 & -5869.68 & -6171.21 & 100 & 80.6627 & -29493.1 & -32523.3 & -34806.3\
[^1]: In this relation $\omega_{\mathrm{r}}$ and $m$ are measured in $\mathrm{cm}^{-1}$ and $\Omega_{0}$ in $\mathrm{cm}^{3}$.
|
---
abstract: 'The geometric median covariation matrix is a robust multivariate indicator of dispersion which can be extended without any difficulty to functional data. We define estimators, based on recursive algorithms, that can be simply updated at each new observation and are able to deal rapidly with large samples of high dimensional data without being obliged to store all the data in memory. Asymptotic convergence properties of the recursive algorithms are studied under weak conditions. The computation of the principal components can also be performed online and this approach can be useful for online outlier detection. A simulation study clearly shows that this robust indicator is a competitive alternative to minimum covariance determinant when the dimension of the data is small and robust principal components analysis based on projection pursuit and spherical projections for high dimension data. An illustration on a large sample and high dimensional dataset consisting of individual TV audiences measured at a minute scale over a period of 24 hours confirms the interest of considering the robust principal components analysis based on the median covariation matrix. All studied algorithms are available in the R package `Gmedian` on CRAN.'
author:
- |
Hervé <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Cardot</span>, Antoine <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Godichon-Baggioni</span>\
Institut de Mathématiques de Bourgogne,\
Université de Bourgogne Franche-Comté,\
9, rue Alain Savary, 21078 Dijon, France
title: Fast Estimation of the Median Covariation Matrix with Application to Online Robust Principal Components Analysis
---
**Keywords.** Averaging, Functional data, Geometric median, Online algorithms, Online principal components, Recursive robust estimation, Stochastic gradient, Weiszfeld’s algorithm.
Introduction
============
Principal Components Analysis is one of the most useful statistical tool to extract information by reducing the dimension when one has to analyze large samples of multivariate or functional data (see [*e.g.*]{} [@Jolliffe2002] or [@RamsaySilverman2005]). When both the dimension and the sample size are large, outlying observations may be difficult to detect automatically. Principal components, which are derived from the spectral analysis of the covariance matrix, can be very sensitive to outliers (see [@DGK1981]) and many robust procedures for principal components analysis have been considered in the literature (see [@HRVA2008], [@HubR2009] and [@MR2238141]).
The most popular approaches are probably the minimum covariance determinant estimator (see [@RvD99]) and the robust projection pursuit (see [@CR-G2005] and [@CFO2007]). Robust PCA based on projection pursuit has been extended to deal with functional data in [@HyndmanUllah2007] and [@BBTW2011]. Adopting another point of view, robust modifications of the covariance matrix, based on projection of the data onto the unit sphere, have been proposed in [@LMSTZC1999] (see also [@Ger08] and [@TKO2012]).
We consider in this work another robust way of measuring association between variables, that can be extended directly to functional data. It is based on the notion of median covariation matrix (MCM) which is defined as the minimizer of an expected loss criterion based on the Hilbert-Schmidt norm (see [@KrausPanaretos2012] for a first definition in a more general $M$-estimation setting). It can be seen as a geometric median (see [@Kem87] or [@MNO2010]) in the particular Hilbert spaces of square matrices (or operators for functional data) equipped with the Frobenius (or Hilbert-Schmidt) norm. The MCM is non negative and unique under weak conditions. As shown in [@KrausPanaretos2012] it also has the same eigenspace as the usual covariance matrix when the distribution of the data is symmetric and the second order moment is finite. Being a spatial median in a particular Hilbert space of matrices, the MCM is also a robust indicator of central location, among the covariance matrices, which has a 50 % breakdown point (see [@Kem87] or [@MR2238141]) as well as a bounded gross sensitivity error (see [@CCZ11]).
The aim of this work is twofold. It provides efficient recursive estimation algorithms of the MCM that are able to deal with large samples of high dimensional data. By this recursive property, these algorithms can naturally deal with data that are observed sequentially and provide a natural update of the estimators at each new observation. Another advantage compared to classical approaches is that such recursive algorithms will not require to store all the data. Secondly, this work also aims at highlighting the interest of considering the median covariation matrix to perform principal components analysis of high dimensional contaminated data.
Different algorithms can be considered to get effective estimators of the MCM. When the dimension of the data is not too high and the sample size is not too large, Weiszfeld’s algorithm (see [@Weiszfeld1937] and [@VZ00]) can be directly used to estimate effectively both the geometric median and the median covariation matrix. When both the dimension and the sample size are large this static algorithm which requires to store all the data may be inappropriate and ineffective. We show how the algorithm developed by [@CCZ11] for the geometric median in Hilbert spaces can be adapted to estimate recursively and simultaneously the median as well as the median covariation matrix. Then an averaging step ([@PolyakJud92]) of the two initial recursive estimators of the median and the MCM permits to improve the accuracy of the initial stochastic gradient algorithms. A simple modification of the stochastic gradient algorithm is proposed in order to ensure that the median covariance estimator is non negative. We also explain how the eigenelements of the estimator of the MCM can be updated online without being obliged to perform a new spectral decomposition at each new observation.
The paper is organized as follows. The median covariation matrix as well as the recursive estimators are defined in Section 2. In Section 3, almost sure and quadratic mean consistency results are given for variables taking values in general separable Hilbert spaces. The proofs, which are based on new induction steps compared to [@CCZ11], allow to get better convergence rates in quadratic mean even if this new framework is much more complicated because two averaged non linear algorithms are running simultaneously. One can also note that the techniques generally employed to deal with two time scale Robbins Monro algorithms (see [@MR2260078] for the multivariate case) require assumptions on the rest of the Taylor expansion and the finite dimension of the data that are too restrictive in our framework. In Section 4, a comparison with some classic robust PCA techniques is made on simulated data. The interest of considering the MCM is also highlighted on the analysis of individual TV audiences, a large sample of high dimensional data which, because of its dimension, can not be analyzed in a reasonable time with classical robust PCA approaches. The main parts of the proofs are described in Section 5. Perspectives for future research are discussed in Section 6. Some technical parts of the proofs as well as a description of Weiszfeld’s algorithm in our context are gathered in an Appendix.
Population point of view and recursive estimators
=================================================
Let $H$ be a separable Hilbert space (for example $H = {\mathbb{R}}^d$ or $H = L^2(I)$, for some closed interval $I \subset \mathbb{R}$). We denote by $\langle .,.\rangle$ its inner product and by ${\left\| \cdot \right\|}$ the associated norm.
We consider a random variable $X$ that takes values in $H$ and define its center $m \in H$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
m & {\mathrel{:=}}\arg \min_{u \in H} {{\mathbb{E}}\left[{\left\| X - u \right\|} - {\left\| X \right\|}\right]} .
\label{defmed}\end{aligned}$$ The solution $m \in H$ is often called the geometric median of $X$. It is uniquely defined under broad assumptions on the distribution of $X$ (see [@Kem87]) which can be expressed as follows.
\[eq:supportCdtnmed\] There exist two linearly independent unit vectors $(u_1,u_2) \in H^2$, such that $${\mathbf{Var}}( {\left\langle u,X \right\rangle} ) > 0, \quad \mbox{for }u \in \{u_1,u_2\} .$$
If the distribution of $X-m$ is symmetric around zero and if $X$ admits a first moment that is finite then the geometric median is equal to the expectation of $X$, $m = {{\mathbb{E}}\left[X\right]}$. Note however that the general definition (\[defmed\]) does not require to assume that the first order moment of ${\left\| X \right\|}$ is finite since $| {{\mathbb{E}}\left[ {\left\| X-u \right\|} - {\left\| X \right\|}\right]} | \leq {\left\| u \right\|}$.
The (geometric) median covariation matrix (MCM)
-----------------------------------------------
We now consider the special vector space, denoted by $\mathcal{S}(H)$, of $d \times d$ matrices when $H= \mathbb{R}^d$, or for general separable Hilbert spaces $H$, the vector space of linear operators mapping $H \to H$. Denoting by $\{e_j, j \in J \}$ an orthonormal basis in $H$, the vector space $\mathcal{S}(H)$ equipped with the following inner product: $$\begin{aligned}
\langle A, B \rangle_F &= \sum_{j \in J} \langle A e_j, B e_j \rangle\end{aligned}$$ is also a separable Hilbert space. In $\mathcal{S}(\mathbb{R}^d)$, we have equivalently $$\begin{aligned}
\langle A, B \rangle_F &= \mbox{tr} \left( A^T B \right),\end{aligned}$$ where $A^T$ is the transpose matrix of $A$. The induced norm is the well known Frobenius norm (also called Hilbert-Schmidt norm) and is denoted by ${\left\| . \right\|}_F .$ When $X$ has finite second order moments, with expectation ${{\mathbb{E}}\left[X\right]}=\mu$, the covariance matrix of $X$, ${{\mathbb{E}}\left[(X-\mu)(X-\mu)^T\right]}$ can be defined as the minimum argument, over all the elements belonging to $\mathcal{S}(H)$, of the functional $G_{\mu,2} : \mathcal{S}(H) \to \mathbb{R}$, $$G_{\mu,2}(\Gamma) = {{\mathbb{E}}\left[ {\left\| (X-\mu)(X-\mu)^T - \Gamma \right\|}^2_F - {\left\| (X-\mu)(X-\mu)^T \right\|}_F^2\right]}.$$ Note that in general Hilbert spaces with inner product $\langle ., . \rangle$, operator $(X-\mu)(X-\mu)^T$ should be understood as the operator $u \in H \mapsto \langle u, X-\mu \rangle (X-\mu)$. The MCM is obtained by removing the squares in previous function in order to get a more robust indicator of “covariation”. For $\alpha \in H$, define $G_\alpha : \mathcal{S}(H) \to \mathbb{R}$ by $$\begin{aligned}
G_\alpha (V) &:= {{\mathbb{E}}\left[ {\left\| (X-\alpha)(X-\alpha)^T - V \right\|}_F - {\left\| (X-\alpha)(X-\alpha)^T \right\|}_F\right]} .
\label{def:popriskcov}\end{aligned}$$ The median covariation matrix, denoted by $\Gamma_m$, is defined as the minimizer of $G_m(V)$ over all elements $V \in \mathcal{S}(H)$. The second term at the right-hand side of (\[def:popriskcov\]) prevents from having to introduce hypotheses on the existence of the moments of $X$. Introducing the random variable $Y := (X- m)(X- m)^T$ that takes values in $\mathcal{S}(H)$, the MCM is unique provided that the support of $Y$ is not concentrated on a line and Assumption 1 can be rephrased as follows in $\mathcal{S}(H)$,
\[eq:supportCdtnCov\] There exist two linearly independent unit vectors $(V_1,V_2) \in \mathcal{S}(H)^2$, such that $${\mathbf{Var}}( {\left\langle V,Y \right\rangle}_F ) > 0, \quad \mbox{for }V \in \{V_1,V_2\} .$$
We can remark that Assumption \[eq:supportCdtnmed\] and Assumption \[eq:supportCdtnCov\] are strongly connected. Indeed, if Assumption \[eq:supportCdtnmed\] holds, then ${\mathbf{Var}}( {\left\langle u,X \right\rangle} ) > 0$ for $ u \in \{u_1, u_2\}$. Consider the rank one matrices $V_1 = u_1u_1^T$ and $V_2 = u_2 u_2^T$, we have ${\left\langle V_1,Y \right\rangle}_F = \langle u_1, X-m \rangle^2$ which has a strictly positive variance when the distribution of $X$ has no atom. More generally $ {\mathbf{Var}}({\left\langle V_1,Y \right\rangle}_F) >0$ unless there is a scalar $a >0$ such that $\mathbb{P}\left[ \langle u_1, X-m \rangle = a\right] = \mathbb{P}\left[ \langle u_1, X-m \rangle = -a\right] = \frac{1}{2}$ (assuming also that $\mathbb{P}\left[ X-m = 0\right] = 0$).
Furthermore it can be deduced easily that the MCM, which is a geometric median in the particular Hilbert spaces of Hilbert-Schmidt operators, is a robust indicator with a 50% breakdown point (see [@Kem87]) and a bounded sensitive gross error (see [@CCZ11]).
We also assume that
\[eq:invMomentCov\] There is a constant $C$ such that for all $h \in H$ and all $V \in \mathcal{S}(H)$ $$\begin{aligned}
(a) &: \quad {{\mathbb{E}}\left[ {\left\| (X- h)(X- h)^T - V \right\|}^{-1}_F \right]} \leq C. \\
(b) &: \quad {{\mathbb{E}}\left[ {\left\| (X- h)(X- h)^T - V \right\|}^{-2}_F \right]} \leq C. \\\end{aligned}$$
This assumption implicitly forces the distribution of $(X- h)(X- h)^T$ to have no atoms. It is more “likely” to be satisfied when the dimension $d$ of the data is large (see [@Cha92] and [@CCZ11] for a discussion). Note that it could be weakened as in [@CCZ11] by allowing points, necessarily different from the MCM $\Gamma_m$, to have strictly positive masses. Considering the particular case $V=0$, Assumption \[eq:invMomentCov\](a) implies that for all $h \in H$, $$\begin{aligned}
{{\mathbb{E}}\left[ \frac{1}{{\left\| X- h \right\|}^{2}} \right]} \leq C,
\label{cond:mominv2x}\end{aligned}$$ and this is not restrictive when the dimension $d$ of $H$ is equal or larger than 3.
Under Assumption \[eq:invMomentCov\](a), the functional $G_h$ is twice Fréchet differentiable, with gradient $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla G_h (V) &= - {{\mathbb{E}}\left[ \frac{(X- h)(X- h)^T - V}{{\left\| (X- h)(X- h)^T - V \right\|}_F}\right]}.
\label{def:gradV}\end{aligned}$$ and Hessian operator, $ \nabla _h^2 G(V) : \mathcal{S}(H) \to \mathcal{S}(H)$, $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla _h^2G (V) &= {{\mathbb{E}}\left[ \frac{1}{{\left\| Y(h) - V \right\|}_F}\left( I_{S(H)} - \frac{(Y(h) - V) \otimes_F (Y(h) - V) }{{{\left\| Y(h) - V \right\|}_F}^2} \right)\right]}.
\label{def:HeV}\end{aligned}$$ where $Y(h) = (X-h)(X-h)^T$, $I_{S(H)}$ is the identity operator on $\mathcal{S}(H)$ and $A \otimes_F B (V) = \langle A, V \rangle_F B$ for any elements $A, B$ and $V$ belonging to $\mathcal{S}(H)$.
Furthermore, $\Gamma_m$ is also defined as the unique zero of the non linear equation: $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla G_m (\Gamma_m) &= 0.
\label{def:zeroV}\end{aligned}$$ Remarking that previous equality can be rewritten as follows, $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma_m &= \frac{1}{{{\mathbb{E}}\left[\frac{1}{ {\left\| (X- m)(X-m)^T - \Gamma_m \right\|}_F} \right]}}{{\mathbb{E}}\left[\frac{ (X-m)(X-m)^T }{ {\left\| (X- m)(X-m)^T - \Gamma_m \right\|}_F}\right]},
\label{def:baseweiszfled}\end{aligned}$$ it is clear that $\Gamma_m$ is a bounded, symmetric and non negative operator in $\mathcal{S}(H)$.
As stated in Proposition 2 of [@KrausPanaretos2012], operator $\Gamma_m$ has an important stability property when the distribution of $X$ is symmetric, with finite second moment, *i.e* ${{\mathbb{E}}\left[{\left\| X \right\|}^2\right]}< \infty$. Indeed, the covariance operator of $X$, $\Sigma = {{\mathbb{E}}\left[(X-m)(X-m)^T\right]}$, which is well defined in this case, and $\Gamma_m$ share the same eigenvectors: if $e_j$ is an eigenvector of $\Sigma$ with corresponding eigenvalue $\lambda_j$, then $\Gamma_m e_j = \tilde{\lambda}_j e_j$, for some non negative value $\tilde{\lambda}_j$. This important result means that for Gaussian and more generally symmetric distribution (with finite second order moments), the covariance operator and the median covariation operator have the same eigenspaces. Note that it is also conjectured in [@KrausPanaretos2012] that the order of the eigenfunctions is also the same.
Efficient recursive algorithms
------------------------------
We suppose now that we have i.i.d. copies $X_1, \ldots, X_n, \ldots$ of random variables with the same law as $X$.
For simplicity, we temporarily suppose that the median $m$ of $X$ is known. We consider a sequence of (learning) weights $\gamma_n = c_\gamma / n^{\alpha}$, with $c_\gamma>0$ and $1/2 <\alpha <1$ and we define the recursive estimation procedure as follows $$\begin{aligned}
W_{n+1} &= W_n + \gamma_n \frac{ (X_{n+1}-m)(X_{n+1}-m)^T - W_n}{ {\left\| (X_{n+1}-m)(X_{n+1}-m)^T - W_n \right\|}_F} \label{def:algoRMcov}\\
\overline{W}_{n+1} &= \overline{W}_{n} - \frac{1}{n+1} \left( \overline{W}_{n} - W_{n+1} \right).\end{aligned}$$ This algorithm can be seen as a particular case of the averaged stochastic gradient algorithm studied in [@CCZ11]. Indeed, the first recursive algorithm (\[def:algoRMcov\]) is a stochastic gradient algorithm, $${{\mathbb{E}}\left[ \frac{ (X_{n+1}-m)(X_{n+1}-m)^T - W_n}{ {\left\| (X_{n+1}-m)(X_{n+1}-m)^T - W_n \right\|}_F} | {\mathcal{F}}_n \right]} = \nabla G_m(W_n)$$ where ${\mathcal{F}}_n =\sigma(X_1, \ldots, X_n)$ is the $\sigma$-algebra generated by $X_1, \ldots, X_n$ whereas the final estimator $\overline{W}_n$ is obtained by averaging the past values of the first algorithm. The averaging step (see [@PolyakJud92]), [*i*.e.]{} the computation of the arithmetical mean of the past values of a slowly convergent estimator (see Proposition \[prop:RMVn\] below), permits to obtain a new and efficient estimator converging at a parametric rate, with the same asymptotic variance as the empirical risk minimizer (see Theorem \[theo:asymptnorm\] below).
In most of the cases the value of $m$ is unknown so that it also required to estimate the median. To build an estimator of $\Gamma_m$, it is possible to estimate simultaneously $m$ and $\Gamma_m$ by considering two averaged stochastic gradient algorithms that are running simultaneously. For $n \geq 1$, $$\begin{aligned}
m_{n+1} & = m_n + \gamma_n^{(m)} \frac{ X_{n+1}-m_n}{{\left\| X_{n+1}-m_n \right\|}} \nonumber \\
\overline{m}_{n+1} &= \overline{m}_{n} - \frac{1}{n+1} \left( \overline{m}_{n} - m_{n+1} \right) \label{def:medaver} \\
V_{n+1} &= V_n + \gamma_n \frac{ (X_{n+1}-\overline{m}_n)(X_{n+1}-\overline{m}_n)^T - V_n}{ {\left\| (X_{n+1}-\overline{m}_n)(X_{n+1}-\overline{m}_n)^T - V_n \right\|}_F} \label{def:Gammarm} \\
\overline{V}_{n+1} &= \overline{V}_{n} - \frac{1}{n+1} \left( \overline{V}_{n} - V_{n+1} \right), \label{def:Gammamedaver}\end{aligned}$$ where the averaged recursive estimator $\overline{m}_{n+1}$ of the median $m$ is controlled by a sequence of descent steps $ \gamma_n^{(m)}$. The learning rates are generally chosen as follows, $ \gamma_n^{(m)} = c_m n^{-\alpha}$, where the tuning constants satisfy $c_m \in [2,20]$ and $1/2 < \alpha < 1$.
Note that by construction, even if $V_n$ is non negative, $V_{n+1}$ may not be a non negative matrix when the learning steps do not satisfy $$\frac{\gamma_n}{{\left\| (X_{n+1}-\overline{m}_n)(X_{n+1}-\overline{m}_n)^T - V_n \right\|}_F} \leq 1 .$$ Projecting $V_{n+1}$ onto the closed convex cone of non negative operators would require to compute the eigenvalues of $V_{n+1}$ which is time consuming in high dimension even if $V_{n+1}$ is a rank one perturbation to $V_n$ (see [@CD2015]). We consider the following simple approximation to this projection which consists in replacing in (\[def:Gammarm\]) the descent step $\gamma_n$ by a thresholded one, $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma_{n,pos} &= \min \left( \gamma_n , \ {\left\| (X_{n+1}-\overline{m}_n)(X_{n+1}-\overline{m}_n)^T - V_n \right\|}_F \right)
\label{def:gammamodif}\end{aligned}$$ which ensures that $V_{n+1}$ remains non negative when $V_n$ is non negative. The use of these modified steps and an initialization of the recursive algorithm (\[def:Gammarm\]) with a non negative matrix (for example $V_0=0$) ensure that for all $n \geq 1$, $V_n$ and $\overline{V}_n$ are non negative.
Online estimation of the principal components
---------------------------------------------
It is also possible to approximate recursively the $q$ eigenvectors (unique up to sign) of $\Gamma_m$ associated to the $q$ largest eigenvalues without being obliged to perform a spectral decomposition of $\overline{V}_{n+1}$ at each new observation. Many recursive strategies can be employed (see [@CD2015] for a review on various recursive estimation procedures of the eigenelements of a covariance matrix). Because of its simplicity and its accuracy, we consider the following one: $$\begin{aligned}
u_{j,n+1} &= u_{j,n} + \frac{1}{n+1} \left( \overline{V}_{n+1} \frac{u_{j,n}}{\| u_{j,n}\|} - u_{j,n} \right), \quad j=1, \ldots, q
\label{algo:vectp}\end{aligned}$$ combined with an orthogonalization by deflation of $u_{1,n+1}, \ldots u_{q,n+1}$. This recursive algorithm is based on ideas developed by [@Wengetal2003] that are related to the power method for extracting eigenvectors. If we assume that the $q$ first eigenvalues $\lambda_1 > \cdots > \lambda_q$ are distinct, the estimated eigenvectors $u_{1,n+1}, \ldots u_{q,n+1}$, which are uniquely determined up to sign change, tend to $\lambda_1 u_1, \ldots, \lambda_q u_q.$
Once the eigenvectors are computed, it is possible to compute the principal components as well as indices of outlyingness for each new observation (see [@HRVA2008] for a review of outliers detection with multivariate approaches).
Practical issues, complexity and memory
---------------------------------------
The recursive algorithms (\[def:Gammarm\]) and (\[def:Gammamedaver\]) require each $O(d^2)$ elementary operations at each update. With the additional online estimation given in (\[algo:vectp\]) of the $q$ eigenvectors associated to the $q$ largest eigenvalues, $O(qd^2)$ additional operations are required. The orthogonalization procedure only requires $O(q^2d)$ elementary operations.
Note that the use of classical Newton-Raphson algorithms for estimating the MCM (see [@FFC2012]) can not be envisaged for high dimensional data since the computation or the approximation of the Hessian matrix would require $O(d^4)$ elementary operations. The well known and fast Weiszfeld’s algorithm requires $O(nd^2)$ elementary operations for each sample with size $n$. However, the estimation cannot be updated automatically if the data arrive sequentially. Another drawback compared to the recursive algorithms studied in this paper is that all the data must be stored in memory, which is of order $O(nd^2)$ elements whereas the recursive technique require an amount of memory of order $O(d^2)$.
The performances of the recursive algorithms depend on the values of tuning parameters $c_\gamma$, $c_m$ and $\alpha$. The value of parameter $\alpha$ is often chosen to be $\alpha=2/3$ or $\alpha=3/4$. Previous empirical studies (see [@CCZ11] and [@CardCC10]) have shown that, thanks to the averaging step, estimator $\overline{m}_n$ performs well and is not too sensitive to the choice of $c_m$, provided that the value of $c_m$ is not too small. An intuitive explanation could be that here the recursive process is in some sense “self-normalized” since the deviations at each iteration in (\[def:algoRMcov\]) have unit norm and finding some universal values for $c_m$ is possible. Usual values for $c_m$ and $c_\gamma$ are in the interval $[2,20]$. When $n$ is fixed, this averaged recursive algorithm is about 30 times faster than the Weiszfeld’s approach (see [@CCZ11]).
Asymptotic properties
=====================
When $m$ is known, $\overline{W}_n$ can be seen as an averaged stochastic gradient estimator of the geometric median in a particular Hilbert space and the asymptotic weak convergence of such estimator has been studied in [@CCZ11]. They have shown that:
([@CCZ11], Theorem 3.4). \[theo:asymptnorm\]\
If assumptions 1-3(a) hold, then as $n$ tends to infinity, $$\sqrt{n} \left(\overline{W}_n - \Gamma_m \right) \rightsquigarrow \mathcal{N}(0, \Delta)$$ where $\rightsquigarrow$ stands for convergence in distribution and $\Delta = \left(\nabla _m^2 (\Gamma_m)\right)^{-1} \Psi \left(\nabla _m^2 (\Gamma_m)\right)^{-1}$ is the limiting covariance operator, with $\Psi = {{\mathbb{E}}\left[\frac{(Y(m) - \Gamma_m) \otimes_F (Y(m) - \Gamma_m) }{{{\left\| Y(m) - \Gamma_m \right\|}_F}^2}\right]}.$
As explained in [@CCZ11], the estimator $\overline{W}_n$ is efficient in the sense that it has the same asymptotic distribution as the empirical risk minimizer related to $G_m(V)$ (see for the derivation of its asymptotic normality in [@MNO2010] in the multivariate case and [@ChaCha2014] in a more general functional framework).
Using the delta method for weak convergence in Hilbert spaces (see [@DauxoisPousseRomain82] or [@CGER2007]), one can deduce, from Theorem \[theo:asymptnorm\], the asymptotic normality of the estimated eigenvectors of $\overline{W}_n$. It can also be proven (see [@godichon2015]), under Assumptions 1-3, that there is a positive constant $K$ such that for all $n \geq 1$, $$\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| \overline{W}_{n} - \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}^{2} \right] \leq \frac{K}{n}.$$ Note finally that non asymptotic bounds for the deviation of $\overline{W}_n$ around $\Gamma_m$ can be derived readily with the general results given in [@CCG2015].
The more realistic case in which $m$ must also be estimated is more complicated because $\overline{V}_n$ depends on $\overline{m}_n$ which is also estimated recursively with the same data. We first state the strong consistency of the estimators $V_n$ and $\overline{V}_n$.
\[theops\] If assumptions 1-3(b) hold, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty}\left\|V_{n} -\Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}=0 \quad a.s.\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty}\left\| \overline{V}_{n} - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F} &=0 \quad a.s.\end{aligned}$$
The obtention of the rate convergence of the averaged recursive algorithm relies on a fine control of the asymptotic behavior of the Robbins-Monro algorithms, as stated in the following proposition.
\[theol2l4\] If assumptions 1-3(b) hold, there is a positive constant $C'$, and for all $\beta \in \left( \alpha , 2 \alpha\right)$, there is a positive constant $C_{\beta}$ such that for all $n \geq 1$, $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}^{2}\right] \leq \frac{C'}{n^{\alpha}}, \\
& \mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| V_{n+1} - \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}^{4}\right] \leq \frac{C''}{n^{\beta}}.\end{aligned}$$
The obtention of an upper bound for the rate of convergence at the order four of the Robbins-Monro algorithm is crucial in the proofs. Furthermore, the following proposition ensures that the exhibited rate in quadratic mean is the optimal one.
Under assumptions 1-3(b), there is a positive constant $c'$ such that for all $n \geq 1$, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}^{2}\right] \geq \frac{c'}{n^{\alpha}}. \end{aligned}$$ \[prop:RMVn\]
Finally, the following theorem is the most important theoretical result of this work. It shows that, in spite of the fact that it only considers the observed data one by one, the averaged recursive estimation procedure gives an estimator which has a classical parametric $\sqrt{n}$ rate of convergence in the Hilbert-Schmidt norm.
\[th:cvgeqm\] Under Assumptions 1-3(b), there is a positive constant $K'$ such that for all $n \geq 1$, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| \overline{V}_{n} - \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}^{2}\right] &\leq \frac{K'}{n}.\end{aligned}$$
Assuming the eigenvalues of $\Gamma_m$ are of multiplicity one, it can be deduced from Theorem \[th:cvgeqm\] and Lemma 4.3 in [@Bosq], the convergence in quadratic mean of the eigenvectors of $\overline{V}_{n}$ towards the corresponding (up to sign) eigenvector of $\Gamma_m$ .
An illustration on simulated and real data
==========================================
A small comparison with other classical robust PCA techniques is performed in this section considering data in relatively high dimension but samples with moderate sizes. This permits to compare our approach with classical robust PCA techniques, which are generally not designed to deal with large samples of high dimensional data. In our comparison, we have employed the following well known robust techniques: robust projection pursuit (see [@CR-G2005] and [@CFO2007]), minimum covariance determinant (MCD, see [@RvD99]) and spherical PCA (see [@LMSTZC1999]). The computations were made in the R language ([@R10]), with the help of packages `pcaPP` and `rrcov`. For reproductible research, our codes for computing the MCM have been posted on CRAN in the `Gmedian` package. We will denote by MCM(R) the recursive estimator $\overline{V}_{n}$ defined in (\[def:Gammamedaver\]) and MCM(R+) its non negative modification whose learning weights are defined in (\[def:gammamodif\]).
If the size of the data $n \times d$ is not too large, an effective way for estimating $\Gamma_m$ is to employ Weiszfeld’s algorithm (see [@Weiszfeld1937] and [@VZ00] as well the Supplementary file for a description of the algorithms in our particular situation). The estimate obtained thanks to Weiszfeld’s algorithm is denoted by MCM(W) in the following. Note that other optimization algorithms which may be preferred in small dimension (see [@FFC2012]) have not been considered here since they would require the computation of the Hessian matrix, whose size is $d^4$, and this would lead to much slower algorithms. Note finally that all these alternative algorithms do not admit a natural updating scheme when the data arrive sequentially so that they should be completely ran again at each new observation.
Simulation protocol
-------------------
Independent realizations of a random variable $Y \in \mathbb{R}^d$ are drawn, where $$\begin{aligned}
Y &=& (1-O(\delta)) X + O(\delta) \epsilon,
\label{def:melange}\end{aligned}$$ is a mixture of two distributions and $X, O$ and $\epsilon$ are independent random variables. The random vector $X$ has a centered Gaussian distribution in $\mathbb{R}^d$ with covariance matrix $[\Sigma]_{\ell, j} = \min (\ell,j)/d$ and can be thought as a discretized version of a Brownian sample path in $[0,1]$. The multivariate contamination comes from $\epsilon$, with different rates of contamination controlled by the Bernoulli variable $O(\delta)$, independent from $X$ and $\epsilon$, with $\mathbb{P}(O(\delta) =1) = \delta$ and $\mathbb{P}(O(\delta) =0) = 1-\delta$. Three different scenarios (see Figure \[fig:traj\]) are considered for the distribution of $\epsilon$:
- The elements of vector $\epsilon$ are $d$ independent realizations of a Student $t$ distribution with one degree of freedom. This means that the first moment of $Y$ is not defined when $\delta>0$.
- The elements of vector $\epsilon$ are $d$ independent realizations of a Student $t$ distribution with two degrees of freedom. This means that the second moment of $Y$ is not defined when $\delta>0$.
- The vector $\epsilon$ is distributed as a “reverse time” Brownian motion. It has a Gaussian centered distribution, with covariance matrix $[\Sigma_\epsilon]_{\ell, j} = 2\min (d-\ell,d-j)/d$. The covariance matrix of $Y$ is $(1-\delta) \Sigma + \delta \Sigma_\epsilon$.
![A sample of $n=20$ trajectories when $d=50$ and $\delta=0.10$ for the three different contamination scenarios: Student $t$ with 1 degree of freedom, Student $t$ with 2 degrees of freedom and reverse time Brownian motion (from left to right).[]{data-label="fig:traj"}](GraphesBruit.pdf){height="9cm" width="18cm"}
For the averaged recursive algorithms, we have considered tuning coefficients $c_m=c_\gamma = 2$ and a speed rate of $\alpha=3/4$. Note that the values of these tuning parameters have not been particularly optimised. We have noted that the simulation results were very stable, and did not depend much on the value of $c_m$ and $c_\gamma$ for $c_m, c_\gamma \in [1,20]$.
The estimation error of the eigenspaces associated to the largest eigenvalues is evaluated by considering the squared Frobenius norm between the associated orthogonal projectors. Denoting by $\mathbf{P}_q$ the orthogonal projector onto the space generated by the $q$ eigenvectors of the covariance matrix $\Sigma$ associated to the $q$ largest eigenvalues and by $\widehat{\mathbf{P}}_q$ an estimation, we consider the following loss criterion, $$\begin{aligned}
R(\widehat{\mathbf{P}}_q, \mathbf{P}_q) &= \mbox{tr} \left[ \left( \widehat{\mathbf{P}}_q - \mathbf{P}_q \right)^T \left( \widehat{\mathbf{P}}_q - \mathbf{P}_q \right) \right] \nonumber \\
&= 2 q - 2 \mbox{tr} \left[ \widehat{\mathbf{P}}_q \mathbf{P}_q \right].
\label{def:errvecp} \end{aligned}$$ Note that we always have $R(\widehat{\mathbf{P}}_q, \mathbf{P}_q) \leq 2q$ and $R(\widehat{\mathbf{P}}_q, \mathbf{P}_q)=2q$ means that the eigenspaces generated by the true and the estimated eigenvectors are orthogonal.
Comparison with classical robust PCA techniques
-----------------------------------------------
![Estimation errors (at a logarithmic scale) over 500 Monte Carlo replications, for $n=200$, $d=50$ with no contamination ($\delta=0$). MCM(W) stands for the estimation performed by the Weiszfeld’s algorithm whereas MCM(R) denotes the averaged recursive approach and MCM(R+) its non negative modification (see equation \[def:gammamodif\]).[]{data-label="fig:boxerr0"}](MCMd50n200s500.pdf){height="10cm" width="15.5cm"}
![Estimation errors (at a logarithmic scale) over 500 Monte Carlo replications, for $n=200$, $d=50$ and a contamination by a $t$ distribution with 2 degrees of freedom with $\delta=0.02$. MCM(W) stands for the estimation performed by the Weiszfeld’s algorithm whereas MCM(R) denotes the averaged recursive approach and MCM(R+), its non negative modification with learning steps as in (\[def:gammamodif\]).[]{data-label="fig:boxerr"}](MCMd50n200s490.pdf){height="10cm" width="15.5cm"}
We first compare the performances of the two estimators of the MCM based on the Weiszfeld’s algorithm and the recursive algorithms (see (\[def:Gammamedaver\])) with more classical robust PCA techniques.
We generated samples of $Y$ with size $n=500$ and dimension $d \in \{50,200\}$, over 500 replications. Different levels of contamination are considered : $\delta \in \{0, 0.02, 0.05, 0.10, 0.20 \}$. For both dimensions $d =50$ and $d=200$, the first eigenvalue of the covariance matrix of $X$ represents about 81 % of the total variance, and the second one about 9 %.
------- -------- -------- -------- --------- -------- -------- --------
PCA MCD MCM(W) MCM(R+) MCM(R) SphPCA PP
d=50 0.0156 0.0199 0.0208 0.0211 0.0243 0.0287 0.0955
d=200 0.0148 - 0.0200 0.0209 0.0246 0.0275 0.0895
------- -------- -------- -------- --------- -------- -------- --------
: Median estimation errors, according to criterion $R(\widehat{\mathbf{P}}_q, \mathbf{P}_q) $ with a dimension $q=2$, for non contaminated samples of size $n=200$, over 500 Monte Carlo experiments.[]{data-label="tab:summary_mu0"}
The median errors of estimation of the eigenspace generated by the first two eigenvectors ($q=2$), according to criterion (\[def:errvecp\]), are given in Table \[tab:summary\_mu0\] for non contaminated data ($\delta=0$). The distribution of the estimation error $R(\widehat{\mathbf{P}}_q, \mathbf{P}_q)$ is drawn for the different approaches in Figure \[fig:boxerr0\] when the dimension is not large ($d=50$). As expected, the “Oracle”, which is the classical PCA in this situation, provides the best estimations of the eigenspaces. Then, the MCD and the median covariation matrix, estimated by the Weiszfeld algorithm or the modified MCM(R+) recursive estimator, behave well and similarly. Note that when the dimension gets larger, the MCD cannot be used anymore and the MCM is the more effective robust estimator of the eigenspaces.
When the data are contaminated, the median errors of estimation of the eigenspace generated by the first two eigenvectors ($q=2$), according to criterion (\[def:errvecp\]), are given in Table \[tab:summary\_mu\]. In Figure \[fig:boxerr\], the distribution of the estimation error $R(\widehat{\mathbf{P}}_q, \mathbf{P}_q)$ is drawn for the different approaches.
---------- ----------------- ---------- --------- ---------- ---------- --------- -------
$t$ 1 df $t$ 2 df inv. B. $t$ 1 df $t$ 2 df inv. B.
$\delta$ Method
2% PCA 3.13 1.04 0.698 3.95 1.87 0.731
PP 0.086 0.097 0.090 0.085 0.094 0.084
MCD 0.022 0.021 0.021 – – –
Sph. PCA 0.028 0.029 0.027 0.027 0.030 0.028
MCM (Weiszfeld) 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.022 0.022
MCM (R+) 0.022 0.022 0.024 0.023 0.023 0.025
MCM (R) 0.026 0.025 0.027 0.026 0.027 0.028
5% PCA 3.82 1.91 0.862 3.96 1.98 0.910
PP 0.090 0.103 0.093 0.089 0.098 0.087
MCD 0.022 0.023 0.021 – – –
Sph. PCA 0.029 0.031 0.033 0.029 0.031 0.034
MCM (Weiszfeld) 0.023 0.023 0.028 0.022 0.023 0.030
MCM (R+) 0.025 0.024 0.035 0.024 0.024 0.039
MCM (R) 0.029 0.027 0.037 0.028 0.028 0.040
10% PCA 3.83 1.96 1.03 3.96 1.99 1.10
PP 0.107 0.108 0.099 0.088 0.101 0.097
MCD 0.023 0.022 0.023 – – –
Sph. PCA 0.033 0.033 0.054 0.031 0.033 0.057
MCM (Weiszfeld) 0.025 0.026 0.059 0.023 0.024 0.056
MCM (R+) 0.030 0.027 0.089 0.027 0.027 0.086
MCM (R) 0.035 0.032 0.088 0.032 0.031 0.086
20% PCA 3.84 2.02 1.19 3.96 2.01 1.25
PP 0.110 0.135 0.138 0.091 0.122 0.137
MCD 0.025 0.026 0.026 – – –
Sph. PCA 0.037 0.038 0.140 0.034 0.037 0.150
MCM (Weiszfeld) 0.030 0.030 0.174 0.026 0.028 0.181
MCM (R+) 0.044 0.036 0.255 0.038 0.032 0.256
MCM (R) 0.050 0.041 0.251 0.042 0.037 0.256
---------- ----------------- ---------- --------- ---------- ---------- --------- -------
: Median estimation errors, according to criterion $R(\widehat{\mathbf{P}}_q, \mathbf{P}_q) $ with a dimension $q=2$, for datasets with a sample size $n=200$, over 500 Monte Carlo experiments.[]{data-label="tab:summary_mu"}
We can make the following remarks. At first note that even when the level of contamination is small (2% and 5%), the performances of classical PCA are strongly affected by the presence of outlying values in such (large) dimensions. When $d=50$, the MCD algorithm and the MCM estimation provide the best estimations of the original two dimensional eigenspace, whereas when $d$ gets larger ($d=n=200$), the MCD estimator can not be used anymore (by construction) and the MCM estimators, obtained with Weiszfeld’s and the non negative recursive algorithm, remain the most accurate. We can also remark that the recursive MCM algorithms, which are designed to deal with very large samples, performs well even for such moderate sample sizes (see also Figure \[fig:boxerr\]). The modification of the descent step suggested in (\[def:gammamodif\]), which corresponds to estimator MCM(R+), permits to improve the accuracy the initial MCM estimator, specially when the noise level is not small. The performances of the spherical PCA are slightly less accurate whereas the median error of the robust PP is always the largest among the robust estimators. When, the contamination is highly structured temporally and the level of contamination is not small (contamination by a reverse time Brownian motion, with $\delta=0.20$), the behavior of the MCM is different from the other robust estimators and, with our criterion, it can appear as less effective. However, one can think that we are in presence of two different populations with completely different multivariate correlation structure and the MCD completely ignores that part of the data, which is not necessarily a better behavior.
Online estimation of the principal components
---------------------------------------------
We now consider an experiment in high dimension, $d=1000$, and evaluate the ability of the recursive algorithms defined in (\[algo:vectp\]) to estimate recursively the eigenvectors of $\Gamma_m$ associated to the largest eigenvalues. Note that due to the high dimension of the data and limited computation time, we only make comparison of the recursive robust techniques with the classical PCA. For this we generate growing samples and compute, for each sample size the approximation error of the different (fast) strategies to the true eigenspace generated by the $q$ eigenvectors associated to the $q$ largest eigenvalues of $\Gamma_m$.
We have drawn in Figure \[fig:evolR\], the evolution of the mean (over 100 replications) approximation error $R(\mathbf{P}_q,\hat{\mathbf{P}}_q)$, for a dimension $q=3$, as a function of the sample size for samples contaminated by a 2 degrees of freedom Student $t$ distribution with a rate $\delta=0.1$. An important fact is that the recursive algorithm which approximates recursively the eigenelements behaves very well and we can see nearly no difference between the spectral decomposition of $\overline{V}_n$ (denoted by MCM in Figure \[fig:evolR\]) and the estimates produced with the sequential algorithm (\[algo:vectp\]) for sample sizes larger than a few hundreds. We can also note that the error made by the classical PCA is always very high and does not decrease with the sample size.
![Estimation errors of the eigenspaces (criterion $R(\widehat{\mathbf{P}}_q$)) with $d=1000$ and $q=3$ for classical PCA, the oracle PCA and the recursive MCM estimator with recursive estimation of the eigenelements (MCM-update) and with static estimation (based on the spectral decomposition of $\overline{V}_{n}$) of the eigenelements (MCM).[]{data-label="fig:evolR"}](fig-evolR10.pdf){width="13cm"}
Robust PCA of TV audience
-------------------------
The last example is a high dimension and large sample case. Individual TV audiences are measured, by the French company Médiamétrie, every minutes for a panel of $n=5422$ people over a period of 24 hours, $d=1440$ (see [@CCM10] for a more detailed presentation of the data). With a classical PCA, the first eigenspace represents 24.4% of the total variability, whereas the second one reproduces 13.5% of the total variance, the third one 9.64% and the fourth one 6.79%. Thus, more than 54% of the variability of the data can be captured in a four dimensional space. Taking account of the large dimension of the data, these values indicate a high temporal correlation.
Because of the large dimension of the data, the Weiszfeld’s algorithm as well as the other robust PCA techniques can not be used anymore in a reasonable time with a personal computer. The MCM has been computed thanks to the recursive algorithm given in (\[def:Gammamedaver\]) in approximately 3 minutes on a laptop in the R language (without any specific C routine).
![TV audience data measured the 6th September 2010, at the minute scale. Comparison of the principal components of the classical PCA (black) and robust PCA based on the Median Covariation Matrix (red). First eigenvectors on the left, second eigenvectors on the right.[]{data-label="fig1"}](PC1_2mediametrie.pdf){height="10cm" width="15.5cm"}
As seen in Figure \[fig1\], the first two eigenvectors obtained by a classical PCA and the robust PCA based on the MCM are rather different. This is confirmed by the relatively large distance between the two corresponding eigenspaces, $R(\widehat{P}_2^{PCA}, \widehat{P}_2^{MCM}) = 0.56$. The first robust eigenvector puts the stress on the time period comprised between 1000 minutes and 1200 minutes whereas the first non robust eigenvector focuses, with a smaller intensity, on a larger period of time comprised between 600 and 1200 minutes. The second robust eigenvector differentiates between people watching TV during the period between 890 and 1050 minutes (negative value of the second principal component) and people watching TV between minutes 1090 and 1220 (positive value of the second principal component). Rather surprisingly, the third and fourth eigenvectors of the non robust and robust covariance matrices look quite similar (see Figure \[fig2\]).
![TV audience data measured the 6th September 2010, at the minute scale. Comparison of the principal components of the classical PCA (black) and robust PCA based on the MCM (red). Third eigenvectors on the left, fourth eigenvectors on the right.[]{data-label="fig2"}](PC3_4mediametrie.pdf){height="10cm" width="15.5cm"}
Proofs
======
We give in this Section the proofs of Theorems \[theops\], \[theol2l4\] and \[th:cvgeqm\]. These proofs rely on several technical Lemmas whose proofs are given in the Supplementary file.
Proof of Theorem \[theops\]
---------------------------
Let us recall the Robbins-Monro algorithm, defined recursively by $$\begin{aligned}
V_{n+1} & = V_{n} + \gamma_{n} \frac{\left( X_{n+1} - \overline{m}_{n} \right)\left( X_{n+1} - \overline{m}_{n} \right)^{T}-V_{n}}{\left\| \left( X_{n+1} - \overline{m}_{n} \right)\left( X_{n+1} - \overline{m}_{n} \right)^{T}-V_{n} \right\|_{F}} \\
& = V_{n} - \gamma_{n} U_{n+1},\end{aligned}$$ with $U_{n+1}:= - \frac{\left( X_{n+1} - \overline{m}_{n} \right)\left( X_{n+1} - \overline{m}_{n} \right)^{T}-V_{n}}{\left\| \left( X_{n+1} - \overline{m}_{n} \right)\left( X_{n+1} - \overline{m}_{n} \right)^{T}-V_{n} \right\|_{F}}$. Since $\mathcal{F}_{n} := \sigma \left( X_{1},...,X_{n} \right)$, we have $\mathbb{E}\left[ U_{n+1}|\mathcal{F}_{n} \right] = \nabla G_{\overline{m}_{n}}(V_{n})$. Thus $\xi_{n+1}:= \nabla_{\overline{m}_{n}}G(V_{n}) - U_{n+1}$, $\left( \xi_{n} \right)$ is a sequence of martingale differences adapted to the filtration $\left( \mathcal{F}_{n} \right)$. Indeed, $\mathbb{E}\left[ \xi_{n+1} | \mathcal{F}_{n} \right] = \nabla G_{\overline{m}_{n}}(V_{n}) - \mathbb{E}\left[ U_{n+1}|\mathcal{F}_{n} \right] = 0$. The algorithm can be written as follows $$V_{n+1} = V_{n} - \gamma_{n} \nabla G_{\overline{m}_{n}}(V_{n}) + \gamma_{n}\xi_{n+1}.$$ Moreover, it can be considered as a stochastic gradient algorithm because it can be decomposed as follows: $$\label{decxi} V_{n+1} = V_{n} - \gamma_{n}\left( \nabla G_{\overline{m}_{n}}(V_{n})- \nabla G_{\overline{m}_{n}} ( \Gamma_{m} )\right) + \gamma_{n}\xi_{n+1} - \gamma_{n}r_{n},$$ with $r_{n} := \nabla G_{\overline{m}_{n}} ( \Gamma_{m}) - \nabla G_{m} ( \Gamma_{m})$. Finally, linearizing the gradient, $$\label{decdelta} V_{n+1} - \Gamma_{m} = \left( I_{\mathcal{S}(H)} - \gamma_{n} \nabla_{m}^{2}G(\Gamma_{m}) \right) \left( V_{n} - \Gamma_{m}\right) + \gamma_{n}\xi_{n+1} - \gamma_{n}r_{n} - \gamma_{n}r_{n}' - \gamma_{n}\delta_{n},$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
r_{n}' & := \left( \nabla_{\overline{m}_{n}}^{2}G\left( \Gamma_{m}\right) - \nabla_{m}^{2}G\left( \Gamma_{m}\right)\right)\left( V_{n}-\Gamma_{m}\right) , \\
\delta_{n} & := \nabla G_{\overline{m}_{n}}\left( V_{n} \right) - \nabla G_{\overline{m}_{n}}\left( \Gamma_{m} \right) - \nabla_{\overline{m}_{n}}^{2}G\left( \Gamma_{m}\right) \left( V_{n} - \Gamma_{m}\right) . \end{aligned}$$
The following lemma gives upper bounds of these remainder terms. Its proof is given in the Supplementary file.
\[lem3maj\] Under assumptions 1-3(b), we can bound the three remainder terms. First,
$$\label{majdelta} \left\| \delta_{n} \right\|_{F} \leq 6C \left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}^{2}.$$
In the same way, for all $n \geq 1$, $$\label{majrn}
\left\| r_{n} \right\|_{F} \leq 4 \left( \sqrt{C} + C\sqrt{\left\|\Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}}\right) \left\| \overline{m}_{n} - m \right\| .$$ Finally, for all $n \geq 1$, $$\label{marn'}
\left\| r_{n}' \right\|_{F} \leq 12 \left( C \sqrt{\left\| \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}} + C^{3/4}\right) \left\| \overline{m}_{n} - m \right\| \left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}.$$
We deduce from decomposition (\[decxi\]) that for all $n \geq 1$, $$\begin{aligned}
\left\| V_{n+1} - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}^{2} & = \left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}^{2} -2 \gamma_{n} \left\langle V_{n} - \Gamma_{m} , \nabla G_{\overline{m}_{n}}(V_{n}) - \nabla G_{\overline{m}_{n}}(\Gamma_{m}) \right\rangle_{F} \\
& +\gamma_{n}^{2}\left\| \nabla G_{\overline{m}_{n}}(V_{n}) - \nabla G_{\overline{m}_{n}}(\Gamma_{m}) \right\|_{F}^{2} \\
& + \gamma_{n}^{2}\left\| \xi_{n+1}\right\|_{F}^{2} + 2 \gamma_{n} \left\langle V_{n} - \Gamma_{m} - \gamma_{n} \left( \nabla G_{\overline{m}_{n}}(V_{n}) - \nabla G_{\overline{m}_{n}}(\Gamma_{m}) \right) , \xi_{n+1} \right\rangle_{F} \\
& + \gamma_{n}^{2}\left\| r_{n} \right\|_{F}^{2} -2 \gamma_{n}\left\langle r_{n} , V_{n} - \Gamma_{m} \right\rangle_{F} -2\gamma_{n}^{2} \left\langle r_{n} , \xi_{n+1} - \nabla G_{\overline{m}_{n}}(V_{n}) + \nabla G_{\overline{m}_{n}}(\Gamma_{m}) \right\rangle_{F} . \end{aligned}$$ Note that for all $h \in H$ and $V \in \mathcal{S}(H)$ we have $\left\| \nabla G_{h}(V) \right\|_{F} \leq 1$. Furthermore, $\left\| r_{n} \right\|_{F} \leq 2$ and $\left\| \xi_{n+1} \right\|_{F} \leq 2$. Using the fact that $\left( \xi_{n} \right)$ is a sequence of martingale differences adapted to the filtration $\left( \mathcal{F}_{n} \right)$, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| V_{n+1} - \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}^{2} |\mathcal{F}_{n} \right] & \leq \left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}^{2} -2\gamma_{n} \left\langle V_{n} - \Gamma_{m} , \nabla_{\overline{m}_{n}}G \left( V_{n} \right) - \nabla_{\overline{m}_{n}}G\left( \Gamma_{m} \right) \right\rangle_{F} \\
& + 28\gamma_{n}^{2} -2\gamma_{n} \left\langle r_{n} , V_{n} - \Gamma_{m} \right\rangle_{F}.\end{aligned}$$ Let $\alpha_{n} = n^{-\beta}$, with $\beta \in ( 1-\alpha , \alpha )$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{majvitps}\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| V_{n+1} - \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}^{2} |\mathcal{F}_{n} \right] & \leq \left( 1+\gamma_{n}\alpha_{n} \right) \left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}^{2} -2\gamma_{n} \left\langle V_{n} - \Gamma_{m} , \nabla_{\overline{m}_{n}}G \left( V_{n} \right) - \nabla_{\overline{m}_{n}}G\left( \Gamma_{m} \right) \right\rangle_{F} \\
\notag & + 28\gamma_{n}^{2} +\frac{\gamma_{n}}{\alpha_{n}}\left\| r_{n} \right\|_{F}^{2} .\end{aligned}$$
Moreover, applying Lemma \[lem3maj\] and Theorem 5.1 in [@godichon2015], we get for all positive constant $\delta$, $$\left\| r_{n} \right\|_{F}^{2} = O \left( \left\| \overline{m}_{n} - m \right\|^{2} \right) = O \left( \frac{\left( \ln n \right)^{1+\delta}}{n} \right) \quad a.s.$$ Thus, since $2\gamma_{n} \left\langle V_{n} - \Gamma_{m} , \nabla_{\overline{m}_{n}}G \left( V_{n} \right) - \nabla_{\overline{m}_{n}}G\left( \Gamma_{m} \right) \right\rangle_{F} \geq 0$, the Robbins-Siegmund Theorem (see [@Duf97] for instance) ensures that $\left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}$ converges almost surely to a finite random variable and $$\sum_{n \geq 1} \gamma_{n}\left\langle V_{n} - \Gamma_{m} , \nabla_{\overline{m}_{n}}G \left( V_{n} \right) - \nabla_{\overline{m}_{n}}G\left( \Gamma_{m} \right) \right\rangle_{F} < + \infty \quad a.s.$$ Furthermore, by induction, inequality (\[majvitps\]) becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| V_{n+1} - \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}^{2} \right] & \leq \left( \prod_{k=1}^{\infty} \left( 1+ \gamma_{k}\alpha_{k} \right)\right) \mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| V_{1} - \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}^{2} \right] + 28\left( \prod_{k=1}^{\infty} \left( 1+ \gamma_{k}\alpha_{k} \right) \right)\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\gamma_{k}^{2} \\
& + \left( \prod_{k=1}^{\infty} \left( 1+ \gamma_{k}\alpha_{k} \right) \right) \sum_{k=1}^{\infty} \frac{\gamma_{k}}{\alpha_{k}}\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| r_{k} \right\|_{F}^{2} \right] . \end{aligned}$$ Since $\beta < \alpha$, applying Theorem 4.2 in [@godichon2015] and Lemma 6.1, there is a positive constant $C_{0}$ such that $$\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\frac{\gamma_{k}}{\alpha_{k}}\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| r_{k} \right\|_{F}^{2} \right] = C_{0} \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}k^{-\alpha -1 -\beta} < +\infty .$$ Thus, there is a positive constant $M$ such that for all $n \geq 1$, $\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}^{2} \right] \leq M$. Since $\overline{m}_{n}$ converges almost surely to $m$, one can conclude the proof of the almost sure consistency of $V_n$ with the same arguments as in the proof of Theorem 3.1 in [@CCZ11] and the convexity properties given in the Section B of the supplementary file.
Finally, the almost sure consistency of $\overline{V}_n$ is obtained by a direct application of Topelitz’s lemma (see [*e.g.*]{} Lemma 2.2.13 in [@Duf97]).
Proof of Theorem \[theol2l4\]
-----------------------------
The proof of Theorem \[theol2l4\] relies on properties of the $p$-th moments of $V_{n}$ for all $p \geq 1$ given in the following three Lemmas. These properties enable us, with the application of Markov’s inequality, to control the probability of the deviations of the Robbins Monro algorithm from $\Gamma_{m}$.
\[lemmajordre\] Under assumptions 1-3(b), for all integer $p$, there is a positive constant $M_{p}$ such that for all $n \geq 1$, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}^{2p}\right] &\leq M_{p}.\end{aligned}$$
\[lem1\] Under assumptions 1-3(b), there are positive constants $C_{1},C_{1}',C_{2},C_{3}$ such that for all $n \geq 1$, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m} \right\|^{2} \right] &\leq C_{1}e^{-C_{1}'n^{1-\alpha}} + \frac{C_{2}}{n^{\alpha}} + C_{3}\sup_{E (n/2)+1 \leq k \leq n-1}\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| V_{k} - \Gamma_{m} \right\|^{4}\right] , \end{aligned}$$ where $E(x)$ is the integer part of the real number $x$.
\[lem2\] Under assumptions 1-3(b), for all integer $p' \geq 1$, there are a rank $n_{p'}$ and positive constants $C_{1,p'},C_{2,p'},C_{3,p'},c_{p'}$ such that for all $n \geq n_{p'}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| V_{n+1} - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}^{4} \right] &\leq \left( 1-c_{p'}\gamma_{n}n^{-\frac{1-\alpha}{p'}}\right)\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}^{4}\right] + \frac{C_{1,p'}}{n^{3\alpha}} + \frac{C_{2,p'}}{n^{2\alpha}}\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}^{2}\right] + \frac{C_{3,p'}}{n^{3\alpha -3\frac{1-\alpha}{p'}}}.\end{aligned}$$
We can now prove Theorem \[theol2l4\].
Let us choose an integer $p'$ such that $p' > 3/2$. Thus, $2~+~\alpha ~ -~3\frac{1-\alpha}{p'}~\geq ~3\alpha$, and applying Lemma \[lem2\], there are positive constants $C_{1,p'},C_{2,p'},c_{p'}$ and a rank $n_{p'}$ such that for all $n \geq n_{p'}$, $$\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| V_{n+1} - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}^{4} \right] \leq \left( 1-c_{p'}\gamma_{n}n^{-\frac{1-\alpha}{p'}}\right)\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}^{4}\right] + \frac{C_{1,p'}}{n^{3\alpha}} + \frac{C_{2,p'}}{n^{2\alpha}}\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}^{2}\right] .$$
Let us now choose $\beta \in (\alpha , 2\alpha)$ and $p'$ such that $p' > \frac{1-\alpha}{2\alpha - \beta}$. Note that $ 3\alpha - \beta > \alpha + \frac{1-\alpha}{p'}$. One can check that there is a rank $n_{p'}' \geq n_{p'}$ such that for all $n \geq n_{p'}'$, $$\begin{aligned}
(n+1)^{\alpha}C_{1}e^{-C_{1}'n^{1-\alpha}} + \frac{1}{2} + C_{3}2^{\beta +1}\frac{1}{(n+1)^{\beta - \alpha}} & \leq 1 , \\
\left( 1-c_{p'}\gamma_{n}n^{-\frac{1-\alpha}{p'}} \right) \left( \frac{n+1}{n}\right)^{\beta} + 2^{3\alpha}\frac{C_{1,p'} + C_{2,p'}}{(n+1)^{3\alpha - \beta}} & \leq 1 .\end{aligned}$$ With the help of a strong induction, we are going to prove the announced results, that is to say that there are positive constants $C_{p'},C_{\beta}$ such that $2C_{p'} \geq C_{\beta} \geq C_{p'} \geq 1$ and $C_{p'} \geq 2^{\alpha +1}C_{2}$ (with $C_{2}$ defined in Lemma \[lem1\]), such that for all $n \geq 1$, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}^{2}\right] & \leq \frac{C_{p'}}{n^{\alpha}} , \\
\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}^{4} \right] & \leq \frac{C_{\beta}}{n^{\beta}} .\end{aligned}$$
First, let us choose $C_{p'}$ and $C_{\beta}$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
C_{p'} & \geq \max_{k \leq n_{p'}'}\left\lbrace k^{\alpha}\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| V_{k} - \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}^{2}\right] \right\rbrace , \\
C_{\beta} & \geq \max_{k \leq n_{p'}'}\left\lbrace k^{\beta}\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| V_{n_{p'}'} - \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}^{4}\right] \right\rbrace .\end{aligned}$$ Thus, for all $k \leq n_{p'}'$, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| V_{k} - \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}^{2}\right] & \leq \frac{C_{p'}}{k^{\alpha}} , \\
\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| V_{k} - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}^{4} \right] & \leq \frac{C_{\beta}}{k^{\beta}} .\end{aligned}$$ We suppose from now that $n \geq n_{p'}'$ and that previous inequalities are verified for all $k \leq n-1$. Applying Lemma \[lemmajordre\] and by induction, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| V_{n+1} - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}^{2}\right] & \leq C_{1}e^{-C_{1}'n^{1-\alpha}} + \frac{C_{2}}{n^{\alpha}} + C_{3}\sup_{E((n+1)/2) +1 \leq k \leq n}\left\lbrace\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| V_{k} - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}^{4}\right] \right\rbrace \\
& \leq C_{1}e^{-C_{1}'n^{1-\alpha}} + \frac{C_{2}}{n^{\alpha}} + C_{3}\sup_{E((n+1)/2 ) +1 \leq k \leq n}\left\lbrace \frac{C_{\beta}}{k^{\beta}} \right\rbrace \\
& \leq C_{1}e^{-C_{1}'n^{1-\alpha}} + \frac{C_{2}}{n^{\alpha}} + C_{3}2^{\beta}\frac{C_{\beta}}{n^{\beta}}.
\end{aligned}$$ Since $2C_{p'} \geq C_{\beta} \geq C_{p'} \geq 1$ and since $C_{p'} \geq 2^{\alpha +1}C_{2}$, factorizing by $\frac{C_{p'}}{(n+1)^{\alpha}}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| V_{n+1} - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}^{2}\right] & \leq C_{p'}C_{1}e^{-C_{1}'n^{1-\alpha}} + C_{p'}2^{-\alpha -1}\frac{1}{n^{\alpha}} + C_{3}2^{\beta}\frac{2C_{p'}}{n^{\beta}} \\
& \leq \frac{C_{p}'}{(n+1)^{\alpha}}(n+1)^{\alpha}C_{1}e^{-C_{1}'n^{1-\alpha}} + 2^{-\alpha}\left(\frac{n}{n+1}\right)^{\alpha}\frac{C_{p'}}{2(n+1)^{\alpha}} + \frac{C_{3}2^{\beta +1}}{(n+1)^{\beta - \alpha}}\frac{C_{p'}}{(n+1)^{\alpha}} \\
& \leq \frac{C_{p}'}{(n+1)^{\alpha}}C_{1}(n+1)^{\alpha}e^{-C_{1}'n^{1-\alpha}} + \frac{1}{2}\frac{C_{p'}}{(n+1)^{\alpha}} + C_{3}2^{\beta +1} \frac{1}{(n+1)^{\beta -\alpha}} \frac{C_{p'}}{(n+1)^{\alpha}} \\
& \leq \left( (n+1)^{\alpha}C_{1}e^{-C_{1}'n^{1-\alpha}} + \frac{1}{2} + C_{3}2^{\beta +1}\frac{1}{(n+1)^{\beta - \alpha}} \right) \frac{C_{p'}}{(n+1)^{\alpha}} .\end{aligned}$$ By definition of $n_{p'}'$, $$\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| V_{n+1} - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}^{2}\right] \leq \frac{C_{p'}}{(n+1)^{\alpha}}.$$ In the same way, applying Lemma \[lem2\] and by induction, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| V_{n+1} - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}^{4}\right] & \leq \left( 1-c_{p'}\gamma_{n}n^{-\frac{1-\alpha}{p'}} \right) \mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}^{4}\right] + \frac{C_{1,p'}}{n^{3\alpha}} + \frac{C_{2,p'}}{n^{2\alpha}}\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}^{2}\right] \\
& \leq \left( 1-c_{p'}\gamma_{n}n^{-\frac{1-\alpha}{p'}} \right)\frac{C_{\beta}}{n^{\beta}}+ \frac{C_{1,p'}}{n^{3\alpha}} + \frac{C_{2,p'}}{n^{2\alpha}}\frac{C_{p'}}{n^{\alpha}}.\end{aligned}$$ Since $C_{\beta } \geq C_{p'} \geq 1$, factorizing by $\frac{C_{\beta}}{(n+1)^{\beta}}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| V_{n+1} - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}^{4}\right] & \leq \left( 1-c_{p'}\gamma_{n}n^{-\frac{1-\alpha}{p'}} \right)\frac{C_{\beta}}{n^{\beta}}+ \left( C_{1,p'} + C_{2,p'}\right) \frac{C_{\beta}}{n^{3\alpha}} \\
& \leq \left( 1-c_{p'}\gamma_{n}n^{-\frac{1-\alpha}{p'}} \right) \left( \frac{n+1}{n}\right)^{\beta}\frac{C_{\beta}}{n^{\beta}} + 2^{3\alpha}\frac{C_{1,p'} + C_{2,p'}}{(n+1)^{3\alpha - \beta}}\frac{C_{\beta}}{(n+1)^{\beta}} \\
& \leq \left( \left( 1-c_{p'}\gamma_{n}n^{-\frac{1-\alpha}{p'}} \right) \left( \frac{n+1}{n}\right)^{\beta} + 2^{3\alpha}\frac{C_{1,p'} + C_{2,p'}}{(n+1)^{3\alpha - \beta}} \right) \frac{C_{\beta}}{(n+1)^{\beta}}.\end{aligned}$$ By definition of $n_{p'}'$, $$\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| V_{n+1} - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}^{4}\right] \leq \frac{C_{\beta}}{(n+1)^{\beta}},$$ which concludes the induction and the proof.
Proof of Theorem \[th:cvgeqm\]
------------------------------
In order to prove Theorem \[th:cvgeqm\], we first recall the following Lemma.
\[lemsumg\] Let $Y_{1},...,Y_{n}$ be random variables taking values in a normed vector space such that for all positive constant $q$ and for all $k \geq 1$, $\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| Y_{k} \right\|^{q} \right] < \infty$. Then, for all real numbers $a_{1},...,a_{n}$ and for all integer $p$, we have $$\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| \sum_{k=1}^{n} a_{k}Y_{k} \right\|^{p} \right] \leq \left( \sum_{k=1}^{n} \left| a_{k} \right| \left( \mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| Y_{k} \right\|^{p} \right] \right)^{\frac{1}{p}} \right)^{p}$$
We can now prove Theorem \[th:cvgeqm\]. Let us rewrite decomposition (\[decdelta\]) as follows $$\nabla_{m}^{2}G\left( \Gamma_{m} \right) \left( V_{n} - \Gamma_{m} \right) = \frac{T_{n}}{\gamma_{n}} - \frac{T_{n+1}}{\gamma_{n}} + \xi_{n+1} - r_{n} - r_{n}' - \delta_{n},$$ with $T_{n} := V_{n} - \Gamma_{m}$. As in [@Pel00], we sum these equalities, apply Abel’s transform and divide by $n$ to get $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla_{m}^{2}G\left( \Gamma_{m} \right) \left( \overline{V}_{n} - \Gamma_{m} \right) &= \frac{1}{n}\left(\frac{T_{1}}{\gamma_{1}} - \frac{T_{n+1}}{\gamma_{n+1}} + \sum_{k=2}^{n} T_{k} \left( \frac{1}{\gamma_{k}} - \frac{1}{\gamma_{k-1}}\right) - \sum_{k=1}^{n} \delta_{k} - \sum_{k=1}^{n} r_{k} - \sum_{k=1}^{n} r_{k}' + \sum_{k=1}^{n} \xi_{k+1}\right).\end{aligned}$$ We now bound the quadratic mean of each term at the right-hand side of previous equality. First, we have $\frac{1}{n^{2}}\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| \frac{T_{1}}{\gamma_{1}}\right\|_{F}^{2}\right]= o \left( \frac{1}{n} \right)$. Applying Theorem \[theol2l4\], $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{n^{2}}\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| \frac{T_{n+1}}{\gamma_{n}}\right\|_{F}^{2}\right] & \leq \frac{1}{n^{2}}\frac{C'c_{\gamma}^{-2}}{n^{-\alpha}} = o \left( \frac{1}{n}\right) . \end{aligned}$$ Moreover, since $\left| \gamma_{k}^{-1} - \gamma_{k-1}^{-1}\right| \leq 2\alpha c_{\gamma}^{-1}k^{\alpha -1}$, the application of Lemma \[lemsumg\] and Theorem \[theol2l4\] gives $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{n^{2}}\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| \sum_{k=2}^{n} \left( \gamma_{k}^{-1} - \gamma_{k-1}^{-1}\right)T_{k} \right\|_{F}^{2} \right] & \leq \frac{1}{n^{2}}\left( \sum_{k=2}^{n} \left| \gamma_{k}^{-1} - \gamma_{k-1}^{-1} \right| \sqrt{\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| T_{k} \right\|_{F}^{2}\right]} \right)^{2} \\
& \leq \frac{1}{n^{2}}4\alpha^{2}c_{\gamma}^{-2}C'\left( \sum_{k=2}^{n} \frac{1}{k^{1-\alpha /2}} \right)^{2} \\
& = O \left( \frac{1}{n^{2-\alpha}}\right) \\
& = o \left( \frac{1}{n} \right) ,\end{aligned}$$ since $\alpha < 1$. In the same way, since $\left\| \delta_{n} \right\|_{F} \leq 6C \left\| T_{n} \right\|_{F}^{2}$, applying Lemma \[lemsumg\] and Theorem \[theol2l4\] with $\beta > 1$, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{n^{2}}\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| \sum_{k=1}^{n} \delta_{k} \right\|_{F}^{2}\right] & \leq \frac{1}{n^{2}}\left( \sum_{k=1}^{n} \sqrt{\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| \delta_{k} \right\|_{F}^{2}\right]} \right)^{2} \\
& \leq \frac{36C^{2}}{n^{2}}\left( \sum_{k=1}^{n} \sqrt{\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| T_{k} \right\|_{F}^{4}\right]} \right)^{2} \\
& \leq \frac{36C^{2}C_{\beta}}{n^{2}}\left( \sum_{k=1}^{n} \frac{1}{k^{\beta /2}} \right)^{2} \\
& = O \left( \frac{1}{n^{\beta}}\right) \\
& = o \left( \frac{1}{n}\right) ,\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, let $D := 12 \left( \sqrt{C} + C \sqrt{\left\| \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}} \right)$. Since $\left\| r_{n} \right\|_{F} \leq D \left\| \overline{m}_{n} - m \right\|$, and since there is a positive constant $C''$ such that for all $n\geq 1$, $\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| \overline{m}_{n}- m \right\|^{2}\right] \leq C''n^{-1}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{n^{2}}\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| \sum_{k=1}^{n} r_{k} \right\|_{F}^{2}\right] & \leq \frac{1}{n^{2}}\left( \sum_{k=1}^{n} \sqrt{\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| r_{k} \right\|_{F}^{2}\right]} \right)^{2} \\
& \leq \frac{D^{2}}{n^{2}}\left( \sum_{k=1}^{n} \sqrt{\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| \overline{m}_{n}-m \right \|^{2}\right]} \right) \\
& \leq \frac{D^{2}C''}{n^{2}}\left( \sum_{k=1}^{n}\frac{1}{k^{1/2}}\right)^{2} \\
& = O \left( \frac{1}{n}\right) .\end{aligned}$$ Since $\left\| r_{n}' \right\|_{F} \leq C_{0} \left\| \overline{m}_{n} - m \right\| \left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}^{2}$ with $C_{0} := 12\left( C\sqrt{\left\| \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}} + C^{3/4} \right) $, Cauchy-Schwarz’s inequality and Lemma \[lemsumg\] give $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{n^{2}}\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| \sum_{k=1}^{n} r_{n}' \right\|_{F}^{2}\right] & \leq \frac{1}{n^{2}}\left( \sum_{k=1}^{n}\sqrt{\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| r_{n}' \right\|_{F}^{2}\right]} \right)^{2} \\
& \leq \frac{C_{0}^{2}}{n^{2}}\left( \sum_{k=1}^{n} \sqrt{\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| \overline{m}_{n} - m \right\|^{2}\left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}^{2}\right]}\right)^{2} \\
& \leq \frac{C_{0}^{2}}{n^{2}}\left( \sum_{k=1}^{n} \left( \mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| \overline{m}_{n} - m \right\|^{4}\right] \right)^{\frac{1}{4}}\left( \mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}^{4} \right] \right)^{\frac{1}{4}} \right)^{2} .\end{aligned}$$ Applying Theorem 4.2 in [@godichon2015] and Theorem 3.3, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{n^{2}}\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| \sum_{k=1}^{n} r_{n}' \right\|_{F}^{2}\right] & \leq \frac{C_{0}^{2}\sqrt{C_\beta}\sqrt{K_{2}}}{n^{2}}\left( \sum_{k=1}^{n} \frac{1}{k^{\beta /4 + 1 /2}}\right)^{2} \\
& = O \left( \frac{1}{n^{1 + \beta /2}}\right) \\
& = o \left( \frac{1}{n}\right) ,\end{aligned}$$ since $\beta >0$. Finally, one can easily check that $\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| \xi_{n+1}\right\|_{F}^{2} \right] \leq 1$, and since $\left( \xi_{n} \right)$ is a sequence of martingale differences adapted to the filtration $\left( \mathcal{F}_{n} \right)$, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{n^{2}}\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| \sum_{k=1}^{n} \xi_{k+1} \right\|_{F}^{2}\right] & = \frac{1}{n^{2}}\left( \sum_{k=1}^{n} \mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| \xi_{k+1}\right\|_{F}^{2}\right] + 2\sum_{k=1}^{n}\sum_{k'=k+1}^{n}\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\langle \xi_{k+1},\xi_{k'+1}\right\rangle_{F} \right] \right) \\
& = \frac{1}{n^{2}}\left( \sum_{k=1}^{n} \mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| \xi_{k+1}\right\|_{F}^{2}\right] + 2\sum_{k=1}^{n}\sum_{k'=k+1}^{n}\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\langle \xi_{k+1},\mathbb{E}\left[ \xi_{k'+1}\Big| \mathcal{F}_{k'}\right] \right\rangle_{F} \right] \right) \\
& = \frac{1}{n^{2}}\sum_{k=1}^{n} \mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| \xi_{k+1} \right\|_{F}^{2}\right] \\
& \leq \frac{1}{n} .\end{aligned}$$ Thus, there is a positive constant $K$ such that for all $n \geq 1$, $$\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| \nabla_{m}^{2}G \left( \Gamma_{m}\right) \left( \overline{V}_{n} - \Gamma_{m}\right) \right\|_{F}^{2}\right] \leq \frac{K}{n}.$$ Let $\lambda_{\min}$ be the smallest eigenvalue of $\nabla_{m}^{2}G \left( \Gamma_{m}\right)$. We have, with Proposition B.1 in the supplementary file, that $\lambda_{\min}> 0$ and the announced result is proven, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| \overline{V}_{n} - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}^{2}\right] &\leq \frac{K}{\lambda_{\min}^{2}n}.\end{aligned}$$
Concluding remarks
==================
The simulation study and the illustration on real data indicate that performing robust principal components analysis via the median covariation matrix, which can bring new information compared to classical PCA, is an interesting alternative to more classical robust principal components analysis techniques. The use of recursive algorithms permits to perform robust PCA on very large datasets, in which outlying observations may be hard to detect. Another interest of the use of such sequential algorithms is that estimation of the median covariation matrix as well as the principal components can be performed online with automatic update at each new observation and without being obliged to store all the data in memory. A simple modification of the averaged stochastic gradient algorithm is proposed that ensures non negativeness of the estimated covariation matrices. This modified algorithms has better performances on our simulated data.
A deeper study of the asymptotic behaviour of the recursive algorithms would certainly deserve further investigations. Proving the asymptotic normality and obtaining the limiting variance of the sequence of estimators $\overline{V}_n$ when $m$ is unknown would be of great interest. This is a challenging issue that is beyond the scope of the paper and would require to study the joint weak convergence of the two simultaneous recursive averaged estimators of $m$ and $\Gamma_m$.
The use of the MCM could be interesting to robustify the estimation in many different statistical models, particularly with functional data. For example, it could be employed as an alternative to robust functional projection pursuit in robust functional time series prediction or for robust estimation in functional linear regression, with the introduction of the median cross-covariation matrix.
**Acknowledgements.** We thank the company Médiamétrie for allowing us to illustrate our methodologies with their data. We also thank Dr. Peggy Cénac for a careful reading of the proofs.
Estimating the median covariation matrix with Weiszfeld’s algorithm
===================================================================
Suppose we have a fixed size sample $X_1, \ldots, X_n$ and we want to estimate the geometric median.
The iterative Weiszfeld’s algorithm relies on the fact that the solution $m^*_n$ of the following optimization problem $$\begin{aligned}
\min_{\mu \in H} & \sum_{i=1}^n \| X_i - \mu \|\end{aligned}$$ satisfies, when $m_n^* \neq X_i$, for all $i=1, \ldots, n$ $$\begin{aligned}
m_n^* &= \sum_{i=1}^n w_i \left({m}_n^{*} \right) \ X_i\end{aligned}$$ where the weights $w_i(x)$ are defined by $$w_i(x) = \frac{ {\left\| X_i-x \right\|}^{-1}}{\displaystyle \sum_{j=1}^n {\left\| X_j-x \right\|}^{-1}}.$$
Weiszfeld’s algorithm is based on the following iterative scheme. Consider first a pilot estimator $\widehat{m}^{(0)}$ of $m$. At step $(e)$, a new approximation $\widehat{m}_n^{(e+1)}$ to $m$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat{m}_n^{(e+1)} &= \sum_{i=1}^n w_i \left(\widehat{m}_n^{(e)} \right) \ X_i .
\label{def:weiszfeldMCM}\end{aligned}$$ The iterative procedure is stopped when ${\left\| \widehat{m}_n^{(e+1)} - \widehat{m}_n^{(e)} \right\|} \leq \epsilon$, for some precision $\epsilon$ known in advance. The final value of the algorithm is denoted by $\widehat{m}_n$. The estimator of the MCM is computed similarly. Suppose $\widehat{\Gamma}^{(e)}$ has been calculated at step $(e)$, then at step $(e+1)$, the new approximation $\widehat{\Gamma}^{(e+1)}$ to $\Gamma_m$ is defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat{\Gamma}^{(e+1)}_n &= \sum_{i=1}^n W_i \left(\widehat{\Gamma}^{(e)}\right) (X_i-\widehat{m}_n)(X_i-\widehat{m}_n)^T.
\label{def:algoiter}\end{aligned}$$ The procedure is stopped when ${\left\| \widehat{\Gamma}^{(e+1)} - \widehat{\Gamma}^{(e)} \right\|}_F \leq \epsilon$, for some precision $\epsilon$ fixed in advance.
Note that by construction, this algorithm leads to an estimated median covariation matrix that is always non negative.
Convexity results
=================
In this section, we first give and recall some convexity properties of functional $G_{h}$. The following one gives some information on the spectrum of the Hessian of $G$.
\[convexity\] Under assumptions 1-3(b), for all $h \in H$ and $V \in \mathcal{S}(H)$, $\mathcal{S}(H)$ admits an orthonormal basis composed of eigenvectors of $\nabla_{h}^{2}G(V)$. Let us denote by $\left\lbrace \lambda_{h,V,i} , i \in \mathbb{N}\right\rbrace$ the set of eigenvalues of $\nabla_{h}^{2}G(V)$. For all $i \in \mathbb{N}$, $$0 \leq \lambda_{h,V,i} \leq C.$$ Moreover, there is a positive constant $c_{m}$ such that for all $i \in \mathbb{N}$, $$0<c_{m} \leq \lambda_{m,\Gamma_{m},i} \leq C.$$ Finally, by continuity, there are positive constants $\epsilon , \epsilon '$ such that for all $h \in \mathcal{B}\left( m , \epsilon \right)$ and $V \in \mathcal{B}\left( \Gamma_{m}, \epsilon ' \right)$, and for all $i \in \mathbb{N}$, $$\frac{1}{2}c_{m} \leq \lambda_{h,V,i} \leq C.$$
The proof is very similar to the one in [@CCZ11] and consequently it is not given here. Furthermore, as in [@CCG2015], it ensures the local strong convexity as shown in the following corollary.
\[corforconv\] Under assumptions 1-3(b), for all positive constant $A$, there is a positive constant $c_{A}$ such that for all $V \in \mathcal{B}\left( \Gamma_{m} , A \right)$ and $h \in \mathcal{B}\left( m, \epsilon \right)$, $$\left\langle \nabla_{h}G(V) - \nabla_{h}G(\Gamma_{m}) , V - \Gamma_{m} \right\rangle_{H} \geq c_{A} \left\| V - \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}^{2}.$$
Finally, the following lemma gives an upper bound on the remainder term in the Taylor’s expansion of the gradient.
\[lemdelta\] Under assumptions 1-3(b), for all $h \in H$ and $V \in \mathcal{S}(H)$, $$\left\| \nabla G_{h}(V) - \nabla G_{h}\left(\Gamma_{m}\right) - \nabla_{h}^{2}G\left( \Gamma_{m} \right)\left( V - \Gamma_{m} \right) \right\|_{F} \leq 6C \left\| V - \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}^{2}.$$
Let $\delta_{V,h}:=\nabla G_{h}(V) - \nabla G_{h}\left(\Gamma_{m}\right) - \nabla_{h}^{2}G\left( \Gamma_{m} \right)\left( V - \Gamma_{m} \right)$, since\
$ \nabla G_{h}(V)~ - ~\nabla G_{h}\left(\Gamma_{m}\right) =~ \int_{0}^{1}\nabla_{h}^{2}G\left(\Gamma_{m}+t\left( V -\Gamma_{m} \right)\right)\left( V - \Gamma_{m} \right) dt$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\left\| \delta_{V,h} \right\|_{F} & = \left\| \int_{0}^{1} \nabla_{h}^{2}G\left(\Gamma_{m}+t\left( V -\Gamma_{m} \right)\right)\left( (V - \Gamma_{m} \right) dt - \nabla_{h}^{2}G\left( \Gamma_{m} \right)\left( V - \Gamma_{m} \right) \right\|_{F} \\
& \leq \int_{0}^{1} \left\| \nabla_{h}^{2}G\left(\Gamma_{m}+t\left( V -\Gamma_{m} \right)\right)\left( (V - \Gamma_{m} \right) - \nabla_{h}^{2}G\left( \Gamma_{m} \right)\left( V - \Gamma_{m} \right) \right\|_{F} dt .\end{aligned}$$ As in the proof of Lemma 5.1 in [@CCG2015], under assumptions 1-3(b), one can check that for all $h \in H$, and $t \in [0,1]$, $$\left\| \nabla_{h}^{2}G\left(\Gamma_{m}+t\left( V -\Gamma_{m} \right)\right)\left( (V - \Gamma_{m} \right) - \nabla_{h}^{2}G\left( \Gamma_{m} \right)\left( V - \Gamma_{m} \right) \right\|_{F} \leq 6C \left\| V - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}^{2} ,$$ which concludes the proof.
Decompositions of the Robbins-Monro algorithm and proof of Lemma 5.1
====================================================================
Let us recall that the Robbins-Monro algorithm is defined recursively by $$\begin{aligned}
V_{n+1} & = V_{n} + \gamma_{n} \frac{\left( X_{n+1} - \overline{m}_{n} \right)\left( X_{n+1} - \overline{m}_{n} \right)^{T}-V_{n}}{\left\| \left( X_{n+1} - \overline{m}_{n} \right)\left( X_{n+1} - \overline{m}_{n} \right)^{T}-V_{n} \right\|_{F}} \\
& = V_{n} - \gamma_{n} U_{n+1},\end{aligned}$$ with $U_{n+1}:= - \frac{\left( X_{n+1} - \overline{m}_{n} \right)\left( X_{n+1} - \overline{m}_{n} \right)^{T}-V_{n}}{\left\| \left( X_{n+1} - \overline{m}_{n} \right)\left( X_{n+1} - \overline{m}_{n} \right)^{T}-V_{n} \right\|_{F}}$. Let us remark that $\xi_{n+1}:= \nabla_{\overline{m}_{n}}G(V_{n}) - U_{n+1}$, $\left( \xi_{n} \right)$ is a sequence of martingale differences adapted to the filtration $\left( \mathcal{F}_{n} \right)$ and the algorithm can be written as follows $$\label{decxi} V_{n+1} = V_{n} - \gamma_{n}\left( \nabla G_{\overline{m}_{n}}(V_{n})- \nabla G_{\overline{m}_{n}} ( \Gamma_{m} )\right) + \gamma_{n}\xi_{n+1} - \gamma_{n}r_{n},$$ with $r_{n} := \nabla G_{\overline{m}_{n}} ( \Gamma_{m}) - \nabla G_{m} ( \Gamma_{m})$. Finally, let is consider the following linearization of the gradient, $$\label{decdelta} V_{n+1} - \Gamma_{m} = \left( I_{\mathcal{S}(H)} - \gamma_{n} \nabla_{m}^{2}G(\Gamma_{m}) \right) \left( V_{n} - \Gamma_{m}\right) + \gamma_{n}\xi_{n+1} - \gamma_{n}r_{n} - \gamma_{n}r_{n}' - \gamma_{n}\delta_{n},$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
r_{n}' & := \left( \nabla_{\overline{m}_{n}}^{2}G\left( \Gamma_{m}\right) - \nabla_{m}^{2}G\left( \Gamma_{m}\right)\right)\left( V_{n}-\Gamma_{m}\right) , \\
\delta_{n} & := \nabla G_{\overline{m}_{n}}\left( V_{n} \right) - \nabla G_{\overline{m}_{n}}\left( \Gamma_{m} \right) - \nabla_{\overline{m}_{n}}^{2}G\left( \Gamma_{m}\right) \left( V_{n} - \Gamma_{m}\right) . \end{aligned}$$
The bound of $\left\| \delta_{n} \right\|$ is a corollary of Lemma \[lemdelta\].
**Bounding $\left\| r_{n} \right\|$**
Let us recall that for all $h \in H$, $Y(h) := \left( X - h \right) \left( X - h \right)^{T}$. We now define for all $h \in H$ the random function $\varphi_{h}: [0,1] \longrightarrow \mathcal{S}(H)$ defined for all $t \in [0,1]$ by $$\varphi_{h}(t) := \frac{Y(m+th) - \Gamma_{m}}{\left\| Y(m+th) - \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}}.$$ Note that $r_{n} = \mathbb{E}\left[ \varphi_{\overline{m}_{n} - m}(0) - \varphi_{\overline{m}_{n} - m }(1)\Big| \mathcal{F}_{n}\right] $. Thus, by dominated convergence, $$\left\| r_{n} \right\|_{F} \leq \sup_{t \in [0,1]}\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| \varphi_{\overline{m}_{n}-m}'(t) \right\|_{F} \Big| \mathcal{F}_{n} \right] .$$ Moreover, one can check that for all $h \in H$, $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi_{h}'(t) & = -\frac{h \left( X -m-th \right)^{T}}{\left\| Y(m+th) - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}} - \frac{\left( X-m-th \right)h^{T}}{\left\| Y(m+th) - \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}} \\
& + \left\langle Y(m+th) - \Gamma_{m} , h\left( X - m-th \right)^{T} \right\rangle_{F} \frac{Y(m+th) - \Gamma_{m}}{\left\| Y(m+th) - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}^{3}} \\
& + \left\langle Y(m+th) - \Gamma_{m} , \left( X - m-th \right)h^{T} \right\rangle_{F} \frac{Y(m+th) - \Gamma_{m}}{\left\| Y(m+th) - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}^{3}} . \end{aligned}$$ We now bound each term on the right-hand side of previous equality. First, applying Cauchy-Schwarz’s inequality and using the fact that for all $h,h' \in H$, $\left\| hh'^{T} \right\|_{F} = \left\| h \right\| \left\| h' \right\|$, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}\left[ \frac{\left\| h \left( X -m-th \right)^{T}\right\|_{F}}{\left\| Y(m+th) - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}} \right] & \leq \left\| h \right\| \mathbb{E}\left[ \frac{\left\| X-m-th \right\|}{\left\| Y(m+th) - \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}}\right] \\
& \leq \left\| h \right\| \mathbb{E}\left[ \frac{\sqrt{\left\| Y(m+th) \right\|_{F}}}{\left\| Y(m+th) - \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}} \right] \\
& \leq \left\| h \right\| \left( \mathbb{E}\left[ \frac{\sqrt{ \left\| \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}}}{\left\| Y(m+th) - \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}} \right] + \mathbb{E}\left[ \frac{1}{\sqrt{\left\| Y(m+th) - \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}}} \right] \right) . \end{aligned}$$ Thus, since $\mathbb{E}\left[ \frac{1}{\left\| Y(m+th) - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}} \right] \leq C$, $$\label{inequality1}
\mathbb{E}\left[ \frac{\left\| h \left( X -m-th \right)^{T}\right\|_{F}}{\left\| Y(m+th) - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}} \right] \leq \left\| h \right\| \left( C\sqrt{ \left\| \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}} + \sqrt{C} \right) .$$ In the same way, $$\label{inequality2}
\mathbb{E}\left[ \frac{\left\| \left( X -m-th \right)h^{T}\right\|_{F}}{\left\| Y(m+th) - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}} \right] \leq \left\| h \right\| \left( C\sqrt{ \left\| \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}} + \sqrt{C} \right) .$$ Applying Cauchy-Schwarz’s inequality, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}\left[ \left| \left\langle Y(m+th) - \Gamma_{m} , h\left( X - m-th \right)^{T} \right\rangle_{F}\right| \frac{\left\| Y(m+th) - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}}{\left\| Y(m+th) - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}^{3}} \right]& \leq \mathbb{E}\left[ \frac{\left\| h\left( X - m-th \right)^{T} \right\|_{F}}{\left\| Y(m+th) - \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}} \right] \\
& \leq \left\| h \right\| \mathbb{E}\left[ \frac{\left\| X -m -th \right\|}{\left\| Y(m+th) - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}}\right] \\
& \leq \left\| h \right\| \mathbb{E}\left[ \frac{\sqrt{\left\| Y(m+th) \right\|_{F}} }{\left\| Y(m+th) - \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}}\right] .\end{aligned}$$ Thus, since $\mathbb{E}\left[ \frac{1}{\left\| Y(m+th) - \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}}\right] \leq C$, and since for all positive constants $a,b$, $\sqrt{a+b}~\leq~ \sqrt{a}~+ ~\sqrt{b}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\left\| h \right\| \mathbb{E}\left[ \frac{\sqrt{\left\| Y(m+th) \right\|_{F}} }{\left\| Y(m+th) - \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}}\right] & \leq \left\| h \right\| \left( \mathbb{E}\left[ \frac{\sqrt{ \left\| \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}}}{\left\| Y(m+th) - \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}} \right] + \mathbb{E}\left[ \frac{1}{\sqrt{\left\| Y(m+th) - \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}}} \right] \right) \\
& \leq \left\| h \right\| \left( C\sqrt{ \left\| \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}} + \sqrt{C} \right) .\end{aligned}$$ Finally, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{inequality3}\mathbb{E}\left[ \left| \left\langle Y(m+th) - \Gamma_{m} , h\left( X - m-th \right)^{T} \right\rangle_{F}\right| \frac{\left\| Y(m+th) - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}}{\left\| Y(m+th) - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}^{3}} \right] & \leq \left\| h \right\| \left( C\sqrt{ \left\| \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}} + \sqrt{C} \right) , \\
\label{inequality4}\mathbb{E}\left[ \left| \left\langle Y(m+th) - \Gamma_{m} , \left( X - m-th \right)h^{T} \right\rangle_{F}\right| \frac{\left\| Y(m+th) - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}}{\left\| Y(m+th) - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}^{3}} \right] & \leq \left\| h \right\| \left( C\sqrt{ \left\| \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}} + \sqrt{C} \right) .\end{aligned}$$ Applying inequalities (\[inequality1\]) to (\[inequality4\]) with $h = \overline{m}_{n} - m $, the announced result is proven, $$\left\| r_{n} \right\|_{F} \leq 4 \left( \sqrt{C} + C \sqrt{\left\| \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}}\right) \left\| \overline{m}_{n} - m \right\| .$$
**Bounding $\left\| r_{n}' \right\|$**
For all $h \in H$ and $V \in \mathcal{S}(H)$, we define the random function $\varphi_{h,V}:~\left[ 0 , 1 \right] ~\longrightarrow ~ \mathcal{S}(H)$ such that for all $t \in [0,1]$, $$\varphi_{h,V}(t):= \frac{1}{\left\| Y(m+th) - \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}}\left( I_{\mathcal{S}(H)} - \frac{\left( Y(m+th) - \Gamma_{m} \right) \otimes_{F} \left( Y(m+th) - \Gamma_{m} \right)}{\left\| Y(m+th) - \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}^{2}}\right)\left( V \right) .$$ Note that $r_{n}' = \mathbb{E}\left[ \varphi_{\overline{m}_{n} - m , V_{n} - \Gamma_{m}}(1) - \varphi_{\overline{m}_{n}-m , V_{n} - \Gamma_{m}}(0) \Big| \mathcal{F}_{n} \right]$. By dominated convergence, $$\left\| r_{n}' \right\|_{F} \leq \sup_{t\in [0,1]}\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| \varphi_{\overline{m}_{n} -m , V_{n} - \Gamma_{m}}'(t)\right\|_{F} \Big| \mathcal{F}_{n} \right] .$$ Moreover, as for the bound of $\left\| r_{n} \right\|$, one can check, with an application of Cauchy-Schwarz’s inequality, that for all $h \in H$, $V \in \mathcal{S}(H)$, and $t \in [0,1]$, $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi_{h,V}'(t)& \leq 6 \frac{\left\| Y(m+th) - \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}\left\| h^{T}(X-m-th) \right\|_{F}}{\left\| Y(m+th) - \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}^{3}}\left\| V \right\|_{F} \\
& + 6 \frac{\left\| Y(m+th) - \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}\left\| h (X-m-th)^{T}\right\|_{F}}{\left\| Y(m+th) - \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}^{5}}\left\| \left( Y(m+th) - \Gamma_{m} \right) \otimes_{F} \left( Y (m+th) - \Gamma_{m} \right) (V) \right\|_{F} \\
& \leq 12 \frac{\left\| h (X-m-th)^{T}\right\|_{F}}{\left\| Y(m+th) - \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}^{2}}\left\| V \right\|_{F}.\end{aligned}$$ Finally, $$\begin{aligned}
\notag \mathbb{E}\left[ \frac{\left\| h (X-m-th)^{T}\right\|_{F}}{\left\| Y(m+th) - \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}^{2}}\left\| V \right\|_{F} \right] & \leq \mathbb{E}\left[ \frac{\left\| h \right\| \left\| X-m-th \right\|}{\left\| Y(m+th) - \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}^{2}}\left\| V \right\|_{F} \right] \\
\notag & \leq \left\| h \right\| \left\| V \right\|_{F} \mathbb{E}\left[ \frac{\sqrt{\left\| \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}}}{\left\| Y(m+th) - \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}^{2}} \right] \\
\notag & + \left\| h \right\| \left\| V \right\|_{F}\mathbb{E}\left[ \frac{1}{\left\| Y(m+th) - \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}^{3/2}}\right] \\
\label{inequality1'} & \leq \left( C\sqrt{\left\| \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}} + C^{3/4}\right)\left\| h \right\| \left\| V \right\|_{F}. \end{aligned}$$ Then the announced result follows from an application of inequality (\[inequality1’\]) with $h = \overline{m}_{n} - m$ and $V=V_{n} - \Gamma_{m}$, $$\left\| r_{n}' \right\| \leq 12\left( C\sqrt{\left\| \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}} + C^{3/4}\right)\left\| \overline{m}_{n} - m \right\| \left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}.$$
Proofs of Lemma 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4
================================
Using decomposition (\[decxi\]), $$\begin{aligned}
\left\| V_{n+1} - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}^{2} & = \left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}^{2} -2 \gamma_{n} \left\langle V_{n} - \Gamma_{m} , \nabla G_{\overline{m}_{n}}(V_{n}) - \nabla G_{\overline{m}_{n}}(\Gamma_{m}) \right\rangle_{F} \\ & +\gamma_{n}^{2}\left\| \nabla G_{\overline{m}_{n}}(V_{n}) - \nabla G_{\overline{m}_{n}}(\Gamma_{m}) \right\|_{F}^{2} \\
& + \gamma_{n}^{2}\left\| \xi_{n+1}\right\|_{F}^{2} + 2 \gamma_{n} \left\langle V_{n} - \Gamma_{m} - \gamma_{n} \left( \nabla G_{\overline{m}_{n}}(V_{n}) - \nabla G_{\overline{m}_{n}}(\Gamma_{m}) \right) , \xi_{n+1} \right\rangle_{F} \\
& + \gamma_{n}^{2}\left\| r_{n} \right\|_{F}^{2} -2 \gamma_{n}\left\langle r_{n} , V_{n} - \Gamma_{m} \right\rangle_{F} -2\gamma_{n}^{2} \left\langle r_{n} , \xi_{n+1} - \nabla G_{\overline{m}_{n}}(V_{n}) + \nabla G_{\overline{m}_{n}}(\Gamma_{m}) \right\rangle_{F} . \end{aligned}$$ Note that for all $h \in H$ and $V \in \mathcal{S}(H)$ we have $\left\| \nabla G_{h}(V) \right\|_{F} \leq 1$. Moreover, $\left\| r_{n} \right\|_{F} \leq 2$ and $\left\| \xi_{n+1} \right\|_{F} \leq 2$. Since for all $h \in H$, $G_{h}$ is a convex function, we get with Cauchy-Schwarz’s inequality, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{majord2}
\left\| V_{n+1} - \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}^{2} a\leq \left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}^{2} + 36\gamma_{n}^{2} +2 \gamma_{n} \left\langle \xi_{n+1} , V_{n} - \Gamma_{m}\right\rangle_{F} -2\gamma_{n} \left\langle r_{n} , V_{n} - \Gamma_{m} \right\rangle_{F} . \end{aligned}$$ Let $C' := 4\left( \sqrt{C} + C \sqrt{\left\|\Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}}\right)$, let us recall that $\left\| r_{n} \right\|_{F} \leq C' \left\| \overline{m}_{n} - m \right\|$. We now prove by induction that for all integer $p \geq 1$, there is a positive constant $M_{p}$ such that for all $n \geq 1$, $\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}^{2p}\right] \leq M_{p}$.
The case $p=1$ has been studied in the proof of Theorem 3.2. Let $p \geq 2$ and suppose from now that for all $k \leq p-1$, there is a positive constant $M_{k}$ such that for all $n \geq 1$, $$\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}^{2k}\right] \leq M_{k}.$$
**Bounding $\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}^{2p}\right]$.** Let us apply inequality (\[majord2\]), for all $p \geq 2$ and use the fact that $\left( \xi_{n} \right) $ is a sequence of martingales differences adapted to the filtration $\left( \mathcal{F}_{n} \right)$, $$\begin{gathered}
\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| V_{n+1} - \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}^{2p} \right] \leq \mathbb{E}\left[ \left( \left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}^{2} + 36\gamma_{n}^{2} +2\gamma_{n}\left\| r_{n} \right\|_{F} \left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F} \right)^{p} \right] \\
+ \sum_{k=2}^{p} \binom{p}{k} \mathbb{E}\left[\left( 2\gamma_{n} \left\langle V_{n} - \Gamma_{m} , \xi_{n+1} \right\rangle_{F} \right)^{k} \left( \left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}^{2} + 36 \gamma_{n}^{2} + 2\gamma_{n} \left\| r_{n} \right\|_{F}\left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F} \right)^{p-k} \right] .
\label{decordp} \end{gathered}$$ Let us denote by $(*)$ the second term on the right-hand side of inequality (\[decordp\]). Applying Cauchy-Schwarz’s inequality and since $\left\| \xi_{n+1} \right\|_{F} \leq 2$, $$\begin{aligned}
(*)& = \sum_{k=2}^{n} \binom{p}{k}\mathbb{E}\left[ \left( 2\gamma_{n} \left\langle V_{n} - \Gamma_{m} , \xi_{n+1} \right\rangle \right)^{k} \left( \left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}^{2} + 36 \gamma_{n}^{2} + 2\gamma_{n} \left\| r_{n} \right\|_{F}\left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F} \right)^{p-k}\right] \\
& \leq \sum_{k=2}^{p}\binom{p}{k}2^{2k}\gamma_{n}^{k}\mathbb{E}\left[\left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}^{k}\left( \left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}^{2} + 36 \gamma_{n}^{2} + 2\gamma_{n} \left\| r_{n} \right\|_{F}\left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F} \right)^{p-k}\right] .\end{aligned}$$ With the help of Lemma \[lemtechnique\], $$\begin{aligned}
(*) & \leq \sum_{k=2}^{p}2^{2k}3^{p-k-1}\gamma_{n}^{k} \mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}^{2p-k}\right] + \sum_{k=2}^{p}2^{2k}3^{p-k-1}36^{p-k}\gamma_{n}^{2p-k}\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}^{k}\right] \\
& + \sum_{k=2}^{p}2^{p+k}3^{p-k-1}\gamma_{n}^{p}\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| r_{n} \right\|_{F}^{p-k}\left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}^{p} \right] .\end{aligned}$$ Applying Cauchy-Schwarz’s inequality, $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{k=2}^{p}2^{2k}3^{p-k-1}\gamma_{n}^{k}\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}^{2p-k} \right] & = \sum_{k=2}^{p}2^{2k}3^{p-k-1}\gamma_{n}^{k} \mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}^{p-1}\left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}^{p+1-k}\right] \\
& \leq \sum_{k=2}^{p}2^{2k}3^{p-k-1}\gamma_{n}^{k}\sqrt{\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}^{2(p-1)}\right]}\sqrt{\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}^{2(p+1-k)}\right]}. \\\end{aligned}$$ By induction, $$\begin{aligned}
\notag \sum_{k=2}^{p}2^{2k}3^{p-k-1}\gamma_{n}^{k}\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}^{2p-k} \right] & \leq \sum_{k=2}^{p}2^{2k}3^{p-k-1}\gamma_{n}^{k}\sqrt{M_{p-1}}\sqrt{M_{p+1-k}} \\
& = O \left( \gamma_{n}^{2} \right). \label{eq1}\end{aligned}$$ In the same way, applying Cauchy-Schwarz’s inequality and by induction, $$\begin{aligned}
\notag \sum_{k=2}^{p}2^{2k}3^{p-k-1}36^{p-k}\gamma_{n}^{2p-k}\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}^{k} \right] & = \sum_{k=2}^{p}2^{2k}3^{p-k-1}36^{p-k}\gamma_{n}^{2p-k}\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}\left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}^{k-1} \right] \\
\notag & \leq \sum_{k=2}^{p}2^{2k}3^{p-k-1}36^{p-k}\gamma_{n}^{2p-k}\sqrt{M_{1}}\sqrt{M_{k-1}} \\
\label{eq2} & = O \left( \gamma_{n}^{2} \right) ,\end{aligned}$$ since $p \geq 2$. Similarly, since $\left\| r_{n} \right\|_{F} \leq 2$ and since $p \geq 2$, applying Cauchy-Schwarz’s inequality and by induction, $$\begin{aligned}
\notag \sum_{k=2}^{p}2^{p+k}3^{p-k-1}\gamma_{n}^{p}\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| r_{n} \right\|_{F}^{p-k} \left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}^{p}\right] & \leq \sum_{k=2}^{p}2^{2p}3^{p-k-1}\gamma_{n}^{p}\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}^{p}\right] \\
\notag & \leq \sum_{k=2}^{p}2^{2p}3^{p-k-1}\gamma_{n}^{p}\sqrt{M_{1}}\sqrt{M_{p-1}} \\
\label{eq3} & = O \left( \gamma_{n}^{2}\right) .\end{aligned}$$ Finally, applying inequalities (\[eq1\]) to (\[eq3\]), there is a positive constant $A_{1}'$ such that for all $n \geq 1$, $$\label{maj1}
\mathbb{E}\left[ \sum_{k=2}^{p} \binom{p}{k}\left( 2\gamma_{n} \left\langle V_{n} - \Gamma_{m} , \xi_{n+1} \right\rangle_{F} \right)^{k} \left( \left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}^{2} + 36 \gamma_{n}^{2} + 2\gamma_{n} \left\| r_{n} \right\|_{F}\left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F} \right)^{p-k} \right] \leq A_{1}'\gamma_{n}^{2}.$$ We now denote by $(**)$ the first term at the right-hand side of inequality (\[decordp\]). With the help of Lemma \[lemtechnique\] and applying Cauchy-Schwarz’s inequality, $$\begin{aligned}
(**) & \leq \mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}^{2p}\right] + \sum_{k=1}^{p}\binom{p}{k}\mathbb{E}\left[ \left( 36\gamma_{n}^{2} +2\gamma_{n}\left\langle r_{n} , V_{n} - \Gamma_{m} \right\rangle_{F}\right)^{k}\left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}^{2p-2k}\right] \\
& \leq \mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}^{2p}\right] + \sum_{k=1}^{p}\binom{p}{k}2^{k-1}\mathbb{E}\left[ \left( 36^{k}\gamma_{n}^{2k} + 2^{k}\gamma_{n}^{k}\left\| r_{n} \right\|_{F}^{k} \left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}^{k} \right) \left\| V_{n}-\Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}^{2p-2k} \right] .\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, let $$\begin{aligned}
(***) & := \sum_{k=1}^{p}\binom{p}{k}2^{k-1}\mathbb{E}\left[ \left( 36^{k}\gamma_{n}^{2k} + 2^{k}\gamma_{n}^{k}\left\| r_{n} \right\|_{F}^{k} \left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}^{k} \right) \left\| V_{n}-\Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}^{2p-2k} \right] \\
& = \sum_{k=1}^{p}\binom{p}{k}2^{k-1}36^{k}\gamma_{n}^{2k}\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}^{2p-2k} \right] + \sum_{k=1}^{p}\binom{p}{k}2^{2k-1}\gamma_{n}^{k}\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| r_{n} \right\|_{F}^{k}\left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}^{2p-k}\right] .\end{aligned}$$ By induction, $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{k=1}^{p}\binom{p}{k}2^{k-1}36^{k}\gamma_{n}^{2k}\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}^{2p-2k} \right] & = \sum_{k=1}^{p}\binom{p}{k}2^{k-1}36^{k}\gamma_{n}^{2k}M_{p-k} \\
& = O \left( \gamma_{n}^{2} \right) .\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{k=1}^{p}\binom{p}{k}2^{2k-1}\gamma_{n}^{k}\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| r_{n} \right\|_{F}^{k}\left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}^{2p-k}\right] & = \sum_{k=2}^{p}\binom{p}{k}2^{2k-1}\gamma_{n}^{k}\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| r_{n} \right\|_{F}^{k}\left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}^{2p-k}\right] \\
& + 2p\gamma_{n}\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| r_{n} \right\|_{F}\left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}^{2p-1}\right] .\end{aligned}$$ Applying Cauchy-Schwarz’s inequality and by induction, since $ \left\| r_{n} \right\|_{F} \leq 2$, $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{k=2}^{p}\binom{p}{k}2^{2k-1}\gamma_{n}^{k}\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| r_{n} \right\|_{F}^{k}\left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}^{2p-k}\right] & \leq \sum_{k=2}^{p}\binom{p}{k}2^{3k-1}\gamma_{n}^{k}\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}^{2p-k}\right] \\
& \leq \sum_{k=2}^{p}\binom{p}{k}2^{3k-1}\gamma_{n}^{k}\sqrt{M_{p+1-k}}\sqrt{M_{p-1}} \\
& = O \left( \gamma_{n}^{2} \right). \end{aligned}$$ Moreover, applying Theorem 4.2 in [@godichon2015] and Hölder’s inequality, since $\left\| r_{n} \right\|_{F}~ \leq ~ C'~ \left\| \overline{m}_{n} - m \right\|$, $$\begin{aligned}
2p\gamma_{n} \mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| r_{n} \right\|_{F}\left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F} ^{2p-1}\right] & \leq 2C' p \gamma_{n} \mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| \overline{m}_{n} - m \right\| \left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}^{2p-1}\right] \\
& \leq 2C' p \gamma_{n} \left( \mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| \overline{m}_{n} - m \right\|^{2p}\right]\right)^{\frac{1}{2p}}\left( \mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}^{2p}\right]\right)^{\frac{2p-1}{2p}} \\
& \leq 2C'p\gamma_{n} \frac{K_{p}^{\frac{1}{2p}}}{n^{1/2}}\left( \mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}^{2p}\right]\right)^{\frac{2p-1}{2p}}.\end{aligned}$$ Finally, $$\begin{aligned}
2C'p\gamma_{n} \frac{K_{p}^{\frac{1}{2p}}}{n^{1/2}}\left( \mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}^{2p}\right]\right)^{\frac{2p-1}{2p}} & \leq 2C'p\gamma_{n} \frac{K_{p}^{\frac{1}{2p}}}{n^{1/2}} \max\left\lbrace 1, \mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}^{2p}\right]\right\rbrace \\
& \leq 2C'p\gamma_{n} \frac{K_{p}^{\frac{1}{2p}}}{n^{1/2}} \left( 1 + \mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}^{2p}\right]\right) .\end{aligned}$$ Thus, there are positive constants $A_{0}'',A_{1}''$ such that $$\label{maj2} (**) \leq \left( 1+ A_{0}''\frac{1}{n^{\alpha + 1/2}} \right) \mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}^{2p}\right] + A_{1}''\frac{1}{n^{\alpha + 1/2}} .$$
Finally, thanks to inequalities (\[maj1\]) and (\[maj2\]), there are positive constants $A_{0}',A_{1}'$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| V_{n+1} - \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}^{2p}\right] & \leq \left( 1+A_{0}'\frac{1}{n^{\alpha + 1/2}}\right)\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}^{2p}\right] + A_{1}'\frac{1}{n^{\alpha + 1/2}} \\
& \leq \prod_{k=1}^{n}\left( 1+A_{0}'\frac{1}{k^{\alpha + 1/2}}\right)\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| V_{1} - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}^{2p}\right]+ \sum_{k=1}^{n}\prod_{j=k+1}^{n}\left( 1+A_{0}' \frac{1}{j^{\alpha + 1/2}}\right) A_{1}'\frac{1}{k^{\alpha + 1/2}} \\
& \leq \prod_{k=1}^{\infty}\left( 1+A_{0}'\frac{1}{k^{\alpha + 1/2}}\right)\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| V_{1} - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}^{2p}\right]+ \prod_{j=1}^{\infty}\left( 1+A_{0}' \frac{1}{j^{\alpha + 1/2}}\right)\sum_{k=1}^{\infty} A_{1}'\frac{1}{k^{\alpha + 1/2}} \\
& \leq M_{p},\end{aligned}$$ which concludes the induction and the proof.
Let us define the following linear operators: $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_{n} & := I_{\mathcal{S}(H)} - \gamma_{n}\nabla_{m}^{2}G(\Gamma_{m}) , \\
\beta_{n} & := \prod_{k=1}^{n} \alpha_{k} = \prod_{k=1}^{n} \left( I_{\mathcal{S}(H)} - \gamma_{k} \nabla_{m}^{2}G(\Gamma_{m}) \right) , \\
\beta_{0} & := I_{\mathcal{S}(H)} .\end{aligned}$$ Using decomposition (\[decdelta\]) and by induction, for all $n \geq 1$, $$\label{decbeta} V_{n} - \Gamma_{m} = \beta_{n-1} \left( V_{1} - \Gamma_{m} \right) + \beta_{n-1}M_{n} - \beta_{n-1}R_{n} - \beta_{n-1} R_{n}' - \beta_{n-1}\Delta_{n} ,$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
& M_{n} := \sum_{k=1}^{n-1} \gamma_{k}\beta_{k}^{-1}\xi_{k+1} , & R_{n} := \sum_{k=1}^{n-1} \gamma_{k}\beta_{k}^{-1}r_{k} , \\
& R_{n}' := \sum_{k=1}^{n-1} \gamma_{k}\beta_{k}^{-1}r_{k}' , & \Delta_{n} := \sum_{k=1}^{n-1}\gamma_{k}\beta_{k}^{-1}\delta_{k} .\end{aligned}$$ We now study the asymptotic behavior of the linear operators $\beta_{n}$ and $\beta_{n-1}\beta_{k}^{-1}$. As in [@CCZ11], one can check that there are positive constants $c_{0},c_{1}$ such that for all integers $k,n \geq 1$ with $k \leq n-1$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{majbeta}
& \left\| \beta_{n-1} \right\|_{op} \leq c_{0}e^{-\lambda_{\min}\sum_{k=1}^{n}\gamma_{n}}, & \left\| \beta_{n-1}\beta_{k}^{-1}\right\|_{op} & \leq c_{1}e^{-\lambda_{\min}\sum_{j=k}^{n}\gamma_{j}} ,\end{aligned}$$ where $\| . \|_{op}$ is the usual spectral norm for linear operators. We now bound the quadratic mean of each term in decomposition (\[decbeta\]).
**Step 1: the quasi deterministic term $\beta_{n-1}(V_{1} - \Gamma_{m})$.** Applying inequality (\[majbeta\]), there is a positive constant $c_{0}'$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqdec1}
\notag \mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| \beta_{n-1}\left(V_{1} - \Gamma_{m}\right) \right\|_{F}^{2}\right] & \leq \left\| \beta_{n-1}\right\|_{op}^{2}\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| V_{1}-\Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}^{2}\right] \\
\notag & \leq c_{0}e^{-2\lambda_{\min}\sum_{k=1}^{n}\gamma_{n}}\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| V_{1} - \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}^{2}\right] \\
& \leq c_{0}e^{-c_{0}'n^{1-\alpha}}\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| V_{1}- \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}^{2} \right] .\end{aligned}$$ This term converges exponentially fast to $0$.
**Step 2: the martingale term $\beta_{n-1}M_{n}$.** Since $\left( \xi_{n} \right)$ is a sequence of martingale differences adapted to the filtration $\left( \mathcal{F}_{n} \right)$, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| \beta_{n-1}M_{n} \right\|_{F}^{2}\right] & = \sum_{k=1}^{n-1}\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| \beta_{n-1}\beta_{k}^{-1}\gamma_{k}\xi_{k+1} \right\|_{F}^{2}\right] + 2 \sum_{k=1}^{n-1}\sum_{k'=k+1}^{n-1}\gamma_{k}\gamma_{k'}\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\langle \beta_{n-1}\beta_{k}^{-1}\xi_{k+1} , \beta_{n-1}\beta_{k'}^{-1}\xi_{k'+1} \right\rangle_{F} \right] \\
& = \sum_{k=1}^{n-1}\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| \beta_{n-1}\beta_{k}^{-1}\gamma_{k}\xi_{k+1} \right\|_{F}^{2}\right] + 2 \sum_{k=1}^{n-1}\sum_{k'=k+1}^{n-1}\gamma_{k}\gamma_{k'}\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\langle \beta_{n-1}\beta_{k}^{-1}\xi_{k+1} , \beta_{n-1}\beta_{k'}^{-1}\mathbb{E}\left[\xi_{k'+1}|\mathcal{F}_{k'}\right] \right\rangle_{F} \right] \\
& = \sum_{k=1}^{n-1}\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| \beta_{n-1}\beta_{k}^{-1}\gamma_{k}\xi_{k+1} \right\|_{F}^{2}\right] .\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, as in [@CCG2015], Lemma \[sumexp\] ensures that there is a positive constant $C_{1}'$ such that for all $n \geq 1$, $$\label{eqdec2} \mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| \beta_{n-1}M_{n} \right\|_{F}^{2}\right] \leq \frac{C_{1}'}{n^{\alpha}}.$$
**Step 3: the first remainder term $\beta_{n-1}R_{n}$.** Remarking that $\left\| r_{n} \right\|_{F} \leq 4 \left( \sqrt{C} + C\sqrt{\left\|\Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}} \right) \left\| \overline{m}_{n} - m \right\|$, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| \beta_{n-1}R_{n} \right\|_{F}^{2} \right] & \leq \mathbb{E}\left[ \left( \sum_{k=1}^{n-1} \gamma_{k} \left\| \beta_{n-1}\beta_{k}^{-1} \right\|_{op}\left\| r_{k} \right\|_{F} \right)^{2}\right] \\
& \leq 16 \left( \sqrt{C} + \sqrt{\left\| \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}}\right)^{2} \mathbb{E}\left[ \left( \sum_{k=1}^{n-1} \gamma_{k}\left\| \beta_{n-1}\beta_{k}^{-1}\right\|_{op} \left\| \overline{m}_{k}-m \right\| \right)^{2}\right] .\end{aligned}$$ Applying Lemma 4.3 and Theorem 4.2 in [@godichon2015], $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| \beta_{n-1}R_{n} \right\|_{F}^{2} \right] & \leq 16 \left( \sqrt{C} + C\sqrt{\left\| \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}} \right)^{2}\left( \sum_{k=1}^{n-1}\gamma_{k}\left\| \beta_{n-1}\beta_{k}^{-1}\right\|_{op}\sqrt{\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| \overline{m}_{k} - m \right\|^{2}\right]}\right)^{2} \\
& \leq 16 \left( \sqrt{C} + C\sqrt{\left\| \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}} \right)^{2}K_{1}\left( \sum_{k=1}^{n-1}\gamma_{k}\left\| \beta_{n-1}\beta_{k}^{-1}\right\|_{op}\frac{1}{k^{1/2}}\right)^{2}.\end{aligned}$$ Applying inequality (\[majbeta\]), $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| \beta_{n-1}R_{n} \right\|_{F}^{2}\right] & \leq 16 \left( \sqrt{C} + C\sqrt{\Gamma_{m}} \right)^{2}K_{1}\left( \sum_{k=1}^{n-1}\gamma_{k}e^{-\sum_{j=k}^{n}\gamma_{j}}\frac{1}{k^{1/2}}\right)^{2} \\
& \leq 16 \left( \sqrt{C} + C\sqrt{\Gamma_{m}} \right)^{2}K_{1}\left( \sum_{k=1}^{n}\gamma_{k}e^{-\sum_{j=k}^{n}\gamma_{j}}\frac{1}{k^{1/2}}\right)^{2}.\end{aligned}$$ Splitting the sum into two parts and applying Lemma \[sumexp\], we have $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| \beta_{n-1}R_{n} \right\|_{F}^{2}\right] & \leq 32 \left( \sqrt{C} + C\sqrt{\left\| \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}} \right)^{2}K_{1}\left( \sum_{k=1}^{E (n/2)}\gamma_{k}e^{-\sum_{j=k}^{n}\gamma_{j}}\frac{1}{k^{1/2}}\right)^{2} \\
& + 32 \left( \sqrt{C} + C\sqrt{\left\| \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}} \right)^{2}K_{1}\left( \sum_{k=E(n/2) +1}^{n}\gamma_{k}e^{-\sum_{j=k}^{n}\gamma_{j}}\frac{1}{k^{1/2}}\right)^{2} \\
& = O \left( \frac{1}{n}\right) .\end{aligned}$$ Thus, there is a positive constant $C_{2}'$ such that for all $n \geq 1$, $$\label{eqdec3}
\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| \beta_{n-1}R_{n} \right\|_{F}^{2}\right] \leq \frac{C_{2}'}{n}.$$
**Step 4: the second remainder term $\beta_{n-1}R_{n}'$.** Let us recall that for all $n \geq 1$, $\left\| r_{n}' \right\|_{F}~\leq~12D\left\| \overline{m}_{n}-m \right\|\left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}$ with $D:= C \sqrt{ \left\| \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}} ~+ ~C ^{3/4}$. Thus, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| \beta_{n-1}R_{n}' \right\|_{F}^{2}\right] & \leq \mathbb{E}\left[ \left( \sum_{k=1}^{n-1}\gamma_{k}\left\| \beta_{n-1}\beta_{k}^{-1}\right\|_{op}\left\| r_{k}' \right\|_{F} \right)^{2}\right] \\
& \leq 144D^{2}\mathbb{E}\left[ \left( \sum_{k=1}^{n-1}\gamma_{k}\left\| \beta_{n-1}\beta_{k}^{-1}\right\|_{op}\left\| \overline{m}_{k} - m \right\| \left\| V_{k} - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F} \right)^{2}\right] .\end{aligned}$$ Applying Lemma 4.3 in [@godichon2015], $$\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| \beta_{n-1}R_{n}' \right\|_{F}^{2}\right] \leq 144D^{2}\left( \sum_{k=1}^{n-1}\gamma_{k}\left\| \beta_{n-1}\beta_{k}^{-1}\right\|_{op}\sqrt{\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| \overline{m}_{k} - m \right\|^{2} \left\| V_{k} - \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}^{2} \right]}\right)^{2}.$$ Thanks to Lemma 5.2, there is a positive constant $M_{2}$ such that for all $n \geq 1$, $\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}^{4}\right]~\leq~M_{2}$. Thus, applying Cauchy-Schwarz’s inequality and Theorem 4.2 in [@godichon2015], $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| \beta_{n-1}R_{n}' \right\|_{F}^{2}\right] & \leq 144D^{2}\left( \sum_{k=1}^{n-1}\gamma_{k}\left\| \beta_{n-1}\beta_{k}^{-1}\right\|_{op}\left(\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| \overline{m}_{k} - m \right\|^{4}\right]\right)^{\frac{1}{4}} \left( \mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| V_{k} - \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}^{4} \right]\right)^{\frac{1}{4}}\right)^{2} \\
& \leq 144D^{2}\sqrt{M_{2}K_{2}}\left( \sum_{k=1}^{n-1}\gamma_{k}\left\| \beta_{n-1}\beta_{k}^{-1}\right\|_{op} \frac{1}{k^{1/2}} \right)^{2}.
\end{aligned}$$ As in step 3, splitting the sum into two parts, one can check that there is a positive constant $C_{1}''$ such that for all $n \geq 1$, $$\label{eqdec4}
\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| \beta_{n-1}R_{n}' \right\|_{F}^{2}\right] \leq \frac{C_{1}''}{n}.$$
**Step 5: the third remainder term: $\beta_{n-1}\Delta_{n}$** Since $\left\| \delta_{n} \right\|_{F} \leq 6C \left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}^{2}$, applying Lemma 4.3 in [@godichon2015], $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| \beta_{n-1}\Delta_{n} \right\|_{F}^{2}\right] & \leq \mathbb{E}\left[ \left( \sum_{k=1}^{n-1}\gamma_{k}\left\| \beta_{n-1}\beta_{k}^{-1}\right\|_{op}\left\| \delta_{k} \right\|_{F}\right)^{2}\right] \\
& \leq 36C^{2}\mathbb{E}\left[ \left( \sum_{k=1}^{n-1}\gamma_{k}\left\| \beta_{n-1}\beta_{k}^{-1}\right\|_{op}\left\| V_{k} - \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}^{2}\right)^{2}\right] \\
& \leq 36C^{2} \left( \sum_{k=1}^{n-1} \gamma_{k}\left\| \beta_{n-1}\beta_{k}^{-1}\right\|_{op}\sqrt{\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| V_{k} - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}^{4}\right]} \right)^{2} .\end{aligned}$$ Thanks to Lemma 5.2, there is a positive constant $M_{2}$ such that for all $n \geq 1$, $\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}^{4}\right]~\leq~M_{2}$. Thus, splitting the sum into two parts and applying inequalities (\[majbeta\]) and Lemma \[sumexp\], there are positive constant $c_{0}' , C_{2}'$ such that for all $n \geq 1$, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| \beta_{n-1}\Delta_{n} \right\|_{F}^{2}\right] & \leq 72C^{2}M_{2}^{2}\left( \sum_{k=1}^{E(n/2)}\gamma_{k}e^{-\sum_{j=k}^{n}\gamma_{j}} \right)^{2} \\
& + 72C^{2}\sup_{E(n/2)+1 \leq k \leq n-1} \left\lbrace \mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| V_{k} - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}^{4}\right]\right\rbrace \left( \sum_{k=E(n/2)+1}^{n}\gamma_{k}e^{-\sum_{j=k}^{n}\gamma_{j}} \right)^{2} \\
& \leq C_{2}' \sup_{E(n/2)+1 \leq k \leq n-1}\left\lbrace \mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| V_{k} - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}^{4}\right]\right\rbrace + O \left( e^{-2c_{0}'n^{1-\alpha}} \right) .\end{aligned}$$ Thus, there is a positive constant $C_{0}'$ such that for all $ n \geq 1$, $$\label{eqdec5}
\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| \beta_{n-1}\Delta_{n}\right\|_{F}^{2}\right] \leq C_{0}'e^{-2c_{0}'n^{1-\alpha}} + C_{2}'\sup_{E(n/2)+1 \leq k \leq n-1}\left\lbrace \mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| V_{k} - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}^{4}\right]\right\rbrace .$$
**Conclusion:** Applying Lemma \[lemtechnique\] and decomposition (\[decbeta\]), for all $n \geq 1$, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}^{2}\right] & \leq 5 \mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| \beta_{n-1}\left( V_{1}-\Gamma_{m}\right)\right\|_{F}^{2}\right] + 5 \mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| \beta_{n-1}M_{n}\right\|_{F}^{2}\right] + 5 \mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| \beta_{n-1}R_{n} \right\|_{F}^{2}\right]\\
& + 5\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| \beta_{n-1}R_{n}' \right\|_{F}^{2}\right] +5 \mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| \beta_{n-1}\Delta_{n}\right\|_{F}^{2}\right] .\end{aligned}$$ Applying inequalities (\[eqdec1\]) to (\[eqdec5\]), there are positive constants $C_{1},C_{1}',C_{2},C_{3}$ such that for all $n \geq 1$, $$\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m} \right\|^{2} \right] \leq C_{1}e^{-C_{1}'n^{1-\alpha}} + \frac{C_{2}}{n^{\alpha}} + C_{3}\sup_{E(n/2)+1 \leq k \leq n-1}\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| V_{k} - \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}^{4}\right] .$$
Let us define $W_{n}:= V_{n} - \Gamma_{m} -\gamma_{n} \left( \nabla G_{\overline{m}_{n}}(V_{n}) - \nabla G_{\overline{m}_{n}}(\Gamma_{m})\right)$ and use decomposition (\[decxi\]), $$\begin{aligned}
\left\| V_{n+1} - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}^{2} & = \left\| W_{n} \right\|_{F}^{2} + \gamma_{n}^{2}\left\| \xi_{n+1}\right\|_{F}^{2} + \gamma_{n}^{2}\left\| r_{n} \right\|_{F}^{2} +2 \gamma_{n} \left\langle \xi_{n+1}, V_{n} - \Gamma_{m} \right\rangle_{F} +2\gamma_{n}^{2}\left\langle \xi_{n+1} , \nabla G_{\overline{m}_{n}}(V_{n})\right\rangle_{F}\\
& - 2\gamma_{n}^{2}\left\langle r_{n} , \nabla G_{\overline{m}_{n}}(V_{n}) - \nabla G_{\overline{m}_{n}}(\Gamma_{m}) \right\rangle_{F} -2\gamma_{n}\left\langle r_{n} ,V_{n} -\Gamma_{m} \right\rangle_{F}.\end{aligned}$$ Since $\left\| \xi_{n+1}\right\|_{F} \leq 2$, $\left\| r_{n} \right\|_{F} \leq 2$ and the fact that for all $h \in H$, $V \in \mathcal{S}(H)$, $\nabla_{h}G(V) \leq 1$, we get with an application of Cauchy-Schwarz’s inequality $$\left\| V_{n+1} - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}^{2} \leq \left\| W_{n} \right\|_{F}^{2} +2\gamma_{n} \left\langle \xi_{n+1} , V_{n} - \Gamma_{m}\right\rangle_{F} +2\gamma_{n} \left\| r_{n} \right\|_{F}\left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F} + 20\gamma_{n}^{2}.$$ Thus, since $\left( \xi_{n} \right)$ is a sequence of martingale differences adapted to the filtration $\left( \mathcal{F}_{n} \right)$, and since $\left\| W_{n} \right\|_{F}^{2} \leq \left( 1+C^{2}c_{\gamma}^{2}\right) \left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}^{2}$ (this inequality follows from Proposition \[convexity\] and from the fact that for all $h \in H$, $G_{h}$ is a convex application), $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| V_{n+1} - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}^{4} \right] & \leq \mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| W_{n} \right\|_{F}^{4}\right] +2\gamma_{n}\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| r_{n} \right\|_{F} \left\| W_{n} \right\|_{F}^{2}\left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}\right] \\ & + 40 \left( 1+C^{2}c_{\gamma}^{2}\right)\gamma_{n}^{2}\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}^{2}\right] \\
& + 4\gamma_{n}^{2}\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\langle \xi_{n+1} , V_{n} - \Gamma_{m}\right\rangle_{F}^{2}\right] + 400\gamma_{n}^{4} + 40\gamma_{n}^{3}\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| r_{n} \right\|_{F} \left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}^{2} \right] \\
& + 4\gamma_{n}^{2}\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| r_{n} \right\|_{F}^{2}\left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}^{2}\right] .\end{aligned}$$ Since $\left\| \xi_{n+1}\right\|_{F} \leq 2$ and $\left\| r_{n} \right\|_{F} \leq 2$, applying Cauchy-Schwarz’s inequality, there are positive constants $C_{1}',C_{2}'$ such that for all $n\geq 1$, $$\label{majoord4}
\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| V_{n+1}-\Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}^{4}\right] \leq \mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| W_{n} \right\|_{F}^{4}\right] +2\gamma_{n}\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| r_{n} \right\|_{F} \left\| W_{n} \right\|_{F}^{2}\left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}\right] + \frac{C_{1}'}{n^{3\alpha}}+ \frac{C_{2}'}{n^{2\alpha}}\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}^{2}\right].$$ We now bound the two first terms at the right-hand side of inequality (\[majoord4\]).
**Step 1: bounding $\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| W_{n} \right\|_{F}^{4}\right]$.** Since $\nabla G_{\overline{m}_{n}}(V_{n}) - \nabla G_{\overline{m}_{n}}(\Gamma_{m}) = \int_{0}^{1}\nabla_{\overline{m}_{n}}^{2}G \left( \Gamma_{m} + t \left( V_{n} - \Gamma_{m}\right) \right)\left( V_{n} - \Gamma_{m}\right) dt $, applying Proposition \[convexity\], one can check that $$\begin{aligned}
\left\| W_{n} \right\|^{2} & = \left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}^{2} -2\gamma_{n} \left\langle V_{n} - \Gamma_{m} , \nabla G_{\overline{m}_{n}}(V_{n}) - \nabla G_{\overline{m}_{n}}(\Gamma_{m}) \right\rangle_{H} + \gamma_{n}^{2}\left\| \nabla G_{\overline{m}_{n}}(V_{n}) - \nabla G_{\overline{m}_{n}}(\Gamma_{m}) \right\|_{F}^{2} \\
& \leq \left( 1+ C^{2}\gamma_{n}^{2} \right)\left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}^{2} -2 \gamma_{n} \left\langle V_{n} - \Gamma_{m} , \nabla G_{\overline{m}_{n}}(V_{n}) - \nabla G_{\overline{m}_{n}}(\Gamma_{m}) \right\rangle_{H}.\end{aligned}$$ Since for all $h \in H$, $G_{h}$ is a convex application, $\left\| W_{n} \right\|_{F}^{2} \leq \left( 1+c_{\gamma}^{2}C^{2}\right)\left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}^{2}$. Let $p'$ be a positive integer. We now introduce the sequence of events $\left( A_{n,p'}\right)_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$ defined for all $n \geq 1$ by $$A_{n,p'} := \left\lbrace \omega \in \Omega , \quad \left\| V_{n}(\omega ) - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F} \leq n^{\frac{1-\alpha}{p'}} , \quad \text{and } \quad \left\| \overline{m}_{n}(\omega ) - m \right\| \leq \epsilon \right\rbrace ,$$ with $\epsilon$ defined in Proposition \[convexity\]. For the sake of simplicity, we consider that $\epsilon '$ defined in Proposition \[convexity\] verifies $\epsilon ' \leq 1$. Applying Proposition \[convexity\], let $$\begin{aligned}
\label{majbn}
\notag B_{n}:& = \left\langle \nabla G_{\overline{m}_{n}}( V_{n} ) - \nabla G_{\overline{m}_{n}}(\Gamma_{m}) , V_{n} - \Gamma_{m} \right\rangle_{F}\mathbf{1}_{A_{n,p'}}\mathbf{1}_{\left\lbrace \left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F} \leq \epsilon '\right\rbrace} \\
\notag & = \int_{0}^{1}\left\langle \nabla_{\overline{m}_{n}}^{2}G\left( \Gamma_{m} + t\left( V_{n} - \Gamma_{m}\right) \right) \left( V_{n} - \Gamma_{m} \right) , V_{n} - \Gamma_{m} \right\rangle_{F} \mathbf{1}_{\left\lbrace \left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F} \leq \epsilon '\right\rbrace}\mathbf{1}_{A_{n,p'}} dt \\
& \geq \frac{1}{2} c_{m}\left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}^{2} \mathbf{1}_{\left\lbrace \left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F} \leq \epsilon '\right\rbrace}\mathbf{1}_{A_{n,p'}} .\end{aligned}$$ In the same way, since $G_{\overline{m}_{n}}$ is convex, let $$\begin{aligned}
B_{n}':& = \left\langle \nabla G_{\overline{m}_{n}}( V_{n} ) - \nabla G_{\overline{m}_{n}}(\Gamma_{m}) , V_{n} - \Gamma_{m} \right\rangle_{F}\mathbf{1}_{A_{n,p'}}\mathbf{1}_{\left\lbrace \left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F} > \epsilon '\right\rbrace} \\
& = \int_{0}^{1}\left\langle \nabla_{\overline{m}_{n}}^{2}\left( \Gamma_{m} + t\left( V_{n} - \Gamma_{m}\right) \right) \left( V_{n} - \Gamma_{m} \right) , V_{n} - \Gamma_{m} \right\rangle \mathbf{1}_{\left\lbrace \left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F} > \epsilon '\right\rbrace}\mathbf{1}_{A_{n,p'}} dt \\
& \geq \int_{0}^{\frac{\epsilon '}{\left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}}}\left\langle \nabla_{\overline{m}_{n}}^{2}\left( \Gamma_{m} + t\left( V_{n} - \Gamma_{m}\right) \right) \left( V_{n} - \Gamma_{m} \right) , V_{n} - \Gamma_{m} \right\rangle \mathbf{1}_{\left\lbrace \left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F} > \epsilon '\right\rbrace} \mathbf{1}_{A_{n,p'}} dt\end{aligned}$$ Applying Proposition \[convexity\], $$\begin{aligned}
\label{majcn}
\notag B_{n}' & \geq \int_{0}^{\frac{\epsilon '}{\left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}}} \frac{1}{2}c_{m} \left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}^{2}\mathbf{1}_{\left\lbrace \left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F} > \epsilon '\right\rbrace} \mathbf{1}_{A_{n,p'}} dt \\
\notag & \geq \frac{\epsilon' c_{m}}{2 \left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}}\left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}^{2}\mathbf{1}_{\left\lbrace \left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F} > \epsilon '\right\rbrace} \mathbf{1}_{A_{n,p'}} \\
& \geq \frac{\epsilon'c_{m}}{2}n^{-\frac{1-\alpha}{p'}}\left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}^{2}\mathbf{1}_{\left\lbrace \left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F} > \epsilon '\right\rbrace} \mathbf{1}_{A_{n,p'}}. \end{aligned}$$ There is a rank $n_{p'}'$ such that for all $n \geq n_{p'}'$, we have $\frac{\epsilon 'c_{m}}{2}n^{-\frac{1-\alpha}{p}}\leq \frac{1}{2}c_{m}$. Thus, applying inequalities (\[majbn\]) and (\[majcn\]), for all $n \geq n_{p'}'$, $$\left\| W_{n} \right\|_{F}^{2}\mathbf{1}_{A_{n,p'}} \leq \left( 1- \frac{\epsilon 'c_{m} }{2}\gamma_{n}n^{-\frac{1-\alpha}{p'}}\right) \left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}^{2}\mathbf{1}_{A_{n,p'}}.$$ Thus, there are a positive constant $c_{p'}$ and a rank $n_{p'}$ such that for all $n \geq n_{p'}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{majwnan}
\notag \mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| W_{n} \right\|_{F}^{4}\mathbf{1}_{A_{n,p'}}\right] & \leq \left( 1- \frac{\epsilon 'c_{m} }{2}\gamma_{n}n^{-\frac{1-\alpha}{p'}}\right)^{2} \mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}^{4}\mathbf{1}_{A_{n,p'}}\right] \\
& \leq \left( 1- 2c_{p'}\gamma_{n}n^{-\frac{1-\alpha}{p'}}\right) \mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}^{4}\right] .\end{aligned}$$ Now, we must get an upper bound for $\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| W_{n} \right\|_{F}^{4}\mathbf{1}_{A_{n,p'}^{c}}\right]$. Since $\left\| W_{n} \right\|_{F}^{2} \leq \left( 1+c_{\gamma}^{2}C^{2}\right) \left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}^{2}$ and since there is a positive constant $c_{0}$ such that for all $n \geq 1$, $$\begin{aligned}
\left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F} & \leq \left\| V_{1} - \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}~+ ~\sum_{k=1}^{n} \gamma_{k} \leq ~c_{0}n^{1-\alpha}\end{aligned}$$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| W_{n} \right\|_{F}^{4}\mathbf{1}_{A_{n,p'}^{c}}\right] & \leq \left( 1+c_{\gamma}^{2}C^{2}\right)^{2}\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}^{4} \mathbf{1}_{A_{n,p'}^{c}}\right] \\
& \leq \left( 1+c_{\gamma}^{2}C^{2}\right)^{2}c_{0}^{4}n^{4-4\alpha}\mathbb{P}\left[ A_{n,p'}^{c}\right] \\
& \leq \left( 1+c_{\gamma}^{2}C^{2}\right)^{2}c_{0}^{4}n^{4-4\alpha} \left( \mathbb{P}\left[ \left\| \overline{m}_{n} - m \right\| \geq \epsilon \right] + \mathbb{P}\left[ \left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F} \geq n^{\frac{1-\alpha}{p'}}\right] \right) .\end{aligned}$$ Applying Markov’s inequality, Theorem 4.2 in [@godichon2015] and Lemma 5.2, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| W_{n} \right\|_{F}^{4}\mathbf{1}_{A_{n,p'}^{c}}\right] & \leq \left( 1+c_{\gamma}^{2}C^{2}\right)^{2}c_{0}^{4}n^{4-4\alpha} \left( \frac{\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| \overline{m}_{n}-m \right\|^{2p''}\right]}{\epsilon^{2p''}} + \frac{\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}^{2q}\right]}{n^{2q\frac{1-\alpha}{p'}}} \right) \\
& \leq \frac{K_{p''}}{\epsilon^{2p''}}\left( 1+c_{\gamma}^{2}C^{2}\right)^{2}c_{0}^{4}n^{4-4\alpha - p''} + \left( 1+c_{\gamma}^{2}C^{2}\right)^{2}c_{0}^{4}M_{q}n^{4-4\alpha - 2q \frac{1-\alpha}{p'}}. \end{aligned}$$ Taking $p'' \geq 4-\alpha $ and $q \geq p'\frac{4-\alpha}{2(1-\alpha )}$, $$\label{majwnanc}
\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| W_{n} \right\|_{F}^{4}\mathbf{1}_{A_{n,p'}^{c}} \right] = O \left( \frac{1}{n^{3\alpha}}\right) .$$ Thus, applying inequalities (\[majwnan\]) and (\[majwnanc\]), there are positive constants $c_{p'}$, $C_{1,p'}$ and a rank $n_{p'}$ such that for all $n \geq n_{p'}$, $$\label{majwn} \mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| W_{n} \right\|_{F}^{4}\right] \leq \left( 1- 2c_{p'}\gamma_{n}n^{-\frac{1-\alpha}{p'}}\right) \mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}^{4}\right] + \frac{C_{1,p'}}{n^{3\alpha}}.$$
**Step 2: bounding $2\gamma_{n}\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| r_{n} \right\|_{F}\left\| W_{n} \right\|_{F}^{2}\left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}\right]$.** Since $\left\| W_{n} \right\|_{F}^{2} \leq \left( 1+c_{\gamma}^{2}C^{2}\right) \left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}^{2}$, applying Lemma \[lemtechnique\], let $$\begin{aligned}
D_{n} :& =2\gamma_{n}\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| r_{n} \right\|_{F}\left\| W_{n} \right\|_{F}^{2}\left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}\right] \\
& \leq 2\left( 1+c_{\gamma}^{2}C^{2}\right) \gamma_{n} \mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| r_{n} \right\|_{F}\left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}^{3}\right] \\
& \leq \frac{2}{c_{p'}}\left( 1+c_{\gamma}^{2}C^{2}\right)^{2}\gamma_{n}n^{\frac{1-\alpha}{p'}}\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| r_{n} \right\|_{F}^{2}\left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}^{2}\right] + \frac{1}{2}c_{p'}\gamma_{n}n^{-\frac{1-\alpha}{p'}}\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}^{4}\right] \\
& \leq \frac{2}{c_{p'}^{2}}\left( 1+c_{\gamma}^{2}C^{2}\right)^{4}\gamma_{n}n^{3\frac{1-\alpha}{p'}}\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| r_{n} \right\|_{F}^{4}\right] + c_{p'}\gamma_{n}n^{-\frac{1-\alpha}{p'}}\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}^{4}\right] .\end{aligned}$$ Since $\left\| r_{n} \right\|_{F} \leq \left( \sqrt{C} + C\sqrt{\left\| \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}}\right) \left\| \overline{m}_{n} - m \right\|_{F}$ and applying Theorem 4.2 in [@godichon2015], $$\begin{aligned}
\label{majdn}
\notag D_{n} & \leq \frac{2}{c_{p'}^{2}}\left( 1+c_{\gamma}^{2}C^{2}\right)^{4}\left( \sqrt{C} + C\sqrt{\left\| \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}}\right)^{4}\gamma_{n}n^{3\frac{1-\alpha}{p'}}\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| \overline{m}_{n} - m \right\|^{4}\right] + c_{p'}\gamma_{n}n^{-\frac{1-\alpha}{p'}}\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}^{4}\right] \\
\notag & \leq \frac{2}{c_{p'}^{2}}K_{2}\left( 1+c_{\gamma}^{2}C^{2}\right)^{4}\left( \sqrt{C} + C\sqrt{\left\| \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}}\right)^{4}\gamma_{n}n^{3\frac{1-\alpha}{p'}}\frac{1}{n^{2}} + c_{p'}\gamma_{n}n^{-\frac{1-\alpha}{p'}}\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}^{4}\right] \\
& = c_{p'}\gamma_{n}n^{-\frac{1-\alpha}{p'}}\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}^{4}\right] + O \left( \frac{1}{n^{2 + \alpha -3(1-\alpha)/p'}}\right) .\end{aligned}$$
**Step 3: Conclusion.** Applying inequalities (\[majoord4\]), (\[majwn\]) and (\[majdn\]), there are a rank $n_{p'}$ and positive constants $c_{p'}, C_{1,p'},C_{2,p'},C_{3,p'}$ such that for all $n \geq n_{p'}$, $$\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| V_{n+1} - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}^{4} \right] \leq \left( 1- c_{p'}\gamma_{n}n^{-\frac{1-\alpha}{p'}}\right)\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m} \right\|_{F}^{4}\right] + \frac{C_{1,p'}}{n^{3\alpha}} + \frac{C_{2,p'}}{n^{2\alpha}}\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\| V_{n} - \Gamma_{m}\right\|_{F}^{2}\right] + \frac{C_{3,p'}}{n^{2+\alpha -3\frac{1-\alpha}{p'}}}.$$
Some technical inequalities
===========================
First, the following lemma recalls some well-known inequalities.
\[lemtechnique\] Let $a,b,c$ be positive constants. Then, $$\begin{aligned}
ab & \leq \frac{a^{2}}{2c}+\frac{b^{2}c}{2}, \\
a & \leq \frac{c}{2}+ \frac{a^{2}}{2c}.\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, let $k,p$ be positive integers and $a_{1},...,a_{p}$ be positive constants. Then, $$\left( \sum_{j=1}^{p}a_{j} \right)^{k} \leq p^{k-1}\sum_{j=1}^{p}a_{j}^{k}.$$
The following lemma gives the asymptotic behavior for some specific sequences of descent steps.
\[sumexp\] Let $\alpha,\beta $ be non-negative constants such that $0<\alpha<1$, and $\left( u_{n}\right)$, $\left( v_{n} \right)$ be two sequences defined for all $n \geq 1$ by $$\begin{aligned}
u_{n} & := \frac{c_{u}}{n^{\alpha}}, & v_{n}:=\frac{c_{v}}{n^{\beta}},\end{aligned}$$ with $c_{u},c_{v} > 0$. Thus, there is a positive constant $c_{0}$ such that for all $n \geq 1$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sumexp1} & \sum_{k=1}^{E(n/2)} e^{-\sum_{j=k}^{n}u_{j}}u_{k}v_{k} = O \left( e^{-c_{0}n^{1-\alpha}} \right) , \\
\label{sumexp2} & \sum_{k=E(n/2)+1}^{n}e^{-\sum_{j=k}^{n}u_{j}}u_{k}v_{k} = O \left( v_{n}\right) ,\end{aligned}$$ where $E(.)$ is the integer part function.
We first prove inequality (\[sumexp1\]). For all $n \geq 1$, $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{k=1}^{E(n/2)} e^{-\sum_{j=k}^{n}u_{j}}u_{k}v_{k} & = c_{u}c_{v}\sum_{k=1}^{E(n/2)} e^{-\sum_{j=k}^{n}u_{j}}\frac{1}{k^{\alpha + \beta}} \\
& \leq c_{u}c_{v}\sum_{k=1}^{E(n/2)} e^{-c_{u}\sum_{j=k}^{n}\frac{1}{j^{\alpha}}} .\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, for all $ k\leq E(n/2)$, $$\begin{aligned}
c_{u}\sum_{j=k}^{n}\frac{1}{j^{\alpha}} & \geq c_{u}\frac{n}{2}\frac{1}{n^{\alpha}} \\
& \geq \frac{c_{u}}{2}n^{1-\alpha}.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, $$\sum_{k=1}^{E(n/2)} e^{-\sum_{j=k}^{n}u_{j}}u_{k}v_{k} \leq c_{u}c_{v}ne^{-\frac{c_{u}}{2}n^{1-\alpha}}.$$ We now prove inequality (\[sumexp2\]). With the help of an integral test for convergence, $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{j=k}^{n}u_{j} & = c_{u} \sum_{j=k}^{n}\frac{1}{j^{\alpha}} \\
& \geq c_{u}\int_{k}^{n+1}\frac{1}{t^{\alpha}}dt \\
& \geq \frac{c_{u}}{1-\alpha}\left( (n+1)^{1-\alpha} - k^{-\alpha} \right). \end{aligned}$$ Thus, $$\sum_{k=E(n/2)+1}^{n}e^{-\sum_{j=k}^{n}u_{j}}u_{k}v_{k} \leq c_{u}c_{v}e^{-(n+1)^{1-\alpha}}\sum_{k=E(n/2)+1}^{n}e^{k^{1-\alpha}}k^{-\alpha - \beta}$$ With the help of an integral test for convergence, there is a rank $n_{u,v}$ (for sake of simplicity, we consider that $n_{u,v}=1$) such that for all $n \geq n_{u,v}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{k=E(n/2)+1}^{n}e^{k^{1-\alpha}}k^{-\alpha - \beta} & \leq \int_{E(n/2)+1}^{n+1}e^{t^{1-\alpha}}t^{-\alpha - \beta }dt \\
& \leq \frac{1}{1-\alpha} \left[ e^{t^{1-\alpha}}t^{-\beta} \right]_{E(n/2)+1}^{n} + \beta\int_{E(n/2)+1}^{n}e^{t^{1-\alpha}}t^{-1-\beta}dt \\
& = e^{(n+1)^{1-\alpha}(n+1)^{-\beta}} + o \left( \int_{E(n/2)+1}^{n+1}e^{t^{1-\alpha}}t^{-\alpha - \beta }dt \right) ,\end{aligned}$$ since $\alpha < 1$. Thus, $$\sum_{k=E(n/2)+1}^{n}e^{k^{1-\alpha}}k^{-\alpha - \beta} = O \left( e^{n^{1-\alpha}n^{-\beta}} \right) .$$ As a conclusion, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{k=E(n/2)+1}^{n}e^{-\sum_{j=k}^{n}u_{j}}u_{k}v_{k} & = O \left( e^{-(n+1)^{1-\alpha} + n^{1-\alpha}}v_{n} \right) \\
& = O \left( v_{n} \right) .\end{aligned}$$
Bali, J.-L., Boente, G., Tyler, D.-E., and Wang, J.-L. (2011). Robust functional principal components: a projection-pursuit approach. , 39:2852–2882.
Bosq, D. (2000). , volume 149 of [*Lecture Notes in Statistics*]{}. Springer-Verlag, New York. Theory and applications.
Cardot, H., Cénac, P., and Chaouch, M. (2010). Stochastic approximation to the multivariate and the functional median. In Lechevallier, Y. and Saporta, G., editors, [*Compstat 2010*]{}, pages 421–428. Physica Verlag, Springer.
Cardot, H., Cénac, P., and Godichon-Baggioni, A. (2016). Online estimation of the geometric median in [H]{}ilbert spaces: non asymptotic confidence balls. .
Cardot, H., Cénac, P., and Monnez, J.-M. (2012). A fast and recursive algorithm for clustering large datasets with k-medians. , 56:1434–1449.
Cardot, H., Cénac, P., and Zitt, P.-A. (2013). Efficient and fast estimation of the geometric median in [H]{}ilbert spaces with an averaged stochastic gradient algorithm. , 19:18–43.
Cardot, H. and Degras, D. (2015). Online principal components analysis: which algorithm to choose ? Technical report, arXiv:1511.03688.
Chakraborty, A. and Chaudhuri, P. (2014). The spatial distribution in infinite dimensional spaces and related quantiles and depths. , 42:1203–1231.
Chaudhuri, P. (1992). Multivariate location estimation using extension of [$R$]{}-estimates through [$U$]{}-statistics type approach. , 20(2):897–916.
Croux, C., Filzmoser, P., and Oliveira, M. (2007). Algorithms for projection-pursuit robust principal component analysis. , 87:218–225.
Croux, C. and Ruiz-Gazen, A. (2005). High breakdown estimators for principal components: the projection-pursuit approach revisited. , 95:206–226.
Cupidon, J., Gilliam, D., Eubank, R., and Ruymgaart, F. (2007). The delta method for analytic functions of random operators with application to functional data. , 13:1179–1194.
Dauxois, J., Pousse, A., and Romain, Y. (1982). Asymptotic theory for principal components analysis of a random vector function: some applications to statistical inference. , 12:136–154.
Devlin, S., Gnanadesikan, R., and Kettenring, J. (1981). Robust estimation of dispersion matrices and principal components. , 76:354–362.
Duflo, M. (1997). , volume 34 of [*Applications of Mathematics (New York)*]{}. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. Translated from the 1990 French original by Stephen S. Wilson and revised by the author.
Fritz, H., Filzmoser, P., and Croux, C. (2012). A comparison of algorithms for the multivariate [$L_1$]{}-median. , 27:393–410.
Gervini, D. (2008). Robust functional estimation using the median and spherical principal components. , 95(3):587–600.
Godichon-Baggioni, A. (2016). Estimating the geometric median in [H]{}ilbert spaces with stochastic gradient algorithms; [$L^{p}$]{} and almost sure rates of convergence. , 146:209–222.
Huber, P. and Ronchetti, E. (2009). . John Wiley and Sons, second edition.
Hubert, M., Rousseeuw, P., and Van Aelst, S. (2008). High-breakdown robust multivariate methods. , 13:92–119.
Hyndman, R. and Ullah, S. (2007). Robust forecasting of mortality and fertility rates: A functional data approach. , 51:4942–4956.
Jolliffe, I. (2002). . Springer Verlag, New York, second edition.
Kemperman, J. H. B. (1987). The median of a finite measure on a [B]{}anach space. In [*Statistical data analysis based on the [$L\sb 1$]{}-norm and related methods ([N]{}euchâtel, 1987)*]{}, pages 217–230. North-Holland, Amsterdam.
Kraus, D. and Panaretos, V. M. (2012). Dispersion operators and resistant second-order functional data analysis. , 99:813–832.
Locantore, N., Marron, J., Simpson, D., Tripoli, N., Zhang, J., and Cohen, K. (1999). Robust principal components for functional data. , 8:1–73.
Maronna, R. A., Martin, R. D., and Yohai, V. J. (2006). . Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Chichester. Theory and methods.
Mokkadem, A. and Pelletier, M. (2006). Convergence rate and averaging of nonlinear two-time-scale stochastic approximation algorithms. , 16(3):1671–1702.
Möttönen, J., Nordhausen, K., and Oja, H. (2010). Asymptotic theory of the spatial median. In [*Nonparametrics and Robustness in Modern Statistical Inference and Time Series Analysis: A Festschrift in honor of Professor Jana Jure[c]{}kov[á]{}*]{}, volume 7, pages 182–193. IMS Collection.
Pelletier, M. (2000). Asymptotic almost sure efficiency of averaged stochastic algorithms. , 39(1):49–72.
Polyak, B. and Juditsky, A. (1992). Acceleration of stochastic approximation. , 30:838–855.
(2010). . R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. 3-900051-07-0.
Ramsay, J. O. and Silverman, B. W. (2005). . Springer, New York, second edition.
Rousseeuw, P. and van Driessen, K. (1999). A fast algorithm for the minimum covariance determinant estimator. , 41:212–223.
Taskinen, S., Koch, I., and Oja, H. (2012). Robustifying principal components analysis with spatial sign vectors. , 82:765–774.
Vardi, Y. and Zhang, C.-H. (2000). The multivariate [$L\sb 1$]{}-median and associated data depth. , 97(4):1423–1426.
Weiszfeld, E. (1937). On the point for which the sum of the distances to n given points is minimum. , 43:355–386.
Weng, J., Zhang, Y., and Hwang, W.-S. (2003). Candid covariance-free incremental principal component analysis. , 25:1034–1040.
|
---
abstract: 'We demonstrate how structured decompositions of unitary operators can be employed to derive control schemes for finite-level quantum systems that require only sequences of simple control pulses such as square wave pulses with finite rise and decay times or Gaussian wavepackets. To illustrate the technique, it is applied to find control schemes to achieve population transfers for pure-state systems, complete inversions of the ensemble populations for mixed-state systems, create arbitrary superposition states and optimize the ensemble average of dynamic observables.'
address:
- 'Quantum Processes Group and Department of Applied Maths, The Open University, Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA, United Kingdom'
- 'Quantum Processes Group and Department of Physics and Astronomy, The Open University, Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA, United Kingdom'
- 'Center for Signals, Systems and Telecommunications and Dept of Mathematical Sciences , EC 35, University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, Texas 75083, USA'
- 'Department of Chemistry, Frick Laboratories, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544, USA'
author:
- 'S. G. Schirmer'
- 'Andrew D. Greentree'
- Viswanath Ramakrishna
- Herschel Rabitz
bibliography:
- 'papers2000.bib'
- 'papers9599.bib'
- 'papers8089.bib'
- 'papers9094.bib'
- 'books.bib'
- 'Noordam.bib'
date: 'January 21, 2001'
title: Constructive control of quantum systems using factorization of unitary operators
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
The ability to control quantum-mechanical systems is an essential prerequisite for many novel applications that require the manipulation of atomic and molecular quantum states [@SCI288p0824]. Among the important applications of current interest are quantum state engineering [@PRA63n023408], control of chemical reactions [@JCP113p03510; @SCI292p709; @SCI282p919; @SCI279p1875; @SCI279p1879], control of molecular motion [@PRA61n033816], selective vibrational excitation of molecules [@PCCP2p1117], control of rotational coherence in linear molecules [@PRA61n033816], photo-dissociation [@JPCA104p4882], laser cooling of internal molecular degrees of freedom [@FD113p365; @PRA63n013407], and quantum computation [@qph0104030; @qph0103118; @CPL343p633; @SCI287p463; @PRA65n042301].
Due to the wide range of applications, the immediate aims of quantum control may vary. However, the control objective can usually be classified as one of the following:
1. \[a\] To steer the system from its initial state to a target state with desired properties,
2. \[b\] To maximize the expectation value or ensemble average of a selected observable,
3. \[c\] To achieve a certain evolution of the system.
Despite the apparent dissimilarity, these control objectives are closely related. Indeed, (\[a\]) is a special case of (\[b\]) in which the observable is the projector onto the subspace spanned by the target state. (\[b\]) is a special case of (\[c\]), where we attempt to find an evolution operator that maximizes the expectation value of the selected observable either at a specific target time or at some time in the future. Hence, one of the central problems of quantum control is to achieve a desired evolution of the system by applying external control fields, and the primary challenge is to find control pulses (or sequences of such pulses) that are feasible from a practical point of view and effectively achieve the control objective.
Many control strategies for quantum systems have been proposed. Selective excitation of energy eigenstates, for instance, can be achieved using light-induced potentials and adiabatic passage techniques [@ARPC52p763; @EPJD14p147; @PRL85p4241; @JCP114p8820], which have the advantage of being relatively insensitive to perturbations of the control fields and Doppler shifts arising from atomic or molecular motion [@PRA61n043413; @PRA63n043415]. Efficient numerical algorithms based on optimal control techniques have been developed to address problems such as optimization of observables for pure-state [@JCP109p385; @JCP112p05081; @JCP110p7142] and mixed-state quantum systems [@PRA61n012101; @JCP110p9825]. Quantum feedback control using weak measurements or continuous state estimation has been applied to quantum state control problems [@PRA62n022108; @PRA62n012307; @PRA62n012105; @PRL85p3045; @PRA60p2700; @PRA49p2133]. Learning control based on genetic or evolutionary algorithms [@JCP113p10841; @JCP110p34; @PRE56p3854; @CP217p389; @JPC99p5206; @PRL68p1500] has been a useful tool for quantum control, especially for complex problems for which accurate models are not available and in experimental settings [@NAT406p164; @APB65p779]. Other approaches based on local control techniques [@JCP109p9318] or a hydrodynamical formulation [@JPA33p4643] have been suggested as well, and this list is not exhaustive.
In this paper we pursue an alternative, constructive approach to address the problem of control of non-dissipative quantum systems. Note that although real atomic or molecular systems are subject to dissipative processes due to the finite lifetimes of the excited states, etc., we can treat these systems as non-dissipative if we ensure that the time needed to complete the control process is *significantly* less than the relaxation times. The technique we develop is based on explicit generation of unitary operators using Lie group decompositions. Similar techniques have been applied to the problem of controlling two-level systems [@PRA62n053409; @IEEE39CDC1074] and especially particles with spin [@dalessandro; @qph0106115]. Here we employ decompositions of the type discussed in [@PRA61n032106] to derive constructive control schemes for $N$-level systems. We use the rotating wave approximation (RWA) and require that *each* allowed transition is *selectively* addressable, for example by applying a field of the appropriate frequency, or by appropriate selection rules depending on the field polarization. This means we must be able to ensure that each control pulse drives a single transition only, and that its effect on all other transitions is negligible. These assumptions limit the applicability of this approach to systems for which selective excitation of individual transitions is feasible such as atomic or molecular systems with well-separated transition frequencies or particles in anharmonic potentials. Certain other factors such as Doppler shifts and inhomogeneous or homogeneous broadening must also be taken into account, and may require special consideration in specific circumstances.
However, for systems that satisfy the necessary conditions, the proposed technique has some very attractive features. It is constructive and can be used to solve a variety of control problems ranging from common problems with well-known solutions such as population transfer between energy eigenstates to novel problems such as preparation of arbitrary superposition states or optimization of observables for $N$-level systems. Moreover, although the control schemes derived using this technique depend on the effective areas, and to a lesser extent, phases of the control pulses, the pulse *shapes* are flexible, which implies that the control objective can be achieved using control pulses that are convenient from a practical point of view such as square wave pulses with finite rise and decay times (SWP) or Gaussian wavepackets (GWP). SWP are a realistic approximation of bang-bang controls, which play an important role in control theory and have been shown to be crucial for time-optimal control [@JMP41p5262]. Since both SWP and GWP can in principle be derived from continuous-wave (CW) lasers using Pockel cells or other intensity modulating devices, this also opens the possibility for control of certain quantum systems using CW lasers, rather than more complex pulsed laser systems and pulse-shaping techniques.
Mathematical and physical framework {#sec:basics}
===================================
We consider a non-dissipative quantum system with a discrete, finite energy spectrum such as a generic $N$-level atom, molecule or particle in an (anharmonic) potential. The free evolution of the system is governed by the Schrodinger equation and determined by its internal Hamiltonian $\op{H}_0$, whose spectral representation is $$\label{eq:Hzero}
\op{H}_0 = \sum_{n=1}^N E_n \ket{n}\bra{n},$$ where $E_n$ are the energy levels and $\ket{n}$ the corresponding energy eigenstates of the system, which satisfy the stationary Schrodinger equation $$\label{eq:SSE}
\op{H}_0 \ket{n} = E_n \ket{n}, \quad 1\le n\le N.$$ Although this assumption is not required, we shall assume for simplicity that the energy levels $E_n$ are ordered in an increasing sequence, $E_1<E_2<\cdots<E_N$, where $N<\infty$ is the dimension of the Hilbert space of the system, and that the eigenstates $\{\ket{n}:
n=1,\ldots,N\}$ form a complete orthonormal set.
The application of external control fields perturbs the system and gives rise to a new Hamiltonian $\op{H}=\op{H}_0+\op{H}_I$, where $\op{H}_I$ is an interaction term. If we apply a field $$\label{eq:fm}
f_m(t) = 2 A_m(t) \cos(\omega_m t+\phi_m)
= A_m(t) \left[e^{\rmi(\omega_m t+\phi_m)}+e^{-\rmi(\omega_m t+\phi_m)}\right]$$ which is resonant with the frequency $\omega_m$ corresponding to the transition $\ket{m}
\rightarrow \ket{m+1}$, and the pulse envelope $2A_m(t)$ is slowly varying with respect to the frequency $\omega_m$, then the rotating wave approximation (RWA) leads to the following interaction term $$\label{eq:Hm}
\op{H}_m(f_m) = A_m(t) d_m \left[e^{ \rmi(\omega_m t + \phi_m)} \ket{m}\bra{m+1}
+ e^{-\rmi(\omega_m t + \phi_m)} \ket{m+1}\bra{m} \right]$$ provided that (a) there are no other transitions with the same frequency $\omega_m$ and (b) off-resonant effects are negligible. Note that the latter assumption is generally valid only if the Rabi frequency $\Omega_m$ of the driven transition is considerably less than the minimum detuning from off-resonant transitions $\Delta\omega_{min}$, i.e., $$\label{eq:detuning}
\max_t [\Omega_m(t)] = \max_t [2 A_m(t) d_m / \hbar] \ll \Delta\omega_{min},$$ where $d_m$ is the dipole moment of the transition $\ket{m}\rightarrow\ket{m+1}$.
The evolution of the controlled system is determined by the operator $\op{U}(t)$, which satisfies the Schrodinger equation $$\label{eq:SE1}
\rmi\hbar\frac{d}{dt}\op{U}(t) =
\left\{ \op{H}_0 + \sum_{m=1}^M \op{H}_m[f_m(t)] \right\} \op{U}(t)$$ and the initial condition $\op{U}(0)=\op{I}$, where $\op{I}$ is the identity operator.
Constructive control using Lie group decompositions {#sec:Lie}
===================================================
Our aim is to achieve a certain evolution of the system by applying a sequence of simple control pulses. Concretely, we seek to dynamically realize a desired unitary operator $\op{U}(t)$ at a certain target time $t=T$. In some cases, we may not wish to specify a target time in advance, in which case we attempt to achieve the control objective at some later time $T>0$.
To solve the problem of finding the right sequence of control pulses, we apply the interaction picture decomposition of the time-evolution operator $\op{U}(t)$, $$\label{eq:IPD}
\op{U}(t) = \op{U}_0(t)\op{U}_I(t),$$ where $\op{U}_0(t)$ is the time-evolution operator of the unperturbed system $$\label{eq:U0}
\op{U}_0(t) = \exp\left( -\rmi\op{H}_0 t/\hbar \right)
= \sum_{n=1}^N e^{-\rmi E_n t/\hbar} \ket{n}\bra{n}$$ and $\op{U}_I(t)$ comprises the interaction with the control fields. To obtain a dynamical law for the interaction operator $\op{U}_I(t)$, we note that inserting $$\begin{aligned}
\rmi\hbar\frac{d}{dt}\op{U}(t)
&=& \op{H}_0\op{U}_0(t)\op{U}_I(t) + \rmi\hbar\op{U}_0(t) \frac{d}{dt}\op{U}_I(t) \\
\op{H}\op{U}(t)
&=& \op{H}_0\op{U}_0(t)\op{U}_I(t) + \sum_{m=1}^M \op{H}_m[f_m(t)]\op{U}_0(t)\op{U}_I(t)\end{aligned}$$ into the Schrodinger equation (\[eq:SE1\]) gives $$\label{eq:SE2}
\rmi\hbar\frac{d}{dt} \op{U}_I(t)
= \op{U}_0(t)^\dagger \left\{ \sum_{m=1}^M \op{H}_m[f_m(t)] \right\}
\op{U}_0(t) \op{U}_I(t).$$ Applying (\[eq:U0\]) and the rotating wave approximation Hamiltonian (\[eq:Hm\]) to this equation leads after some simplification (see \[appendix:A\]) to $$\label{eq:Omega}
\frac{d}{dt}\op{U}_I(t)
= \sum_{m=1}^M A_m(t) d_m/\hbar \left( \op{x}_m \sin\phi_m - \op{y}_m \cos\phi_m \right)
\op{U}_I(t)$$ where we set $\op{e}_{m,n}= \ket{m}\bra{n}$ and define $$\op{x}_m = \op{e}_{m,m+1} - \op{e}_{m+1,m}, \qquad
\op{y}_m = \rmi(\op{e}_{m,m+1} + \op{e}_{m+1,m}).$$
Hence, if we apply a control pulse $f_k(t) = 2 A_k(t) \cos(\omega_m t+\phi_k)$ which is resonant with the transition frequency $\omega_m$ for a time period $t_{k-1}\le t\le t_k$ (and no other fields are applied during this time period) then we have $$\op{U}_I(t) = \op{V}_k(t)\op{U}_I(t_{k-1}),$$ where the operator $\op{V}_k(t)$ is $$\label{eq:Vk}
\op{V}_k(t)
= \exp\left[ \frac{d_m}{\hbar} \int_{t_{k-1}}^t \!\!\! A_k(t') \, dt'
\left( \op{x}_m \sin\phi_k - \op{y}_m\cos\phi_k \right)\right].$$ Thus, if we partition the time interval $[0,T]$ into $K$ subintervals $[t_{k-1},t_k]$ such that $t_0=0$ and $t_K=T$, and apply a sequence of non-overlapping control pulses, each resonant with one of the transition frequencies $\omega_m=\omega_{\sigma(k)}$, then $$\op{U}(T) = \op{U}_0(T)\op{U}_I(T)
= e^{-\rmi\op{H}_0 T/\hbar}\op{V}_K \op{V}_{K-1} \cdots \op{V}_1,$$ where the factors $\op{V}_k$ are $$\label{eq:Vk1}
\op{V}_k = \exp\left[ \frac{d_{\sigma(k)}}{\hbar} \int_{t_{k-1}}^{t_k} \!\!\! A_k(t)\,dt
\left(\op{x}_{\sigma(k)}\sin\phi_k-\op{y}_{\sigma(k)}\cos\phi_k \right)\right].$$ $2 A_k(t)$ is the envelope of the $k$th pulse and $\sigma$ is a mapping from the index set $\{1,\ldots,K\}$ to the control index set $\{1,\ldots, M\}$ that determines which of the control fields is active for $t \in [t_{k-1},t_k]$.
It has been shown [@PRA61n032106] that any unitary operator $\op{U}$ can be decomposed into a product of operators of the type $\op{V}_k$ and a phase factor $e^{\rmi\Gamma}=
\det\op{U}$, i.e., there exists a positive real number $\Gamma$, real numbers $C_k$ and $\phi_k$ for $1\le k\le K$, and a mapping $\sigma$ from the index set $\{1,\ldots,K\}$ to the control-sources index set $\{1,\ldots,M\}$ such that $$\label{eq:Udecomp}
\op{U}= e^{\rmi\Gamma}\op{V}_K\op{V}_{K-1}\cdots \op{V}_1,$$ where the factors are $$\label{eq:Vk2}
\op{V}_k =
\exp\left[C_k (\op{x}_{\sigma(k)}\sin\phi_k - \op{y}_{\sigma(k)} \cos\phi_k)\right].$$ This decomposition of the target operator into a product of generators of the dynamical Lie group determines the sequence in which the fields are to be turned on and off. A general algorithm to determine the Lie group decomposition for an arbitrary operator $\op{U}$ is described in \[appendix:Udecomp\].
Note that in many cases the target operator $\op{U}$ is unique only up to phase factors, i.e., two unitary operators $\op{U}_1$ and $\op{U}_2$ in $U(N)$ are equivalent if there exist values $\theta_n\in [0,2\pi]$ for $1\le n\le N$ such that $$\label{eq:Uequiv}
\op{U}_2 = \op{U}_1 \left(\sum_{n=1}^N e^{\rmi\theta_n} \ket{n}\bra{n} \right)$$ where $\ket{n}$ are the energy eigenstates. For instance, if the initial state of the system is an arbitrary ensemble of energy eigenstates $$\label{eq:rho0}
\op{\rho}_0 = \sum_{n=1}^N w_n \ket{n}\bra{n},$$ where $w_n$ is the initial population of state $\ket{n}$ satisfying $0\le w_n\le 1$ and $\sum_{n=1}^N w_n=1$, then we have $$\op{U}_2\op{\rho}_0\op{U}_2^\dagger
= \op{U}_1 \left(\sum_{n=1}^N \ket{n} e^{\rmi\theta_n} w_n e^{-\rmi\theta_n} \bra{n}\right)
\op{U}_1^\dagger
= \op{U}_1\op{\rho}_0\op{U}_1^\dagger$$ i.e., the phase factors $e^{\rmi\theta_n}$ cancel. Thus, if the initial state of the system is an ensemble of energy eigenstates, which of course includes trivial ensembles such as pure energy eigenstates, then we only need to find a Lie group decomposition of the target operator $\op{U}$ modulo phase factors, i.e., it suffices to find matrices $\op{V}_k$ such that $$\op{U} \left(\sum_{n=1}^N e^{\rmi\theta_n} \ket{n}\bra{n} \right)
= \op{V}_K \op{V}_{K-1} \cdots \op{V}_1.$$ Note that decomposition modulo phase factors, when sufficient, is more efficient since it requires in general up to $2(N-1)$ fewer steps than the general decomposition algorithm. See \[appendix:Udecomp\] for details.
Choice of pulse envelopes and pulse lengths {#sec:amp}
===========================================
Comparing equations (\[eq:Vk1\]) and (\[eq:Vk2\]) shows that $$\label{eq:pulsearea}
\frac{d_{\sigma(k)}}{\hbar} \int_{t_{k-1}}^{t_k} \!\!\! A_k(t) \, dt = C_k
\qquad \forall k,$$ i.e., the effective pulse area of the $k$th pulse is $2C_k$ where $C_k$ is the constant in decomposition (\[eq:Udecomp\]). However, the decomposition does not fix the pulse shapes, i.e., we can choose pulse shapes that are convenient from a practical point of view such as square wave pulses with finite rise and decay times (SWP) and Gaussian wavepackets (GWP), which can easily be produced in the laboratory. For instance, in the optical regime both SWP and GWP can be created using a combination of continuous-wave lasers and Pockel cells or other intensity modulating devices. Moreover, GWP are naturally derived from most pulsed laser systems.
------------------------ ---------------------
\(a) Square-wave pulse \(b) Gaussian pulse
------------------------ ---------------------
Square wave pulses {#subsec:SWP}
------------------
The pulse area of an ideal square wave pulse of amplitude $2A_k$ and length $\Delta t_k$ is $2 A_k \Delta t_k$. In order to accurately determine the pulse area of a realistic square wave pulse, however, we must take into account the finite rise and decay time $\tau_0$ of the pulse. We can model the pulse envelopes of realistic SWP \[see figure \[Fig:pulses\] (a)\] mathematically using $$2 A_k(t) = A_k\left\{2+\mbox{erf}\left[4(t-\tau_0/2)/\tau_0\right]
-\mbox{erf}\left[4(t-\Delta t+\tau_0/2)/\tau_0\right]\right\}$$ where $\mbox{erf}(x)$ is the error function $$\mbox{erf}(x) = \frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi}} \int_0^x \!\!\! e^{-t^2} \, dt.$$ Although this envelope function may appear complicated, it can easily be checked that the area bounded by this function and $t_{k-1}\le t\le t_k$ equals the area of a rectangle of width $\Delta t_k - \tau_0$ and height $2A_k$. Thus, the pulse area $\int_{\Delta t_k}
2A_k(t)\,dt$ of a realistic square wave pulse is $2A_k(\Delta t_k-\tau_0)$, and equation (\[eq:pulsearea\]) shows that the amplitude of the pulse is determined by $$\label{eq:Ak1}
A_k = \frac{1}{\Delta t_k-\tau_0} \times \frac{\hbar}{d_{\sigma(k)}} \times C_k
= \frac{\hbar C_k}{(\Delta t_k -\tau_0) d_{\sigma(k)}},$$ where $d_{\sigma(k)}$ is the dipole moment of the driven transition.
To ensure selective excitation, the contribution of Fourier components with $\Delta\omega
\ge\Delta\omega_{min}$ must be negligeable. Noting that the Fourier transform of an ideal SWP ($\tau_0=0$) of length $\Delta t_k$ and amplitude $2A_k$ is $$F(\Delta\omega) = 2 A_k \sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}}
\frac{\sin(\frac{1}{2}\Delta t_k\Delta\omega)}{\Delta\omega},$$ where $\Delta\omega$ is the detuning from the pulse frequency $\omega_m$, shows that $F(0)
=\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}}A_k\Delta t_k$ and $$\frac{F(\Delta\omega)}{F(0)} =
\frac{\sin(\frac{1}{2}\Delta t_k\Delta\omega)}{\frac{1}{2}\Delta t_k\Delta\omega},$$ i.e., $\frac{F(\Delta\omega)}{F(0)} \ll 1$ if $\Delta t_k\Delta\omega\gg 1$. Thus, contributions from Fourier components with $\Delta\omega \ge \Delta\omega_{min}$ will be negligible if $\Delta t_k\gg\Delta\omega_{min}^{-1}$.
Furthermore, noting that $C_k\le\frac{\pi}{2}$, the peak Rabi frequency for a square wave pulse of length $\Delta t_k$ with rise and decay time $\tau_0$ is $$\label{eq:Rabi1}
\max_{t_{k-1} \le t \le t_k} \left[ 2 A_k(t) d_{\sigma(k)}/\hbar \right]
= \frac{2 C_k}{\Delta t_k-\tau_0}
\le \frac{\pi}{\Delta t_k-\tau_0}.$$ Hence, the Rabi frequency and the amplitude of the pulse can be adjusted by changing the pulse length $\Delta t_k$, which allows us to ensure that (\[eq:detuning\]) is satisfied, and enforce laboratory constraints on the strengths of the control fields.
We can also give an estimate of the time required to implement arbitrary unitary operators given certain bounds on the field strength. If the maximum strength of the field produced by the $m$th laser is $A_{m,max}$, i.e, $f_m(t)=2 A_m(t)\cos(\omega_m t+\phi_m)\le A_{m,max}$ then the time required to perform a rotation by $C_k$ on the transition $\ket{m}\rightarrow
\ket{m+1}$ using a SWP with rise and decay time $\tau_0$ is $$\label{eq:tmax:SWP}
\Delta t_m^{SWP} = \frac{2 C_k\hbar}{A_{m,max} d_m} + \tau_0
\le \frac{\pi\hbar}{A_{m,max} d_m} + \tau_0.$$ \[appendix:Udecomp\] shows that any unitary operator $\op{U}$ can be generated up to equivalence (\[eq:Uequiv\]) by performing at most $N-m$ rotations by $C\le\frac{\pi}{2}$ on each transition $\ket{m}\rightarrow\ket{m+1}$ for $m=1,2,\dots, N-1$. Hence, any unitary operator can be implemented up to equivalence using SWP of amplitude $A_{m,max}$ in at most time $T$, where $$T = \sum_{m=1}^{N-1} \max(\Delta t_m^{SWP}) (N-m)
= \sum_{m=1}^{N-1} \left(\frac{\pi\hbar}{A_{m,max}d_m} + \tau_0\right) (N-m).$$ Since two additional rotations on each transition are required to generate $\op{U}$ exactly, the latter can be accomplished in time $T'\ge\sum_{m=1}^{N-1}\max(\Delta t_m^{SWP})(N-m+2)$.
Gaussian wavepackets {#subsec:GWP}
--------------------
To model a Gaussian wavepacket \[see figure \[Fig:pulses\] (b)\] of peak amplitude $2A_k$ centered at $t_k^*=t_{k-1}+\frac{1}{2}\Delta t_k$, we choose the pulse envelope $$2A_k(t) = 2A_k \exp\left[-q_k^2 (t-\Delta t_k/2 - t_{k-1})^2 \right].$$ The constant $q_k$ determines the width of the wavepacket. The pulse area of a Gaussian wavepacket is $\sqrt{\pi}/q_k$ provided that the time interval $\Delta t_k$ is large enough to justify the assumption $$\int_{t_{k-1}}^{t_k} \exp\left[-q_k^2 (t-\Delta t_k/2 - t_{k-1})^2 \right]\, dt
\approx \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} e^{-q^2 \tau^2} \, d\tau
= \frac{\sqrt{\pi}}{q_k}.$$ In the following we choose $q_k = 4/\Delta t_k$, which guarantees that over 99% of the $k$th pulse is contained in the control interval $[t_{k-1},t_k]$ since $$\int_{-\Delta t_k/2}^{\Delta t_k/2} e^{-q_k^2 t^2}\, dt
= \frac{\sqrt{\pi}}{q_k} \mbox{erf}(q_k \Delta t_k/2)$$ and $\mbox{erf}(2)=0.995322$. Thus, (\[eq:pulsearea\]) shows that the peak amplitude $2A_k$ of the GWP is determined by $$\label{eq:Ak2}
A_k = \frac{q_k}{\sqrt{\pi}} \times \frac{\hbar}{d_{\sigma(k)}} \times C_k
= \frac{4\hbar C_k}{\sqrt{\pi} \Delta t_k d_{\sigma(k)}}.$$
Again, to ensure selective excitation, the contribution of Fourier components with $\Delta
\omega \ge\Delta\omega_{min}$ must be negligeable. Noting that the Fourier transform of a Gaussian wavepacket with $q_k=4/\Delta t_k$ and amplitude $2A_k$ is $$F(\Delta\omega) = \frac{2 A_k}{\sqrt{2}q_k}
\exp \left[ -\frac{\Delta\omega^2}{4q_k^2} \right]
= \frac{\Delta t_k A_k}{2\sqrt{2}}
\exp ( -\Delta\omega^2\Delta t_k^2/16)$$ where $\Delta\omega$ is the detuning from the pulse frequency $\omega_m$, shows that $$\frac{F(\Delta\omega)}{F(0)} = \exp( -\Delta\omega^2\Delta t_k^2/16)$$ i.e., $\frac{F(\Delta\omega)}{F(0)} \ll 1$ if $\Delta t_k\Delta\omega\gg 4$. Thus, contributions from Fourier components with $\Delta\omega \ge \Delta\omega_{min}$ will be negligible if $\Delta t_k\gg 4\Delta\omega_{min}^{-1}$.
Furthermore, noting that $C_k\le\frac{\pi}{2}$, the peak Rabi frequency for a Gaussian pulse of length $\Delta t_k$ with $q_k=4/\Delta t_k$ is $$\label{eq:Rabi2}
\max_{t_{k-1} \le t \le t-k} \left[ 2 A_k(t) d_{\sigma(k)}/\hbar \right]
= \frac{8 C_k}{\sqrt{\pi}\Delta t_k}
\le \frac{4\sqrt{\pi}}{\Delta t_k}.$$ Hence, the Rabi frequency can again be adjusted by changing the pulse length $\Delta t_k$, which allows us to ensure that (\[eq:detuning\]) is satisfied and enforce laboratory constraints on the strengths of the control fields.
Again, we can give an estimate of the time required to implement arbitrary unitary operators given certain bounds on the field strength. If the maximum strength of the field produced by the $m$th laser is $A_{m,max}$, i.e, $f_m(t)=2 A_m(t)\cos(\omega_m t+\phi_m)\le A_{m,max}$ then the time required to perform a rotation by $C_k$ on the transition $\ket{m}\rightarrow
\ket{m+1}$ using GWP with $q_k=4/\Delta t_k$ is $$\label{eq:tmax:GWP}
\Delta t_m^{GWP} = \frac{8 C_k\hbar}{\sqrt{\pi} A_{m,max} d_m}
\le \frac{4\sqrt{\pi}\hbar}{A_{m,max} d_m}.$$ Since any unitary operator $\op{U}$ can be generated up to equivalence (\[eq:Uequiv\]) by performing at most $N-m$ rotations by $C_k \le \frac{\pi}{2}$ on each transition $\ket{m}
\rightarrow\ket{m+1}$ for $m=1,2,\dots, N-1$, the time required to implement $\op{U}$ up to equivalence using GWP of (peak) amplitude $A_{m,max}$ is at most $$T = \sum_{m=1}^{N-1} \max(\Delta t_m^{GWP}) (N-m)
= \sum_{m=1}^{N-1} \left(\frac{4\sqrt{\pi}\hbar}{A_{m,max}d_m}\right) (N-m).$$ Since two additional rotations on each transition are required to generate $\op{U}$ exactly, the latter can be accomplished in time $T'\ge\sum_{m=1}^{N-1}\max(\Delta t_m^{GWP})(N-m+2)$.
Physical systems used for illustration {#sec:examples}
======================================
In the following sections we shall apply these results to various control problems. For numerical illustrations of our control schemes, we shall consider
1. a four-level model of the electronic states of Rubidium (87)
2. a four-level Morse oscillator model of the vibrational modes of hydrogen fluoride.
For Rubidium (87) we consider four electronic states, which we label as follows: $\ket{1}=\ket{5 S_{1/2}}$, $\ket{2}=\ket{5 P_{3/2}}$, $\ket{3}=\ket{4 D_{1/2}}$ and $\ket{4}=\ket{6 P_{3/2}}$, where $\ket{1}$ is the ground state. Figure \[fig:system\] (a) shows the coupling diagram with transition frequencies and dipole moments.
For hydrogen fluoride (HF) we use the Morse oscillator model given in [@PRL65p2355]. The energy levels corresponding to the vibrational states $\ket{n}$ are $$E_n = \hbar\omega_0 \, (n - \mbox{$\frac{1}{2}$})
\left[1 - \mbox{$\frac{B}{2}$}(n - \mbox{$\frac{1}{2}$})\right]$$ where $\omega_0=0.78 \times 10^{15}$ Hz and $B=0.0419$. The frequencies for transitions between adjacent energy levels are $\omega_n=\hbar\omega_0(1-B n)$ and the corresponding transition dipole moments are $d_n=p_0\sqrt{n}$ with $p_0=3.24\times 10^{-31}$ C m, which leads to the values shown in figure \[fig:system\] (b). Although there are 24 bound vibrational states for this model, we only consider the four lowest vibrational modes $n
= 1,2,3,4$, where $\ket{1}$ is the ground state.
Since we have made several approximations in developing our control approach using Lie group decompositions, we must ensure that the assumptions we made are valid for the systems we consider:
1. No two transitions have the same transition frequency. [^1] \[hyp:a\]
2. Dissipative effects are negligible. \[hyp:b\]
3. The effect of the pulse on off-resonant transitions is negligible. \[hyp:c\]
Note that both models satisfy hypothesis (\[hyp:a\]). Furthermore, the main source of dissipation for both systems is spontaneous emission. Thus, dissipative effects will be negligible provided that the control pulses are much shorter than the lifetimes of the excited states. Since the lifetimes of the excited electronic states for 87 are $28$, $90$ and $107$ ns, respectively, hypothesis (\[hyp:b\]) will be satisfied for control pulses in the sub-nanosecond regime. Similarly for HF.
Hypothesis (\[hyp:c\]) will be satisfied provided that:
1. The Fourier spectrum of the pulse does not overlap with other transition frequencies, i.e., the frequency dispersion of the pulse is less than the minimum detuning from off-resonant transitions.
2. Equation (\[eq:detuning\]) holds, i.e., the Rabi frequency of each driven transition is much smaller than the minimum detuning from off-resonant transitions.
Since the minimum detuning from off-resonant transitions is $\Delta\omega_{min}\approx 4
\times 10^{14}$ Hz for 87 and $\Delta\omega_{min}\approx 3.27\times 10^{13}$ Hz for HF, the pulse length $\Delta t_k$ should be at least $10^{-12}$ and $10^{-11}$ seconds, respectively, to ensure that the frequency dispersion of the pulse is sufficiently small. Moreover, inserting the values for $\Delta\omega_{min}$ as well as (\[eq:Rabi1\]) and (\[eq:Rabi2\]), respectively, into equation (\[eq:detuning\]) shows again that we must choose the pulse lengths such that $\Delta t_k\gg 10^{-14}$ s for 87 and $\Delta t_k\gg
10^{-13}$ s for HF to ensure that the second condition above is met. In the following, we shall choose $\Delta t_k=2\times 10^{-10}$ seconds (200 ps) for all pulses, which ensures that both hypotheses (\[hyp:b\]) and (\[hyp:c\]) are met for both 87 and HF. Moreover, such pulses are also experimentally realizable.
Note that the energy levels for 87 are multiply degenerate due to hyperfine and other effects. Since the detuning between the $F=1$ and $F=2$ sublevels of the $5 S_{1/2}$ ground state is rather large (6.8 GHz), we may wish to be precise and choose $\ket{1}=\ket{5S_{1/2},
F=1}$, for instance, but we shall generally ignore the hyperfine energy level structure here. For the cases we consider in this paper, this is justified since the frequency differences between the hyperfine levels (except for the ground state) are on the order of several hundred MHz or less, which corresponds to detunings of $\Delta\omega\le 10^8$ Hz, which we cannot resolve with 200 ps pulses for reasons outlined above.
--------- ---------
\(a) 87 \(b) HF
--------- ---------
Population transfer $\ket{1}\rightarrow\ket{N}$ for a $N$-level system {#sec:poptransfer}
======================================================================
We shall first apply the decomposition technique described above to the rather elementary control problem of population transfer between energy eigenstates to better illustrate the technique. Concretely, we consider the problem of transferring the population of the ground state $\ket{1}$ to the excited state $\ket{N}$ by applying a sequence of control pulses, each resonant with one of the transitions frequencies $\omega_m$. It can easily be verified that any evolution operator $\op{U}$ of the form $$\label{eq:U1}
\op{U} = \left( \begin{array}{c|c}
\vec{0} & \; A_{N-1} \\\hline
e^{\rmi\theta}\; & \; \vec{0}
\end{array} \right),$$ where $A_{N-1}$ is an arbitrary unitary $(N-1)\times (N-1)$ matrix, $e^{\rmi\theta}$ is an arbitrary phase factor and $\vec{0}$ is a vector whose $N-1$ elements are $0$, achieves the control objective since $$\left(\begin{array}{c|c}
\vec{0} & \; A_{N-1} \\\hline
e^{\rmi\theta}\; & \; \vec{0}
\end{array}\right)
\left( \begin{array}{c} 1 \\ \vec{0} \end{array} \right)
= \left( \begin{array}{c} \vec{0} \\ e^{\rmi\theta_N} \end{array} \right)$$ and thus the population of state $\ket{N}$ is equal to $\sqrt{e^{-\rmi\theta_N}
e^{\rmi\theta_N}}=1$ after application of $\op{U}$. Next, we observe that setting $$\label{eq:Udecomp1}
\op{U} = \op{U}_0(T)\op{U}_I, \quad
\op{U}_I= \op{V}_{N-1} \op{V}_{N-2} \cdots \op{V}_1,$$ where the factors are $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Vm}
\op{V}_m &=& \exp\left[ \frac{\pi}{2}
\left(\op{x}_m\sin\phi_m-\op{y}_m\cos\phi_m\right)\right] \\
&=& -\rmi(e^{\rmi\phi_m} \op{e}_{m,m+1}+e^{-\rmi\phi_m}\op{e}_{m+1,m})
+ \sum_{n\neq m,m+1} \op{e}_{n,n} \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ for $1\le m\le N-1$, always leads to a $\op{U}$ of the form (\[eq:U1\]), independent of the initial pulse phases $\phi_m$.
The factorization (\[eq:Udecomp1\]) corresponds to a sequence of $N-1$ control pulses in which the $m$th pulse is resonant with the frequency $\omega_m$ of the transition $\ket{m} \rightarrow \ket{m+1}$ and has effective pulse area $\pi$. Thus, the solution obtained using the decomposition technique is an intuitive sequence of $\pi$-pulses designed to transfer the population step by step to the target level.
------------------------- ----------------------
\(a) Square wave pulses \(b) Gaussian pulses
------------------------- ----------------------
The results of illustrative computations for the four-level 87 system introduced above are shown in figure \[Fig:PopTransfer\]. The top graphs show the pulse sequence for square wave pulses (a) and Gaussian control pulses (b). The corresponding evolution of the energy-level populations shows that the populations of the intermediate levels increase and decrease intermittently as expected, while the population of target level $\ket{4}$ reaches one at the final time. The bottom graph shows that the energy of the system increases monotonically from its kinematical minimum value at $t=0$ to its maximum value at the final time as predicted. The basic response of the system is the same for square wave pulses and Gaussian pulses. However, the energy increases more uniformly for square wave pulses, while Gaussian pulses tend to result in short, steep increases with long intermittent plateau regions. Square wave pulses may therefore be a better choice if one wishes to minimize the time the system spends in intermediate states with short lifetimes. Gaussian wavepackets, on the other hand, have the advantage of minimal frequency dispersion and are thus less likely to induce unwanted off-resonant effects.
As regards the field strengths, note that for 200 ps pulses up to 380 kV/m are required for SWP, and up to 780 kV/m for Gaussian pulses, which corresponds to (peak) intensities $I=\epsilon_0 c E^2$ of up to $40 \mbox{ kW/cm}^2$ (SWP) and $160 \mbox{ kW/cm}^2$ (GWP), respectively. Achieving these intensities experimentally with CW lasers is feasible using a combination of sufficiently powerful lasers and beam focusing techniques. Since pulsed laser systems with 1 mJ output for picosecond pulses are common, intensities of up to $10^7
\mbox{ W/cm}^2$ should be easy to achieve for these systems.
Note that we chose pulses of fixed length $200$ ps and allowed the pulse amplitudes to vary. Had we instead fixed the strength of the fields to be $2 A_k = 10^5$ V/m, say, then the length $\Delta t_k$ of the control pulses according to (\[eq:tmax:SWP\]) would have been 124.2, 132.7 and 697.1 ps, respectively, for SWP with $\tau_0=20$ ps. For Gaussian pulses with $q_k=4/\Delta t_k$, the pulse length according to (\[eq:tmax:GWP\]) would have been 235.1, 254.7 and 1528.2 ps, respectively. Thus, instead of 600 ps in both cases, the time required to achieve the control objective would have been 954 ps for SWP and 2018 ps for GWP.
Inversion of ensemble populations for a mixed-state system {#sec:inversion}
==========================================================
Sequences of $\pi$-pulses similar to the ones derived in the previous section have played an important role in the theory of atomic excitation [@90Shore] and have been applied to the problem of vibrational excitation of molecules in both theory [@CP267p173] and experiment [@CPL270p45]. The decomposition technique is an important tool since it allows us to generalize the intuitive control schemes for population transfer between energy eigenstates to obtain similar schemes for a variety of more complicated problems, as we shall demonstrate now.
The first example we consider is a generalization of the population transfer problem to mixed-state systems. The objective is to achieve a complete inversion of the ensemble populations given an arbitrary initial state of the form (\[eq:rho0\]). This control operation can be regarded as an ensemble–NOT gate for mixed-state systems, not to be confused with other NOT–gates such as the U–NOT gate [@JMO47p211]. Complete inversion of the ensemble populations requires an evolution operator $$\label{eq:U2}
\op{U}=\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}
0 & 0 & \cdots & 0 & e^{\rmi\theta_1} \\
0 & 0 & \cdots & e^{\rmi\theta_2} & 0 \\
\vdots& \vdots & & \vdots & \vdots \\
0 & e^{\rmi\theta_{N-1}} & \cdots & 0 & 0\\
e^{\rmi\theta_N} & 0 & \cdots & 0 & 0
\end{array}\right),$$ where the $e^{\rmi\theta_n}$ are arbitrary phase factors. Assuming as before that each transition between adjacent energy levels can be individually addressed, the generators of the dynamical Lie algebra are again of the form (\[eq:Vk1\]) and the target operator (\[eq:U2\]) can be written as a product of these generators $$\label{eq:Udecomp2}
\op{U} = \op{U}_0(T) \prod_{\ell=N-1}^{1} \left[\prod_{m=1}^\ell \op{V}_m \right],$$ where the factors $\op{V}_m$ are as defined in (\[eq:Vm\]). The decomposition (\[eq:Udecomp2\]) corresponds to a sequence of $K=N(N-1)/2$ pulses in which the $k$th pulse is resonant with the transition $\ket{\sigma(k)}\rightarrow \ket{\sigma(k)+1}$ and has effective pulse area $\pi$, where $$\sigma([1,\ldots,K]) =
[1, 2, \cdots, N-1; 1, 2 \cdots N-2; 1, 2, \cdots, N-3; \cdots; 1, 2; 1].$$ This pulse scheme does *not* depend on the values of the initial populations, i.e., a complete inversion of the ensemble populations is achieved for any initial ensemble. Moreover, if the initial populations are mutually distinct, i.e., $w_n\neq w_m$ for $n
\neq m$, then the decomposition is optimal in the sense that a complete inversion of the ensemble populations cannot be achieved with fewer than $K$ control pulses.
To illustrate the control scheme, let us apply it to the four-level Morse oscillator model for the vibrational modes of HF discussed above. For the purpose of the computer simulations, we randomly choose the initial populations to be $w_1=0.4$, $w_2=0.3$, $w_3=0.2$ and $w_4=0.1$, but recall that any initial ensemble would do, i.e., we could have chosen a thermal ensemble given by a Boltzmann distribution or another ensemble instead. Our goal is to create an ensemble where the populations of the energy eigenstates are reversed, i.e., where $\ket{1}$ has population $w_4$, $\ket{2}$ has population $w_3$, $\ket{3}$ has population $w_2$, and $\ket{4}$ has population $w_1$.
------------------------- ----------------------
\(a) Square wave pulses \(b) Gaussian pulses
------------------------- ----------------------
Figure \[Fig:PopInversion\] shows the results of control simulations using square wave and Gaussian control pulses, respectively. Note that each pulse in the control sequence interchanges the populations of two adjacent energy levels until a complete inversion of the populations is achieved. For our four-level system the effect of the controls on the populations can be summarized as follows
where $f_m$, $m=1,2,3$, refers to a control pulse of frequency $\omega_m$ with effective pulse area $\pi$. The first pulse interchanges the populations of levels $\ket{1}$ and $\ket{2}$, the second pulse flips the populations of levels $\ket{2}$ and $\ket{3}$, the third pulse switches the populations of levels $\ket{3}$ and $\ket{4}$, etc. Since the populations of our initial ensemble satisfy $w_1<w_2<w_3<w_4$, the energy of the system assumes its kinematical minimum at $t=0$ and increases monotonically to its kinematical maximum value at the final time. Again, the gradient of approach is more uniform for square wave pulses.
As regards the field strengths, note that for 200 ps pulses up to 5.7 MV/m are required for SWP, and up to 12 MV/m for Gaussian pulses, which corresponds to (peak) intensities $I=\epsilon_0 c E^2$ of up to $8.5 \mbox{ MW/cm}^2$ (SWP) and $24 \mbox{ MW/cm}^2$ (GWP), respectively. Achieving these intensities experimentally should be no problem for pulsed laser systems. For CW lasers, it would be challenging at the moment, but it should still be feasible using a combination of powerful lasers and beam focusing techniques. Moreover, such problems should disappear with improvements in laser technology in the future.
Had we instead of fixing the pulse length at 200 ps, fixed the strength of the fields to be $2 A_k = 5 \times 10^6$ V/m, say, then the length $\Delta t_k$ of the control pulses according to (\[eq:tmax:SWP\]) would have been 224.5, 164.6, 138.1, 224.5, 164.6 and 224.5 ps, respectively, for SWP with $\tau_0=20$ ps. For GWP with $q_k=4/\Delta t_k$ the pulse lengths according to (\[eq:tmax:GWP\]) would have been 461.3, 326.2, 266.3, 461.3, 326.3 and 461.3 ps, respectively. Thus, instead of 1.2 ns in both cases, the time required to achieve the control objective would have been 1.14 ns for SWP, and 2.3 ns for GWP.
Note that the problem of population transfer for a system initially in state $\ket{1}$ is a special case of the problem of population inversion for a trivial ensemble with $w_1=1$ and $w_2=w_3=w_4=0$. It can easily been seen that pulses four, five and six in the pulse sequence above do no harm but have no effect for this initial ensemble
and can therefore be omitted. Thus, the general six pulse sequence simplifies in this case to the three pulse sequence in the previous section. This can also be inferred directly from the decomposition (\[eq:Udecomp2\]) of the target operator. For a four level system (\[eq:Udecomp2\]) becomes $\op{U}=\op{U}_0(T)\op{V}_1\op{V}_2\op{V}_1\op{V}_3\op{V}_2
\op{V}_1$ with $\op{V}_m$ as in (\[eq:Vm\]). Thus, after applying the pulse sequence the state of the system is $$\begin{aligned}
\op{\rho} &=& \op{U}_0(T)\op{V}_1\op{V}_2\op{V}_1\op{V}_3\op{V}_2\op{V}_1 \op{\rho}_0
[\op{U}_0(T)\op{V}_1\op{V}_2\op{V}_1\op{V}_3\op{V}_2\op{V}_1]^\dagger \\
&=& \op{U}_0(T)\op{V}_1\op{V}_2\op{V}_1\op{V}_3\op{V}_2\op{V}_1 \op{\rho}_0
\op{V}_1^\dagger \op{V}_2^\dagger\op{V}_3^\dagger
\op{V}_1^\dagger\op{V}_2^\dagger\op{V}_1^\dagger\op{U}_0(T)^\dagger.\end{aligned}$$ If $\op{\rho}_0=\ket{1}\bra{1}$ then $\op{V}_3\op{V}_2\op{V}_1 \op{\rho}_0\op{V}_1^\dagger
\op{V}_2^\dagger\op{V}_3^\dagger=\ket{4}\bra{4}$. Since $\op{U}_0(T)\op{V}_1\op{V}_2
\op{V}_1$ commutes with this operator, the remaining factors cancel in the decomposition $$\begin{aligned}
& & \op{U}_0(T)\op{V}_1\op{V}_2\op{V}_1\op{V}_3\op{V}_2\op{V}_1 \op{\rho}_0
\op{V}_1^\dagger\op{V}_2^\dagger\op{V}_3^\dagger
\op{V}_1^\dagger\op{V}_2^\dagger\op{V}_1^\dagger\op{U}_0(T)^\dagger\\
&=& \op{U}_0(T)\op{V}_1\op{V}_2\op{V}_1\ket{4}\bra{4}
\op{V}_1^\dagger\op{V}_2^\dagger\op{V}_1^\dagger\op{U}_0(T)^\dagger\\
&=& \ket{4}\bra{4}\op{U}_0(T)\op{V}_1\op{V}_2\op{V}_1\op{V}_1^\dagger\op{V}_2^\dagger
\op{V}_1^\dagger\op{U}_0(T)^\dagger = \ket{4}\bra{4}\end{aligned}$$ and hence do not change the state of the system.
Creation of arbitrary superposition states {#sec:superposition}
==========================================
In this section we consider the problem of creating arbitrary superposition states from an initial energy eigenstate. Control schemes to create such superposition states may be useful in controlling quantum interference in multi-state systems, and can be considered a generalization of the $\frac{\pi}{2}$ pulses used routinely in free induction-decay experiments [@61Abraham].
Concretely, assume that the system is initially in the ground state $\ket{1}$. To create the superposition state $$\label{eq:superpos}
\ket{\Psi(t)} = \sum_{n=1}^N r_n e^{\rmi\theta_n} e^{\rmi E_n t/\hbar}\ket{n}
= \sum_{n=1}^N r_n e^{\rmi\theta_n} \ket{\tilde{n}(t)}$$ where the coefficients $r_n$ satisfy the normalization condition $\sum_{n=1}^N r_n^2=1$, we need to find a unitary operator $\op{U}_I$ such that $$\label{eq:UI}
\op{U}_I \ket{1} = \sum_{n=1}^N r_n e^{\rmi\theta_n} \ket{n}$$ and decompose $\op{U}_I$ according to the algorithm described in \[appendix:Udecomp\].
To find a unitary operator $\op{U}_I$ that satisfies (\[eq:U1\]) we set $$\op{W} =\left( \begin{array}{c|c}
r_1 & \vec{0} \\\hline
r_2 & \\
\vdots & \op{I}_{N-1}\\
r_N & \\
\end{array} \right),$$ where $\op{I}_{N-1}$ is the identity matrix in dimension $N-1$, and perform Gram-Schmidt orthonormalization on the columns of $\op{W}$. This produces a matrix $\op{U}_1$ which is unitary and satisfies $\op{U}_1\ket{1}=\sum_{n=1}^N r_n \ket{n}$. Hence, $\op{U}_I=
\op{\Theta}\op{U}_1$ with $\op{\Theta}=\sum_{n=1}^N e^{\rmi\theta_n}\ket{n}\bra{n}$ satisfies (\[eq:UI\]).
As an example, we consider the problem of creating the superposition state $\ket{\Psi(t)}
=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{n=1}^4 \ket{\tilde{n}(t)}$ for a four-level system initially in state $\ket{1}$. As outlined above, we set $$\op{W} =\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
1/2 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
1/2 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
1/2 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\
1/2 & 0 & 0 & 1
\end{array} \right).$$ and perform Gram-Schmidt orthonormalization on the columns of $\op{W}$, which gives $$\label{eq:targetU1}
\op{U}_1=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
1/2 & -\sqrt{3}/6 & -\sqrt{6}/6 & -\sqrt{2}/2 \\
1/2 & +\sqrt{3}/2 & 0 & 0 \\
1/2 & -\sqrt{3}/6 & +\sqrt{6}/3 & 0 \\
1/2 & -\sqrt{3}/6 & -\sqrt{6}/6 & +\sqrt{2}/2
\end{array}\right).$$ Since $\op{\Theta}=\op{I}$ we have $\op{U}_I = \op{U}_1$ and applying the decomposition algorithm (appendix \[appendix:Udecomp\]) leads to the factorization $\op{U}_1 =
\op{V}_5 \op{V}_4 \op{V}_3 \op{V}_2 \op{V}_1$, where the factors are $$\label{eq:Udecomp3b}
\begin{array}{rcl}
\op{V}_1 &=& \exp\left(+C_1\op{x}_1 \right), \quad C_1 = \frac{\pi}{3},\\
\op{V}_2 &=& \exp\left(-C_2\op{x}_2 \right), \quad C_2 = \arctan\left(\sqrt{2}\right) \\
\op{V}_3 &=& \exp\left(+C_3\op{x}_3 \right), \quad C_3 = \frac{\pi}{4},\\
\op{V}_4 &=& \exp\left(+C_4\op{x}_2 \right), \quad C_4 = \frac{\pi}{2},\\
\op{V}_5 &=& \exp\left(-C_5\op{x}_1 \right), \quad C_5 = \frac{\pi}{2}.
\end{array}$$ This decomposition corresponds to the following sequence of five control pulses $$\begin{array}{rll}
f_1(t) &= A_1(t) e^{i(\omega_1 t +\pi/2)} + \mbox{c.c.} &= -2A_1(t) \sin(\omega_1 t) \\
f_2(t) &= A_2(t) e^{i(\omega_2 t -\pi/2)} + \mbox{c.c.} &= +2A_2(t) \sin(\omega_2 t) \\
f_3(t) &= A_3(t) e^{i(\omega_3 t +\pi/2)} + \mbox{c.c.} &= -2A_3(t) \sin(\omega_3 t) \\
f_4(t) &= A_4(t) e^{i(\omega_2 t +\pi/2)} + \mbox{c.c.} &= -2A_4(t) \sin(\omega_2 t) \\
f_5(t) &= A_5(t) e^{i(\omega_1 t -\pi/2)} + \mbox{c.c.} &= +2A_5(t) \sin(\omega_1 t) \\
\end{array}$$ with pulse areas $\frac{2}{3}\pi$, $2\arctan(\sqrt{2})$, $\frac{1}{2}\pi$, $\pi$ and $\pi$, respectively. Note that only five instead of six pulses are required since the target operator $\op{U}_1$ has two consecutive zeros in the last column, which implies that one of the six control pulses has zero amplitude and can thus be omitted.
------------------------- ----------------------
\(a) Square wave pulses \(b) Gaussian pulses
------------------------- ----------------------
Figure \[Fig:Superpos\] shows the results of a control simulation based on this decomposition of $\op{U}_1$ for 87 using square wave and Gaussian control pulses, respectively. Note that all the populations and the absolute values of all the coherences are $0.25$ at the final time — exactly as required for the superposition state $\ket{\Psi(t)}=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{n=1}^4 \ket{\tilde{n}(t)}$, whose density matrix representation is $$\op{\rho}(t) =\ket{\Psi(t)}\bra{\Psi(t)}
= \frac{1}{4}
\left( \begin{array}{cccc}
1 & e^{\rmi\omega_{12}t} & e^{\rmi\omega_{13}t} & e^{\rmi\omega_{14}t} \\
e^{-\rmi\omega_{12}t} & 1 & e^{\rmi\omega_{23}t}& e^{\rmi\omega_{24}t} \\
e^{-\rmi\omega_{13}t} & e^{-\rmi\omega_{23}t} & 1 & e^{\rmi\omega_{34}t}\\
e^{-\rmi\omega_{14}t} & e^{-\rmi\omega_{24}t} & e^{-\rmi\omega_{34}t} &1
\end{array}\right),$$ i.e., $|\op{\rho}_{mn}|=\frac{1}{4}$ for all $m,n$. Note that we have plotted the absolute values of the coherences $\op{\rho}_{mn}(t)$ (for $m\neq n$) only since their phases are rapidly oscillating at frequencies $\omega_{mn}=(E_n-E_m)/\hbar$, which are on the order of $10^{15}$ Hz for 87. The pulse intensities are similar to those for population transfer in 87. Again, we chose pulses of fixed length 200 ps. Had we instead fixed the strength of the fields to be $2 A_k = 10^5$ V/m, say, then the length $\Delta t_k$ of the control pulses according to (\[eq:tmax:SWP\]) and (\[eq:tmax:GWP\]) would have been 99.5, 88.6, 358.6, 132.9 and 155.4 ps, respectively, for SWP with $\tau_0=20$ ps, and 156.7, 154.9, 764.1, 254.7 and 305.6 ps, respectively, for GWP with $q_k=4/\Delta t_k$.
Unlike decompositions (\[eq:Udecomp1\]) and (\[eq:Udecomp2\]) where the initial phases $\phi_m$ of the control pulses were arbitrary, the factorization (\[eq:Udecomp3b\]) fixes the pulse area and frequency $\omega_m$ as well as the initial phase $\phi_m$ of each pulse. In order to determine the significance of the the initial pulse phases on the outcome of the control process, we compute the unitary operator $\op{U}_2=\tilde{V}_5 \tilde{V}_4
\tilde{V}_3 \tilde{V}_2 \tilde{V}_1$, where the factors are $$\label{eq:Udecomp3c}
\begin{array}{rcl}
\tilde{V}_1 &=& \exp\left[C_1(\sin\phi_1\op{x}_1-\cos\phi_1\op{y}_1)\right] \\
\tilde{V}_2 &=& \exp\left[C_2(\sin\phi_2\op{x}_2-\cos\phi_2\op{y}_2)\right] \\
\tilde{V}_3 &=& \exp\left[C_3(\sin\phi_3\op{x}_3-\cos\phi_3\op{y}_3)\right] \\
\tilde{V}_4 &=& \exp\left[C_4(\sin\phi_4\op{x}_2-\cos\phi_4\op{y}_2)\right] \\
\tilde{V}_5 &=& \exp\left[C_5(\sin\phi_5\op{x}_1-\cos\phi_5\op{y}_1)\right]
\end{array}$$ and the constants $C_k$ are as in (\[eq:Udecomp3b\]) but the initial phases $\phi_k$ of the control pulses are arbitrary, and apply this operator to the initial state $\ket{1}$. The resulting state $$\label{eq:phi}
\op{U}_2 \left(\begin{array}{c} 1 \\ 0 \\ 0 \\ 0 \end{array} \right)
= \frac{1}{2}
\left(\begin{array}{l} e^{\rmi(\phi_4+\phi_5-\phi_1-\phi_2)} \\
e^{\rmi(-\pi/2-\phi_5) } \\
e^{\rmi(\pi-\phi_1-\phi_4)} \\
e^{\rmi(\pi/2-\phi_1-\phi_2-\phi_3)}
\end{array} \right)$$ differs from the desired target state only in the phase factors, i.e., the pulse phases do not affect the relative amplitudes $r_n$ of the superposition state created. Moreover, we can use (\[eq:phi\]) to explicitly determine the pulse phases $\phi_n$ as a function of the phases $\theta_n$ of the target state: $$\begin{array}{rcl}
\phi_1 &=& \mbox{arbitrary} \\
\phi_2 &=& \frac{\pi}{2} - 2\phi_1 - \theta_1 - \theta_2 - \theta_3 \\
\phi_3 &=& \phi_1 + \theta_1 + \theta_2 + \theta_3 - \theta_4 \\
\phi_4 &=& \pi - \phi_1 - \theta_3 \\
\phi_5 &=& -\frac{\pi}{2} - \theta_2.
\end{array}$$ Setting $\theta_n=0$ for $n=1,2,3,4$ and choosing $\phi_1=\pi/2$ leads to $\phi_2=-\pi/2$, $\phi_3=\pi/2$, $\phi_4=\pi/2$ and $\phi_5=-\pi/2$, which agrees with the phases in decomposition (\[eq:Udecomp3b\]).
Optimization of observables {#sec:optimization}
===========================
Finally, we address the problem of maximizing the ensemble average of an observable for a system whose initial state is a statistical ensemble of energy eigenstates (\[eq:rho0\]). Let us first consider the case of a time-independent observable $\op{A}$. To determine the target operator required to maximize the ensemble average $\ave{\op{A}}$ of $\op{A}$ we observe that $\ave{\op{A}}$ is bounded above by the kinematical upper bound [@PRA58p2684] $$\ave{\op{A}} \le \sum_{n=1}^N w_{\sigma(n)} \lambda_n,$$ where $\lambda_n$ are the eigenvalues of $\op{A}$ counted with multiplicity and ordered in a non-increasing sequence $$\lambda_1 \ge \lambda_2 \ge \cdots \ge \lambda_N,$$ $w_n$ are the populations of the energy levels $E_n$ of the initial ensemble, and $\sigma$ is a permutation of $\{1,\ldots,N\}$ such that $$w_{\sigma(1)} \ge w_{\sigma(2)} \ge \cdots \ge w_{\sigma(N)}.$$ Observe that this universal upper bound for the ensemble average of any observable $\op{A}$ is dynamically attainable since the systems considered in this paper are completely controllable [@PRA63n025403; @PRA63n063410].
Let $\ket{\Psi_n}$ for $1\le n\le N$ denote the normalized eigenstates of $\op{A}$ satisfying $\op{A}\ket{\Psi_n}=\lambda_n \ket{\Psi_n}$ and let $\op{U}_1$ be a unitary transformation such that $$\label{eq:U1def}
\ket{\Psi_{\sigma(n)}}=\op{U}_1\ket{n}, \quad 1\le n \le N.$$ Given an initial state $\op{\rho}_0$ of the form (\[eq:rho0\]), we have $$\begin{aligned}
\Tr \left(\op{A}\op{U}_1\rho_0 \op{U}_1^\dagger\right)
&=& \Tr\left(\op{A}\sum_n w_n \op{U}_1\ket{n}\bra{n}\op{U}_1^\dagger\right)
\nonumber \\
&=& \Tr\left(\sum_n w_n \op{A}\ket{\Psi_{\sigma(n)}}\bra{\Psi_{\sigma(n)}}\right)
\nonumber\\
&=& \Tr\left(\sum_n w_n\lambda_{\sigma(n)}\ket{\Psi_{\sigma(n)}}
\bra{\Psi_{\sigma(n)}}\right)
\nonumber\\
&=& \sum_n w_n \lambda_{\sigma(n)} = \sum_n w_{\sigma(n)} \lambda_n.\end{aligned}$$ Hence, if the system is initially in the state (\[eq:rho0\]) then $\op{U}_1$ is a target operator for which the observable $\op{A}$ assumes its kinematical maximum, and we can use the decomposition algorithm described in \[appendix:Udecomp\] to obtain the required factorization of the operator $\op{U}_I=\op{U}_0(T)^\dagger\op{U}_1$.
However, if $\op{A}$ is an observable whose eigenstates are not energy eigenstates then the expectation value or ensemble average of $\op{A}$ will usually oscillate rapidly as a result of the action of the free evolution operator $\op{U}_0(t)$. These oscillations are rarely significant for the application at hand and often distracting. In such cases it is advantageous to define a dynamic observable $$\tilde{A}(t) = \op{U}_0(t) \op{A} \op{U}_0(t)^\dagger$$ and optimize its ensemble average instead. To accomplish this, note that if $\ket{\Psi_n}$ are the eigenstates of $\op{A}$ satisfying $\op{A}\ket{\Psi_n}=\lambda_n\ket{\Psi_n}$ then $\ket{\tilde{\Psi}_n(t)}=\op{U}_0(t)\ket{\Psi_n}$ are the corresponding eigenstates of $\tilde{A}(t)$ since $$\tilde{A}(t) \ket{\tilde{\Psi}_n(t)}
= \op{U}_0(t)\op{A} \op{U}_0(t)^\dagger \op{U}_0(t) \ket{\Psi_n}
= \op{U}_0(t)\lambda_n \ket{\Psi_n}
= \lambda_n \ket{\tilde{\Psi}_n(t)}.$$ Hence, if $\op{U}_1$ is a unitary operator such that equation (\[eq:U1def\]) holds then $\op{U}_0(t)\op{U}_1$ is a unitary operator that maps the energy eigenstates $\ket{n}$ onto the $\tilde{A}(t)$-eigenstates $\ket{\tilde{\Psi}_n(t)}$ since $$\op{U}_0(t) \op{U}_1 \ket{n}
= \op{U}_0(t) \ket{\Psi_{\sigma(n)}}
= \ket{\tilde{\Psi}_{\sigma(n)}(t)}$$ for $1\le n\le N$. Thus, the evolution operator required to maximize the ensemble average of $\tilde{A}(t)$ at time $T>0$ is $\op{U}_0(T)\op{U}_1$ and the target operator to be decomposed is $\op{U}=\op{U}_0(T)^\dagger\op{U}_0(T)\op{U}_1=\op{U}_1$.
For instance, suppose we wish to maximize the ensemble average of the transition dipole moment operator $\tilde{A}(t)=\op{U}_0(t)\op{A}\op{U}_0(t)^\dagger$, where $$\label{eq:A}
\op{A}= \sum_{n=1}^{N-1} d_n \left(\ket{n}\bra{n+1}+\ket{n+1}\bra{n}\right),$$ for a system initially in state (\[eq:rho0\]) with $$w_1 > w_2 > \cdots > w_N > 0.$$ First, we need to find a unitary operator that maps the initial state $\ket{n}$ onto the $\op{A}$-eigenstate $\ket{\Psi_n}$ for $1\le n\le N$. Let $\op{U}_1$ be the $N\times N$ matrix whose $n$th column is the normalized $\op{A}$-eigenstate $\ket{\Psi_n}$. Then $\op{U}_1$ clearly satisfies $\op{U}_1\ket{n}=\ket{\Psi_n}$. Furthermore, $\op{U}_1$ is automatically unitary since the eigenstates $\ket{\Psi_n}$ are orthonormal by hypothesis.
For $N=4$ and $d_n=p_0\sqrt{n}$ the eigenvalues of the operator $\op{A}$ defined in (\[eq:A\]) are (in decreasing order) $$\lambda_1=\sqrt{3+\sqrt{6}}, \;
\lambda_2=\sqrt{3-\sqrt{6}}, \;
\lambda_3=-\lambda_2, \;
\lambda_4=-\lambda_1$$ and the corresponding eigenstates with respect to the standard basis $\ket{n}$ are the columns of the operator $$\op{U}_1=\left[ \begin{array}{cccc}
\frac{1}{2\lambda_1}&\frac{1}{2\lambda_2}&\frac{1}{2\lambda_2}&\frac{1}{2\lambda_1}\\[1.ex]
\frac{1}{2} &\frac{1}{2} &-\frac{1}{2} &-\frac{1}{2} \\[1.ex]
\frac{\sqrt{2}+\sqrt{3}}{2\lambda_1} & \frac{\sqrt{2}-\sqrt{3}}{2\lambda_2} &
\frac{\sqrt{2}-\sqrt{3}}{2\lambda_2} & \frac{\sqrt{2}+\sqrt{3}}{2\lambda_1} \\[1.ex]
\frac{1}{2} &-\frac{1}{2} &\frac{1}{2} &-\frac{1}{2} \\
\end{array} \right].$$
Applying the decomposition algorithm described in \[appendix:Udecomp\] yields the product decomposition $\op{U}_1 \op{\Theta}=\op{V}_6 \op{V}_5 \op{V}_4 \op{V}_3 \op{V}_2
\op{V}_1$, where the factors are $$\label{eq:Cs}
\begin{array}{ll}
\op{V}_1 = \exp\left(-C_1\op{x}_1 \right), & C_1 = \pi/4,\\
\op{V}_2 = \exp\left(-C_2\op{x}_2 \right), & C_2 = \arctan\left(\sqrt{2}\right),\\
\op{V}_3 = \exp\left(-C_3\op{x}_1 \right), & C_3 =
\mbox{arccot}\left(\frac{\sqrt{6}-\sqrt{3}+3\sqrt{2}}{3}\right),\\
\op{V}_4 = \exp\left(-C_4\op{x}_3 \right), & C_4 = \pi/3,\\
\op{V}_5 = \exp\left(-C_5\op{x}_2 \right), & C_5 =
\arctan\left(\frac{\sqrt{4+\sqrt{6}}}{\sqrt{2}+\sqrt{3}}\right),\\
\op{V}_6 = \exp\left(-C_6\op{x}_1 \right), & C_5 =
\mbox{arccot}\left(\sqrt{3+\sqrt{6}}\right)
\end{array}$$ and $\op{\Theta}=\mbox{diag}(1,-1,1,-1)$. Note that $\op{U}_2\equiv\op{U}_1\op{\Theta}$ is equivalent to $\op{U}_1$ since $\op{\Theta}$ commutes with $\op{\rho}_0$ as defined in equation (\[eq:rho0\]), i.e., $\op{\Theta}\op{\rho}_0\op{\Theta}^\dagger=\op{\rho}_0$, and thus $$\Tr\left(\op{A}\op{U}_2\op{\rho}_0\op{U}_2^\dagger\right)
= \Tr\left(\op{A}\op{U}_1\op{\Theta}\op{\rho}_0\op{\Theta}^\dagger\op{U}_1^\dagger\right)
=\Tr\left(\op{A}\op{U}_1 \op{\rho}_0\op{U}_1\right). \label{eq:Theta-equiv}$$ This decomposition corresponds to a sequence of six control pulses $$\begin{array}{rll}
f_1(t) &= A_1(t) e^{\rmi(\omega_1 t -\pi/2)} + \mbox{c.c.} &= 2A_1(t) \sin(\omega_1 t) \\
f_2(t) &= A_2(t) e^{\rmi(\omega_2 t -\pi/2)} + \mbox{c.c.} &= 2A_2(t) \sin(\omega_2 t) \\
f_3(t) &= A_3(t) e^{\rmi(\omega_1 t -\pi/2)} + \mbox{c.c.} &= 2A_3(t) \sin(\omega_1 t) \\
f_4(t) &= A_4(t) e^{\rmi(\omega_3 t -\pi/2)} + \mbox{c.c.} &= 2A_4(t) \sin(\omega_3 t) \\
f_5(t) &= A_5(t) e^{\rmi(\omega_2 t -\pi/2)} + \mbox{c.c.} &= 2A_5(t) \sin(\omega_2 t) \\
f_6(t) &= A_6(t) e^{\rmi(\omega_1 t -\pi/2)} + \mbox{c.c.} &= 2A_6(t) \sin(\omega_1 t)
\end{array}$$ with effective pulse areas $\frac{\pi}{2}$, $2C_2$, $2C_3$, $\frac{2\pi}{3}$, $2C_5$ and $2C_6$, respectively. Again, the decomposition fixes the frequency and pulse area as well as the initial phase of each pulse and the question thus arises what role the phases play. As we have already seen, the target operator $\op{U}_1$ is not unique. In fact, equation (\[eq:Theta-equiv\]) shows that right multiplication of $\op{U}_1$ by any unitary matrix that commutes with $\op{\rho}_0$ produces another unitary operator that leads to the same ensemble average of the target observable. Nevertheless, in general, the control process is sensitive to the phases $\phi_m$. For instance, one can verify that changing the phase $\phi_1$ of the first pulse from $-\pi/2$ to $\pi/2$ in the pulse sequence above leads to the following evolution operator $$\op{U}_3 = \left[ \begin{array}{cccc}
\frac{1}{2\lambda_2}&\frac{1}{2\lambda_1}&\frac{1}{2\lambda_2}&-\frac{1}{2\lambda_1}\\[1ex]
\frac{1}{2} &\frac{1}{2} &-\frac{1}{2} &\frac{1}{2} \\[1ex]
\frac{\sqrt{2}-\sqrt{3}}{2\lambda_2} & \frac{\sqrt{2}+\sqrt{3}}{2\lambda_1} &
\frac{\sqrt{2}-\sqrt{3}}{2\lambda_2} & \frac{\sqrt{2}+\sqrt{3}}{-2\lambda_1} \\[1ex]
-\frac{1}{2} &\frac{1}{2} & \frac{1}{2} & \frac{1}{2}
\end{array} \right],$$ which maps $\ket{3}$ onto $\ket{\Psi_3}$ and $\ket{4}$ onto $-\ket{\Psi_4}$ but $\ket{1}$ onto $\ket{\Psi_2}$ and $\ket{2}$ onto $\ket{\Psi_1}$ and leads to the ensemble average $$\ave{\op{A}} = w_1 \lambda_2 + w_2 \lambda_1 + w_3 \lambda_3 + w_4 \lambda_4$$ at the final time, which is strictly less than the kinematical maximum if $w_1>w_2$.
------------------------- ----------------------
\(a) Square wave pulses \(b) Gaussian pulses
------------------------- ----------------------
Figure \[Fig:Dipole\] shows the results of control simulations for HF with initial populations $w_1=0.4$, $w_2=0.3$, $w_3=0.2$ and $w_4=0.1$ for square wave and Gaussian control pulses, respectively. The pulse intensities are similar to those for population inversion in HF. Notice that the observable indeed attains its kinematical upper bound at the final time, as desired. Furthermore, the target state for which the observable assumes its upper bound is $$\op{\rho} = \op{U}_1 \op{\rho}_0 \op{U}_1^\dagger
= \left( \begin{array}{cccc}
\frac{1}{4} & \rho_{12} & 0 & \rho_{14} \\
\rho_{12}^\dagger & \frac{1}{4} & \rho_{23} & 0 \\
0 & \rho_{23}^\dagger & \frac{1}{4} & \rho_{34} \\
\rho_{14}^\dagger & 0 & \rho_{34}^\dagger & \frac{1}{4}
\end{array} \right)$$ with $\rho_{12}=\lambda_1\lambda_2(\lambda_2+\lambda_1/3)/40 \approx 0.0658$, $\rho_{14}=\lambda_1\lambda_2(\lambda_2-\lambda_1/3)/40 \approx -0.0016$, $\rho_{23}=\lambda_2(\lambda_1^2-1/\sqrt{3})/40 \approx 0.0904$, $\rho_{34}=\lambda_2(\lambda_1^2+1/\sqrt{3})/40 \approx 0.1118$, which agrees with the final values of the populations and coherences in figure \[Fig:Dipole\]. Note that we chose pulses of fixed length 200 ps. Had we instead fixed the strength of the fields to be $2 A_k = 5 \times 10^6$ V/m, say, then the length $\Delta t_k$ of the control pulses according to (\[eq:tmax:SWP\]) and (\[eq:tmax:GWP\]) would have been 122.2, 97.9, 60.8, 156.3, 82.5 and 72.7 ps, respectively, for SWP with $\tau_0=20$ ps, and 230.6, 198.4, 92.2, 307.5, 141.0 and 118.9 ps, respectively, for GWP with $q_k=4/\Delta t_k$.
Conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
==========
We have presented several control schemes designed to achieve control objectives ranging from population transfer and inversion of ensemble populations to the creation of arbitrary superposition states and the optimization of (dynamic) observables. A key feature of these schemes is that they rely only on sequences of simple control pulses such as square wave pulses with finite rise and decay times or Gaussian wavepackets to achieve the control objective. In the optical regime, for instance, such pulses can easily be created in the laboratory using pulsed laser sources, or by modulating the amplitude of CW lasers using Pockel cells. No sophisticated pulse shaping technology is required. A limitation of the approach is the need to be able to selectively address individual transitions, which restricts the application of this technique to systems where selection rules and frequency discrimination can be employed to achieve this. However, these requirements can be met for certain atomic or molecular systems, as we have demonstrated for Rubidium and hydrogen fluoride.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We sincerely thank A. I. Solomon and A. V. Durrant of the Open University for helpful discussions and suggestions. ADG would like to thank the EPSRC for financial support and VR would like to acknowledge the support of NSF Grant DMS 0072415.
Derivation of equation (\[eq:Omega\]) {#appendix:A}
=====================================
Let $\tilde{E}_n=E_n/\hbar$ and $\tilde{d}_n=d_n/\hbar$. Inserting equations (\[eq:U0\]) and (\[eq:Hm\]) into (\[eq:SE2\]) leads to $$\begin{aligned}
\fl \rmi\frac{d\op{U}_I(t)}{dt}
&=& \op{U}_0(t)^\dagger\left\{\sum_{m=1}^M\op{H}_m[f_m(t)] /\hbar \right\}
\op{U}_0(t)\op{U}_I(t)\\
\fl &=& \sum_{n,m,n'} e^{\rmi \tilde{E}_n t} \op{e}_{n,n}
A_m(t) \tilde{d}_m \left(e^{\rmi(\omega_m t + \phi_m)}\op{e}_{m,m+1}
e^{-\rmi(\omega_m t + \phi_m)}\op{e}_{m+1,m} \right)
e^{-\rmi \tilde{E}_{n'} t} \op{e}_{n',n'} \op{U}_I(t)\\
\fl &=& \sum_m A_m(t)\tilde{d}_m \left(e^{\rmi\tilde{E}_mt} e^{\rmi(\omega_m t+\phi_m)}
e^{-\rmi\tilde{E}_{m+1} t} \op{e}_{m,m+1}e^{\rmi\tilde{E}_{m+1} t}
e^{-\rmi(\omega_m t +\phi_m)}e^{-\rmi\tilde{E}_m t}\op{e}_{m+1,m}\right)
\op{U}_I(t)\\
\fl &=&\sum_m A_m(t) \tilde{d}_m
\left( e^{\rmi\phi_m}\op{e}_{m,m+1} + e^{-\rmi\phi_m}\op{e}_{m+1,m}\right)\op{U}_I(t)\\
\fl &=&\sum_m A_m(t) \tilde{d}_m\left[\cos\phi_m \left(\op{e}_{m,m+1}+\op{e}_{m+1,m} \right)
+\rmi\sin\phi_m \left(\op{e}_{m,m+1}-\op{e}_{m+1,m} \right) \right] \op{U}_I(t)\\
\fl &=&\sum_m A_m(t) \tilde{d}_m
\left( -\rmi\op{y}_m \cos\phi_m + \op{x}_m \rmi\sin\phi_m \right) \op{U}_I(t).\end{aligned}$$ Hence, multiplying both sides by $-\rmi$ gives $$\frac{d\op{U}_I(t)}{dt} = \sum_m A_m(t) \tilde{d}_m
\left(\op{x}_m \sin\phi_m - \op{y}_m \cos\phi_m \right) \op{U}_I(t).$$
Lie group decomposition algorithm {#appendix:Udecomp}
=================================
To find a decomposition (\[eq:Udecomp\]) for the unitary operator $\op{U}$ we define the equivalent operator $\op{U}^{(0)}\in SU(N)$ by $\op{U}^{(0)}=e^{-\rmi\Gamma/N}\op{U}$ where $e^{\rmi\Gamma}=\det(\op{U})$. Our goal is to reduce $\op{U}^{(0)}$ step by step to a diagonal matrix whose diagonal elements are arbitrary phase factors $e^{\rmi\theta_n}$. Recall that this reduction is always sufficient if the initial state of the system is an ensemble of energy eigenstates.
Let $U_{ij}^{(0)}$ denote the $i$th row and $j$th column entry in the matrix representation of $\op{U}^{(0)}$. In the first step of the decomposition we seek a matrix $$\op{W}^{(1)}=\exp\left[-C_1\left(\sin\phi_1\op{x}_1 -\cos\phi_1\op{y}_1\right)\right],$$ which is the identity matrix everywhere except for a $2\times 2$ block of the form $$\left( \begin{array}{cc}
\cos(C_1) & \rmi e^{\rmi\phi_1} \sin(C_1) \\
\rmi e^{-\rmi\phi_1} \sin(C_1) & \cos(C_1)
\end{array} \right)$$ in the top left corner, such that $$\label{eq:W1}
\op{W}^{(1)} \left(\begin{array}{c} U_{1,N}^{(0)} \\
U_{2,N}^{(0)} \\
\vdots
\end{array}\right)
= \left(\begin{array}{c} 0 \\ c \\ \vdots \end{array}\right)$$ where $c$ is some complex number. Noting that $U_{1,N}^{(0)}=r_1 e^{\rmi\alpha_1}$ and $U_{2,N}^{(0)} = r_2 e^{\rmi\alpha_2}$, it can easily be verified that setting $$\label{eq:Cphi}
C_k = -\mbox{arccot}(-r_2/r_1), \quad
\phi_k = \pi/2+\alpha_1-\alpha_2$$ achieves (\[eq:W1\]). Next we set $\op{U}^{(1)} = \op{W}^{(1)} \op{U}^{(0)}$ and find $\op{W}^{(2)}$ of the form $$\op{W}^{(2)} = \exp\left[-C_2\left(\sin\phi_2\op{x}_2 -\cos\phi_2\op{y}_2\right)\right]$$ such that $$\label{eq:W2}
\op{W}^{(2)} \left(\begin{array}{c} 0 \\
U_{2,N}^{(1)} \\
U_{3,N}^{(1)} \\
\vdots
\end{array}\right)
= \left(\begin{array}{c} 0 \\ 0 \\ c \\ \vdots \end{array}\right)$$ where $c$ is again some complex number. Repeating this procedure $N-1$ times leads to a matrix $\op{U}^{(N-1)}$ whose last column is $(0,\ldots,0,e^{\rmi\theta_N})^T$. Since we are not concerned about the phase factor $e^{\rmi\theta_N}$ in this paper, we stop here. Note that $$\exp\left(-C \op{x}_{N-1}\right) \times
\exp\left[-C (\op{x}_{N-1}\sin\phi-\op{y}_{N-1}\cos\phi) \right]$$ with $C=\pi/2$ and $\phi=-\pi/2-\theta_n$ maps $(0,e^{\rmi\theta_{N-1}})^T$ onto $(0,1)^T$. Hence, a complete reduction to the identity matrix would require two additional steps to eliminate $e^{\rmi\theta_N}$, which would result in two additional control pulses.
Having reduced the last column, we continue with the $(N-1)$st column in the same fashion, noting that at most $N-2$ steps will be required to reduce the $(N-1)$st column to $(0,
\ldots,0, e^{\rmi\theta_{N-1}},0)^T$ since $\op{U}^{(0)}$ is unitary. We repeat this procedure until after at most $K=N(N-1)/2$ steps $\op{U}^{(0)}$ is reduced to a diagonal matrix $\mbox{diag}(e^{\rmi\theta_1},\ldots,e^{\rmi\theta_N})$ and we have $$\op{W}^{(K)} \cdots \op{W}^{(1)} \op{U}^{(0)}
= \mbox{diag}\left(e^{\rmi\theta_1},\ldots,e^{\rmi\theta_N} \right).$$ Finally, setting $\op{V}_k \equiv \left(\op{W}^{(K+1-k)}\right)^\dagger$ leads to $$\op{U}^{(0)} = \op{V}_K \op{V}_{K-1} \cdots \op{V}_1
\mbox{diag}\left(e^{\rmi\theta_1},\ldots,e^{\rmi\theta_N} \right)$$ and therefore $\op{U} = \op{V}_K \op{V}_{K-1} \cdots \op{V}_1 \Theta$, where $\Theta=
e^{\rmi\Gamma/N}\mbox{diag}\left(e^{\rmi\theta_1},\ldots,e^{\rmi\theta_N}\right)$ is a diagonal matrix of phase factors.
Recall that $\op{U}$ can always be decomposed such that $\Theta$ is the identity matrix. However, up to $2(N-1)$ additional terms would be required to eliminate the phase factors, which would result in additional control pulses. While some applications indeed require the elimination of these phase factors, they are often insignificant and the additional control pulses would be superfluous. For a more sophisticated decomposition algorithm that requires only very few phases the reader is referred to [@CP267p25].
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[^1]: Assumption (\[hyp:a\]) can be relaxed if we can distinguish transitions with the same transition frequency by other means, e.g., by using fields with different polarizations.
|
---
abstract: 'We prove a new formula for the generating function of polynomials counting absolutely stable representations of quivers over finite fields. The case of irreducible representations is studied in more detail.'
author:
- Sergey Mozgovoy
- Markus Reineke
title: On the number of stable quiver representations over finite fields
---
[^1]
[^1]:
|
---
abstract: 'We have carried out measurements of domain wall dynamics in a Pt/Co/GdO$_x(t)$ wedge sample with perpendicular magnetic anisotropy. When driven by an easy-axis field $H_{z}$ in the presence of an in-plane field $H_{x}$, the domain wall expansion along $\pm x$ is anisotropic, as expected for samples presenting Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interaction. In the creep regime, the sign and the value of the domain wall velocity asymmetry changes along the wedge. We show that in our samples the domain wall speed *vs.* $H_{x}$ curves in the creep regime cannot be explained simply in terms of the variation of the domain wall energy with $H_{x}$, as suggested by previous works. For this reason the strength and the sign of the Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interaction (DMI) cannot be extracted from these measurements. To obtain reliable information on the DMI strength using magnetic field-induced domain wall dynamics, measurements have been performed with high fields, bringing the DW close to the flow regime of propagation. In this case we find large values of DMI, coherent with those obtained from current-driven domain wall dynamics.'
address:
- 'CNRS, Institut Néel, 38042 Grenoble, France'
- 'Univ. Grenoble Alpes, Institut Néel, 38042 Grenoble, France'
- 'Institute of Physical Engineering, Brno University of Technology, Technická 2, 616 69 Brno, Czech Republic'
- 'CNRS, Institut Néel, 38042 Grenoble, France'
- 'Univ. Grenoble Alpes, Institut Néel, 38042 Grenoble, France'
- 'CNRS, Institut Néel, 38042 Grenoble, France'
- 'Univ. Grenoble Alpes, Institut Néel, 38042 Grenoble, France'
- 'Departamento de Engenharia Elétrica, Universidade Federal do Paraná, Curitiba, Brazil'
- 'Laboratoire de Physique des Solides, Univ. Paris-Sud, CNRS UMR 8502, 91405 Orsay, France'
- 'CNRS, Institut Néel, 38042 Grenoble, France'
- 'Univ. Grenoble Alpes, Institut Néel, 38042 Grenoble, France'
author:
- 'M. Vaňatka'
- 'J.-C. Rojas-Sánchez'
- 'J. Vogel'
- 'M. Bonfim'
- 'A. Thiaville'
- 'S. Pizzini'
title: Velocity asymmetry of Dzyaloshinskii domain walls in the creep and flow regimes
---
Chiral magnetic textures such as Dzyaloshinskii domain walls (DDW) [@Thiaville2012] and skyrmions [@Skyrme1960] are attracting attention because of their possible applications as information carriers in spintronics devices. DDW are Néel walls with a fixed chirality, stabilised, in non-centrosymmetric stacks, by the Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interaction (DMI) [@Dzyaloshinskii1957; @Moriya1960] present at the interface between a magnetic layer and a heavy metal with large spin-orbit coupling. When driven by a Spin Hall effect related spin-orbit torque (SHE-SOT) [@LiuPRL2012; @Haazen2013; @Garello2013] DDW in systems with perpendicular magnetic anisotropy (PMA) move with large efficiency [@Miron2011; @Ryu2013; @Emori2013]. Also, it has been predicted that isolated skyrmions injected in nanotracks can be moved with very low current density and are moreover insensitive to defects [@Sampaio2013]. Engineering materials with large DMI has therefore become an important issue both for domain wall and skyrmion physics.
So far *ab-initio* calculations of interfacial DMI are rare and concern perfect interfaces difficult to compare with the mixed interfaces found in real samples [@Freimuth2014; @Yang2015]. The information presently available on the DMI strengths relies on experimental work. A large input has been given by Spin-polarised Scanning Tunneling Microscopy measurements that show the presence of chiral magnetic textures or skyrmions in systems consisting of one monolayer of Fe (or Mn) on heavy metal substrates [@Bode2007; @Ferriani2008; @Meckler2009; @Heinze2011] in ultra-high vacuum and at low temperature. In the last few years, domain wall dynamics and nucleation measurements at room temperature have revealed the presence of DMI in less ordered, non centrosymmetric ultrathin magnetic layers with PMA, made by magnetron sputtering [@Ryu2013; @Emori2013; @Haazen2013; @Pizzini2014]. More recently, Brillouin light scattering experiments have also highlighted the presence of DMI in similar PMA samples [@DiPRL2015; @Belmeguenai2015].
It has been shown recently that when, in a nanostrip or in a bubble domain, an easy-axis field $H_{z}$ drives the DW dynamics in the presence of an in-plane field $H_{x}$ (aligned along $+x$), the DW speed is different for up/down and down/up DDWs propagating along $\pm x$ [@Je2013; @Hrabec2014; @Jue2015]. This phenomenon is related to the symmetry breaking introduced by the in-plane field. The Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interaction acts as a longitudinal chiral field $H_{\mathrm{DMI}}=D/(\mu_{0}M_{s}\Delta)$ (where $D$ is the DMI strength, $M_{s}$ is the saturation magnetisation and $\Delta$ is the domain wall width parameter) localised on the domain walls, having opposite directions for up/down and down/up DWs. Beyond a critical strength, the DMI forces the DW magnetisation in the Néel configuration (see sketch in Figure \[fig:images\]) [@Thiaville2012]. Although the in-plane field does not drive the dynamics, it will respectively stabilise (*vs.* destabilise) the DWs having their magnetisation $m$ parallel (*vs.* antiparallel) to it. For a parallel (*vs.* antiparallel) alignment between $H_{x}$ and $m$ the DW speed increases (*vs.* decreases) with respect to the $H_{x}$=0 case. In the high speed (flow) regime, the speed increase (vs. decrease) is mainly due to the widening (vs. narrowing) of the DW with $H_{x}$ [@Jue2015]. In the low speed (thermally-activated or creep) regime, the speed dependence on $H_{x}$ has been related to the variation of domain wall energy [@Je2013]. The DDW width (resp. DW energy) is expected to have a minimum (resp. maximum) value when the applied in-plane field is equal and opposite to the stabilising $H_{\mathrm{DMI}}$ field i.e. when the DW acquires a Bloch form. In the two DW propagation regimes, this is the $H_{x}$ field for which the DW speed is predicted to exhibit a minimum. With these assumptions, $H_{x}$ could therefore be a direct measure of the DMI energy density $D$, provided that the domain wall width parameter $\Delta= \sqrt{A/K_{0}}$ ($K_{0}$ being the effective uniaxial anisotropy and $A$ the exchange constant) and $M_{s}$ are known.
In the following, we will show that the DW speed *vs.* in-plane field curves in the creep regime cannot in general be used to extract the strength and the sign of the DMI, as was done for Pt/Co/Pt samples [@Je2013; @Hrabec2014]. Moreover, we find that the $v(H_{x})$ curves measured for the same sample in the thermally activated and in the flow regimes can have different trends. Although the mechanism determining the exact trend of the velocity curves in the creep regime is not clear, we show that it cannot always be described simply in terms of the variation of DW energy with $H_{x}$. Our measurements on Pt/Co/GdO$_x$ films suggest that modifications of the pinning barrier landscape upon application of the in-plane field also contribute to the trend of the $v(H_{x})$ curves.
A Pt(5nm)/Co(1nm)/Gd($t$) stack with varying Gd thickness ($t=2-5\,$nm) was grown on a Si/SiO$_{2}$ substrate by magnetron sputtering in the shape of a wedge, and oxidised by O$_{2}$ plasma for 35 seconds. Consequently 2nm of Al were deposited on top of the stack to protect it from further oxidation. The varying thickness of the Gd layer is at the origin of a gradient in the oxygen content at the Co/Gd interface, which varies the interfacial anisotropy [@Manchon2008a]. All the samples present a well defined PMA, with in-plane saturation fields varying between 1.6T (for 2nm Gd) and 0.6T (for 5nm Gd). Domain wall dynamics was studied at room temperature by wide-field Magneto-Optical Kerr microscopy, using a combination of easy-axis and in-plane magnetic fields. $H_{z}$ pulses of amplitude $\sim$10mT and duration $\sim$20-100ms were obtained using a conventional, uncooled coil. The $H_{z}$ pulses, driving the displacement of the DWs, were applied in the presence of a continuous in-plane field $H_{x}$, along $\pm
x$, which tunes the stability of the DDW internal structure. With such amplitudes of the $H_{z}$ field, DW speeds are of the order of some 0.1mm/s, the dynamics is thermally activated and described by the so-called creep regime.
![\[fig:images\] Left: Expansion by DW propagation of an up (black contrast) and a down (white contrast) domain in samples (A), (B), (C), (D). The Gd thickness increases from 2nm to 5nm going from (A) to (D). The DW displacements are obtained by an $H_{z}$ field pulse with amplitude $\sim$10mT and duration $\sim$20-100ms and a continuous in-plane field $H_{x}=+200$mT. Right: schematic view of a bubble domain expansion: the red arrows represent the equilibrium orientation of the magnetisation at the center of the DWs.](CreepDMI-Fig1-new.pdf){width="15cm"}
Starting from (down or up) saturation, a bubble domain was created by applying an up or a down $H_{z}$ pulse. The image of the domain was saved as a reference image. An $H_{z}$ pulse was then applied to enlarge the domain by DW propagation, and the new image was acquired. The difference between the two images gives the domain wall displacement that occurred during the field pulse. A black (white) contrast in the images corresponds to the expansion of an up (down) domain. The domain wall speed in a given direction can then be extracted from the ratio of the DW displacement and the pulse duration. DW displacements in the $\pm x$ directions were measured for a fixed value of the $H_{z}$ field, for several values of the in-plane field between -300 mT and +300 mT. In order to correct the residual $H_{z}$ component that may arise from a misalignment of the in-plane electromagnet, measurements were taken for both down and up domains.
Figure \[fig:images\] shows the differential images recorded in four positions of the wedge sample (called samples (A) to (D) from now on) corresponding to increasing values of the Gd thickness (from 2 to 5nm) for $H_{z}$ field pulses of the order of $10$mT and an in-plane field of $+200$mT. Without in-plane field, the propagation of the DWs is isotropic and the domains are round. Similar to previously reported experiments, the $H_{x}$ field breaks the rotational symmetry and the propagation becomes asymmetric in the $\pm x$ directions. Note that the sign and the amplitude of the speed asymmetry depend on the sample composition. Indeed, in sample (A) the down/up DWs move faster than the up/down DWs while in sample (B) the asymmetry is practically vanishing, *i.e.* up/down and down/up DWs move at the same speed. In sample (C) the DW speed asymmetry reverses with respect to (A), *i.e.* the up/down DWs move faster. Finally, in (D) the asymmetry found in (A) is recovered.
According to previous work [@Je2013; @Hrabec2014], the cancellation (resp. change of sign) of the DW speed asymmetry may be attributed to a vanishing (resp. reversed) value of the DMI. This result is unexpected and counter-intuitive. As one moves across the sample, from (A) to (D), the decreasing degree of oxygen content modifies the composition of the Co/Gd interface, as shown experimentally by the changing PMA. However the sample presents a considerable PMA for the thinner Gd layers, which is an indication that the oxidation only concerns the top Co interface. Therefore the bottom Pt/Co interface, which is expected to provide the most important contribution to the DMI [@Freimuth2014], should not be affected by the varying Gd thickness. This is confirmed by X-ray reflectivity data.
In order to clarify the interpretation of the DW dynamics in the creep regime and to have an independent measurement of the sign of the DMI, we carried out current-induced DW dynamics measurements. For this purpose, the samples were patterned into $1\,\upmu$m wide strips by e-beam lithography and the DW dynamics was studied for a fixed value of the current-density $J=1.2 \times 10^{12}\,$A/m$^{2}$ and variable values of $H_{x}$. The results show that for all samples (note that sample (C) could not be measured, due to deterioration during the patterning process) the domain walls move in the same direction, opposite to the electron flow. Since in these systems the direction of the DW displacement is determined by the sign of the Spin-Hall angle in Pt (which is the same for samples (A) to (D)) and by the chirality of the DDW [@Thiaville2012; @Ryu2013; @Emori2013], this results is a strong indication that the domain walls in all the samples have the same chirality and therefore the sign of the DMI is sample independent. The results of the current-driven DW speed *vs.* $H_{x}$ field curves for samples (A) and (B) are shown in Figure \[fig:speed\_J\].
![\[fig:speed\_J\] Left: Domain wall speed *vs.* $H_{x}$ curves measured with constant current density $J=1.2 \times 10^{12}\,$A/m$^{2}$ for samples (A) and (B), for which a large and a vanishing field-induced domain wall speed asymmetry are found in the creep regime respectively. Right: Differential Kerr image showing an example of the displacement of DWs in nanostrips.](CreepDMI-Fig2-new.pdf){width="15cm"}
The speed variation as a function of in-plane field $H_{x}$ is similar to that shown by other authors in strips of DMI materials [@Ryu2013; @Emori2013; @Ryu2014]. In all the curves, the speed of the down/up DWs increases for positive $H_{x}$ fields and decreases for negative fields. The symmetric curve is found for the up/down domain walls, as expected for chiral Néel walls. If we neglect the rotation of the magnetisation within the domains, the domain wall speed driven by the current $J$ *via* the SHE-SOT can be expressed as [@Thiaville2012] : $$\label{DW_speed_vs_J}
v = \gamma_{0}\frac{\Delta}{\alpha}\frac{\pi}{2}\chi M_{s}\cos \psi$$ where $\gamma_{0}$ is the gyromagnetic ratio, $\alpha$ is the damping parameter, $\Delta$ is the domain wall width, $\psi$ is the angle of the DW magnetisation with respect to the $x$-axis, and $\chi=\hbar \theta_{H} J / (2e\mu_{0} M_{s}^{2} t)$ where $\theta_{H}$ is the Spin Hall angle and $t$ the magnetic layer thickness. It can be shown (see Suppl. Information) that for our samples the variation of $\cos \psi$ with $H_{x}$ is negligible except around $H_{x}=-H_{\mathrm{DMI}}$ where it changes sign, so that the $v(H_{x})$ shape is mainly determined by the modification of the domain wall width with $H_{x}$. Since the DW width increases for an $H_{x}$ field parallel to the DW magnetisation, our measurement show that down/up DWs have their magnetisation parallel to the $+x$ direction and therefore that the DWs in the Pt/Co/GdO$_x$ samples have left-handed chirality, like in Pt/Co/AlO$_x$ [@Pizzini2014; @Jue2015]. This is not surprising, as we expect that the DMI interaction is mainly located at the Pt/Co interface.
The velocity of the down/up DW in sample (A) changes direction under the effect of a negative in-plane field $H_{x}\approx -280$mT; this is associated with the switching of the DW chirality when the negative $H_{x}$ field exceeds the local chiral $H_{\mathrm{DMI}}$ field. This in-plane field value is therefore a measure of $H_{\mathrm{DMI}}$. Note that in sample (B) the switching of the DW velocity is hindered by the larger DW pinning [@Ryu2013; @Ryu2014].
The constant sign of the DMI for all the samples - assessed by the constant direction of current-driven DW motion at zero $H_{x}$ field - in contrast with the different DW velocity asymmetries observed for the different samples in Figure \[fig:images\], sheds doubts on the possibility to deduce the sign of the DMI from the domain expansion images in the creep regime. In order to clarify the interpretation of the field-induced measurements, we measured the DW speeds as a function of $H_{x}$ field for the bubble domains shown in Figure \[fig:images\].
The velocity curves are shown in Figure \[fig:speed\_Hcreep\] for the two domain walls propagating along the $x$-axis and having their magnetisation either parallel or antiparallel to the $H_{x}$ field. The up/down and the down/up DWs exhibit the same behaviour for opposite $H_{x}$ fields, as expected for chiral Néel walls. The curves for sample (D) - corresponding to the thicker Gd layer - present the main features found by other authors for DDWs in Pt/Co/Pt films [@Je2013; @Hrabec2014]. The speed of the down/up DW increases for a positive in-plane field, and for negative fields it decreases down to a minimum value between -100 mT and -200 mT, where the velocity starts increasing again. On the other hand, the curves measured for samples (A-C) strongly deviate from the expected behaviour, showing in particular a maximum rather than a minimum in the DW speed.
In the thermally activated regime, the DW velocity is given by: $$\label{speed}
v(H_{z)}=v_{o}\exp(-\eta H_{z}^{-\mu})$$ where $v_{0}$ is the characteristic speed, $\mu$=1/4 is the creep scaling exponent and $\eta=U_{c} H_{\mathrm{crit}}^{\mu}/k_{B}T$ where $U_{c}$ is an energy scaling constant and $H_{\mathrm{crit}}$ the critical magnetic field [@Lemerle1998; @Kim2009]. Following Ref. [@Kim2009], $U_{c}$ is related to $\xi$ (the correlation length of the pinning potential) and to the Larkin length $L_{c}=(\sigma_{\mathrm{DW}}^{2}t^{2} \xi^{2}/\gamma)^{1/3}$ (the characteristic length of rigid microscopic DW segments) and $H_{\mathrm{crit}}=\sigma_{\mathrm{DW}}\xi/M_{s}L_{c}^{2}$ where $\sigma_{\mathrm{DW}}$ is the DW energy and $\gamma$ is the pinning strength of the disorder. By assuming that neither $\xi$ nor $\gamma$ are modified by $H_{x}$, Je *et al.* [@Je2013] conclude that the shape of $v(H_{x})$ is solely due to the in-plane field dependence of the DW energy. According to [@Pizzini2014], the energy of a DDW, taking into account the modification of the DW profile with $H_x$ reads: $$\label{full-DW-profile}
\sigma=\sigma_{00}[\sqrt{1-h^{2}}+(h+\frac{2}{\pi}\frac{D}{D_{c0}}) (\arcsin h \mp \pi/2)].$$ where $\sigma_{00}=4\sqrt{AK_{0}}$ is the DW energy at rest, $D_{c0} = 4 \sqrt{A K_0}/\pi \equiv \sigma_{00}/\pi$ gives the onset of magnetisation cycloids, $h= H_x / H_{K0}$ and the $\mp$ signs refer to the DW having its magnetisation parallel/antiparallel to the $H_x$ field. The energies of the DW favoured/unfavoured by the in-plane field are the same when $h=-(2/\pi) (D/D_{c0})$ or when $H_{x}= -D/(\mu_{0}M_{s}\Delta)$ = -$H_{\mathrm{DMI}}$. This is the in-plane field for which the DW energy is maximum. From equation \[speed\] it then follows that the DW velocity should exhibit a minimum for $H_{x}=-H{_\mathrm{DMI}}$. This is indeed observed for sample (D). Note that the left-handed DW chirality deduced from the measurement agrees with the results of the current-induced measurements.
![\[fig:speed\_Hcreep\] Domain wall speed *vs.* $H_{x}$ field measured in the thermally activated regime for bubble domains in Pt/Co/GdO$_x$ samples (A) to (D), for the DW propagating along the $x$-axis direction. ](CreepDMI-Fig3-new.pdf){width="15cm"}
The speed *vs.* $H_{x}$ curves obtained for samples (A-C) show a different behaviour. For sample (A) the speed asymmetry is the same as for sample (D), but the velocity of the down/up DW increases for negative fields and decreases up to a critical field for positive fields. In sample (B) the speed asymmetry practically disappears and the speeds of the up/down and down/up DWs continuously decrease with both positive and negative $H_{x}$ fields. In sample (C) the asymmetry is switched for down/up and up/down DW, with respect to sample (D). Therefore in these three samples the $v(H_{x})$ curves do not follow the variation of the DW energy. Curves deviating from the expected behaviour have also been recently reported in the literature [@Lavrijsen2015].
Note that the anomalous curves are found in particular for samples (B) and (C), for which the sign of the speed asymmetry would suggest that the value of $D$ is either vanishing (for (B)) or opposite (for (C)) to the one of sample (D). This indicates that in the creep regime extreme care should be taken when extracting information on the DMI sign and amplitude simply on the basis of the asymmetry (or lack of asymmetry) of the Kerr microscopy differential images. Before assessing about $D$, the full speed *vs.* $H_{x}$ curves should be examined and compared with the curves predicted by the existing theoretical models.
In order to verify the role of the DW pinning on the speed *vs.* $H_{x}$ field, we have repeated the field-dependent measurements for larger values of the $H_{z}$ fields, bringing the domain wall velocities to a regime ($\gg$ 1m/s) where the propagation is much less sensitive to the pinning generated by local variations of the anisotropy field. Pulsed $H_{z}$ fields up to 200mT and duration down to 20ns were obtained using a $50\,\upmu$m wide microcoil coupled to a fast current pulse generator [@Mackay2000]. The results reported in Figure \[fig:speed\_H\_flow\] for samples (A) to (D) show that in these conditions the speed *vs.* $H_{x}$ curves all acquire the trend expected for chiral Néel walls in the flow regime [@Jue2015].
![\[fig:speed\_H\_flow\] Domain wall speed *vs.* $H_{x}$ field measured for bubble domains in Pt/Co/GdO$_x$ for samples (A) to (D) for 20ns-long $H_{z}$ field pulses varying between 70mT and 200mT. For samples (B) to (D) the curves were measured for two $H_{z}$ field values (empty symbols correspond to the scale to the right). The trends of the normalised speed curves are the same for each field value. For sample (D) the speeds are larger, as the depinning of the DWs occurs for lower fields. ](CreepDMI-Fig4-new.pdf){width="15cm"}
In the high field regime, the stationary DW velocity is given by $v=\gamma_{0}\Delta_{T} H_{z}/\alpha m_{z0}$, where $\Delta_{T}$ is the Thiele domain wall width [@Thiele1974] and $m_{z0}$ is the easy-axis magnetisation within the domains. The speed variation with $H_{x}$ is mainly related to the modification of the Thiele DW width with the in-plane field (see Suppl. Information). In all the samples, the down/up DWs propagate faster than the up/down DWs for positive $H_{x}$ fields, confirming once again that the DW chirality is the same (left handed) in agreement with the current-induced measurements and the field-induced (creep) measurements for sample (D). For samples (A) to (C) the DW speed of the down/up DWs decrease down to the largest available negative $H_{x}$ field, with a saturation but not a clear minimum in the DW speed. This suggests that $H_{\mathrm{DMI}}$ in these samples is of the order or more than $+300$mT.
For sample (D), where the PMA (and therefore the $H_{\mathrm{DMI}}$ field) is reduced, the down/up DWs exhibit minimum speed for $H_{x}=\approx-180$mT, a value close to that found for the same sample in the creep regime. By taking $M_{s}=1 \times 10^{6}$A/m (measured by VSM-SQUID), $\mu_{0}H_{K}=0.7$T (measured by EHE) and $A=2.2 \times 10^{-11}$J/m [@Metaxas2007] the expression $H_{\mathrm{DMI}}=D/(\mu_{0}\Delta~M_{s})$ gives rise to a value of $D=1.27$mJ/m$^{2}$, with $\Delta=7.1$nm. Taking into account the larger thickness of the Co layer (1nm) in our Pt/Co/GdO$_x$ samples, this value scales reasonably well with the $D=2$mJ/m$^{2}$ value found for Pt/Co(0.6nm)/AlO$_x$ [@Pizzini2014; @Jue2015]. For samples (A) to (C) it is difficult to obtain a precise value of $D$ from the field-dependent measurements, where the minimum speed is not well defined. The value of $D$ for sample (A) may be derived from the in-plane field for which the DW chirality switches when driven by spin-polarised current ($H_{x}=\approx-280$mT). Using the values of $M_{s}$ and $A$ used for sample (D), and the measured in plane saturation field $\mu_{0}H_{K}=1.6$T giving rise to $\Delta=4.7$nm, we obtain a value of $D=1.31$mJ/m$^{2}$. We estimate that the uncertainty associated to the value of the exchange parameter A, together with the error associated to the definition of the $H_{x}$ field where the DW velocity is minimum, allow the determination of $D$ with a precision not better than $\pm0.2\,$mJ/m$^{2}$. The similar $D$ values found for the two samples indicate that the DMI strength is homogeneous along the wedge sample and that it is mainly arising from the Pt/Co interface.
As a consequence, the anomalous $v(H_{x}$) curves in the creep regime do not bear any information about the sign and strength of the DMI. In Figure \[fig:speed\_Hcreep\], the value for which the speed is maximum in samples (A) and (C) is not related to the $D$ value, and the absence of speed asymmetry for sample (B) is not a signature of a vanishing $D$. Since the anomalous behaviour of the $v(H_{x}$) curves is observed only in the creep regime and for samples (A) to (C), we conclude that this feature may be related to modifications of the domain wall pinning with $H_{x}$, which depends on the details of the Co/Gd interface. Since the measurements were taken with ms-long pulses in the creep regime and with ns-long pulses in the flow regime, the effect of the pulse length on the DW pinning may also play a role.
Some information on the nature of the top interface, as the presence or not of CoO, can be obtained from the temperature dependence of magnetic hysteresis loops. We have carried out magnetisation measurements with variable temperature between 10K and 300K in a VSM-SQUID of Quantum Design (Figure \[fig:VSM\]). For sample (C) a change of the hysteresis loops, which are square with 100% remanence at 300K, is observed around 225K, where they become partly tilted and the remanence decreases to about 60%. This indicates a decrease of the PMA. Upon decreasing the temperature further, the coercivity increases strongly and below 70K a shift of the hysteresis loop to negative fields develops. Both observations can be attributed to the presence of an ultrathin layer of CoO at the Co/Gd interface, which becomes antiferromagnetic around 225K with a blocking temperature around 70K. For sample (D), the only one presenting expected $v(H_{x}$) curves in the creep regime, the cycles do not exhibit any exchange bias indicating that no CoO is formed at the top Co interface.
![\[fig:VSM\] VSM-SQUID measurements carried out from 10K to 300K for an out-of-plane field up to 1T. Left: in sample (C), the shift of the cycle at low temperature is an indication of the presence of CoO at the top Co/Gd interface. Right: in sample (D), the cycle does not exhibit a shift, sign of the absence of relevant oxidation. Note the factor 10 difference in the field scale.](CreepDMI-Fig5-new.pdf){width="9cm"}
The anomalous behaviour of the $v(H_{x}$) curves in the creep regime seems therefore to be related to the presence of Co oxide at the top Co interface, and the details of the curves to the different degree of oxidation. Although the CoO is paramagnetic at the room temperature, it exhibits a magnetic susceptibility in the $x$-direction [@Ambrose1996]. We speculate that the CoO magnetic moments induced in the $x$ direction by the in-plane field may act as an extra pinning potential acting on the DWs. Since the magnetic susceptibility may depend on the CoO thickness, this could explain why different samples exhibit maximum velocity for different $H_{x}$ fields. The description of the creep law simply in terms of the variation of the DW energy may not be general, as the pinning potential landscape may be strongly affected by the in-plane field.
In conclusion, we have shown that in Pt/Co/GdO$_x$ samples with different oxidation degrees of the Co/Gd interface the dependence of the DW velocity as a function of the in-plane field cannot be interpreted within the creep law relating the DW speed changes exclusively to the DW energy variations. Therefore in these samples, the $v(H_{x}$) curves fail to give information about the sign and the strength of the DM interaction. We have correlated the failure of the proposed creep law with the modification of the pinning potential landscape induced by the in-plane field. When by applying strong and ultrashort out-of-plane field pulses we change the dynamic regime of the DW propagation, the $v(H_{x}$) curves indicate that the chirality of the DDW is left-handed, and $D$ is of the order of $1.3$mJ/m$^{2}$ for $1$nm Co.
This work was supported by the Agence Nationale de la Recherche, project ANR 11 BS10 008 ESPERADO. SP acknowledges the support of E. Wagner and of the staff of the Nanofab facility in Institut Néel.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[10]{}
A. Thiaville, S. Rohart, E. Ju[é]{}, V. Cros, and A. Fert. , 100:57002, 2012.
T.H.R. Skyrme. , 31:558, 1962.
I. E. Dzyaloshinskii. , 5:1259, 1957.
T. Moriya. , 120:91, 1960.
L. Liu, O.J. Lee, T.J. Gudmundsen, D.C. Ralph, and R.A. Buhrman. , 109:096602, 2012.
P. P. J. Haazen, E. Mur[è]{}, J. H. Franken, R. Lavrijsen, H. J. M. Swagten, and B. Koopmans. , 12:299–303, 2013.
K. Garello, I.M. Miron, C.O. Avci, F. Freimuth, Y. Mokrousov, S. Bl[ü]{}gel, S. Auffret, O. Boulle, G. Gaudin, and P. Gambardella. , 8:587, 2013.
I.M. Miron, T. Moore, H. Szambolics, L.D. Buda-Prejbeanu, S. Auffret, B. Rodmacq, S. Pizzini, J. Vogel, M. Bonfim, A. Schuhl, and G. Gaudin. , 10:419, 2011.
K.-S. Ryu, L. Thomas, S.-H. Yang, and S. Parkin. , 8:527, 2013.
S. Emori, U. Bauer, S.-M. Ahn, E. Martinez, and G.S.D. Beach. , 12:611, 2013.
J. Sampaio, V. Cros, S. Rohart, A. Thiaville, and A. Fert. , 8:839, 2013.
F Freimuth, S Blügel, and Y Mokrousov. , 26:104202, 2014.
M. Bode, M. Heide, K. von Bergmann, P. Ferriani, S. Heinze, G. Bihlmayer, A. Kubetzka, O. Pietzsch, S. Bl[ü]{}gel, and R. Wiesendanger. , 447:190, 2007.
P. Ferriani, K. von Bergmann, E. Y. Vedmedenko, S. Heinze, M. Bode, M. Heide, G. Bihlmayer, S. Bl[ü]{}gel, and R. Wiesendanger. , 101:[027201]{}, 2008.
S. Meckler, N. Mikuszeit, A. Preßler, E. Y. Vedmedenko, O. Pietzsch, and R. Wiesendanger. , 103:157201, 2009.
S. Heinze, K. von Bergmann, M. Menzel, J. Brede, A. Kubetzka, R. Wiesendanger, G. Bihlmayer, and S. Bl[ü]{}gel. , 7:713, 2011.
S. Pizzini, J. Vogel, S. Rohart, L.D. Buda-Prejbeanu, E. Jué, O. Boulle, I.M. Miron, C.K. Safeer, S. Auffret, G. Gaudin, and A. Thiaville. , 113:047203, 2014.
Kai Di, Vanessa Li Zhang, Hock Siah Lim, Ser Choon Ng, Meng Hau Kuok, Jiawei Yu, Jungbum Yoon, Xuepeng Qiu, and Hyunsoo Yang. , 114:047201, 2015.
M. Belmeguenai, J.-P. Adam, Y. Roussigné, S. Eimer, T. Devolder, J.-V. Kim, S. Mourad Cherif, A. Stashkevich, and A. Thiaville. , \[cond-mat.mtrl-sci\]:1503.00372, 2015.
S.-G. Je, D-H. Kim, S.-C. Yoo, B.-C. Min, K.-J. Lee, and S.-B. Choe. , 88:214401, 2013.
A. Hrabec, N. A. Porter, A. Wells, M. J. Benitez, G. Burnell, S. McVitie, D. McGrouther, T. A. Moore, and C. H. Marrows. , 90:020402, 2014.
E. Ju[é]{}, A. Thiaville, S. Pizzini, J. Miltat, L.D. Buda-Prejbeanu, S. Rohart, J. Vogel, M. Bonfim, O. Boulle, S. Auffret, I.M. Miron, and G. Gaudin. , 2015.
A. Manchon, C. Ducruet, L. Lombard, S. Auffret, B. Rodmacq, B. Dieny, S. Pizzini, J. Vogel, V. Uhlír, M. Hochstrasser, and G. Panaccione. , 104:043914, 2008.
L. Thomas S.S.P. Parkin K.-S. Ryu, S.-H. Yang. , 5:3910, 2014.
S. Lemerle, J. Ferré, C. Chappert, V. Mathet, T. Giamarchi, and P. Le Doussal. , 80:849–852, 1998.
K.-J. Kim, J.-C. Lee, S.-M. Ahn, K.-S. Lee, C.-W. Lee, Y. J. Cho, S. Seo, K.-H. Shin, S.-B. Choe, and H.-W. Lee. Interdimensional universality of dynamic interfaces. , 458:740, 2009.
R. Lavrijsen, D. M. F. Hartmann, A. van den Brink, Y. Yin, B. Barcones, R. A. Duine, M. A. Verheijen, H. J. M. Swagten, and B. Koopmans. , 91:104414, 2015.
K. Mackay, M. Bonfim, D. Givord, and A. Fontaine. , 87:1996, 2000.
A.A. Thiele. , 45:377, 1974.
P. J. Metaxas, J. P. Jamet, A. Mougin, M. Cormier, J. Ferré, V. Baltz, B. Rodmacq, B. Dieny, and R. L. Stamps. , 99:217208, 2007.
T. Ambrose and C.L. Chien. , 76:1743, 1996.
**SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL**
MICROMAGNETIC SIMULATIONS
=========================
Micromagnetic simulations of domain wall (DW) velocities driven either by an out-of-plane magnetic field or by an electrical current in a nanostrip were performed using a full 1D micromagnetic model, as introduced in [@Thiaville2012]. The unknown parameter is the full $\vec{m} (\vec{x}, t)$ profile. The demagnetizing field is evaluated by direct summation for a given nanostrip width (500 nm). In our case, as the sample thickness and the DW width are much smaller than the typical strip width, the wall may be considered as infinitely long. The computed value of the demagnetizing field is averaged over the sample thickness and over the strip width. In practice, only the $x$ component of the demagnetizing field is evaluated; the $y$ component that is transverse to the strip is negligibly small and the $z$ component is approximated by a local value with unity demagnetizing factor. For the evaluation of DW dynamics, the finite box containing the DW is shifted along the strip so that the DW is always kept in its center. For field-driven dynamics, the case of bubble domains in the continuous layers is too complex to be treated specifically; the DW propagation along a given direction has been assimilated to that of a domain wall within a strip aligned along that particular direction. Having obtained the complete profile of magnetization in the domains and across the DW, all quantities of interest can be evaluated. These contain:
\(i) the Thiele DW width [@Thiele1974], defined as: $$\label{Thiele}
\frac{2}{\Delta_{T}}=\frac{1}{S}\int(\frac{\partial{\vec{m}}}{\partial{x}})^{2}d^{3}r$$ where S is the cross-section area of the nanostrip, oriented along the $x$ direction.
\(ii) the angle $\Phi$ of the DW magnetic moment which controls the force exerted by the Spin Hall Effect (SHE) on the DW in the case of current-driven DW motion. In the presence of an in-plane field and SHE the domain magnetization rotates so that the straightforward evaluation of $\cos\Phi$ fails. To remedy this, we evaluate by integration the SHE force on the DW. This is proportional to $\int(\vec{m}\times \partial_{x}\vec{m})_{y}$, with a value of $\pi\cos\Phi$ in the simple case, $\pi$ standing for the angle between the two domain magnetizations. Thus, to compute $\Phi$, this integral is numerically evaluated, and then divided by the angle between the domain magnetizations.
The micromagnetic parameters chosen for the simulations are $M_{s}$ = 1000 kA/m, A = 22 pJ/m, $K_{u}$ = 0.87 and 1.17 MJ/m$^{3}$ where $K_{0} = K_{u}-\mu_{0}M^{2}_{s}/ 2 $ is the effective anisotropy including the perpendicular demagnetizing field effect in the local approximation. For the strength of the Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interaction we used the value $D$ = 1.8 mJ/m$^{2}$, which is slightly larger than the one evaluated for our samples. For the magnetization dynamics, the gyromagnetic ratio of the free electron $\gamma_{0} = 2.21 \times 10^{5}$ m/(A$ \cdot s)$ and the damping factor $\alpha$ = 0.5 extracted from DW dynamics experiments were used.
The aim of these simulations is to explain qualitatively the observed trends in the speed *vs*. $H_{x}$ curves, in particular for samples with different magnetic anisotropy values.
Current-driven dynamics
-----------------------
The simulations were carried out for a fixed value of the current density $J=1\times 10^{12}$ A/m$^{2}$. Figure \[fig:Suppl-Figure1-speed-vs-Bx\] (a) shows the variation of the domain wall speed as a function of longitudinal in-plane field $H_{x}$, for two values of the out-of-plane-anisotropy $K_{u}$ = 0.87 and 1.17 MJ/m$^{3}$ (A and B). The figure shows that the DW speed changes more rapidly for the low anisotropy value, in agreement with the experiments. For strong enough negative $H_{x}$ field (i.e. antiparallel to the DW magnetisation direction) the domain wall velocity changes sign, due to the reversal of the domain wall magnetisation. The reversal field ($H_{x}=-H_{DMI} =-D/(\mu_{0}\Delta M_{s})$) is smaller for the smaller anisotropy value, as the domain wall width is larger. As seen in the main text, the detailed shape of the speed vs. $H_{x}$ curve depends both on the variation of the Thiele domain wall width $\Delta_{T}$ and on the value of $\cos\Phi$, where $\Phi$ is the angle that the DW magnetisation forms with the $x$-axis along which the in-plane field is applied. Figures \[fig:Suppl-Figure1-speed-vs-Bx\] (b-c) illustrate the simulated values of $\Delta_{T}$ and $\cos\Phi$. For positive $H_{x}$ values the speed curve variations are only related to the variation of $\Delta_{T}$, which is larger for the smaller anisotropy. For negative fields, the change of the $\cos\Phi$ sign (reversal of the DW magnetisation direction) is at the origin of the reversal of the DW speed.
{width="16cm"} \[fig:Suppl-Figure1-speed-vs-Bx\]**Figure S1** : (a) Current-driven domain wall speed *vs.* $\mu_{0}H_{x}$ calculated for a fixed value of the current density $J=1\times 10^{12}$ A/m$^{2}$ and two values of the anisotropy energy $K_{u}$ = 0.87 MJ/m$^{3}$ (curve A) and 1.17 MJ/m$^{3}$ (curve B); (b) variation of Thiele DW width with $\mu_{0}H_{x}$ ; (c) variation of $\cos\Phi$ with $\mu_{0}H_{x}$.
Field-driven dynamics in creep and flow regimes
-----------------------------------------------
The field-driven domain wall dynamics under in-plane field is dependent on the working regime (creep or flow). The dynamics of chiral Néel domain walls in the presence of an in-plane field has been studied in the creep regime [@Je2012; @Hrabec2013] and in the flow regime [@Jue2015] . It has been shown that the $v(H_{x})$ curves can be explained in terms of the variation of the DW energy with the $H_{x}$ field. Figure \[fig:Suppl-Figure2-DWenergy-vs-Bx\](a) shows the variation of the domain wall energy *vs.* $H_{x}$ for a sample having the magnetic parameters given above and $\mu_{0}H_{z}$=50 mT . The DW energy is maximum for the $H_{x}=-H_{DMI}$, where the DW has the Bloch form. This field is of course dependent of the anisotropy value.
{width="16cm"} \[fig:Suppl-Figure2-DWenergy-vs-Bx\]**Figure S2** : (a) Domain wall energy *vs.* $B_{x}$ simulated for a fixed $B_{x}$ value of 50mT. (b) variation of DW domain wall speed *vs.* $\mu_{0}H_{x}$ assuming a $v_{0}$ value of $8\times10^{-3}$ m/s and $\eta=\sigma(H_{x})/\sigma(0)$ in equation (2) of the main text. (A) and (B) refer to the two anisotropy values.
The expected $H_{x}$ dependence of the DW speed in the creep regime is shown in Figure \[fig:Suppl-Figure2-DWenergy-vs-Bx\](b) for the two anisotropy values. The curves present a minimum for $H_{x}=-H_{DMI}$ and have a symmetric behaviour on either sides of this field. The behaviour measured for sample (D) is in qualitative agreement with these curves. That found for samples (A) to (C) is in strong disagreement, showing that the $v(H_{x})$ curves are not simply related to the change of the DW energy with $H_{x}$.
If we neglect the tilt of the magnetisation in the domains, in the flow regime the stationary DW velocity is given by $v=\gamma_{0}\Delta_{T} H_{z}/\alpha$ and the speed variation with $H_{x}$ is expected to be related to the modification of $\Delta_{T}$ with the in-plane field. The two curves simulated for a $\mu_{0}H_{x}$ = 50 mT are shown in Figure \[fig:Suppl-Figure3-DWspeed-vs-Bx-flow\]. As in the case of current-driven dynamics, the Thiele DW width increases (decreases) for positive (negative) in-plane field, and in a larger extent for the low anisotropy value (A). The dip in the DW speed in the vicinity of $H_{x}=-H_{DMI}$, corresponding to the precessional regime of the DW, is not observed in the experimental data. Although this discrepancy is still the object of our studies, we believe that the local changes of the DMI strength over the region swept by the DW during the measurements may contribute to the smoothening of the discontinuity associated to the precessional regime.
{width="16cm"} \[fig:Suppl-Figure3-DWspeed-vs-Bx-flow\]**Figure S3** : (a) Domain wall speed *vs.* $\mu_{0}H_{x}$ in the flow regime simulated using $\mu_{0}H_{x}$ = 50mT and the two anisotropy values given above; (b) the variation of the Thiele DW width.
: A. Thiaville, S. Rohart, E. Jué, V. Cros, A. Fert, EPL **100**, 57002 (2012). A.A. Thiele, J. Appl. Phys. **45**, 377 (1974). S.-G. Je, D.-H. Kim, S.-C. Yoo, B.-C. Min, K.-J. Lee, and S.-B. Choe, Phys. Rev. B **88**, 214401 (2013). A. Hrabec, N.A. Porter, A. Wells, M.J. Benitez, G. Burnell, S. McVitie, D. McGrouther, T.A. Moore, and C.H. Marrows, Phys. Rev. B **90**, 020402(R) (2013). E. Jué, A. Thiaville, S. Pizzini et al., submitted.
|
---
address:
- 'Institute for Computational Mathematics, TU Braunschweig, 38106 Braunschweig, Germany.'
- 'Department of Mathematics, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755, United States.'
author:
- Jan Glaubitz
- Anne Gelb
bibliography:
- 'literature.bib'
title: 'High Order Edge Sensors with $\ell^1$ Regularization for Enhanced Discontinuous Galerkin Methods'
---
discontinuous Galerkin , $\ell^1$ regularization , polynomial annihilation , shock capturing , discontinuity sensor , hyperbolic conservation laws
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
The authors would like to thank Chi-Wang Shu (Brown University) for helpful advice. Further, the authors would like to thank the anonymous referees for many helpful suggestions, resulting in an improved presentation of this work. Jan Glaubitz’ work was supported by the German Research Foundation (DFG, Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft) under grant SO 363/15-1. Anne Gelb’s work was partially supported by AFOSR9550-18-1-0316 and NSF-DMS 1502640.
|
---
author:
- 'A. Küpcü Yoldaş'
- 'M. Salvato'
- 'J. Greiner'
- 'D. Pierini'
- 'E. Pian'
- 'A. Rau'
date: 'Received / Accepted 14 November 2006'
title: 'The host galaxy of GRB011121: Morphology and Spectral Energy Distribution [^1] [^2]'
---
Introduction
============
GRB host galaxies
-----------------
For nearly all localized Gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) an underlying galaxy was detected after the decay of the optical/near-infrared (IR) afterglow. The current sample of long duration GRB (LGRB) host galaxies consists of $\sim$80 members spanning a large range in magnitudes, i.e. 22 – 28 mag in R-band. The observed redshifts of the current sample ranges from $z = 0.0085$ (Fynbo et al. [@fyn00]) to $z = 6.29$ (Berger et al. [@ber06])[^3].
The analysis of the observed $\rm R - K$ colour of a subsample of GRB host galaxies detected until 2002, showed that these are faint blue galaxies with $\rm R - K = 2.5$ mag in agreement with their nature of star-forming galaxies (Le Floch et al. [@lef03]). The blue colours of GRB host galaxies are indicators of the link between GRBs and massive-star formation. Other indicators of the GRB – massive star connection are Wolf-Rayet-star signatures (Mirabal et al. [@mir03]) and the offsets between the locations of the GRBs and their host galaxy centers (Bloom et al. [@blo02a]; Fruchter et al. [@fr06]). For four GRBs, the connection between the GRB and the death of a massive star has been proven unambiguously by the spectroscopic detection of a supernova underlying the GRB afterglow (Galama et al. [@gal98]; Hjorth et al. [@hjor03]; Matheson et al. [@mat03]; Stanek et al. [@sta03]; Malesani et al. [@male04]; Mirabal et al. [@mir06]; Pian et al. [@pian06]). Recent studies conclude that the specific star formation rate (SSFR), i.e the SFR per unit stellar mass, is particularly high for GRB host galaxies, indicating that they are among the most efficiently star-forming objects in the universe (Courty et al. [@cour04]; Christensen et al. [@chri04b]; Gorosabel et al. [@gor05]).
Accurate studies of the morphology, stellar populations, SFRs, and masses of GRB host galaxies are obviously ideally conducted at low redshift, given the better S/N and angular resolution. Photometric and spectroscopic studies of a number of nearby LGRB hosts allowed to explore the fundamental characteristics (luminosity, age, intrinsic extinction, SFR, metallicity) of those galaxies and has proven that detailed host investigations provide important information on the close environment of the GRB explosion site (Fynbo et al. [@fyn00]; Sollerman et al. [@sol05]; Rau et al. [@rsg06]). In general, the faintness of the GRB host galaxies represents a limit for good S/N spectroscopy. Broad-band spectral energy distributions (SEDs) are effective substitutes of spectra for determining the galaxy properties. Analysis of the optical/near-IR SEDs of 11 GRB host galaxies revealed that the majority are best fitted with starburst galaxy templates (Sokolov et al. [@so01]) using stellar-population models from PÉGASE (Fioc & Rocca-Volmerange [@f97]) or again with a starburst type galaxy template (Gorosabel et al. [@go03a; @go03b]; Christensen et al. [@chri04a]) of Bruzal & Charlot ([@bc93]) using HyperZ (Bolzonella et al. [@bol00]). This, together with the optical faintness and colours, was recognized as an indication that long duration GRBs with a detected afterglow predominantly trace unobscured star-formation in subluminous blue galaxies.
-------- ---------------------- ------------ ---------- ---------------- ------------------ ------------------- ----------------------------
Filter Date Tele/Instr Exposure Sersic index n Effective radius Position angle Ellipticity$^{\mathrm{1}}$
sec kpc degree
F450W 2002-04-21 (day 161) HST/WFPC2 4500 2.1$\pm$0.3 7.4$\pm$1.4 30.7$\pm$2.9 0.52$\pm$0.03
F555W 2002-05-02 (day 172) HST/WFPC2 4500 1.8$\pm$0.1 7.2$\pm$0.5 31.6$\pm$7.5 0.13$\pm$0.02
F702W 2002-04-29 (day 169) HST/WFPC2 4500 2.7$\pm$0.1 9.3$\pm$0.6 27.5$\pm$3.0 0.15$\pm$0.01
F814W 2002-04-29 (day 169) HST/WFPC2 4500 2.4$\pm$0.1 7.6$\pm$0.5 20.6$\pm$4.8 0.13$\pm$0.02
J$_s$ 2002-02-09 (day 90) VLT/ISAAC 1800 1.0$\pm$0.5 3.9$\pm$2.2 19$^{\mathrm{2}}$ 0.12$^{\mathrm{3}}$
-------- ---------------------- ------------ ---------- ---------------- ------------------ ------------------- ----------------------------
Defined as 1 - (semi-minor-axis/semi-major-axis).
The best-fit position angle value with an upper limit of 135$\degr$.
The best-fit ellipticity value with an upper limit of 0.42.
GRB 011121
----------
GRB011121 was detected by the Gamma-ray Burst Monitor/Wide-field Camera on board [*BeppoSAX*]{} on 2001 November 21, 18:47:21 UT (Piro [@pir01]). Piro et al. ([@piro05]) suggested that there is absorbing gas associated with a star-forming region within a few parsec around the burst in connection with a decreasing column density from N$_H$ = 7$\pm$2$\times$10$^{22}$cm$^{-2}$ to zero during the early phase of the prompt emission. The optical/near-IR afterglow was discovered independently by several groups (e.g., Wyrzykowski et al. [@wyr01]; Greiner et al. [@g01]). Further observations revealed excess emission in the light curve associated with a supernova (Bloom et al. [@blo02b]; Price et al. [@pri02]; Garnavich et al. [@gar03]; Greiner et al. [@g03]). The spectroscopic redshift of GRB011121 is $z$=0.362 from Greiner et al. ([@g03]) who determined it by fitting the strong host emission lines, i.e. H$\alpha$, H$\beta$, \[OII\], \[OIII\], underlying the spectrum of the afterglow.
The host galaxy of GRB 011121 is one of the most extensively and deeply imaged hosts. High resolution images are available in optical and near-IR filters covering the rest-frame wavelength range of $\sim 3200$ – $\rm 8000~\AA$. This gives us the unique possibility to study the host galaxy properties through the parameter space from morphology to stellar mass.
Here we present the morphological and spectral energy distribution analysis of the host galaxy of GRB011121 using archival HST/WFPC2 and VLT/ISAAC data. In Sections 2, 3 and 4 we present the data reduction, morphological analysis and the photometry of this galaxy, respectively. In Sect. 5 we analyse the spectral energy distribution of the host galaxy and derive properties of the stellar population and the interstellar medium (ISM). In Sect. 6 we calculate the SFR and SSFR and compare the values with other galaxies. Finally, we summarize our results in Sect. 7.
We adopt $\Omega_\Lambda$ = 0.7, $\Omega_M$ = 0.3 and H$_0$ = 65 km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$ throughout this paper. The luminosity distance at the redshift of the host ($z = 0.362$) is D$_L$ = 2080.2 Mpc, and 1 arcsecond corresponds to 5.43 kpc.
Observations and data
=====================
Data reduction
--------------
Imaging of the field of GRB011121 has been performed at many epochs. For the present analysis we have chosen the data acquired by the HST Wide Field Planetary Camera 2 (WFPC2) and the VLT Infrared Spectrometer And Array Camera (ISAAC), sufficiently late after the GRB so that the afterglow does not contribute significantly to the brightness of the host galaxy. The HST data were acquired approximately 5 months after the burst, using 4 filters: F450W, F555W, F702W and F814W (see Tab.\[tab:obs\]). These data were obtained as a part of a large program (ID: 9180, PI: Kulkarni) intended to probe the environment of GRBs. The total exposure time in each filter is 4500 seconds. An independent analysis of these data has been published in Bloom et al. ([@blo02b]), concentrating on the supernova signature underlying the afterglow lightcurve.
The HST imaging data were pre-processed via “on the fly” calibration, i.e. with the best bias, dark, and flat-field available at the time of retrieval from the archive. The Wide Field (WF) chips of WFPC2 have a pixel scale of 0$\farcs$1/pixel. The images for each filter were dithered by subpixel offsets (resulting in a pixel scale of 005/pixel) using the IRAF/Dither2 package to remove cosmic rays and produce a better-sampled final image. For all HST observations, the host position falls near the serial readout register of WF chip 3 which minimizes the correction for charge transfer efficiency (CTE) to around 5 per cent in count rate, therefore we ignore the CTE correction for the photometry.
The VLT/ISAAC data were obtained in the $\rm J_s$-band on February 9, 2002 with an exposure of 1800 seconds (see Tab.\[tab:obs\]), and reported earlier in Greiner et al. ([@g03]). These data were also obtained as a part of a large program (ID: 165H.-0464, PI: van den Heuvel) intended to understand the physics of GRBs and the nature of their hosts. The $\rm J_s$-band images were reduced using the ESO Eclipse package (Devillard [@dev05]).
![[*Top left*]{}: F702W image taken $\sim$14days after the GRB. Two foreground stars, the positions of the host, and of the optical afterglow (circle in all panels) are indicated. [*Top right*]{} and [*Bottom left:*]{} F450W and F702W images taken $\sim$5months post-burst. The contours show the light distribution in the F702W filter. [*Bottom right*]{}: J$_s$ image taken 3months after the burst. All images are tophat smoothed. North is up and East is to the left.[]{data-label="fig:hostim"}](rbrjcontnew2.ps){width="8cm"}
Zero-point magnitudes for the HST filters were taken from Dolphin (2000)[^4]. For the VLT images, two local photometric standard stars given by Greiner et al. ([@g03]) were used to obtain the photometric calibration. Both for the HST and the VLT data, the background values of the images were calculated using IRAF/imexamine in the corresponding filters. The 1$\sigma$ surface brightness limits are calculated using the formula given by Temporin ([@tem01]): $$\mu_{lim} = -2.5 \times log[\sigma/(t \times s^2)] + \mu_0$$ where $\sigma$ is the standard deviation from the mean of the background, $\mu_0$ is the zero-point, $t$ is the exposure time in seconds and $s$ is the pixel scale.
Astrometry
----------
Images obtained at different epochs and different filters were registered relatively to an early F702W image where the OT is clearly visible (top left image of Figure\[fig:hostim\]), using standard MIDAS routines. We used at least three isolated stars to find the relative shift and rotation of two images. The centers of the stars were computed assuming a point source. We did not re-scale the images since the HST images have the same scale. The estimated accuracy of our relative astrometry is 10 mas given by the rms error of the mapping using MIDAS routines. We note that the uncertainties due to optical distortion for the HST images are rather small and are largely removed by the dithering process (Fruchter & Hook [@fruh02]). The relative position of the OT in the $J_{s}-band$, as shown in the bottom right image of Figure\[fig:hostim\], is similarly estimated using an early VLT/ISAAC $J_{s}-band$ image from Nov 24, 2001 (see Greiner et al. [@g03]), with an rms of 30 mas.
Extinction
----------
As for the necessary correction for Galactic extinction, the study of Schlegel et al. ([@schl98]), based on COBE and IRAS extinction maps, gives a value of Galactic reddening along the line of sight of GRB011121 equal to $\rm E(B-V) = 0.49$ mag. However, different authors have argued that extinction estimates based on far-IR measurements overpredict the true value by about 30% (Dutra et al. [@dut03]; Cambrésy et al. [@cam05]). In particular, Dutra et al. ([@dut03]) recommend to scale the value of $\rm E(B-V)$ given by Schlegel et al. ([@schl98]) by a factor of 0.75 for lines of sight corresponding to regions with $\rm |b| < 25^o$ and $\rm E(B-V) > 0.25$ mag. This holds for the line of sight of GRB011121, hence we assume $\rm E(B-V) = 0.37$ mag as the correct value of Galactic reddening. This value corresponds to a V-band extinction $\rm A_V = 1.15$ mag for the standard Galactic extinction curve of Cardelli et al. ([@car89]), where $\rm R = A_V / E(B-V) = 3.1$. We correct the observed photometry of the host-galaxy of GRB011121 for Galactic extinction according to this law.
Using the broad-band spectral energy distribution of the optical transient (OT) of GRB011121, Garnavich et al. ([@gar03]) estimated $\rm E(B-V) = 0.43 \pm 0.07$ mag, and Price et al. ([@pri02]) estimated $\rm A_V = 1.16 \pm 0.25$ mag for the [*total*]{} (i.e. Galactic plus internal) reddening. These two analyses offer consistent results as for the [*total*]{} extinction and reddening, within the uncertainties. However, note that these authors implicitly assumed that the solution of radiative transfer for the light through the host-galaxy of GRB011121 is the same as for the light from a star in the Galaxy.
Our assumed values of Galactic reddening and extinction are consistent with the previous [*total*]{} values, within 1 $\sigma$. However, we do not conclude that the extinction produced by dust in the host-galaxy of GRB011121 is negligible. In fact, the optical spectra of two slightly different regions (due to different slit widths) containing the OT of GRB011121, taken by Greiner et al. ([@g03]) 4 and 21 days after the GRB event, give values of the Balmer-line flux ratio $\rm H_{\alpha} / H_{\beta}$ equal to $4.8^{+1.6}_{-1.1}$ and $6.4^{+3.5}_{-1.9}$, respectively, after correcting the line fluxes for foreground extinction. Both Balmer-line flux ratios derived from Greiner et al. ([@g03]) are higher (by $>$ 2 $\sigma$) than the value of 2.86 predicted for the standard case B recombination[^5]
Morphology of the host galaxy
=============================
The high-resolution data in 5 broad-band filters allow a colour-resolved morphological analysis. Figure \[fig:hostim\] shows images of the host galaxy of GRB011121 in various filters. This galaxy exhibits a different structure in the F450W band compared to the redder band data (see Fig. \[fig:hostim\] top right and bottom left images). In the F702W image we see a nearly face-on extended structure. On the other hand, the F450W image – despite the lower sensitivity – reveals three emission regions , most probably indicating the sites of enhanced star formation in the galaxy, considering that the size of a star forming region ($\sim$ few pc) is much smaller than the sizes of these blue emission regions ($\sim$1-2 kpc). The difference of morphology in different filters is reflected in the F450W – F702W color image of the galaxy (see Fig. \[fig:bminr\]). The center of the galaxy is red with $\rm F450W - F702W = 3.0 \pm 0.1$ mag, the background value being $\rm F450W - F702W = 0.2 \pm 0.2$ mag. The three emission regions seen in the F450W filter exhibit $\rm F450W - F702W$ equal to 2.6$\pm$0.1 mag, 1.5$\pm$0.1 mag and 0.95$\pm$0.15 mag, respectively. The morphological analysis of the host galaxy of GRB011121 was performed using Galfit (Peng et al. [@peng02]). Galfit is a 2D galaxy and point-source fitting algorithm which can fit an image with multiple analytical models simultaneously. For the galaxy under investigation, an initial model assuming a classical de Vaucouleurs bulge$+$exponential disk profile did not provide a good representation. Therefore, we made use of a Sersic profile (Sersic [@sers]) where all the related parameters (i.e. effective radius, Sersic index, position angle) were left free. The top panel of Figure \[fig:galfres\] shows the image of the field of the host galaxy in the F814W band, and the residual image after the subtraction of the galaxy model. The results of the best fits obtained with Galfit for each filter are listed in Table \[tab:obs\].
The best-fit values for ellipticity and position angle are in agreement with each other for all filters, except the ellipticity for the F450W filter (see the bottom panel of Fig.\[fig:galfres\]). There is a similar agreement for the effective radius and the Sersic index parameters. We note that the values for the F450W fit should be evaluated carefully, considering that the galaxy image has a relatively lower signal-to-noise ratio due to the sensitivity of the detector and therefore probably probes only the high surface brightness regions. Nevertheless, the values except the ellipticity are still in agreement for all images, indicating that we actually trace the profile of the galaxy in a decent way.
Galaxies at cosmological redshifts are commonly classified according to their Sersic index as disk systems ($n < 2$) and bulge-dominated systems ($n > 2$, see Ravindranath et al. [@rav04]). However, we note that a central, dust-enshrouded starburst can produce a Sersic profile with index of about 2 and a redder $\rm F450W - F702W$ colour in the inner region of a disk system as seen for the host of GRB 011121 (see Fig.\[fig:bminr\]). The detection of a bulge can be hindered by the fact that the galaxy is observed nearly face-on, the best-fit ellipticity value being 0.13 (0.50 for F450W). Although the Sersic index of our reddest band data ($\rm J_s$-band) is consistent with values typical of a disk-dominated galaxy, this is still consistent with an extended disk structure dominating a small, unresolved bulge, since the spatial resolution of the $\rm J_s$-band image is almost three times worse than that of the HST images. We also inspected the $\rm F555W - J_s$ radial colour profile and found that it is constant within the errors, indicating that there is no significant difference in the radial profile of the galaxy in different filters except for F450W. Therefore, the host galaxy of GRB011121 can be either a disk system with a small bulge as also indicated by the enhanced traces of spiral arms in Figure\[fig:white\], i.e. an Sbc-like galaxy, or a disk system experiencing dust-enshrouded starburst activity in its central regions.
Similar results on the morphology of the host galaxy of GRB011121 were obtained by two other groups using different methods. Wainwright et al. ([@wain05]) performed a morphological analysis using Galfit on the same HST data as used here plus the F850L filter data; they concluded that the galaxy is a disk system. Our results are generally in agreement with those of Wainwright et al. ([@wain05]), except for the F450W filter, for which there is a $\sim$4$\sigma$ difference in the effective radius. Note that we cannot quantify the difference since Wainwright et al. did not quote any errors for their results. On the other hand, also Conselice et al. ([@con05]) performed a morphological analysis based on the concentration and asymmetry parameters using the F702W filter data taken $\sim$3 months after the GRB. They concluded that the host is probably a late-type spiral consistent with our results.
The OT of GRB011121 was clearly distinguishable in earlier images taken with HST/WFPC2 since it is located in the outskirts of its host galaxy (top left image of Fig.\[fig:hostim\]). None of the emission regions seen in the F450W band data coincides with the OT position (see the top right image Fig.\[fig:hostim\]).
In addition, we investigated the nature of the two objects in the vicinity of the host galaxy. The radial surface brightness profile of these objects is described by the point spread function in the HST images, as estimated from the stars in the field. Furthermore, there was no X-ray emission associated with these objects in the X-ray imaging of the afterglow. Hence we conclude that the objects marked as number 1 and 2 in Figure \[fig:hostim\] (top left) are most probably foreground stars. We conducted the photometry of these objects including also the H and K data from Nov 24, 2001 (ID: 165H.-0464, PI: van den Heuvel) acquired by VLT/ISAAC, in order to estimate the spectral type assuming that they are stars. The colors of object 2 are $V-R$=1.16$\pm$0.10 mag, $J-H$=0.62$\pm$0.05 mag and $H-K$= 0.14$\pm$0.03 mag. These colors indicate that object 2 is a main-sequence star of spectral type of M2 (Tokunaga [@tok00]). The colors of object 1 are much redder with $V-R$=2.85$\pm$0.10 mag, $J-H$=0.17$\pm$0.10 mag and $H-K$=0.61$\pm$0.12 mag. These colors fit marginally with that of a late M-type or an early L-type star (Tokunaga [@tok00]; Leggett et al. [@leg03]). However, we do not exclude the possibility that object 1 may be an unresolved high-redshift galaxy.
Photometry
==========
![F450W – F702W color image of the field of GRB 011121. The position of the OT is indicated with an arrow. The thin-line contour is the the contour of the galaxy in the F702W filter and the thick-line is the contour in the F450W filter, overplotted on the color image.[]{data-label="fig:bminr"}](Picture_19best.ps){width="8cm"}
![A white image of the field of GRB 011121 constructed using the images in the F450W ([*blue*]{}), F555W ([*green*]{}), F702W and F814W ([*red*]{}) filters.[]{data-label="fig:white"}](rgbirvblogs1.ps){width="8cm"}
![[*Top Panel Left*]{}: The image of the field in the F814W filter in April 2002. [*Top Panel Right*]{}: The residuals after subtracting the best-fit Galfit galaxy model from the original image. [*Bottom Panel*]{} The contours of the best-fit model of the Galfit analysis for the F450W data (on the [*left*]{}) and for the F814W data (on the [*right*]{}).[]{data-label="fig:galfres"}](ibandres.ps){width="9cm"}
Photometry was extracted using the IRAF/Ellipse task which performs aperture photometry inside elliptical isophotes. To determine the size of an aperture which covers the galaxy and minimizes the contamination by the background noise, the 1$\sigma$ surface brightness limit and the metric radius were calculated for each image. The metric radius is defined as the radius where the Petrosian index $\eta$ = 0.2, the Petrosian index being the ratio of the average surface brightness within a radius $r$ to the surface brightness at $r$ (Petrosian [@pet76]; Djorgovski & Spinrad [@ds81]). Both values correspond to a semi-major axis length of 2.1 – 2.4 arcsec for all images except for the F450W filter image for which the surface brightness limit is reached at $\sim$1$\arcsec$. In order to conduct a consistent analysis, we performed aperture photometry on each image with the same semi-major axis length of 2.25 arcseconds. Table \[tab:phot\] shows the resulting magnitudes and errors. The errors in magnitudes were calculated assuming Poisson noise and include the readout noise and zero-point errors. The background fluctuation values were obtained by calculating the standard deviation from the mean background values measured for several different areas near the galaxy. Then a correction due to dithering was applied to the background noise of the HST images, assuming that the dither pattern is uniform (see Fruchter & Hook [@fruh02]).
Magnitudes were computed using i) the best-fit ellipticity and position angle for each filter obtained by Galfit, and ii) fixing the ellipticity and position angle to 0.13 and 275, respectively for all filters. The results were the same for both cases. Ellipse also provides the magnitudes inside a circular area having the same radius of the semi-major axis of the elliptical isophote. We compared the magnitudes determined within the circular and elliptical areas and found that the difference is $<$0.02 mag. This indicates the reliability of the 2$\farcs$25 extent, the position angle and the ellipticity of the galaxy.
-------- --------------------------- ----------------------- -------------------------------------
Filter Brightness$^{\mathrm{1}}$ Foreground extinction Absolute magnitude$^{\mathrm{2,3}}$
mag mag mag
F450W 23.44$\pm$0.04 1.43 -19.5
F555W 22.64$\pm$0.02 1.14 -20.3
F702W 21.63$\pm$0.01 0.86 -20.6
F814W 21.18$\pm$0.02 0.67 -21.1
J$_s$ 19.87$\pm$0.06 0.32 -22.1
-------- --------------------------- ----------------------- -------------------------------------
Magnitudes are not corrected for Galactic extinction.
The absolute magnitudes are corrected for Galactic extinction.
The absolute magnitudes are given for the filters B, V, R, I, J in respective order.
The value of M$_B^*$ (uncorrected for dust attenuation) for redshifts between 0 and 0.5 is given by Dahlen et al. ([@dah05]) as -21.06$^{+0.10}_{-0.06}$ for $h = 0.65$. It is derived by fitting a Schechter luminosity function and using all types of galaxies, i.e. early type, late type and starbursts. From this value, we determine a luminosity ratio of L$_B$/L$^{*}_{B}$ = 0.26 for the host galaxy of GRB011121, which indicates that this galaxy is subluminous.
Analysis of the Spectral Energy Distribution
============================================
Hereafter we analyze the SED of the host galaxy of GRB011121 to deduce galaxy properties like characteristic age and metallicity of the stellar populations and the SFR. We apply both the publicly available HyperZ code (Bolzonella et al. [@bol00]) as well as our own modelling, to explore the galaxy properties.
Analysis using HyperZ
---------------------
Following the seminal work on GRB host galaxies by Christensen et al. ([@chri04a; @chri04b]), we make use of [*HyperZ*]{} (Bolzonella et al. [@bol00]). In particular, this code considers a large grid of models based on 8 different synthetic star-formation histories (Bruzual & Charlot [@bc93]), roughly matching the observed properties of local field galaxies (starburst, elliptical, spiral, and irregular ones). For all models, metallicity is fixed to the solar value ($Z=0.02$). The empirical formula of Calzetti et al. ([@cal00]) for nearby starbursts is used to describe attenuation by dust in galaxies, independent of the star-formation history and morphology. Finally, a Miller & Scalo ([@ms79]) initial mass function with an upper mass limit for star formation of 125 $\rm M_{\sun}$ is used.
As a result of the fitting of the broad-band photometry of the host galaxy of GRB011121 with [*HyperZ*]{} models, we find that old ages (i.e. $\ge$ 1 – 2 Gyr) are not favoured (best-fit values of 45 Myr for starbursts and up to 720 Myr for spirals and irregulars), while the amount of internal extinction is non-negligible ($\rm A_V$ = 0.80 – 1.0 mag, rest frame) for all models producing equally valid fits with $\chi_{\nu}^2 < 0.26$. For a so-called Calzetti law, $\rm A_V$ = 0.80 – 1.0 mag corresponds to $\rm E(B-V) = 0.20$ – 0.25 mag. We note that this value of reddening by internal dust refers to the whole galaxy and, thus, is not directly comparable in a quantitative way to the values estimated from spectroscopy of the OT region, once the contribution of Galactic reddening is removed. These results hold independent of the synthetic star-formation history of the model, which mirrors the fact that the 4000 $\AA$-break is not very prominent in stellar populations younger than $\sim$1 Gyr and, thus, does not offer a robust constraint to discriminate different evolutionary patterns. Finally, we note that an even broader range of possible values for age and extinction exists if we consider fits with $\chi_{\nu}^2 < 1$. This increase in degeneracy of the solutions is not a shortcoming of [*HyperZ*]{} because it was designed to find photometric redshifts and provides only a rough estimate of the SED type (see Bolzonella et al. [@bol00]), independent of morphology.
Broad-band SED fitting
----------------------
In order to exploit the information on morphology available for the host galaxy of GRB011121 and better link the mode of star-formation and the properties of dust attenuation, we build our own set of physically motivated models. We combine different, composite stellar population models and models of radiative transfer of the stellar and scattered radiation through different dusty media. We use a tailored grid of parameters in order to probe the very wide parameter space available for models in an efficient way. A large suite of synthetic SEDs is built as a function of total (gas$+$stars) mass, age (i.e. the time elapsed since the onset of star formation) and a characteristic opacity of the model, as described in the following subsections. These three free model parameters are determined from the comparison of synthetic broad-band apparent magnitudes (observed frame) and the apparent magnitudes determined for the host galaxy of GRB011121 (see Sect. 4) through the standard least-square fitting technique.
### Stellar population models
We model the intrinsic (i.e. not attenuated by internal dust) SED of the host galaxy of GRB011121 as a composite stellar population. We make use of the stellar population evolutionary synthesis code PÉGASE (Fioc & Rocca-Volmerange [@f97]) (version 2.0) in order to compute both the stellar continuum emission and the nebular emission. Gas is assumed to be transformed into stars of increasing metallicity as the time elapsed since the onset of star formation increases, the initial metallicity of the ISM being equal to zero. The stellar initial mass function (IMF) is Salpeter ([@s55]), with lower and upper masses equal to 0.1 and 120 $\rm M_{\sun}$, respectively. Adopting a different IMF affects mostly the determination of the stellar mass; for instance, a Chabrier ([@cha03]) IMF produces stellar masses lower by about 30 per cent than a Salpeter ([@s55]) one.
The mass-normalized SFR of the models is assumed either to be constant ([*starburst*]{} models) or to decline exponentially as a function of time ([*normal star-forming galaxy*]{} models). For models of a normal star-forming galaxy, we adopt e-folding times equal to 1 and 5 Gyr to describe the star-formation histories of the bulge and disk components, respectively, the bulge-to-total mass ratio being set equal to 0.05, 0.1, 0.15 or 0.2. For starburst models, a range of 18 ages between 0.1 and 9 Gyr is considered[^6], the time step being fine (i.e 0.1 Gyr) up to an age of 1 Gyr and coarse (i.e. 1 Gyr) since then. On the other hand, for normal star-forming galaxy models, a range of 28 ages between 0.5 and 7 Gyr is considered. For these models, a fine time step is adopted for ages between 1 and 3 Gyr in order to better follow the different evolution of the stellar populations of the bulge and disk components. Finally, we assume that the total mass of the system ranges from $10^9$ to $\rm 2 \times 10^{11}~M_{\sun}$, 200 steps in mass being considered.
### Dust attenuation models
As a statistical description of dust attenuation in starbursts, we make use of the Monte Carlo calculations of radiative transfer of the stellar and scattered radiation by Witt & Gordon ([@wit00]) for the SHELL geometry. In this case, stars are surrounded by a shell where a two-phase clumpy medium hosts dust grains with an extinction curve like that of the Small Magellanic Cloud (SMC), as given by Gordon et al. ([@gcw97]). We note that these models describe dust attenuation in nearby starburst galaxies (Gordon et al. [@gcw97]) as well as in Lyman Break Galaxies at $2 < z < 4$ (Vijh et al. [@vij03]). We consider 14 values of the opacity $\tau_V$ (0.25 – 9), where $\tau_V$ is the radial extinction optical depth from the center to the edge of the dust environment in the V-band, assuming a constant density, homogeneous distribution. On the other hand, for the normal star-forming galaxy models we assume that dust attenuation is described by the Monte Carlo calculations of radiative transfer of the stellar and scattered radiation for an axially symmetric disk geometry illustrated in Pierini et al. ([@dp04b]) and based on the DIRTY code (Gordon et al. [@gor01]). These models have been applied successfully to interpret multiwavelength photometry of edge-on late-type galaxies in the local Universe (Kuchinski et al. [@kuc98]). The physical properties of the dust grains are assumed to be the same as those in the diffuse ISM of the Milky Way (from Witt & Gordon [@wit00]). Furthermore, this time we use as a parameter the central opacity $\tau_V^{\rm c, 0}$, that refers to the face-on extinction optical-depth through the centre of the dusty disk in the V-band. In these disk models, the central opacity is equal to 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 8, and 16. From the observed ellipticity of the host galaxy of GRB011121 (see Tab. \[tab:obs\]), we determine an inclination of about 18 degrees, for an intrinsic axial ratio of 0.2. Hence we adopt disk galaxy models with only this inclination since inclination effects on the total luminosity are small for inclinations much less than 70 degrees in a disk-dominated system (e.g. Pierini et al. [@dp03]) like the host galaxy of GRB011121. In fact, the Sersic index fitted to different light profiles of the host galaxy of GRB011121 (see Tab. \[tab:obs\]) is consistent with the presence of a small bulge like in Sbc galaxies. Greiner et al. ([@g03]) estimated the bulge-to-disk (B/D) $J_s$-band luminosity ratio to be about 0.28 using a de Vaucouleurs$+$exponential model to reproduce the $J_s$-band surface brightness profile of the host galaxy of GRB011121. Hence, we use a bulge-to-disk $J_s$-band luminosity ratio between 0.23 and 0.33 as a further constraint for our bulge$+$disk models allowing for mismatches between the fitting model of Greiner et al. ([@g03]) and the structure of the system described in Pierini et al. ([@dp04b]).
Finally, for all models we assume that the gas emission at a given wavelength is attenuated by the same amount as the stellar emission at that wavelength, independent of whether the gas emission is in a line or in the continuum (see Pierini et al. [@dp04a] for a discussion).
### Results
For a suite of 50,400 starburst models plus 124,800 normal star-forming models, synthetic SEDs and magnitudes are computed and evaluated against the observed broad-band SED of the host galaxy of GRB011121 (see Sect. 4). Reassuringly, each suite of models brackets the best-fit solution although the parameter space is not spanned in a uniform way. Hereafter we illustrate the basic aspects of those fit solutions that are called “plausible”, being characterized by $\chi_{\nu}^2 < 6.91$, that corresponds to a probability of 0.001 for two degrees of freedom (given by 5 photometric points minus 3 model parameters).
As Fig. \[fig:fSB\] shows, plausible solutions for the starburst case imply ages between 0.4 and 2 Gyr and, accordingly, an opacity decreasing from 1.5 to 0.5. This domain is narrower than the explored parameter space, nevertheless it still expresses the well-known age–opacity degeneracy for starbursts (Takagi et al. [@tak99]). At the same time, the bolometric luminosity-weighted metallicity in stars increases from $3 \times 10^{-4}$ to $1.6 \times 10^{-3}$, while the total mass of the system drops from 18.5 to $\rm 6.3 \times 10^{10}~M_{\sun}$. The latter range corresponds to a range of 3.1 – $\rm 4.8 \times 10^{9}~M_{\sun}$ in stellar mass. In particular, the best-fit model for the starburst case has an age of 0.5 Gyr, a bolometric luminosity-weighted metallicity in stars equal to $3.7 \times 10^{-4}$, a stellar mass of $\rm 3.6 \times 10^{9}~M_{\sun}$ and an opacity equal to 1.5[^7]. We note that $\tau_V = 1.5$ corresponds to an attenuation of the total flux at V-band (rest frame) $\rm A_V = 0.76~mag$ and a reddening $\rm E(B-V) = 0.20~mag$ on the scale of the system.
![SED fit solutions with $\chi_{\nu}^2 < 6.91$, using starburst models. [*Left*]{}: Total (gas$+$stars) mass and age versus $\tau_V$, [*Right*]{}: Total mass and age versus $\chi_{\nu}^2$.[]{data-label="fig:fSB"}](fig_SB_new3.ps){width="9cm"}
On the other hand, plausible solutions for the normal star-forming case have a bulge-to-total mass ratio equal to 0.15. They imply ages between 1.3 and 1.9 Gyr and, accordingly, a central opacity of the disk decreasing from 16 to 2 (see Fig. \[fig:fSbc\]). At the same time, the bolometric luminosity-weighted metallicity in stars of the disk increases from $3.9 \times 10^{-3}$ to $5.8 \times 10^{-3}$. The total mass of the system drops from 2.5 to $\rm 1.7 \times 10^{10}~M_{\sun}$ from the youngest and most opaque systems to the oldest and least opaque ones. The range in stellar mass spanned by these plausible solutions is 4.9 – $\rm 6.9 \times 10^{9}~M_{\sun}$. In particular, the best-fit model for the normal star-forming case has an age of 1.3 Gyr, a bolometric luminosity-weighted metallicity in stars of the disk equal to $3.9 \times 10^{-3}$, a stellar mass of $\rm 5.7 \times 10^{9}~M_{\sun}$ and a central opacity of the disk equal to 16. We note that $\tau_V^{\rm c, 0} = 16$ corresponds to an attenuation (along the line of sight) of the total rest-frame V-band flux $\rm A_V = 0.57~mag$ for an inclination of 18 degrees. In terms of reddening of the stellar component of the only disk, the best-fit Sbc-like model implies $\rm E(B-V) = 0.08~mag$ on the disk scale. Even smaller values of reddening will apply to a peripheral region of the disk, where the OT of GRB011121 was actually located. Hence plausible solutions for a normal star-forming bulge$+$disk system comfortably meet the constraints on a low amount of reddening in the OT region of GRB011121.
![Same as Fig.\[fig:fSB\] for normal star-forming galaxy models.[]{data-label="fig:fSbc"}](fig_Sbc_new3.ps){width="9cm"}
![The best-fit normal star-forming galaxy model (in black), and the best-fit starburst model (in red). The points are the fluxes of the host galaxy derived from the observed magnitudes corrected for the foreground extinction. The filter curves are shown in the lower panel, for the corresponding filters.[]{data-label="fig:bestf"}](best_fits.ps){width="9cm"}
Figure \[fig:bestf\] shows how the best-fit models for a starburst system and a normal star-forming bulge$+$disk system reproduce the observed photometry of the host galaxy of GRB011121. The comparison with the data reveals that both best-fit models underpredict the observed $\rm J_s$-band magnitude by about 0.1 mag, i.e. almost 2 $\sigma$. This is the main reason for their rather high values of $\chi_{\nu}^2$. A posteriori, we interpret this discrepancy as due to the fact that PÉGASE (version 2.0) does not include the contribution to the total emission from the thermally pulsating asymptotic giant branch (TP-AGB) phase of stellar evolution (see Maraston [@mar05]). TP-AGB stars are cool giants exhibiting very red optical/NIR colours (e.g. Persson et al. [@per83]). They are expected to play a significant role in the rest-frame visual-to-near-IR emission of galaxies containing 1-Gyr-old stellar populations (Maraston [@mar98; @mar05]). Now the best-fit models contain stellar populations that are up to 0.5 or 1.3 Gyr old (starburst or Sbc-like model, respectively), hence it is plausible that they can slightly underpredict the flux in the observed $\rm J_s$-band magnitude[^8].
We tested that the previous results are not biased by the absence of the contribution to the total emission from the TP-AGB stars in PÉGASE (version 2.0). We performed new fits where the range in the $\rm J_s$-band B/D allowed by the estimate of Greiner et. al. ([@g03]) and/or the $\rm J_s$-band flux were not used to constrain the solutions. In this case, plausible solutions were characterized by $\chi_{\nu}^2 < 5.41$, that corresponds to a probability of at least 0.001 for the only one degree of freedom for both starburst and Sbc-like models. The new plausible solutions for starburst models allowed a slightly larger parameter space but without major changes with the exception that a limited number of plausible solutions with a $\chi_{\nu}^2$ $<$ 1 did exist now (see Table \[tab:fits\]). Also for normal star-forming bulge$+$disk models the parameter space allowed by the new plausible solutions became slightly larger (see Table \[tab:fits2\]); in particular, the bulge-to-total mass ratio was unconstrained. These new solutions spanned the whole range in central opacity, the least opaque models ($\tau_V^{\rm c, 0} = 0.50$) having older ages (1.5 – 2.9 Gyr) than the most opaque ones (with $\tau_V^{\rm c, 0} = 16$ and an age of 1.0 – 1.7 Gyr). Models with larger bulge-to-total mass ratios tended to be younger, independent of the central opacity; however, the stellar mass was still a few to several times $\rm 10^{9}~M_{\sun}$ overall. This time plausible solutions with a $\chi_{\nu}^2 < 1$ did exist also for Sbc-like models, without major changes in terms of properties of the stellar populations and mass of the system.
------------ ----------- ----------- ----------------------- ----------------
$\tau_V$ age Z M$_{\star}$ $\chi_{\nu}^2$
Gyr $10^{-3}$ $\rm 10^{9}~M_{\sun}$
0.25 – 1.5 0.4 – 2.0 0.3 – 1.6 3.1 – 4.9 $< 5.41$
1 0.8 – 0.9 0.6 – 0.7 3.5 – 3.8 $< 1.00$
------------ ----------- ----------- ----------------------- ----------------
-------------------- --------------------- ----------- ----------- ----------------------- ----------------
B/T$^{\mathrm{1}}$ $\tau_V^{\rm c, 0}$ age Z M$_{\star}$ $\chi_{\nu}^2$
Gyr $10^{-3}$ $\rm 10^{9}~M_{\sun}$
0.05 0.50 – 16 1.0 – 2.9 3.0 – 8.5 3.6 – 6.4 $< 5.41$
0.05 4, 16 1.3 – 1.5 3.9 – 4.6 4.8 – 5.0 $< 1.00$
0.10 0.50 – 16 1.0 – 2.6 3.0 – 7.7 3.3 – 6.4 $< 5.41$
0.10 0.50 – 8 1.5 – 2.1 4.6 – 6.3 4.4 – 5.1 $< 1.00$
0.15 0.50 – 16 1.0 – 2.5 3.0 – 7.5 3.9 – 6.9 $< 5.41$
0.15 0.50, 4, 8 1.3 – 1.8 3.9 – 5.5 4.4 – 4.9 $< 1.00$
0.20 0.50 – 16 1.0 – 2.3 3.0 – 6.9 3.6 – 6.8 $< 5.41$
0.20 0.50, 1, 4, 16 1.2 – 1.9 3.6 – 5.8 4.6 – 5.6 $< 1.00$
-------------------- --------------------- ----------- ----------- ----------------------- ----------------
Bulge-to-total mass ratio.
Star Formation Rate
===================
The previous plausible solutions give values of the SFR equal to 3.1 – $\rm 9.4~M_{\sun}~yr^{-1}$ (starburst models) or 2.4 – $\rm 4.1~M_{\sun}~yr^{-1}$ (normal star-forming, Sbc-like models), the value of SFR decreasing as the time elapsed since the start of star formation increases [^9]. For the same models, the SFR per unit stellar mass is equal to 0.6 – $\rm 2.9 \times 10^{-9}~yr^{-1}$ or 0.4 –$\rm 0.7 \times 10^{-9}~yr^{-1}$, respectively. Consistently, for this subluminous galaxy ($\rm L_B/L^{\star}_B = 0.26$), the SFR per unit luminosity is equal to 11.9 – $\rm 36.1~M_{\sun}~yr^{-1}~(L_B/L^{\star}_B)^{-1}$ or 9.2 – $\rm 15.8~M_{\sun}~yr^{-1}~(L_B/L^{\star}_B)^{-1}$.
These values of the SFR per unit stellar mass are high compared to those of simulated galaxies in Courty et al. ([@cour04]), in agreement with their conclusion that the GRB-host galaxies are identified as the most efficient star-forming objects. Other GRB-host galaxies have high values of the SFR per unit luminosity (cf. Christensen et al. [@chri04a]), though not as high as our estimates. Recent calculations by Gorosabel et al. ([@gor05]) and Sollerman et al. ([@sol05]) give similar values of the extinction-corrected SFR per unit luminosity for the host galaxies of the two low-redshift GRB030329 and GRB031203.
Finally, we compared the values obtained for the SFR per unit galaxy stellar mass of the host galaxy of GRB011121 with those of observed galaxies selected from the MUNICS and FORS deep field surveys (Bauer et al. [@bau05]) in the same redshift range $0.25 < z < 0.4$ as the previous GRBs and GRB011121 itself. The values of the specific SFR (SSFR) given by Bauer et al. ([@bau05]) were determined from the \[OII\] line flux without any correction for dust extinction. This comparison confirms that the host galaxy of GRB011121 is among the galaxies with highest specific SFR at these redshifts even after allowing for an extreme correction factor of 10 for the SSFRs given by Bauer et al. ([@bau05]).
Summary
=======
The existence of high-resolution imaging in 5 broad-band, optical and near-infrared filters with HST and VLT/ISAAC for the host galaxy of GRB011121 (at $z = 0.36$) allows a detailed study of both the morphology and the spectral energy distribution of this galaxy. Multi-band, high signal-to-noise ratio, high-resolution imaging of GRB host galaxies is still a luxury, only affordable for the brightest and most nearby galaxies.
Firstly, we find that the surface brightness profile of the host galaxy of GRB011121 is best fitted by a Sersic law with index $n \sim 2$ – 2.5 and a rather large effective radius ($\sim$ 7.5 kpc). Together with the F450W - F702W colour image, this suggests that this galaxy is either a disk-system with a rather small bulge (like an Sbc galaxy), or one hosting a central, dust-enshrouded starburst.
At variance with previous studies on GRB host galaxies, we combine stellar population models and Monte Carlo calculations of radiative transfer to reproduce the observed SED. Furthermore, we make use of the morphological information to constrain these models. Plausible solutions meeting all the morphological and/or photometric constraints indicate that the host galaxy of GRB011121 has a stellar mass of a few to several times $\rm 10^9~M_{\sun}$, stellar populations with a maximum age ranging from 0.4 to 2 Gyr, and a bolometric luminosity-weighted metallicity in stars (of the disk, in case) ranging from 1 to 29 per cent of the solar value.
In particular, normal star-forming, Sbc-like models provide plausible solutions pointing to a system as massive as 4.9 – $\rm 6.9 \times 10^{9}~M_{\sun}$, with a bulge-to-total mass ratio equal to 0.15, an age of 1.3 – 1.9 Gyr, and a bolometric luminosity-weighted metallicity in stars of the disk equal to 20 – 29 per cent solar. On the other hand, starburst models provide plausible solutions biased towards a lower stellar mass (3.1 – $\rm 4.8 \times 10^{9}~M_{\sun}$), a younger age (0.4 – 2.0 Gyr) and a much lower metallicity (1 – 8 per cent solar). As for the opacity, normal star-forming, Sbc-like models indicate the host galaxy of GRB011121 as a system with a central opacity $\tau_V^{\rm c, 0}$ in the range 2 – 16, i.e. larger than the central opacity of local disks (0.5 – 2, see Kuchinski et al. [@kuc98]). Nevertheless, the attenuation along the line of sight is moderate ($\rm A_V = 0.12$ – 0.57 mag) on the scale of the system since the host galaxy of GRB011121 has a low inclination (18 degrees). On the other hand, starburst models suggest this galaxy to be nearly as opaque ($\tau_V = 0.5$ – 1.5) as local starburst galaxies (with $\tau_V \sim 1.5$, see Gordon et al. [@gcw97]), the attenuation along the line of sight being $\rm A_V = 0.27$ – 0.76 mag on the scale of the system.
The SFR per unit stellar mass is equal to 0.6 – $\rm 2.9 \times 10^{-9}~yr^{-1}$ (starburst) or 0.4 –$\rm 0.7 \times 10^{-9}~yr^{-1}$ (normal star-forming galaxy), while the SFR per unit luminosity is equal to 11.9 – $\rm 36.1~M_{\sun}~yr^{-1}~(L_B/L^{\star}_B)^{-1}$ or 9.2 – $\rm 15.8~M_{\sun}~yr^{-1}~(L_B/L^{\star}_B)^{-1}$, respectively.
This large (effective radius of $\sim$ 7.5 kpc) but subluminous ($\rm L_B/L^{\star}_B = 0.26$) galaxy exhibits a specific SFR that is larger than that of the average galaxy at the same redshift (e.g. Bauer et al. [@bau05]) but consistent with the values determined for two other blue, low-metallicity, low-$z$ GRB host galaxies (i.e. GRB030329 and GRB031203, see Gorosabel et al. [@gor05], Sollerman et al. [@sol05]). Therefore, we conclude that the host galaxies of GRB011121 and, possibly, GRB030329 and GRB031203 are cought at relatively early phases of their star formation histories.
We thank to the anonymous referee for extensive comments that helped to improve the paper. AKY acknowledges support from the International Max-Planck Research School (IMPRS) on Astrophysics. MS acknowledges Sonia Temporin for a lively discussion. EP is grateful to the MPE for hospitality and support. AR acknowledges support and collaboration within the EU RTN Contract HPRN-CT-2002-00294.
Bauer, A. E., Drory, N., Hill, G. J., & Feulner, G. 2005, ApJ 621, L89 Bell, E. F., Papovich, C., Wolf, C. et al. 2005, ApJ 625, 23 Berger, E., Chary, R., Cowie, L. L. et al. 2006, astro-ph/0603689 Bloom, J. S., Kulkarni, S. R., Djorgovski, S. G. 2002a, AJ 123, 1111 Bloom, J. S., Kulkarni, S. R., Price, P. A. et al. 2002b, ApJ 572, L45 Bolzonella, M., Miralles, J.-M., Pelló, R. 2000, A&A 363, 476 Bruzual, G., & Charlot, S. 1993, ApJ 405, 538 Calzetti, D., Armus, L., Bohlin, R. C. et al. 2000, ApJ 533, 682 Cambrésy, L., Jarrett, T. H., Beichman, C. A. 2005, A&A 435, 131 Cardelli, J. A., Clayton, G. C., & Mathis, J. S. 1989, ApJ 345, 245 Chabríer, G. 2003, PASP, 115, 763 Chary, R., Becklin, E. E., & Armus, L. 2002, ApJ 566, 229 Christensen, L., Hjorth, J., Gorosabel, J. et al. 2004a, A&A 413, 121 Christensen, L., Hjorth, J., & Gorosabel, J. 2004b, A&A 425, 913 Conselice, C. J., Vreeswijk, P. M., Fruchter, A. S. et al. 2005, ApJ 633, 29 Courty, S., Björnsson, G., Gudmundsson, E. H. 2004, MNRAS 354, 581 Cox, D. P., Mathews, W. G. 1969, ApJ 155, 859 Dahlen, T., Mobasher, B., Somerville, R. S. et al. 2005, ApJ 631, 126 Devillard, N., 2005, Eclipse Users Guide, at URL [http://www.eso.org/projects/aot/eclipse/eug/index.html]{} Djorgovski, S. & Spinrad, H. 1981, ApJ 251, 417 Dopita, M. A., Sutherland, R. S. 1996, ApJS 102, 161 Dutra, C. M., Ahumada, A. V., Clariá, J. J., Bica, E., Barbuy, B. 2003, A&A 408, 287 Fioc, M., & Rocca-Volmerange, B. 1997, A&A, 326, 950 Fruchter, A. S. & Hook, R. N. 2002, PASP 114, 144 Fruchter, A. S., Levan, A. J., Strogler, L. et al. 2006, Nature 441, 463 Fynbo, J. U., Holland, S., Andersen, M. I. et al. 2000, ApJ 542, 89 Galama, T. J., Vreeswijk, P. M., van Paradijs, J. et al. 1998, Nature 395, 670 Garnavich, P. M., Stanek, K. Z., Wyrzykowski, L. et al. 2003, ApJ 582, 924 Gordon, K.D., Calzetti, D., Witt, A. N. 1997, ApJ 487, 625 Gordon K. D., Misselt K. A., Witt A. N., Clayton G. C. 2001, ApJ 551, 277 Gorosabel, J., Klose, S., Christensen, L. et al. 2003a, A&A 409, 123 Gorosabel, J., Christensen, L., Hjorth, J. et al. 2003b, A&A 400, 127 Gorosabel, J., Pérez-Ramírez, D., Sollerman, J. et al. 2005, A&A 444, 711 Greiner, J., Klose, S., Zeh, A. et al. 2001, GCN Circ. 1166 Greiner, J., Klose, S., Salvato, M. et al. 2003, ApJ 599, 1223 Hjorth, J., Sollerman, J., M$\o$ller, P. et al. 2003, Nature 423, 847 Kennicutt, R. C. 1998, ApJ 498, 541 Küpcü Yoldaş, A., Greiner, J. & Perna, R. 2006, A&A accepted, astro-ph/0607195 Kuchinski L. E., Terndrup, D. M., Gordon, K. D., Witt, A. N. 1998, AJ 115, 1438 Le Floch, E., Duc, P.-A., Mirabel, I. F. et al. 2003, A&A 400, 127 Leggett S.K., Golimowski D.A., Fan X., Geballe T.R., Knapp G.R., 2003, in “Cool stars, stellar systems and the Sun”, Proc. 12th Cambridge workshop, University of Colorado, p. 120 Malesani, D., Tagliaferri, G., Chincarini, G. et al. 2004, ApJ 609, 5 Maraston, C. 1998, MNRAS 300, 872 Maraston, C. 2005, MNRAS 362, 799 Matheson, T., Garnavich, P. M., Stanek, K. Z. et al. 2003, ApJ 599, 394 Mathis, J. S. 1970, ApJ 159, 263 Miller, G. E., & Scalo, J. M. 1979, ApJS 41, 513 Mirabal, N., Halpern, J. P., Chornock, R. et al. 2003, ApJ 595, 935 Mirabal, N., Halpern, J. P., An, D., Thorstensen, J. R., Terndrup, D. M. 2006, ApJ 643, 99 Osterbrock, D. E. 1989, Astrophysics of gaseous nebulae and active galactic nuclei, University Science Books Peng, C. Y., Ho, L. C., Impey, C. D., & Rix H-W. 2002, AJ 124, 266 Perna, R., Raymond, J. & Loeb, A. 2000, ApJ 533, 658 Persson, S. E., Aaronson, M., Cohen, J. G., Frogel, J. A., Matthews, K. 1983, ApJ 266, 105 Petrosian, V. 1976, ApJ 209, L1 Pian, E., Mazzali, P. A., Masetti, N. et al. 2006, astro-ph/0603530 Pierini D., Gordon K. D., Witt A. N. 2003, in Galaxy Evolution: Theory & Observations, eds. V. Avila-Reese, C. Firmani, C. S. Frenk & C. Allen, RMxAC, 17, p. 200 Pierini, D., Maraston, C., Bender, R., Witt, A. N. 2004a, MNRAS 347, 1 Pierini, D., Gordon, K. D., Witt, A. N., Madsen, G. J. 2004b, ApJ 617, 1022 Piro, L. 2001, GCN Circ. 1147 Piro, L., De Pasquale, M., Soffitta, P. et al. 2005, ApJ 623, 314 Price, P. A., Berger, E., Reichart, D. E. et al. 2002, ApJ 572, L51 Rau, A., Salvato, M., Greiner, J. 2006, A&A 444, 425 Ravindranath, S., Ferguson, H.C., Conselice, C. et al. 2004, ApJ 604, L9 Reid, I.N., Kirkpatrick, J.D., Gizis, J.E., et al. 2000, AJ 119, 369 Salpeter, E. 1955, ApJ, 121, 161 Schlegel, D., Finkbeiner, D., & Davis, M. 1998, ApJ 500, 525 Sersic, J. L. 1968, Atlas de Galaxias Australes (Cordoba: Obs. Astron.) Sokolov, V. V., Fatkhullin, T. A., Castro-Tirado, A. J. et al. 2001, A&A 372, 438 Sollerman, J., Östlin, G., Fynbo, J. P. U. et al. 2005, New Astr. 11, 103 Stanek, K. Z., Matheson, T., Garnavich, P. M. et al. 2003, ApJ 591, L17 Takagi, T., Arimoto, N., Vansevicius, V. 1999, ApJ 523, 107 Temporin, S. G. 2001, PhD Thesis, Leopold-Franzens-Universität Innsbruck (Austria) Tokunaga A.T., 2000, in Allen’s “Astrophysical Quantities”, 4th edition, ed. A.N. Cox, Springer-Verlag, NY, p. 143 Vijh, U., Gordon, K. D., Witt, A. N. 2003, ApJ 587, 533 Wainwright, C., Berger, E., & Penprase, B. E. 2005, AAS 207, 1908 Witt, A. N., Gordon, K. D. 2000, ApJ 528, 799 Wyrzykowski, L., Stanek, K. Z., & Garnavich, P. M. 2001, GCN Circ. 1150
[^1]: Based on observations made with the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope under program with proposal ID 9180, obtained from the data archive at the Space Telescope Science Institute. STScI is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc. under NASA contract NAS 5-26555
[^2]: Based on observations made with ESO Telescopes at the La Silla or Paranal Observatories under program ID 165H.-0464
[^3]: see also Jochen Greiner’s web page: http://www.mpe.mpg.de/$\sim$jcg/grb.html
[^4]: see also http://purcell.as.arizona.edu/wfpc2$\_$calib/
[^5]: Although the blast wave of the GRB may cause shock-ionization, Perna et al. [@prl] showed that it is expected to influence the ionization state of the gas on timescales of hundreds to thousands of years after the burst. Therefore we take the case B recombination as representative of the dust-free case, and assume that the photo-ionization effect of GRB prompt and afterglow emission on the circumburst environment is negligible (see Küpcü Yoldaş et al. [@aky]). (e.g. Osterbrock [@os89]) and implies an A$_V$ of 1.6$^{+0.9}_{-0.8}$ and 2.5$^{+1.4}_{-1.9}$, respectively, derived using the extinction curve of Cardelli et al. ([@car89]). Higher than predicted Balmer-line flux ratios are due to dust present in the small-/large-scale environment of H[II]{} regions (Cox & Mathews [@cm69]; Mathis [@m70]). Hence the presence of a non-negligible amount of dust extinction in the host-galaxy of GRB011121 is a feasible working hypothesis.
[^6]: Models older than 9 Gyr do not offer a physical representation of a galaxy at $z = 0.362$ as the host of GRB011121.
[^7]: The two-phase, clumpy SHELL model of Witt & Gordon ([@wit00]) with SMC-type dust and $\tau_V = 1.5$ produces an attenuation curve that best matches the so-called Calzetti law for nearby starbursts (see Calzetti et al. [@cal00] and references therein).
[^8]: We note that the models of Bruzual & Charlot ([@bc93]) included in [*HyperZ*]{} (Bolzonella et al. [@bol00]) do not include the contribution to the total emission from the TP-AGB stars (see Maraston [@mar05]) as well. However, they have stellar populations with only solar metallicity, which are redder than those with lower metallicity.
[^9]: For a [*different region of the host galaxy GRB011121 containing the OT*]{}, Greiner et al. ([@g03]) estimated values of the SFR from \[OII\] and $\rm H\alpha$ emission-line diagnostics [*at times when the afterglow was present*]{}. These values are: $\rm 1.2~M_{\sun}~yr^{-1}$ (SFR$_{OII}$) and 0.61 – $\rm 0.72~M_{\sun}~yr^{-1}$ (SFR$_{H\alpha}$). It is clear that these values do not refer to the whole galaxy and are not corrected for the intrinsic extinction.
|
---
abstract: 'We investigate the anomalous metal arising by hole doping the Mott insulating state of the periodic Anderson model. Using Dynamical Mean-Field Theory we show that, as opposed to the electron-doped case, in the hole-doped regime the hybridization between localized and delocalized orbitals leads to the formation of composite quasi-particles reminiscent of the Zhang-Rice singlets. We compute the coherence temperature of this state, showing its extremely small value at low doping. As a consequence the weakly-doped Mott state deviates from the predictions of Fermi-liquid theory already at small temperatures. The onset of the Zhang-Rice state and of the consequent poor coherence is due to the electronic structure in which both localized and itinerant carriers have to be involved in the formation of the conduction states and to the proximity to the Mott state. By investigating the magnetic properties of this state, we discuss the relation between the anomalous metallic properties and the behavior of the magnetic degrees of freedom.'
author:
- 'A. Amaricci$^{1}$, L. de’ Medici,$^{2}$, G. Sordi$^{3}$, M.J. Rozenberg$^{2,4}$, M. Capone$^{1,5}$'
bibliography:
- 'bibliografia.bib'
title: A path to poor coherence in heavy fermions from Mott physics and hybridization
---
Introduction {#sec0}
============
The rise of the field of strongly correlated materials revealed a number of unexpected intriguing phenomena which can not be explained within the standard theory of solids. [@Ashcroft] The paradigm of correlation effects is based on the Mott insulating state and the Mott-Hubbard metal-insulator transition,[@imadaRMP; @mott] but a key role is also played by high-temperature superconductivity in copper oxides [@Bednorz86; @Anderson87] and the unconventional superconductivity at the edge of a magnetic phase observed in heavy fermions.[@Flouquet06; @CePd2Si2] More recently, the partnership between exotic superconductivity, strong correlations and magnetism has been strengthened by the discoveries in the iron-based superconductors,[@Hosono08] in the alkali-doped fullerides[@Takabayashi09; @Capone09] and possibly also in the molecular conductors based on aromatic molecules.[@kubozono10; @Giovannetti11; @nomura11]
A common companion of Mott physics and anomalous superconductivity is the deviation from the standard Fermi-Liquid (FL) theory in the metallic phase, or non-Fermi-liquid (NFL) behavior.[@nflstewart] The FL theory describes a system of interacting fermions as a collection of renormalized non-interacting [*quasi-particles*]{} which propagate coherently in the solid.[@nozieres97] The main qualitative effect of the electron-electron correlations is to enhance the effective mass and accordingly reduce the coherence of the Fermi gas. This reflects in a reduction of the coherence temperature, the scale at which the thermal fluctuations destroy the coherent motion. However in many compounds, most notably heavy fermion materials and underdoped cuprates, this picture breaks down and the carriers can no longer be described as long-lived excitations as they acquire a finite lifetime. This behavior directly influences the transport properties leading to anomalies in the temperature dependence of the resistivity.
In this paper we present a general mechanism based on Mott physics and multi-band effects which leads to a metallic state with an extremely small FL coherence temperature. Empirically, this system will display a NFL behavior already at exceedingly small temperatures. The key element is the hybridization between a strongly correlated band and a weakly interacting band that leads to the formation of hybrid entities. The binding with the localized $f$-electrons hinders the motion of the carriers leading to a coherence temperature which is much smaller than the (already renormalized) scale predicted by FL theory on the basis of mass renormalization.
Our approach is based on the periodic Anderson model (PAM), a widely accepted correlated electrons model for the description of the heavy fermion physics. In its minimal form the PAM describes a set of non-dispersive strongly correlated electrons, hybridizing with a band of conduction electrons. In a general framework the PAM provides a more detailed description of the electronic configuration of correlated materials with respect to the Hubbard model, by taking into account the effects of the inclusion of non-correlated bands. We solved the PAM using dynamical mean-field theory (DMFT),[@rmp] one of the most powerful and reliable tools to study correlated materials.
Following previous studies[@sordi07; @amaricci08; @sordi09] we investigate the model around the Mott insulating state which takes place for large interactions and [*odd*]{} integer total occupation. The doping-driven transition has been thoroughly investigated in Ref. , and a NFL behavior in the hole-doped side has been demonstrated in Ref. . Here we extend this work by analyzing the coherence-incoherence crossover which leads to the NFL behavior and its dependence on doping. We will therefore focus on the scattering properties of the system and we will detail their relation with the magnetic degrees of freedom. Finally we establish a connection between the finite-temperature breakdown of the FL and the competition between anti-ferromagnetic and ferromagnetic short-ranged correlations.
The manuscript is structured as follows. In we introduce the PAM and the related DMFT equations. In section we briefly discuss the doping-driven Mott transition in the PAM. In we present the main results of this work, namely the strongly incoherent nature of the low temperature metallic state. A phase-diagram of the model is presented at the end of this section. In we study the magnetic properties of the model. Finally, we present a magnetic phase-diagram of the model which illustrates how magnetic competition helps stabilizing the incoherent behavior at low temperature.
Model and theoretical framework {#sec1}
===============================
The Periodic Anderson Model {#sec1.1}
---------------------------
The periodic Anderson model describes a set of non-dispersive strongly correlated electrons, locally hybridizing with a band of conduction electrons. The model Hamiltonian is written in the following form: The operators $p_{i\s}$ ($p_{i\s}^+$) destroy (create) conduction band electrons with hopping amplitude $t_{ij}$ and energy $\ep0$. The operators $f_{i\s}$ ($f_{i\s}^+$) destroy (create) electrons in the non-dispersive orbital with energy $\ed0$. The terms proportional to $\tpd$ describe the hybridization between the two species. The interaction term $H_I$ describes the strong on-site Coulomb repulsion experienced by $f$-orbital electrons.
The non-interacting lattice Green’s function reads: with $\epsk$ the dispersion of the conduction electrons: $\epsk=
\sum_{<ij>}e^{-i\ka\cdot(\mathbf{r}_i-\mathbf{r}_j)}\, t_{ij}$. The corresponding interacting Green’s function can be expressed by means of the following matrix Dyson equation: where is the self-energy matrix $\hat{\Sigma}_\s$. The non-interacting nature of the conduction band is reflected in the existence of only one non-zero self-energy for the $f$-electrons. Nevertheless, it is useful to define an [*effective*]{} self-energy also for the conduction electrons as: This function describes the dressing of the $p$-electrons as an effect of both their hybridization with the correlated $f$-electrons and, indirectly, of the Hubbard repulsion on the latter. In particular, the appearance of a finite imaginary part in the zero-frequency limit signals the breakdown of a FL picture for the conduction electrons.
Since $\Sigma_{p \s}$ arises due to both the hybridization and the interaction $U$, it is not expected to vanish in the non-interacting limit $U=0$. On the other hand, it is easy to realize that in this limit the pure hybridization can not lead to a finite imaginary part of $\Sigma_{p \s}$ at zero frequency, and that any breakdown of the FL behavior can descend only from correlation effects.
DMFT equations {#sec1.2}
--------------
The PAM has been studied using a large variety of numerical[@Grewe88; @Newns87; @Schweitzer91; @Fazekas87; @Pruschke00] and analytical methods.[@canionoce; @Gurin01; @Gulacsi02; @Shiba90] To access the non-perturbative regime of the PAM, we investigate the solution of the model using the DMFT, which has been used to solve this model since its early stages.[@jarrell; @marcelo_PAM]
Within DMFT a lattice model is mapped onto an effective single-impurity problem, fixed by a self-consistency condition which enforces the equivalence between the two models as far as the local physics is concerned.[@phytoday; @rmp] The scheme is equivalent to a local approximation on the self-energy, which becomes momentum independent.
The DMFT equations can be obtained using a quantum cavity method. The effective action of the single $f$-orbital impurity problem is obtained integrating out all lattice degrees of freedom except for a chosen site (labeled conventionally as site $i=0$) and keeping only the first term in the expansion[@metzvol; @rmp] in terms of many-particle Green’s functions:
The action $S_\mathrm{eff}$ is expressed in terms of the local [*Weiss Field*]{} $\GG_{0\s}^{-1}(\iome)$, describing the quantum fluctuations at the correlated $f$-orbital. The Weiss field satisfies a self-consistence equation which depends on the lattice under consideration. In this work we consider a Bethe lattice with semi-elliptical density of states of half-bandwidth $D$ (fixing the energy unit of the problem), $D(\varepsilon) =
\frac{2}{\pi D^2}\sqrt{D^2-\varepsilon^2}$. In this case the self-consistency is particularly simple and reads: where $G_{p\s}$ is the conduction electron local Green’s function. The functional form of $\GG_{0\s}^{-1}$ mirrors in the DMFT equations the relation between the two orbitals in the lattice problem. The fluctuations at the $f$-orbital are in fact composed of two contributions: (a) the on-site quantum fluctuations and (b) indirect delocalization through conduction band proportional to squared hybridization amplitude.
The DMFT solution requires therefore to compute the impurity Green’s function where the symbol $\bra \, \ket_{\rm S_{\rm eff}}$ indicates the average with respect to the effective action (\[Seff\]). From the knowledge of the impurity Green’s function it is straightforward to determine the self-energy: $$\Sigma(\iome)_\s=\Sigma^{\rm imp}_\s(\iome)=\GG_{0\s}^{-1}(\iome)-{G^{\rm imp}_\s}^{-1}
(\iome)$$ and finally to evaluate the local Green’s function: $$G_{p\s}(\iome)=\int
d\varepsilon\frac{D(\varepsilon)}{\iome+\mu-\ep0-\Sigma_{p\s}(\iome)-\varepsilon}$$ Then a new Weiss field can be computed and the procedure can be iterated until convergence is achieved.
The solution of the effective impurity problem, , is the bottleneck of the DMFT algorithm. In this work we use a combination of numerical techniques:[@rmp] Hirsch-Fye Quantum Monte Carlo (QMC) [@kotliarRMP; @dosSantos03] and Exact Diagonalization (ED) methods, both in the full diagonalization and Lanczos algorithm implementations, at zero[@dagottoRMP] and finite temperature.[@lucaED] The ED method is based on a discretization of the effective bath on an adaptive energy grid. In this paper we present full ED calculations in which the bath is described by 7 energy levels and Lanczos calculations with 8 levels. The ED calculations have been cross-checked against Density Matrix Renormalization Group, which allows to substantially increase the number of bath levels. [@dmrgRMP; @karenPRB; @daniel1]
The hole-doped Mott insulator {#sec2}
=============================
![(Color online) Evolution of the $f$- (solid line) and $p$-orbital (dashed line) projections of the DOS. Data from QMC calculations at $T=0.0125$, $\tpd=0.9$, $n_{tot}=3$, analytically continued on the real axis using Maximum Entropy Method [@mem]. The figure qualitatively illustrates the Mott metal-insulator transition driven by correlation in the PAM.[]{data-label="fig2.1"}](fig2.eps){width="45.00000%"}
The PAM has been largely investigated in proximity of the Kondo insulator regime.[@schwolff; @Fazekas; @doniach] The Kondo insulator is a band insulator realized at [*even*]{} integer total filling ($n_\mathrm{tot}=2$). In this regime the system has two hybridized bands with a central Kondo peak, corresponding to the resonant scattering of the conduction electrons on the localized moments and split by an indirect gap $\Delta_\mathrm{ind}$ (see ). Upon doping the Kondo resonance remains pinned at the chemical potential, and the system behaves like a heavy-fermion liquid.
In this work we focus on a different model regime, namely the correlated metal obtained by a state with [*odd*]{} total occupation ($n_\mathrm{tot}=1$ or $3$) and large enough interaction. In the case of $n_\mathrm{tot}=1$ or $3$, an important role is played by the ratio $U/\Delta$, where $\Delta=|\ep0-\ed0|$ is the charge-transfer energy, the separation in energy between the two electron orbitals. Two regimes can be distinguished:[@zsa] (a) for $\Delta$ smaller than $U$ the model is in the so-called [*Charge-Transfer*]{} (CT) regime, that is expected to capture the properties of intermediate to late transition-metal oxides. Nevertheless in these systems the non-local hybridizations become important and require the introduction of other terms in the Hamiltonian to be properly described. (b) For $\Delta$ larger than $U$ the model is in the [*Mott-Hubbard*]{} (MH) regime, which models the properties of early transition-metal oxides and heavy fermion systems, usually dominated by local physics. In this work we shall focus on this latter model regime and study the doping of a Mott insulator.
In the simplest sketch of this regime, the non-correlated band has a lower energy than the correlated one (which however is dispersive only because of the hybridization with the itinerant fermions). The latter band is in turn split by the Mott gap (see ). Similarly to the Kondo Insulating regime, a heavy fermion state is obtained upon finite doping as soon as the system develops a coherent Kondo resonance signature of the insulator-metal transition.
![(Color online) Left panel: renormalization constant $Z$ as a function of the doping $\d=|3-n_\mathrm{tot}|$. Data are from Lanczos ED at $T=0$, $U=2$, $\tpd=0.9$ and increasing size of the effective bath $N_s=8$ (diamonds, circles) and $10$ (triangles, squares). Right panel: moment-moment correlation $-\bra m_{zp}\cdot m_{zf}\ket$ as a function of the doping $\d$ in the hole doped regime. Data are from full ED calculations (see Appendix \[apx1\]) for $T=0.008$ and for the same model parameters.[]{data-label="fig2.2"}](fig3.eps){width="45.00000%"}
In the following we shall briefly review the formation of a correlated metallic state by hole doping[@sordi07; @sordi09]. Without loss of generality, we fix the energy of the correlated orbitals at the Fermi level $\ed0=0$ and $\ep0=-1$, so that $\Delta=1$. For $U=\tpd=0$ the model describes a system with completely filled conduction band $n_p=2$ and half-filled correlated orbitals with $n_f=1$. For finite values of the hybridization the correlated electrons can move with an effective hopping of the order of $t_{\rm
eff}\simeq\tpd^2/\Delta$, corresponding to the indirect delocalization through the conduction band (see top panel of ). The hybridization modifies the orbitals occupation, pushing a substantial amount of the $p$-electron states to the Fermi level, so that $n_p<2$ and consequently $n_f>1$ and the relevant carriers are hybrid in nature. However, the $f$- and $p$-character of the model solution can still be used to indicate the projection onto the correlated and non-correlated orbital respectively. Upon increasing the interaction strength (see central panel of ) we first observe the formation of a correlated metallic state. This is characterized by the presence in the density of states (DOS) of a metallic feature at the Fermi level, flanked by the two precursors of the Hubbard bands. A Mott insulating state is then obtained further increasing the correlation $U$. The system opens a spectral gap at the Fermi energy (see bottom panel of ) with a width controlled by the correlation $U$.[@sordi09] To fix ideas, in the remaining part of this work we shall set the correlation and the hybridization to, respectively, $U=2.0$ and $\tpd=0.9$. This choice of the model parameters corresponds to a Mott insulating state for $n_\mathrm{tot}=3$. Similar results can be obtained for different values of correlation and hybridization.
The Mott insulator can be destabilized in favor of a correlated metallic phase by either adding or removing electrons (creating holes). As first noticed in Ref. the two transitions have a different character, ultimately related to the different role played by the non interacting band in the two cases. Doping with electrons, the extra carriers populate essentially the correlated orbitals while the p-band remains almost filled and its role is to allow the delocalization of correlated electrons. In other words, in this regime there are no multi-band effects and the hybridization plays a minor role. Therefore the f-electrons behave essentially as in a single-band Hubbard model with an effective hopping of the order of $t_\mathrm{eff}$.
![(Color online) Evolution of the imaginary part of the conduction electrons self-energy $\Im\Sigma_p(\iome)$ for increasing temperature. Data are from finite temperature Lanczos ED with doping $\d=0.1$. []{data-label="fig2.3"}](fig4.eps){width="45.00000%"}
In the hole doped regime the electronic configuration is substantially different. The holes are essentially associated to the absence of $p$-electrons, and they tend to bind to the local moments of the almost half-filled correlated orbitals[@sordi09]. It is already apparent that this state can not be described by a single-band model. This effect is evident in the behavior of the inter-orbital moment-moment correlation $$\bra m_{zp}\cdot m_{zf}\ket
=\bra
(n_{p\up}-n_{p\dw})\cdot(n_{f\up}-n_{f\dw})
\ket$$ reported in , which shows how the moment of the doped p-holes aligns with the moment of the localized f-electron. The doping-driven metalization appears as the process of delocalizing a multi-band “Zhang-Rice-like" singlet state, formed by an itinerant hole bound to a localized spin, similar to that proposed in the framework of the high-T$_c$ superconductors.[@zr] The low-energy properties of this metallic state can not be straightforwardly interpreted in terms of a single-band Hubbard model,[@sordi07; @sordi09] and it leads to remarkable properties.
A first partial indication of the anomalous nature of this state comes from an evaluation of the quasi-particle weight $Z=[1-\partial\Im\Sigma_f(i\o)/\partial\omega]_{|_{\omega\rightarrow0}}^{ -1}$, which measures the degree of metallicity of a system, being zero for a Mott insulator and one for a non-interacting metal. The results (see ) show that $Z$ is substantially smaller for the hole-doped than for the electron-doped case, already signaling that the Zhang-Rice liquid is a poorer metal than a standard correlated metal. In the following we will show that the difference goes well beyond the quasi-particle renormalization.
![(Color online) Main panel: imaginary part of the conduction electrons self-energy $\Im\Sigma_p(\iome)$ for increasing value of the hole doping and $T=0.001$. Data are from Lanczos ED calculations. Inset: Comparison of the $\Im\Sigma_p(\iome)$ behavior from different numerical methods for $\d=0.05$. The other model parameters are the same as in the main panel. The QMC and full ED calculations are performed at $T=0.008$. DMRG is a $T=0$ calculation performed with a cluster of $N_{\rm s}=30$ sites and plotted down to the position of the lowest energy pole.[]{data-label="fig2.4"}](fig5.eps){width="45.00000%"}
Thermal breakdown of the Fermi-liquid {#sec3}
=====================================
Fermi-liquid theory is the standard paradigm for metallic systems and describes correlated Fermi systems as a collection of non-interacting renormalized quasi-particles. DMFT studies of various correlated models have shown that even very close to the Mott transition the correlated metallic state is typically a Fermi liquid with a reduced effective hopping proportional to the quasi-particle weight $Z$. This scale also controls the coherence temperature above which the coherent motion of the carriers is destroyed by thermal fluctuations.
In this section we will show that the correlated metallic state of the PAM in the weakly hole-doped regime turns out to be very fragile with respect to small temperatures. More precisely, our system will be a Fermi liquid only below an extremely small coherence temperature which, for small doping, can be substantially smaller than the renormalized Fermi energy controlled by $Z$. Therefore the corresponding metallic state can not be described in terms of long-lived quasi-particles but is rather a liquid of short-lived singlet-like electronic excitations.
![ $\s=\Im\Sigma_p(\iome\rightarrow0)$ as a function of the temperature for different values of the doping. The data shown are from full ED calculations. []{data-label="fig2.5"}](fig6.eps){width="45.00000%"}
To substantiate this discussion we study the evolution of the imaginary part of the conduction electron self-energy $\Im\Sigma_p(\iome)$. The results of our calculations for $\delta =0.1$ are presented in . A Fermi liquid state corresponds to a linear behavior of $\Im\Sigma_p(\iome)$ at low frequency, observed only at the lowest investigated temperature, $T=0.0005$. When we increase $T$ at values of the order of $T=0.0007$, two orders of magnitude smaller than the [*renormalized*]{} Fermi energy, the conduction-electron self-energy does not vanish in the $\omega \to 0$ limit, signaling a departure from the Fermi-liquid paradigm. Further increasing the temperature leads to an enhancement of this anomaly.
In we follow the evolution of $\Im\Sigma_p(\iome)$ for increasing doping at $T=0.001$. For small doping we have a clear NFL increase at small frequency which survives up to $\delta \simeq 0.16$. For larger doping the system is not strongly sensitive to the Mott-Hubbard physics and the standard Fermi-liquid behavior is restored around $\delta = 0.2$.
The violation of the Fermi-liquid paradigm can be summarized by the temperature dependence of $\s(T) = \Im\Sigma_p(\iome\rightarrow0)$, reported in . This quantity is related to the scattering rate of the carriers. In a metallic regime $\s(T)$ is expected to vanish at low temperature. While for large doping (right panel) $\s(T)$ vanishes as $T \to 0$ (even if for $\delta = 0.15$ some anomaly is observed at intermediate temperature), the small-doping data clearly confirm the NFL behavior down to very small temperature, even if, strictly at $T=0$ the vanishing $\s$ would be recovered.
Finally, depicts the inverse life-time $\t^{-1}=Z_p \s$ of the doped carriers, where $Z_p^{-1}=1-\Im\Sigma_p(i\o_1)/\p T$. In a Fermi liquid $\t^{-1}$ grows as $T^2\sim \o^2$ at low temperature. Our calculations for small doping show a decay faster than $T^2$ which strengthens the picture of an incoherent metallic state. Once again, a Fermi-liquid behavior is established only at extremely low temperatures if the doping is small, while the large-doping data recover the standard behavior.
The increasing scattering rate as a function of decreasing temperature is usually associated to scattering with impurities[@nflstewart]. In this spirit, in the following we will interpret our results as the scattering of the carriers with fluctuating local moments. This effect can be understood as the results of the competition between the aforementioned tendency to form local Zhang-Rice-singlets, driven by the hole-doping, and the incoherent nature of the scatterer provided by the $f$-electron local moments, driven by Mott physics. At large doping the increased number of available holes of $p$-type helps the formation of a many-body coherent state without breaking the local binding with $f$-moment. This arguments will be substantiated by the calculations that we report in the following sections.
![(Color online) Scaling of the inverse life-time $\tau^{-1}$ as a function of $T^2$ in the small temperature limit. Data are from Lanczos ED calculations. Lines are guide to the eye. []{data-label="fig2.6"}](fig7.eps){width="45.00000%"}
The coherence temperature {#sec3.1}
-------------------------
The analysis of the self-energy and of the carriers lifetime clearly shows the existence of a small doping-dependent energy scale associated with the appearance of an incoherent metal. We expect this scale to influence also other observables, like the local spin susceptibility: $$\chi_\mathrm{loc}(T)=\intbeta\bra S_{zf}(\t)\cdot S_{zf}(0)\ket d\t$$
This quantity describes the response to a [*local*]{} magnetic field and easily discriminates between a Fermi-liquid, in which the zero-temperature limit is a constant (Pauli susceptibility), and a paramagnetic Mott insulator in which it diverges like $1/T$ (Curie behavior).
The results are reported in . In the Mott insulating state ($\d=0$) the magnetic moments of the localized $f$-electrons essentially behave as free spins, we thus obtain the typical Curie behavior with a $1/T$ dependence for the spin susceptibility. The slightly hole-doped regime does not show the behavior of a standard metal, namely $\chi_\mathrm{loc}$ keeps on increasing down to the lowest investigated temperature $T\simeq
10^{-3}D$ without any sign of saturation. The enhancement of the spin susceptibility signals the presence of unquenched local moments and can be associated to protracted screening effect.[@tahv1] Only for larger doping, the susceptibility saturates to large constant value at very low temperature.
![(Color online) Local spin susceptibility $\chi_\mathrm{loc}$ as a function of the temperature and increasing value of the hole doping. Data are from Lanczos ED (open symbols) and full ED (pluses, crosses and stars symbols) calculations. []{data-label="fig2.8"}](fig8.eps){width="45.00000%"}
The presence of enhanced low-$T$ spin susceptibility coexisting with a (bad) metallic behavior substantiates the idea that the hole-doped system can be regarded as formed by nearly free (incoherent) moments, and an underlying metallic host formed by the doped holes which are prevented from coherently delocalize by local coupling to $f$-moments. This interpretation leads us to estimate the coherence temperature $T_\mathrm{coh}$ from
We plot the resulting values, obtained with different numerical methods, in . In the same plot we report the crossover points estimated from the temperature evolution of the imaginary part of the self-energy $\Sigma_p$ (red crosses). The good agreement of these points with the extrapolated data validates the physical interpretation of the coherence temperature. It is unfortunately very hard to identify the functional form of the coherence temperature due to the smallness of the scale involved and the numerical uncertainties. However, the data are compatible with an exponential behavior of the form $T_\mathrm{coh}\simeq Be^{-A/\d}$, which has been obtained within the $1/N$ approximation in the infinite-$U$ Kondo limit[@burdin].
The phase diagram in the doping-temperature plane, presented in , can help us to summarize the scenario emerging from our calculations. The diagram reveals the character of the DMFT solution in proximity of the Mott insulating state through the behavior of the $\Im\Sigma_p(\iome\rightarrow0)$. Using finite temperature Lanczos ED method we investigated a smaller temperature scale with respect to that studied in Ref. . A large value of the $\Im\Sigma_p(\iome\rightarrow0)$ testifies a NFL behavior and the results clearly show that the highly incoherent state emerges from the Mott state and occupies a sizable region of the phase diagram. The NFL region is separated from the coherent metal by a crossover taking place at $T_\mathrm{coh}$ defined above, which therefore confirms its meaning as the temperature in which the metal loses coherence.
![(Color online) Coherence temperature scale $T_\mathrm{coh}$ as extrapolated from the inverse local spin susceptibility $\chi^{-1}_\mathrm{loc}(T)$. The extrapolations from different numerical methods are found to be in satisfactory agreement. []{data-label="fig2.7"}](fig9.eps){width="45.00000%"}
Magnetic properties {#sec4}
===================
External magnetic field {#sec4.1}
-----------------------
![(Color online) Phase-diagram of the PAM near the Mott insulating state as a function of temperature and hole-doping. The diagram is obtained from $\Im\Sigma_p(\iome\rightarrow0)$. The dotted line indicates the crossover temperature scale $T_\mathrm{coh}$. []{data-label="fig2.9"}](fig10.eps){width="50.00000%"}
We have shown that hole-doping the Mott insulating phase of the periodic Anderson model leads to peculiar charge carriers, so that the motion of the created $p$-holes occurs through the formation of Zhang-Rice singlets, in which the spins of the conduction electrons are anti-ferromagnetically correlated with the localized spins. As a consequence, we expect that a magnetic field can have important and surprising effects on this phase, showing a further difference with respect to a standard Fermi liquid.
In the model regime investigated in this work, the main source of magnetism comes from the $f$-electrons. The conduction band is almost completely filled, so that the magnetization of the few singly occupied orbitals, favored by hole doping, is not expected to contribute significantly to the magnetic properties of the system.
Nevertheless, conduction band electrons can be indirectly affected by the magnetic polarization of the $f$-orbital moments, through their local binding. To illustrate this point, we show in the evolution of the low energy part of $\Im\Sigma_p(\iome)$ as a function of a uniform magnetic field $\mathbf{B}$. Apparently the NFL state turns into a normal metallic state by the action of an external magnetic field. It is however worth noting that the Fermi liquid is recovered for $B\simeq0.05D$, a huge value if compared with experimentally accessible fields. This large value is a direct consequence of the large (order one) value of $\tpd$, chosen to emphasize the hybridization effects and their role in the conduction properties of the model. Smaller and more realistic values of this parameter are expected to reduce the critical field by reducing the charge fluctuations at correlated $f$-orbitals.
The crossover to a Fermi liquid state driven by external magnetic field is not surprising in light of our analysis. Upon increasing the magnetic field a larger and larger number of local $f$-moments are polarized. When the moments are aligned, the $p$-holes can move essentially freely in the ferromagnetic background without breaking the singlet state with the localized spins. Therefore the source of scattering disappears and the metallic state recovers the Fermi-liquid coherence. In other words the polarization of $f$-orbital local moments allows the conduction electron cloud to dynamically screen the correlated electrons local moments, dramatically increasing the coherence scale of the system.
The coherent motion of the doped carriers with the opposite spin of the localized momenta (majority spin) should then be balanced by the insulating nature of the minority spins carriers. This effect is illustrated in the . In this figure we show the behavior of both spin species conduction electrons Green’s function for the same strengths of the external magnetic field as used in . Left panel shows the increasing metalization of the majority spin charge carriers, whereas in the right panel we show how minority spins are driven towards an insulating state by increasing magnetic field.
![(Color online) Imaginary part of the majority-spin $p$-electron self-energy for increasing external magnetic field $\mathbf{B}$. The data are from QMC solution at $T=0.016$ and $\d=0.05$. []{data-label="fig3.1"}](fig11.eps){width="45.00000%"}
![Imaginary part of conduction band electron Green’s function $\Im G_{p\s}(\iome)$ for $T=0.016$, $\d=0.05$ and increasing strength of external magnetic field. Data from QMC calculations. []{data-label="fig3.2"}](fig12.eps){width="45.00000%"}
Anti-ferromagnetic ordering {#sec4.2}
---------------------------
At low temperature, we expect the development of anti-ferromagnetic (AFM) correlations a result of super-exchange between neighboring $f$-electrons assisted by the hybridization with $p$-orbital states. In this section we investigate the onset of an AFM long-range ordered state and its effect on the coherence scale using the extension of the DMFT equations to long-range order detailed in Appendix \[apx2\].
To begin with we report in the staggered magnetization $m_{AF}=
1/N\sum_i (-1)^{i} \bra n_{fi\up}-n_{fi\dw}\ket$ as a function of the temperature for various doping. The transition appears to be of second order in the whole doping region. The Néel temperature $T_N$, extracted from a power-law fit of the data, is maximum at zero doping and decreases by adding holes, as in the single-band Hubbard model. [^1]
The onset of an AFM ordering of the local $f$-moments reinstates the Fermi liquid properties in the tiny hole-doped regime. This effect is illustrated in the left panel of , where we present the evolution of the imaginary part of $\Sigma_{p\s}(\iome)$ from the paramagnetic NFL phase to the AFM ordered phase. The large finite intercept present in NFL phase is driven to zero in the AFM ordered phase. Nevertheless, the metallic character of the solution is preserved across the transition, as illustrated in the right panel of the same figure by comparing the imaginary parts of the conduction electrons Green’s functions in the two phases. The ordering of the local moments in a Néel state, allows the doped charge carriers to form coherent electronic waves (with doubled wave-vector) and to get delocalized. However, as mentioned above, the AFM state is only stable in a small window of doping and the NFL remains stable for a wide range of parameters.
![(Color online) Main panel: Staggered magnetization $m_{AF}$ as a function of temperature and increasing value of hole-doping. The data are from full ED calculations. []{data-label="fig3.3"}](fig13.eps){width="45.00000%"}
Magnetic stability {#sec4.3}
------------------
The common wisdom about systems of concentrated impurities described by the PAM is that long-range magnetic ordering is likely to set in, especially if the metallic state is weakened by correlations as in our case.
Our results for the AFM state suggest instead a remarkable stability of the incoherent metallic state as the long-range order is confined to low temperature and small doping concentration. In this section we discuss the physical origin of this surprising result.
At small doping near the Mott insulating state neighboring $f$-orbital electrons develop AFM correlations as a results of super-exchange. These processes are of the fourth order in the hybridization with a leading energy scale of the order: [@Fazekas] $J_{SE} \propto {W_{\rm eff}}^2/U\sim \tpd^4/\Delta^2 U$
![(Color online) Conduction electrons self-energy $\Im\Sigma_{p\s}(\iome)$ (left panel) and Green’s function $\Im{G}_p(\iome)$ (right panel). Data from full ED calculations for $\d=0.01$ and $T=0.005$. []{data-label="fig3.4"}](fig14.eps){width=".45\textwidth"}
On the other hand it is easy to realize that at large doping [*ferromagnetic*]{} correlations are expected because of the fact that the doped carriers are locked in singlets with the localized $f$-spins. In an AFM or disordered background, the motion of the $p$-holes requires to break the singlet and it is therefore strongly inhibited, leading to the lack of coherence that we discussed at length. Moreover it leaves a local moment unscreened, increasing the fluctuations in the local magnetization. Conversely, a ferromagnetic alignment of the localized spins allows for an unperturbed delocalization of the carriers, with a mechanism which is closely reminiscent of the double-exchange,[@Zener51; @Anderson55; @deGennes60] where the coupling between conduction electrons and localized spins is given by the ferromagnetic Hund’s coupling.
Therefore, upon increasing the doping the tendency to form AFM ordering is contrasted by the increased relevance of the kinetic energy and eventually it becomes more favorable to sacrifice the gain in super-exchange energy in order to gain the kinetic energy associated to the ferromagnetic background. This leads, most importantly, to an intermediate region between the two regimes in which the local magnetization is strongly fluctuating.
From this discussion it is natural to associate the fluctuations of the local magnetization to the scattering mechanism that leads to the poor coherence. To test this idea we study the response of the system in the AFM ordered metallic phase to the application of a uniform magnetic field $\mathbf{B}$ which will clearly favor the ferromagnetic tendency.
![(Color online) Intensity plot of $\Im\Sigma_p(\omega\to0)$ as a function of external magnetic field $\mathbf{B}$ and $T$ at fixed doping $\d = 0.01$. For visualization, the data have been normalized to $\max\{\Im\Sigma_p(\omega_n)\}$ at each ($\mathbf{B}$, $T$). Dashed lines are drawn to better visualize the crossover regions in the phase-diagram. []{data-label="fig3.5"}](fig15.eps){width="50.00000%"}
The results are summarized in the phase diagram of , determined again using $\Im\Sigma_p(\iome\rightarrow0)$. Details of the calculations are given in Appendix \[apx2\]. Doping is fixed to $\d=0.01$, safely into the AFM ordered region in the limit $\mathbf{B}\rightarrow0$.
The phase-diagram shows that the AFM order survives the effects of the external magnetic field up to small strengths ($B\simeq0.01$). In this region the solution keeps the coherent metallic character enforced by the long-range magnetic ordering. Nevertheless, for larger values of the magnetic field the system is driven to an incoherent state with finite-temperature NFL behavior, as indicated by the increased scattering (light color). In this regime the large applied field tends to magnetically polarize the AFM ordered $f$-moments, producing their strong frustration and ultimately leading to the formation of an incoherent magnetic background for the motion of the doped carriers. Further increasing the strength of the magnetic field triggers the formation of a ferromagnetic ordering of the $f$-moments and a fully polarized (coherent) metallic state (right dark coloured area).
The most striking observation is that the present diagram faithfully mirrors the diagram as a function of doping, clearly suggesting that the evolution of the conduction properties as a function of doping is associated to the transition from the AFM state to the ferromagnetic regime and that the poorly coherent metal establishes precisely in the intermediate region, dominated by the local spin fluctuations which appear as the source of the scattering mechanism which opposes to the coherent motion of the holes.
Conclusions and perspectives {#conclusion}
============================
In this work we presented a detailed dynamical mean-field theory study of the properties of the unconventional metallic state obtained by doping with holes the Mott insulator in the periodic Anderson model. We discuss in details the non-Fermi liquid behavior of the system and the mechanism that is behind the suppression of the coherence scale.
In this regime the holes have mainly $p$-character, but they tend to bind to the correlated $f$-electrons to form a Zhang-Rice-like singlet state. The formation of this composite object leads to a highly incoherent metallic state which deviates from a standard Fermi-liquid above a coherence temperature which decreases very rapidly upon reducing doping, and it is much smaller than the effective Fermi energy that one could estimate from the degree of correlation of the system, $T_\mathrm{coh}\ll ZD$.
We characterize this anomalous behavior by studying the scattering properties of the carriers and by computing the inverse lifetime and local spin susceptibility, which allow us to quantitatively estimate the coherence temperature characterizing the breakdown of the standard Fermi liquid and to describe the onset of an incoherent metal with finite lifetime.
The highly incoherent metal is unstable towards anti-ferromagnetic ordering only at very small doping, while at large doping ferromagnetic correlations develop and favour a regular metallic behavior supported by a mechanism which reminds the double-exchange physics. The intermediate region, where the motion of the holes is not coherent, is therefore dominated by large fluctuations of the $f$-spins, which provide the scattering channel responsible of the finite lifetime of the carriers.
The relation between magnetic fluctuations and the breakdown of the standard FL scenario is emphasized by observing that an external uniform magnetic field, which obviously destroys AFM ordering favoring a ferromagnetic alignment, mirrors the effect of doping and leads again to a wide region of high incoherence between the two magnetically ordered states.
We emphasize that the path to poor coherence discussed in this paper only depends on two general features of strongly correlated materials, namely the Mott physics which leads to the localization of carriers and multi-orbital physics necessary to the local singlet formation. In this light, we expect that the mechanism outlined here can be a rather general source of violation of Fermi liquid paradigm and incoherent behavior, and it can be relevant for example to heavy fermions, but also, with some important differences related to the d-wave symmetry of the Zhang-Rice singlets, to the cuprate superconductors.
Finally, a natural question to address is to what extent our findings can be considered the local portrait of the presence of a quantum critical point, hidden by the absence of spatial fluctuations. Indeed, the existence of a quantum critical point in the PAM, although in a different model regime, has already been pointed in Ref. , using cluster extension of the DMFT. The development of our work along this direction, in order to clarify the fate of the small coherence scale in presence of short-range spatial fluctuations, is left for future research.
A.A., G.S. and M.R. thank M. Gabay, D.J. Garcia, E. Miranda for the many useful discussions and suggestions. A.A. is also grateful to V. Dobrosavljević. A.A. acknowledges support from the ESRT Marie-Curie program during part of this work. L.dM. acknowledges support from the Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR-09-RPDOC-019-01) and the RTRA “Triangle de la Physique". A.A. and M.C. are financed by European Research Council under FP7/ERC Starting Independent Research Grant “SUPERBAD" (Grant Agreement n. 240524)
Two-orbital effective impurity model {#apx1}
====================================
The calculation of physical quantities internal to the local “$pf$-dimer“, such as the moment-moment correlation function $\bra m_{zp}\cdot m_{zf}\ket$ can be performed within single-site DMFT using an alternative formulation of the effective impurity problem in which the local p-orbital is not integrated out in the construction of the effective action. Thus the original lattice system is reduced to the problem of a single dimer embedded in an electronic bath. The corresponding effective action has a $2\times 2$ matrix structure in the orbital space and reads: The Weiss Field $\hat{\cal G}_0^{-1}(\iome)$ describes the local quantum fluctuations at the tagged dimer. The Bethe lattice self-consistency becomes
The DMFT algorithm for the two-orbital representation proceeds as in the standard casse. The effective two-orbital impurity problem is solved to determine the impurity Green’s functions: $$G^{\mathrm imp}_\a(\iome)=-i\bra \a\, \a^+ \ket_{\hat{S'}_{\rm eff}}$$ with $\a=p,\, f$. Next, the conduction electron self-energy $\Sigma_p$ can be determined using the Dyson equation and used to evaluate the local Green’s function $G_p$ which is necessary to update the local Weiss field. The whole algorithm is iterated until convergence is reached.
Long range order {#apx2}
================
The DMFT equations can be extended to describe phases with long range magnetic ordering[@rmp]. Here we derive the equations for the anti-ferromagnetic order in the two-orbital effective problem, considering also the effect of a uniform magnetic field. Similar equations can be derived for the single-orbital effective model.
On a bipartite lattice crystal as our Bethe lattice, we can define two sub-lattices $A$ and $B$, such that nearest-neighbor hopping always connects one $A$-site with a $B$-site. Then we can introduce a four-component spinor with orbital and sub-lattice indices so that the bare lattice propagator takes the form: $$\hat{G}_{0\ka\s}^{-1}=
\begin{pmatrix}
\a_{A} & -\epsk & -\tpd & 0 \\
-\epsk & \a_{B} & 0 & -\tpd \\
-\tpd & 0 & \iome-\ed0+\m_{A} & 0 \\
0 & -\tpd & 0 & \iome-\ed0+\m_{B}
\end{pmatrix}$$ with $\a_{s}=\iome-\ep0+\m_{s}$ and $s=A,B$. The corresponding Green’s functions are obtained via the Dyson equation with the diagonal self-energy matrix with components $\{0,0,\Sigma_{A\s},\Sigma_{B\s}\}$. The $p$-electrons local Green’s functions, required to close the DMFT equations, now read: where:
In the case of anti-ferromagnetic ordering it is not necessary to take explicitly into account both sublattices. Observing that: $$\Sigma_{A\s}(\iome)=\Sigma_{B-\s}(\iome)=\Sigma_\s(\iome)$$ and thus: we can eliminate one of the two sublattices and recover a $2\times 2$ formalism with a Weiss field given by $$\hat{\cal G}_{0\s}^{-1}(\iomn) =
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\a_\s -\frac{D^2}{4} \,G_{p-\s}(\iome) & -\tpd \\
-\tpd & \iomn +\mu_\s -\ed0
\end{array} \right)$$
The local conduction electron Green’s function $G_{p\s}(\iome)$ can be expressed in terms of the following Hilbert transform: which closes the set of DMFT equations.
In presence of a uniform magnetic field $\mathbf{B}$ in the ordered phase of the system, the symmetry relation between the two sublattices does not hold. Therefore the DMFT solution requires to explicitly consider the two sublattices and the self-consistency equations for the four components of the Weiss field $\GG_{0\s s}(\iome)$ ($s=A,B$ and $\overline{s}=B,A$) read where the coupling to the magnetic field $\mathbf{B}$ has been included in a redefinition of the chemical potential $\overline{\mu}_{s\,\s}=\m_{s\s}+\s\mathbf{B}/2$. This means that at each iteration we need to solve two impurity models, one for each sub-lattice and that the solution of one sub-lattice will determine the Weiss field for the other.
[^1]: The nature of the transition makes the precise determination of the doping value at which the ordering temperature vanishes numerically hard. Nevertheless, the data available at smaller doping concentrations suggest the AFM region to be bounded by $\delta=0.1$ at zero temperature
|
---
author:
- Norman Haag
- Daniel Lüftner
- Florian Haag
- Johannes Seidel
- 'Leah L. Kelly'
- Giovanni Zamborlini
- Matteo Jugovac
- Vitaliy Feyer
- Martin Aeschlimann
- Peter Puschnig
- Mirko Cinchetti
- Benjamin Stadtmüller
title: 'Signatures of an Atomic Crystal in the Band Structure of a Molecular Thin Film - Supplemental Material'
---
Sample Preparation Procedure
============================
The C$_{60}$ films were grown in situ on an Ag(111) single crystal. Prior to the deposition of C$_{60}$, the Ag(111) crystal surface was prepared by repeated cycles of argon ion bombardment and subsequent annealing. The quality and cleanness of the Ag(111) surface was confirmed by the existence of well defined diffraction spots in low energy electron diffraction (LEED) with narrow line profiles as well as by the presence of the Shockley surface state in momentum resolved photoemission spectroscopy. The C$_{60}$ films were subsequently grown by molecular beam epitaxy using a commercial Knudsen cell evaporator (Kentax GmbH) at a sublimation temperature of $633\,$K. The film thickness was controlled by evaporation time and molecular flux and verified after the deposition procedure by core level spectroscopy of the C1s and Ag3d levels. In our study, the film thickness was determined to be $(5.0\pm 0.7)\,$ML.
Crystal Structure of the C$_{60}$ thin film
===========================================
The crystalline structure of the C$_{60}$ thin film was investigated by LEED. An exemplary LEED pattern of this film is shown in Fig. 1a. The best agreement between our LEED data and theoretical simulations was obtained for a superposition of three different structures. The major part of the LEED pattern can be described by a $(2\sqrt{3}\times 2\sqrt{3})R30^\circ$ superstructure in agreement with previous studies [@Shi.2012; @Tamai.2005]. The simulated LEED pattern is superimposed onto the experimental data in Fig. 1b as blue circles. In addition, we find diffraction spots of a $(2\sqrt{3}\times 2\sqrt{3})R30^\circ$ superstructure rotated by $\pm18^\circ$ (see LEED simulation in Fig. 1c) and rotated by $\pm 30^\circ$ (see LEED simulation in Fig. 1d). Note that the intensity of the diffraction spots of the $(2\sqrt{3}\times 2\sqrt{3})R30^\circ$$\pm30^\circ$ structure is very low pointing to a marginal relative contribution of this structure to the C$_{60}$ thin film. In our further analysis, the latter domain can hence be neglected.
![LEED image for a multilayer of C$_{60}$ grown on Ag(111) using a beam energy of $25\,$eV (a).The structure is a superposition of two contributions: a $(2\sqrt{3}\times 2\sqrt{3})R30^\circ$ superstructure (blue circles in (b)) and two domains of a $(2\sqrt{3}\times 2\sqrt{3})R30^\circ$ superstructure rotated by $\pm18^\circ$ (orange circles in (c)). A minor contribution stems from additional domains rotated by $\pm30^\circ$ (green circles in (d)). []{data-label="fig:Fig1"}](Fig_SI1.pdf){height="5.25cm"}
Experimental Methods
====================
All photoemission experiments were conducted at the NanoEsca end station at the Elettra Synchrotron Light Source, Trieste. The momentum-resolved photoemission yield was recorded with the photoemission electron microscopy system NanoEsca (Focus GmbH) [@Kromker.2008] which was operated in k-space mode. All experiments were performed in a fixed experimental geometry, i.e., with a fixed angle of incidence of the synchrotron beam of $65^\circ$ with respect to the surface normal as shown in Fig. 2. Photoemission data were recorded with p- and s-polarized light. For p-polarization the electric field vector (blue arrow) is parallel to the plane of incidence and for s-polarized it is perpendicular to the plane of incidence, i.e., it is located parallel to surface plane.
![Experimental geometry of the polarization dependent photoemission experiments.[]{data-label="fig:Fig2"}](Fig_SI2.pdf){width="5cm"}
Computational Methods
=====================
The electronic structure calculations and the simulations of the momentum maps are based on ab-initio computations within the framework of density functional theory (DFT) employing the VASP code [@Kresse1993; @Kresse1999]. The C$_{60}$ film is modeled by a free-standing layer of C$_{60}$-molecules in a hexagonal unit cell with an in-plane lattice parameter of [19.85Å]{} containing four C$_{60}$ molecules with an additional vacuum layer of about [15Å]{} in the out-of-plane direction. This structure corresponds to a (111)-cut through the low-temperature bulk crystal structure of C$_{60}$. For the geometry relaxations of the internal ionic degrees of freedom, the generalized gradient approximation (GGA) is used in conjunction with the Perdew-Burke-Ernzerhof (PBE) functional [@Perdew1996] and the van-der-Waals corrections according to the Tkatchenko-Scheffler method are added.[@Tkatchenko2009] Using the projector augmented wave (PAW) method,[@Bloechl1994] a plane-wave cutoff of $500\,$eV is employed. For $k$-point sampling, a $\Gamma$-centered grid of $8 \times 8 \times 1$ points is used and a first-order Methfessel- Paxton smearing of $0.1\,$eV is utilized. Based on the relaxed adsorption geometries, we have computed the (projected) density of states. The Kohn-Sham eigenvalues and eigenstates are also the basis for the simulations of the photoemission intensity within the framework of photoemission tomography. Here, we have approximated the final state of the photoemission process by a plane-wave[@Luftner.2017] and assumed an inner potential $V_0$ of $13\,$eV[@Hasegawa.1998]. For the simulations of the constant binding energy momentum maps and the band maps, an $8 \times 8 \times 4$ sampling of the Brillouin zone and Gaussian broadenings of $0.05\,$Å$^{-1}$ and $0.1\,$eV in the momentum and energy axes have been chosen, respectively.
Rotational Domains in Photoemission Tomography Simulations
==========================================================
![(a) Structural model of the $(2\sqrt{3}\times 2\sqrt{3})R30^\circ$ structure with four C$_{60}$ molecules per unit cell. (b) Constant energy map of the $(2\sqrt{3}\times 2\sqrt{3})R30^\circ$ structure at E$_{\mathrm{B}}=3.5\,$eV simulated by PT. The same CE map is superimposed with the lattice of the surface Brillouin zones of the C$_{60}$ structure in (c). The CE maps of the $(2\sqrt{3}\times 2\sqrt{3})R30^\circ$$\pm18^\circ$ are shown in (d) and (e). (f) Total momentum-resolved photoemission yield calculated by adding up the CE maps of the different structural domains.[]{data-label="fig:Fig2"}](Fig_SI3.pdf){height="9cm"}
The high accuracy of our photoemission tomography (PT) simulations for the valence bands of C$_{60}$ relies on a proper treatment of the additional structural domains observed in our LEED data. The band structure calculation and the PT simulations were performed for a freestanding $(2\sqrt{3}\times 2\sqrt{3})R30^\circ$ structure with four C$_{60}$ molecules per unit cell, see section *Computational Methods* above. A structural model of the unit cell used in the simulations is shown in Fig. 3a. An exemplary constant energy (CE) map of the simulated momentum resolved photoemission yield is shown in Fig. 3b for one energy within the HOMO-1 band (E$_{\mathrm{B}}=3.5\,$eV). This binding energy corresponds to one of the binding energy of the HOMO-1 CE maps discussed in Fig. 2 of the main manuscript. The CE map consists of a regular arrangement of hexagonal emission features which follow the periodicity of the $(2\sqrt{3}\times 2\sqrt{3})R30^\circ$ superstructure in momentum space. The different hexagonal emission pattern represent the C$_{60}$ valence band structure in higher surface Brillouin zones as clearly visible in Fig. 3c where the surface Brillouin zones are superimposed onto the same CE map as white hexagons. The directions and high symmetry points of the surface Brillouin zones are indicated in the inset.\
![(a) The simulated momentum resolved photoemission yield of the $(2\sqrt{3}\times 2\sqrt{3})R30^\circ$ at E$_{\mathrm{B}}=3.9\,$eV, $3.5\,$eV and $2.9\,$eV. (b) Total momentum-resolved photoemission yield of the C$_{60}$ thin film at the same binding energies.[]{data-label="fig:Fig4"}](Fig_SI4.pdf){height="9cm"}
The momentum resolved photoemission yield of the $(2\sqrt{3}\times 2\sqrt{3})R30^\circ$$\pm18^\circ$ superstructure can be obtained by rotating the CE maps of the $(2\sqrt{3}\times 2\sqrt{3})R30^\circ$ (Fig. 3b) superstructure by $\pm18^\circ$, see Fig. 3d and e. The total momentum resolved photoemission yield is finally simulated by adding up the contributions of the three structural domains: $$I(k_x,k_y,E_B)=\alpha \times I_{ 0^\circ} (k_x,k_y,E_B) + \beta\times \left (I_{ +18^\circ} (k_x,k_y,E_B)+ I_{-18^\circ} (k_x,k_y,E_B) \right )$$ Here, $\alpha$, and $\beta$ denote the relative contributions of the two different structural domains. The best agreement between our PT simulations and the experiment was obtained for an almost equal ratio of the $\pm0^\circ$ and the $\pm18^\circ$ domains with $\alpha=1$ and $\beta=0.9$. The corresponding CE map is shown in Fig. 3f and in Fig. 2 of the main manuscript. Note that no spectroscopic signature of the $(2\sqrt{3}\times 2\sqrt{3})R30^\circ$$\pm30^\circ$ structure was observed in our momentum-resolved photoemission data. This is in line with the extremely weak intensity of the diffractions spots of this particular rotational domain in our LEED data discussed above. We therefore neglect any contribution of the $(2\sqrt{3}\times 2\sqrt{3})R30^\circ$$\pm30^\circ$ superstructure in our PT simulations.
The same procedure is repeated for the second binding energy of the valence band structure shown in Fig. 2 of the main manuscript. The momentum-resolved photoemission yield of the $(2\sqrt{3}\times 2\sqrt{3})R30^\circ$ superstructure as well as the total photoemission yield including both rotated domains is shown in Fig. 4 for three characteristic binding energies of the HOMO-1 band.
Challenges in Photoemission Tomography Simulations of Localized Molecular Orbitals
==================================================================================
![Experimental (a) and simulated (b) energy vs. momentum cut through the 3D ARPES data cube extracted along the $\overline{\Gamma}$ $\overline{\mathrm{M}}$ $\overline{\Gamma}'$-direction of the surface Brillouin zone of a crystalline C$_{60}$ thin film in the binding energy range of the $\sigma$-states. The yellow line indicates the intramolecular band dispersion as guide-to-the-eye.[]{data-label="fig:Fig5"}](Fig_SI5.pdf){height="6cm"}
Despite the overall excellent qualitative agreement between our momentum-resolved photoemission data and the PT simulations of the localized $\sigma$-state of C$_{60}$ at large binding energies E$_{\mathrm{B}}>5\,$eV, there are also minor but distinct deviations between experiment and simulation in Fig. 4 of the main manuscript. For instance, we observe a slightly different energy and momentum position of the molecular $\sigma$- states in the energy vs. momentum cuts in Fig. 5 leading to a different slope of the almost linear intramolecular dispersion curve. This discrepancy also coincides with a different radius and relative photoemission intensity of the concentric molecular emission features for different E$_\mathrm{B}$ in experiment and theory. We attribute these deviations to the strong k$_\mathrm{\bot}$ dependency of the 3D Fourier transform of the localized molecular states of non-planar molecules. To support this conclusion, we depict the k$_\mathrm{\bot}$ dependency of the 3D Fourier transform of the highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) of a free C$_{60}$ molecule in Fig. 6. Fig. 6a shows a 2D cut through the 3D Fourier transform of the C$_{60}$ HOMO in the k$_\mathrm{||}$- k$_\mathrm{\bot}$ plane. This 2D cut already illustrates the complex intensity pattern of the 3D Fourier transform with which varies as a function of both k$_\mathrm{||}$ and k$_\mathrm{\bot}$. Consequently, small variations of the total momentum k$_\mathrm{final}$ of the electrons in the photoemission final state result in a different spherical cut through the 3D Fourier transform of the localized molecular orbitals. This in turn severely alters the theoretically predicted CE emission characteristics of the HOMO as shown for three exemplary CE maps of the HOMO simulated for three different momentum k$_\mathrm{final}$ in Fig. 6b. In contrast, the k$_\mathrm{\bot}$ dependency of the 3D Fourier transform is almost neglectable for planar molecules. Fig. 6c shows a k$_\mathrm{||}$- k$_\mathrm{\bot}$ cut through the 3D Fourier transform of the HOMO of the planar molecule PTCDA. The 3D Fourier transformed reveals only a weak intensity modulation along the k$_\mathrm{\bot}$-direction. Consequently, the simulated momentum-dependent photoemission yield of the PTCDA HOMO is almost independent of the total electron momentum k$_\mathrm{final}$ in the photoemission final state k$_\mathrm{final}$. The latter was recently demonstrated experimentally by Weiss et al. for PTCDA/Ag(110)[@Weiss.2015]. This comparison clearly underlines the crucial role of the final state momentum k$_\mathrm{final}$ for the PT of 3D molecules. The latter can be influenced either by the experimental uncertainty of the inner potential V$_0$ of the material or by small deviations of the initial state energy of molecular states in the band structure calculations and the experiment. In the case of C$_{60}$, the self-interaction errors in the band structure calculations result in a significant shift of the $\sigma$-states with respect to the experiment. We hence propose that this effect is responsible for the qualitative difference observed for the PT simulations and the experimentally obtained CE maps of the C$_{60}$ $\sigma$-states.
![(a) 2D k$_\mathrm{||}$ - k$_\mathrm{\bot}$ cut through the 3D Fourier transform of the C$_{60}$ HOMO. (b) Momentum-dependent photoemission yield of the C$_{60}$ HOMO for different total momentum k$_\mathrm{final}$ of the electrons in the photoemission final state. (c) and (d) show similar plots for the HOMO of the planar model molecule PTCDA.[]{data-label="fig:Fig6"}](Fig_SI6.pdf){height="9cm"}
[11]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}bibnamefont \#1[\#1]{}bibfnamefont \#1[\#1]{}citenamefont \#1[\#1]{}url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\[2\][\#2]{} \[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{}
, , , ****, ().
, , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , , , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , , , , , ****, ().
|
---
abstract: 'Let $p$ be a multilinear polynomial in several non-commuting variables with coefficients in an arbitrary field $K$. Kaplansky conjectured that for any $n$, the image of $p$ evaluated on the set $M_n(K)$ of $n$ by $n$ matrices is either zero, or the set of scalar matrices, or the set $sl_n(K)$ of matrices of trace $0$, or all of $M_n(K)$. This conjecture was proved for $n=2$ when $K$ is closed under quadratic extensions. In this paper the conjecture is verified for $K=\mathbb{R}$ and $n=2$, also for semi-homogeneous polynomials $p$, with a partial solution for an arbitrary field $K$.'
address: 'Department of mathematics, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel'
author:
- Sergey Malev
title: 'The images of non-commutative polynomials evaluated on $2\times 2$ matrices over an arbitrary field.'
---
=5
[^1] [^2]
Introduction
============
This paper is the continuation of [@BMR1], in which Kanel-Belov, Rowen and the author considered the question, reputedly raised by Kaplansky, of the possible image set ${{\operatorname{Im}\,}}p$ of a polynomial $p$ on matrices. (L’vov later reformulated this for multilinear polynomials, asking whether ${{\operatorname{Im}\,}}p$ is a vector subspace.)
For an arbitrary polynomial, the question was settled for the case when $K$ is a finite field by Chuang [@Ch], who proved that a subset $S \subseteq
M_n(K)$ containing $0$ is the image of a polynomial with constant term zero, if and only if $S$ is invariant under conjugation. Later Chuang’s result was generalized by Kulyamin [@Ku1], [@Ku2] for graded algebras.
For homogeneous polynomials, the question was settled for the case when the field $K$ is algebraically closed by Špenko [@S], who proved that the union of the zero matrix and a standard open set closed under conjugation by ${{\operatorname{GL}}}_n(K)$ and nonzero scalar multiplication is the image of a homogeneous polynomial.
In [@BMR1] the field $K$ was required to be quadratically closed. Even for the field $\mathbb{R}$ of real numbers Kaplansky’s question remained open, leading people to ask what happens if the field is not quadratically closed? This paper provides a positive answer.
The main result in this note is for $n=2$, settling the major part of Kaplansky’s Conjecture in this case, proving the following result (see §\[def1\] for terminology):
\[main\] If $p$ is a multilinear polynomial evaluated on the matrix ring $M_2(K)$ (where $K$ is an arbitrary field), then ${{\operatorname{Im}\,}}p$ is either $\{0\}$, or $K$ (the set of scalar matrices), or ${{\operatorname{sl}}}_2\subseteq{{\operatorname{Im}\,}}p$. If $K=\mathbb{R}$ then ${{\operatorname{Im}\,}}p$ is either $\{0\}$, or $K$, or ${{\operatorname{sl}}}_2$ or $M_2$.
Also a classification of the possible images of homogeneous polynomials evaluated on $2\times 2$ matrices is provided:
\[homogen\] Let $p(x_1,\dots,x_m)$ be a semi-homogeneous polynomial evaluated on $2~\times~2$ matrices with real entries. Then ${{\operatorname{Im}\,}}p$ is either $\{0\}$, or the set ${\mathbb{R}}_{\geq 0}$, i.e., the matrices $\lambda I$ for $\lambda\geq 0$, or the set ${\mathbb{R}}$ of scalar matrices, or the set ${\mathbb{R}}_{\leq 0}$, i.e., the matrices $\lambda I$ for $\lambda\leq 0$, or the set ${{\operatorname{sl}}}_{2,\geq0}({\mathbb{R}})$ of trace zero matrices with non-negative discriminant, or the set ${{\operatorname{sl}}}_{2,\leq 0}({\mathbb{R}})$ of trace zero matrices with non-positive discriminant, or the set ${{\operatorname{sl}}}_2({\mathbb{R}})$, or is Zariski dense in $M_2({\mathbb{R}})$.
Note that in both Theorems \[main\] and \[homogen\] we can consider any real closed field instead of ${\mathbb{R}}$.
Definitions and basic preliminaries {#def1}
===================================
By $K\langle x_1,\dots,x_m\rangle$ we denote the free $K$-algebra generated by noncommuting variables $x_1,\dots,x_m$, and refer to the elements of $K\langle
x_1,\dots,x_m\rangle$ as [*polynomials*]{}. Consider any algebra $R$ over a field $K$. A polynomial $p\in K\langle
x_1,\dots,x_m\rangle$ is called a [*polynomial identity*]{} (PI) of the algebra $R$ if $p(a_1,\dots,a_m)=0$ for all $a_1,\dots,a_m\in R$; $p\in K\langle x_1,\dots,x_m\rangle$ is a [*central polynomial*]{} of $R$, if for any $a_1,\dots,a_m\in R$ one has $\mbox{$p(a_1,\dots,a_m)\in {{\operatorname{Cent}}}(R)$}$ but $p$ is not a PI of $R$. A polynomial $p\in K\langle x_1,\dots,x_m\rangle$ is called [*multilinear*]{} of degree $m$ if it is linear with respect to each variable. Thus, a polynomial is multilinear if it is a polynomial of the form $$p(x_1,\dots,x_m)=\sum_{\sigma\in S_m}c_\sigma
x_{\sigma(1)}\cdots x_{\sigma(m)},$$ where $S_m$ is the symmetric group in $m$ letters, and $c_\sigma\in K$.
We recall the following well-known lemmas (for arbitrary $n$) whose proofs can be found in [@BMR1]:
\[graph\]Let $p$ be a multilinear polynomial. If $a_i$ are matrix units, then $p(a_1,\dots,a_m)$ is either $0$, or $c\cdot e_{ij}$ for some $i\neq j$, or a diagonal matrix.
\[linear\]Let $p$ be a multilinear polynomial. The linear span of ${{\operatorname{Im}\,}}p$ is either $\{0\}$, $K$, ${{\operatorname{sl}}}_n$, or $M_n(K)$. If ${{\operatorname{Im}\,}}p$ is not $\{0\}$ or $K$, then for any $i\neq j$ the matrix unit $e_{ij}$ belongs to ${{\operatorname{Im}\,}}p$.
We need a slight modification of Amitsur’s theorem, which also is well known:
\[Am1\] The algebra of generic matrices is a domain $D$ which can be embedded in the division algebra UD of central fractions of Amitsur’s algebra of generic matrices. Likewise, UD contains all characteristic coefficients of $D$.
Any trace function can be expressed as the ratio of two central polynomials, in view of [@Row Theorem 1.4.12]; also see [@BR Theorem J, p. 27] which says for any characteristic coefficient $\alpha_k $ of the characteristic polynomial $$\lambda^t + \sum_{k=1}^t (-1)^k \alpha _k \lambda ^{t-k}$$ that $$\label{trace2pol0}
\alpha_k f(a_1, \dots, a_t, r_1, \dots, r_m) = \sum _{k=1}^t
f(T^{k_1}a_1, \dots, T^{k_t} a_t, r_1, \dots, r_m) ,$$ summed over all vectors $(k_1, \dots, k_t)$ where each $k_i \in \{
0, 1 \}$ and $\sum k_i = t,$ where $f$ is any $t$-alternating polynomial (and $t = n^2$). In particular, $$\label{trace2pol}
{{\operatorname{tr}}}(T)f(a_1, \dots, a_t, r_1, \dots, r_m) = \sum _{k=1}^t f(a_1,
\dots, a_{k-1}, Ta_k, a_{k+1} , \dots, a_t, r_1, \dots, r_m) ,$$ so any trace of a polynomial belongs to UD.
We also need the First Fundamental Theorem of Invariant Theory (see [@P Theorem $1.3$])
\[procesi\] Any polynomial invariant of $n\times n$ matrices $A_1,\dots,A_m$ is a polynomial in the invariants ${{\operatorname{tr}}}(A_{i_1}A_{i_2}\cdots
A_{i_k})$, taken over all possible (noncommutative) products of the $A_i$.
We also require one basic fact from the linear algebra:
\[dim2\] Let $V_i$ (for $1\leq i\leq m$) and $V$ be linear spaces over arbitrary field $K$. Let $f(T_1,\dots,T_m): \prod\limits_{i=1}^m V_i\rightarrow V$ be a multilinear mapping (i.e. linear with respect to each $T_i$). Assume there exist two points in ${{\operatorname{Im}\,}}f$ which are not proportional. Then ${{\operatorname{Im}\,}}f$ contains a $2$-dimensional plane. In particular, if $V$ is $2$-dimensional, then ${{\operatorname{Im}\,}}f=V$.
Let us denote for $\mu=(T_1\dots,T_m)$ and $\nu=(T_1',\dots,T_m')\in \prod\limits_{i=1}^m V_i$ $${{\operatorname{Dist}\,}}(\mu,\nu)=\#\{i: T_i\neq T_i'\}.$$ Consider $k=\min\{d:$ there exists $\mu,\nu\in\prod\limits_{i=1}^m V_i$ such that $f(\mu)$ is not proportional to $f(\nu)$ and ${{\operatorname{Dist}\,}}(\mu,\nu)=d\}.$ We know $k\leq m$ by assumptions of lemma. Also $k\geq 1$ since any element of $V$ is proportional to itself. Assume $k=1$. In this case there exist $i$ and $T_1,\dots,T_m,T_i'$ such that $f(T_1,\dots,T_m)$ is not proportional to $f(T_1,\dots,T_{i-1},T_i',T_{i+1},\dots,T_m).$ Therefore $$\langle f(T_1,\dots,T_m),f(T_1,\dots,T_{i-1},T_i',T_{i+1},\dots,T_m)\rangle\subseteq{{\operatorname{Im}\,}}p$$ is $2$-dimensional. Hence we can assume $k\geq 2$. We can enumerate variables and consider $\mu=(T_1,\dots,T_m)$ and $\nu=(T_1',\dots,T_k',T_{k+1},\dots,T_m)$, $v_1=f(\mu)$ is not proportional to $v_2=f(\nu)$. Take any $a,b\in K$. Consider $v_{a,b}=f(aT_1+bT_1',T_2+T_2',\dots,T_k+T_k', T_{k+1},\dots,T_m).$ Let us open the brackets. We have $$v_{a,b}=av_1+bv_2+\sum_{\emptyset\subsetneqq S\subsetneqq\{1,\dots,k\}} c_S f(\theta_S),$$ where $c_S$ equals $a$ if $1\in S$ and $b$ otherwise, and $\theta_S=(\tilde T_1,\dots,\tilde T_k,T_{k+1},\dots,T_m)$ for $\tilde T_i=T_i$ if $i\in S$ or $T_i'$ otherwise. Note that any $\theta_S$ in the sum satisfies ${{\operatorname{Dist}\,}}(\theta_S,\mu)<~k$ and ${{\operatorname{Dist}\,}}(\theta_S,\nu)<k$ therefore $f(\theta_S)$ must be proportional to both $v_1$ and $v_2$ and thus $f(\theta_S)=0$. Therefore $v_{a,b}=av_1+bv_2$ and hence ${{\operatorname{Im}\,}}f$ contains a $2$-dimensional plane.
Assume that $K$ is an arbitrary field and $F\subseteq K$ is a subfield. The set $\{\xi_1,\dots,\xi_k\}\subseteq K$ is called [*generic*]{} (over $F$) if $f(\xi_1,\dots,\xi_k)\neq 0$ for any commutative polynomial $f\in F[x_1,\dots,x_k]$ that takes nonzero values.
\[many-gen\] Assume that $K$ has infinite transcendence degree over $F$. Then for any $k\in{\mathbb{N}}$ there exists a set of generic elements $\{\xi_1,\dots,\xi_k\}\subseteq K$.
$K$ has infinite transcendence degree over $F$. Therefore, there exists an element $\xi_1\in K\setminus \bar F$, where $\bar F$ is an algebraic closure of $F$. Now we consider $F_1=F[\xi_1]$. $K$ has infinite transcendence degree over $F$ and thus has infinite transcendence degree over $F_1$. Therefore there exists an element $\xi_2\in K\setminus \bar F_1$. And we consider the new base field $F_2=F_1[\xi_2]$. We can continue up to any natural number $k$.
We will say that a set of $n\times n$ matrices $\{x_1,\dots,x_m\}\in M_n(K)$ is [*generic*]{} over $F$ if the set of their entries $\{(x_\ell)_{i,j}|1\leq
\ell\leq m;\ 1\leq i,j\leq n\}$ is generic.
Note that according to Lemma \[many-gen\] if $K$ has infinite transcendence degree over $F$ we can take as many generic elements as we need, in particular we can take as many generic matrices as we need.
\[gen-real\] Assume $f:H\rightarrow{\mathbb{R}}$ (where $H\subseteq{\mathbb{R}}^k$ is an open set in $k$-dimensional Euclidean space) is a function that is continuous in a neighborhood of the point $(y_1,\dots,y_k)\in
H$, with $f(y_1,\dots,y_k)<q$. Let $c_i$ be real numbers (in particular the coefficients of some polynomial $p$). Then there exists a set of elements $\{x_1,\dots,x_k\}\subseteq{\mathbb{R}}$ generic over $F={\mathbb{Q}}[c_1,\dots,c_N]$ such that $(x_1,\dots,x_k)\in H$ and $f(x_1,\dots,x_k)<q$.
We denote the $\delta$-neighborhood $N_\delta(x)$ of $x\in{\mathbb{R}}$ as the interval $(x-\delta,x+\delta)\subseteq{\mathbb{R}}$. Fix some small $\delta>0$ such that the product of $\delta$-neighborhoods of $y_k$ lays in $H$. For this particular $\delta$ we consider the $\delta$-neighborhood $N_\delta(y_1)$ of $y_1$: the interval $(y_1-\delta,y_1+\delta)$ is an uncountable set, and therefore there exists $x_1\in N_\delta(y_1)\setminus \bar F$. We consider $F_1=F[x_1]$ and analogically chose $x_2\in N_\delta (y_2)\setminus \bar F_1$ and take $F_2=F_1[x_2]$. In such a way we can take generic elements $x_k\in N_\delta(y_k)$. Note that if $\delta$ is not sufficiently small $f(x_1,\dots,x_k)$ can be larger than $q$, but $$\mathop{f(x_1,\dots,x_k)\rightarrow f(y_1,\dots,y_k)}_{\delta\rightarrow 0}.$$ Thus there exists sufficiently small $\delta$ and generic elements $x_i\in N_\delta(y_i)$ such that $f(x_1,\dots,x_k)<q$.
If $f(y_1,\dots,y_k)>q$, then there exists a set of generic elements $x_i\in{\mathbb{R}}$ such that $f(x_1,\dots,x_k)>q$.
Note that $f$ can be a function defined on a set of matrices. In this case we consider it as a function defined on the matrix entries.
Images of multilinear polynomials {#im-of-pol}
=================================
Assume that $p$ is a multilinear polynomial evaluated on $2\times
2$ matrices over any field $K$. Assume also that $p$ is neither PI nor central. Then, according to Lemmas \[graph\] and \[linear\] there exist matrix units $a_1,\dots,a_m$ such that $p(a_1,\dots,a_m)=e_{12}$. Let us consider the mapping $\chi$ defined on matrix units that switches the indices $1$ and $2$, i.e., $e_{11}\leftrightarrow e_{22}$ and $e_{12}\leftrightarrow
e_{21}$. Now let us consider the mapping $f$ defined on $m$ pairs $T_i=(t_i,\tau_i):$ $$f(T_1,\dots,T_m)=p(t_1a_1+\tau_1\chi(a_1),t_2a_2+\tau_2\chi(a_2),\dots,t_ma_m+\tau_m\chi(a_m)).$$ Now let us open the brackets. We showed in [@BMR1] (see the proof of Lemma 8) that either all nonzero terms are diagonal, or all nonzero terms are off-diagonal ($ce_{12}$ or $ce_{21}$). We have the latter case, so the image of $f$ contains only matrices of the type $c_1e_{12}+c_2e_{21}$. Note that the matrices $e_{12}$ and $e_{21}$ both belong to the image of $f$ since $p(a_1,\dots,a_m)=e_{12}$ and $p(\chi(a_1),\dots,\chi(a_m))=e_{21}$. According to Lemma \[dim2\] the image of $f$ is at least $2$-dimensional, and lies in the $2$-dimensional plane $\langle e_{12}, e_{21}
\rangle.$ Therefore this plane is exactly the image of $f$. Now we are ready to prove the following:
\[genfield\] If $p$ is a multilinear polynomial evaluated on the matrix ring $M_2(K)$ (for an arbitrary field $K$), then ${{\operatorname{Im}\,}}p$ is either $\{0\}$, or $K$, or ${{\operatorname{sl}}}_2\setminus K\subseteq{{\operatorname{Im}\,}}p$.
Let $A$ be any trace zero, non-scalar matrix. Take any vector $v_1$ that is not an eigenvector of $A$. Consider the vector $v_2=Av_1$. Note that $Av_2=A^2v_1=-\det(A)v_1$, and therefore the matrix $A$ with respect to the base $\{v_1,v_2\}$ has the form $c_1e_{12}+c_2e_{21}$, for some $c_i$. Hence $A$ is similar to $c_1e_{12}+c_2e_{21} \in{{\operatorname{Im}\,}}p,$ implying $A\in{{\operatorname{Im}\,}}p$.
\[chr-n2\] Note that for ${{\operatorname{Char}\,}}(K)\neq 2$ (in particular for $K=\mathbb{R}$), $$({{\operatorname{sl}}}_2\setminus K) \cup\{0\}=
{{\operatorname{sl}}}_2\subseteq{{\operatorname{Im}\,}}p.$$
The real case
=============
Throughout this section we assume that $K=\mathbb{R}$. By Lemma \[genfield\] we know that either $p$ is PI, or central, or ${{\operatorname{sl}}}_2\subseteq{{\operatorname{Im}\,}}p$. Assume that ${{\operatorname{sl}}}_2\subsetneqq{{\operatorname{Im}\,}}p$. We will use the following lemma:
\[ineq\] Let $p$ be any multilinear polynomial satisfying ${{\operatorname{sl}}}_2\subsetneqq{{\operatorname{Im}\,}}p$. For any $q\in\mathbb{R}$ there exist generic matrices $x_1,\dots, x_m,y_1,\dots,y_m$ such that for $X=p(x_1,\dots,x_m)$ and $Y=p(y_1,\dots,y_m)$ we have the following: $$\frac{\det X}{{{\operatorname{tr}}}^2 X}\leq q\leq \frac{\det Y}{{{\operatorname{tr}}}^2 Y},$$ where ${{\operatorname{tr}}}^2 M$ denotes the square of the trace of $M$.
We know that ${{\operatorname{sl}}}_2\subseteq{{\operatorname{Im}\,}}p$, in particular for the matrices $\Omega=e_{11}-e_{22}$ and $\Upsilon=e_{12}-e_{21}$ there exist matrices $a_1,\dots,a_m,b_1,\dots,b_m$ such that $p(a_1,\dots,a_m)=\Omega$ and $p(b_1,\dots,b_m)=\Upsilon$. Note $\frac{\det M}{{{\operatorname{tr}}}^2 M}=<q$ if $M$ is close to $\Omega$ and $\frac{\det M}{{{\operatorname{tr}}}^2 M}>q$ if $M$ is close to $\Upsilon$. Now we consider a very small $\delta>0$ such that for any matrices $x_i\in N_\delta(a_i)$ and $y_i\in N_\delta(b_i)$ $$\frac{\det X}{{{\operatorname{tr}}}^2 X}\leq q\leq \frac{\det Y}{{{\operatorname{tr}}}^2 Y},$$ where $X=p(x_1,\dots,x_m)$ and $Y=p(y_1,\dots,y_m)$. Here by $N_\delta(x)$ we denote a $\delta$-neighborhood of $x$, under the max norm $\Arrowvert A \Arrowvert=\max\limits_{i,j} \arrowvert a_{ij} \arrowvert$. According to Lemma \[gen-real\] one can choose generic matrices with such property.
Now we are ready to prove that the image of $g(x_1,\dots,x_m)=\frac{\det p}{{{\operatorname{tr}}}^2 p}$ is everything:
\[anyq\] Let $p$ be any multilinear polynomial satisfying ${{\operatorname{sl}}}_2\subsetneqq{{\operatorname{Im}\,}}p$. Then for any $q\in\mathbb{R}$ there exists a set of matrices $a_1,\dots, a_m$ such that $$\label{eq}
\frac{\det p(a_1,\dots,a_m)}{{{\operatorname{tr}}}^2 p(a_1,\dots,a_m)}= q.$$
Let $q$ be any real number. According to Lemma \[ineq\] there exist generic matrices $x_1,\dots, x_m,y_1,\dots,y_m$ such that for $X=p(x_1,\dots,x_m)$ and $Y=p(y_1,\dots,y_m)$ we have the following: $$\frac{\det X}{{{\operatorname{tr}}}^2 X}\leq q\leq \frac{\det Y}{{{\operatorname{tr}}}^2 Y}.$$ Consider the following matrices: $A_0=p(\tilde x_1,x_2, \dots,x_m)$, where $\tilde x_1$ is either $x_1$ or $-x_1$, such that ${{\operatorname{tr}}}A_0>0$. $A_1=p(\tilde y_1,x_2,\dots,x_m)$, where $\tilde y_1$ is either $y_1$ or $-y_1$ such that ${{\operatorname{tr}}}A_1>0$. Assume that $A_i$, $\tilde x_1$, $\tilde y_1,\dots,\tilde y_i$ are defined. Let $$A_{i+1}=p(\tilde y_1,\dots,\tilde y_i,\tilde y_{i+1},x_{i+2},\dots,x_m)$$ where $\tilde y_{i+1}=\pm y_{i+1}$ is such that ${{\operatorname{tr}}}A_{i+1}>0$. In such a way we defined matrices $A_i$ for $0\leq i\leq m$. Note that for any $2\times 2$ matrix $M$, $$\frac{\det M}{{{\operatorname{tr}}}^2 M}=\frac{\det (-M)}{{{\operatorname{tr}}}^2 (-M)}$$ Note that $A_0=\pm p(x_1,\dots,x_m)$ and $A_m=\pm p(y_1,\dots, y_m);$ hence $$\frac{\det A_0}{{{\operatorname{tr}}}^2 A_0}\leq q\leq \frac{\det A_m}{{{\operatorname{tr}}}^2 A_m}.$$ Therefore there exists $i$ such that $$\frac{\det A_i}{{{\operatorname{tr}}}^2 A_i}\leq q\leq \frac{\det A_{i+1}}{{{\operatorname{tr}}}^2 A_{i+1}}.$$ Since $A_{i}=p(\tilde y_1,\dots,\tilde y_i,x_{i+1},x_{i+2},\dots,x_m)$ and $A_{i+1}=p(\tilde y_1,\dots,\tilde y_{i+1},x_{i+2},\dots,x_m)$, we can consider the matrix function $$M(t)=(1-t)A_i+tA_{i+1}=p(\tilde y_1,\dots,\tilde y_i,(1-t)x_{i+1}+t\tilde y_{i+1},x_{i+2},\dots,x_m),$$ Then ${{\operatorname{Im}\,}}M\subseteq{{\operatorname{Im}\,}}p,$ $M(0)=A_i$, $M(1)=A_{i+1}$ both $M(0)$ and $M(1)$ have positive trace, and $M$ is an affine function. Therefore for any $t\in [0,1]$ $M(t)$ has positive trace. Therefore the function $\psi(t)=\frac{\det M(t)}{{{\operatorname{tr}}}^2 M(t)}$ is well defined on $[0,1]$ and continuous. Also we have $\psi(0)\leq q\leq \psi(1)$. Thus there exists $\tau\in [0,1]$ such that $\psi(\tau)=q$ and thus $M(\tau)\in{{\operatorname{Im}\,}}p$ satisfies equation .
\[discr-not-zero\] Let $p$ be a multilinear polynomial satisfying ${{\operatorname{sl}}}_2\subsetneqq{{\operatorname{Im}\,}}p$. Then any matrix with distinct eigenvalues (i.e. matrix of nonzero discriminant) belongs to ${{\operatorname{Im}\,}}p.$
Let $A$ be any matrix with nonzero discriminant. Let us show that $A\in{{\operatorname{Im}\,}}p$. Let $q=\frac{\det A}{{{\operatorname{tr}}}^2 A}$. According to Lemma \[anyq\] there exists a set of matrices $a_1,\dots, a_m$ such that $\frac{\det \tilde A}{{{\operatorname{tr}}}^2 \tilde A}= q,$ where $\tilde A=p(a_1,\dots,a_m)$. Take $c\in{\mathbb{R}}$ such that ${{\operatorname{tr}}}(c\tilde A)={{\operatorname{tr}}}A$. Note $c\tilde A=p(ca_1,a_2,\dots,a_m)$ belongs to ${{\operatorname{Im}\,}}p.$ Thus $$\frac{\det (c\tilde A)}{{{\operatorname{tr}}}^2 (c\tilde A)}=q=\frac{\det A}{{{\operatorname{tr}}}^2 A},$$ and ${{\operatorname{tr}}}A={{\operatorname{tr}}}(c\tilde A)$. Hence, $\det(c\tilde A)=\det(A)$. Therefore the matrices $c\tilde A$ and $A$ are similar since they are not from the discriminant surface. Therefore $A\in{{\operatorname{Im}\,}}p$.
\[unip\] Let $p$ be a multilinear polynomial satisfying ${{\operatorname{sl}}}_2\subsetneqq{{\operatorname{Im}\,}}p$. Then any non-scalar matrix with zero discriminant belongs to ${{\operatorname{Im}\,}}p.$
Let $A$ be any non-scalar matrix with zero discriminant. Let us show that $A\in{{\operatorname{Im}\,}}p$. The eigenvalues of $A$ are equal, and therefore they must be real. Thus $A$ is similar to the matrix $\tilde A = \left(
\begin{matrix}
\lambda & 1
\\ 0 & \lambda
\end{matrix}
\right)
.$ If $A$ is nilpotent then $\lambda=0$ and $\tilde A=e_{12}$, and it belongs to ${{\operatorname{Im}\,}}p$ by Lemmas \[graph\] and \[linear\]. If $A$ is not nilpotent then we need to prove that at least one non-nilpotent matrix of such type belongs to ${{\operatorname{Im}\,}}p,$ and all other are similar to it. We know that the matrices $e_{11}-e_{22}=p(a_1,\dots,a_m)$ and $e_{12}-e_{21}=p(b_1,\dots,b_m)$ for some $a_i$ and $b_i$. Note that $e_{11}-e_{22}$ has positive discriminant and $e_{12}-e_{21}$ has negative discriminant. Take generic matrices $x_1,x_2,\dots,x_m, y_1,\dots,y_m$ such that $x_i\in N_\delta(a_i)$ and $y_i\in N_\delta(b_i)$ where $\delta>0$ is so small that $p(x_1,\dots,x_m)$ has positive discriminant and $p(y_1,\dots,y_m)$ has negative discriminant. Consider the following matrices: $$A_0=p(x_1,x_2, \dots,x_m) ,\qquad A_i=p(y_1,\dots,y_i,\ x_{i+1},\dots,x_m), 1 \le i \le m.$$
We know that ${{\operatorname{Discr}}}A_0>0$ and ${{\operatorname{Discr}}}A_m<0$, and therefore there exists $i$ such that ${{\operatorname{Discr}}}A_i>0$ and ${{\operatorname{Discr}}}A_{i+1}<0$. We can consider the continuous matrix function $$M(t)=(1-t)A_i+tA_{i+1}=p(y_1,\dots,y_i,(1-t)x_{i+1}+ty_{i+1},x_{i+2},\dots,x_m).$$ We know that $M(0)$ has positive discriminant and $M(1)$ has negative discriminant. Therefore for some $\tau$, $M(\tau)$ has discriminant zero. Assume there exists $t$ such that $M(t)$ is nilpotent. In this case either $t$ is unique or there exists $t'\neq t$ such that $M(t')$ is also nilpotent. If $t$ is unique then it equals to some rational function with respect to other variables (entries of matrices $x_i$ and $y_i$). In this case $t$ can be considered as a function on matrices $x_i$ and $y_i$ and as soon as it is invariant, according to the Proposition \[procesi\] $t$ is an element of UD and thus $M(t)$ is the element of UD. Therefore $M(t)$ cannot be nilpotent since UD is a domain according to Proposition \[Am1\]. If there exists $t'\neq t$ such that $M(t')$ is also nilpotent then for any $\tilde t\in {\mathbb{R}}$ $M(\tilde t)$ is the combination of two nilpotent (and thus trace vanishing) matrices $M(t)$ and $M(t')$. Hence $M(0)$ is trace vanishing and thus ${{\operatorname{Im}\,}}p\subseteq{{\operatorname{sl}}}_2$, a contradiction.
Recall that we proved $M(\tau)$ has discriminant zero that for some $\tau$. Note that $M(\tau)$ cannot be nilpotent. Assume that the matrix $M(\tau)$ is scalar. Hence $(1-\tau)A_i+\tau A_{i+1}=\lambda I$ where $\lambda\in{\mathbb{R}}$ and $I$ is the identity matrix. Thus, $A_{i+1}=\frac{1-\tau}{\tau}A_i+cI$. Note that for any matrix $M$ and any $c\in{\mathbb{R}}$ we have ${{\operatorname{Discr}}}(M)={{\operatorname{Discr}}}(M+cI)$. Therefore the discriminant of $A_{i+1}$ can be written as $${{\operatorname{Discr}}}(A_{i+1})={{\operatorname{Discr}}}\left(\frac{1-\tau}{\tau}A_i\right)=\left(\frac{1-\tau}{\tau}\right)^2{{\operatorname{Discr}}}(A_i),$$ a contradiction, since ${{\operatorname{Discr}}}A_i>0$ and ${{\operatorname{Discr}}}(A_{i+1})<0$. Therefore the matrix $M(\tau)$ is similar to $A$.
\[scalar\] Let $p$ be a multilinear polynomial satisfying ${{\operatorname{sl}}}_2\subsetneqq{{\operatorname{Im}\,}}p$. Then every scalar matrix belongs to ${{\operatorname{Im}\,}}p.$
Note that it is enough to show that at least one scalar matrix belong to the image of $p$. According to Lemmas \[graph\] and \[linear\] there are matrix units $a_1,\dots,a_m$ such that $p(a_1,\dots,a_m)$ is diagonal with nonzero trace. Assume that it is not scalar, i.e., $p(a_1,\dots,a_m)=\lambda_1e_{11}+\lambda_2e_{22}.$ We define again the mapping $\chi$ and $f(T_1,\dots,T_m)$ as in the beginning of $\S\ref{im-of-pol}$ and return to the proof of Lemma 8 in [@BMR1] where we proved that ${{\operatorname{Im}\,}}f$ consists only of diagonal matrices or only of matrices with zeros on the diagonal. In our case the image of $f$ consists only of diagonal matrices, which is a $2$-dimensional variety. We know that both $p(a_1,\dots,a_m)=\lambda_1e_{11}+\lambda_2e_{22}$ and $p(\chi(a_1),\dots,\chi(a_m))=\lambda_1e_{22}+\lambda_2e_{11}$ belong to the image of $f$, and therefore every diagonal matrix belong to the image of $f$, in particular every scalar matrix.
Now we are ready to prove the main theorem.\
[\[main\]]{} The second part follows from Lemmas \[genfield\], \[discr-not-zero\], \[unip\] and \[scalar\]. In the first part we need to prove that if $p$ is neither PI nor central then ${{\operatorname{sl}}}_2(K)\subseteq{{\operatorname{Im}\,}}p$. According to Lemma \[genfield\], ${{\operatorname{sl}}}_2(K)\setminus K\subseteq{{\operatorname{Im}\,}}p$, and therefore according to Remark \[chr-n2\] we need consider only the case ${{\operatorname{Char}\,}}(K)=2$. In this case we need to prove that the scalar matrices belong to the image of $p$. According to Lemmas \[graph\] and \[linear\] there are matrix units $a_1,\dots,a_m$ such that $p(a_1,\dots,a_m)$ is diagonal. Assume that it is not scalar. Then we consider the mappings $\chi$ and $f$ as described in the beginning of $\S\ref{im-of-pol}$. According to Lemma \[dim2\] the image of $f$ will be the set of all diagonal matrices, and in particular the scalar matrices belong to it.
Assume that $p$ is a multilinear polynomial evaluated on $2\times 2$ matrices over an arbitrary infinite field $K$. Then, according to Theorem \[main\], ${{\operatorname{Im}\,}}p$ is $\{0\}$, or $K$, or ${{\operatorname{sl}}}_2(K)$ or ${{\operatorname{sl}}}_2(K)\subsetneqq{{\operatorname{Im}\,}}p$. In the last case it is clear that ${{\operatorname{Im}\,}}p$ must be Zariski dense in $M_2(K)$, because otherwise $\dim({{\operatorname{Im}\,}}p)=3$ and ${{\operatorname{Im}\,}}p$ is reducible, a contradiction.
Note that the proof of Theorem \[main\] does not work when $n>2$ since for this case we will need to take more than one function (two functions for $n=3$ and more for $n>3$). In our proof we used that we have only one function: we proved that it takes values close to $\pm\infty$ and after that used continuity. This does not work for $n\geq 3$. However one can use this idea for the question of possible images of trace zero multilinear polynomials evaluated on $3\times 3$ matrices. In this case one function will be enough, and one can take $g=\frac{\omega_3^2}{\omega_2^3}$. (One can find the definitions of $\omega_i$ in the proof of Theorem 3 in [@BMR2].) Moreover according to Lemmas \[graph\] and \[linear\] there are matrix units $a_i$ such that $p(a_1,\dots,a_m)$ is a diagonal, trace zero, nonzero real matrix, which cannot be $3$-scalar since it will have three real eigenvalues. Therefore $p$ cannot be $3$-central polynomial. However the question of possible images of $p$ remains being an open problem.
Images of semi-homogeneous polynomials evaluated on $2\times 2$ matrices with real entries.
===========================================================================================
Here we provide a classification of the possible images of semi-homogeneous polynomials evaluated on $2\times 2$ matrices with real entries. Let us start with the definitions.
A polynomial $p$ (written as a sum of monomials) is called [*semi-homogeneous of weighted degree $d\neq 0$*]{} with (integer) [*weights*]{} $(w_1,\dots,w_m)$ if for each monomial $h$ of $p$, taking $d_j$ to be the degree of $x_{j}$ in $p$, we have $$d_1w_1+\dots+d_nw_n=d.$$ A semi-homogeneous polynomial with weights $(1,1,\dots, 1)$ is called $\it{homogeneous}$ of degree $d$.
A polynomial $p$ is [*completely homogeneous*]{} of multidegree $(d_1,\dots,d_m)$ if each variable $x_i$ appears the same number of times $d_i$ in all monomials.
A [*cone*]{} of $M_n({\mathbb{R}})$ is a subset closed under multiplication by nonzero constants. An [*invariant cone*]{} is a cone invariant under conjugation. An invariant cone is [*irreducible*]{} if it does not contain any nonempty invariant cone. A [*semi-cone*]{} of $M_n({\mathbb{R}})$ is a subset closed under multiplication by positive constants. An [*invariant semi-cone*]{} is a semi-cone invariant under conjugation. An invariant semi-cone is [*irreducible*]{} if it does not contain any nonempty invariant semi-cone.
Note that any cone is a semi-cone.
\[semcone\] Let $p$ be any semi-homogeneous polynomial of weghted degree $d\neq 0$ with weights $(w_1,\dots,w_m)$. Thus if $A=p(x_1,\dots,x_m)$ then for any $c\in{\mathbb{R}}$ we have $p(c^{w_1}x_1,\dots,c^{w_m}x_m)=c^dA$ therefore if $d$ is odd then ${{\operatorname{Im}\,}}p$ is a cone, and if $d$ is even, ${{\operatorname{Im}\,}}p$ is a semi-cone. Hence for any $d$ ${{\operatorname{Im}\,}}p$ is a semi-cone.
**Theorem \[homogen\].** *Let $p(x_1,\dots,x_m)$ be a semi-homogeneous polynomial. Then ${{\operatorname{Im}\,}}p$ is either $\{0\}$, or the set ${\mathbb{R}}_{\geq 0}$, i.e., the matrices $\lambda I$ for $\lambda\geq 0$, or the set ${\mathbb{R}}_{\leq 0}$, i.e., the matrices $\lambda I$ for $\lambda\leq 0$, or the set ${\mathbb{R}}$ of scalar matrices, or the set ${{\operatorname{sl}}}_{2,\geq0}({\mathbb{R}})$ of trace zero matrices with non-negative discriminant, or the set ${{\operatorname{sl}}}_{2,\leq 0}({\mathbb{R}})$ of trace zero matrices with non-positive discriminant, or the set ${{\operatorname{sl}}}_2({\mathbb{R}})$, or Zariski dense in $M_2({\mathbb{R}})$.*
Consider the function $g(x_1,\dots,x_m)=\frac{\det p}{{{\operatorname{tr}}}^2 p}$. If this function is not constant, then ${{\operatorname{Im}\,}}p$ is Zariski dense. Assume that it is constant; i.e., $\frac{\det p}{{{\operatorname{tr}}}^2 p}=c$. Then the ratio $\frac{\lambda_1}{\lambda_2}=\hat c$ of eigenvalues is also a constant. If $\hat c\neq -1$ then we can write $\lambda_1$ explicitly as $$\lambda_1=\frac{\lambda_1}{\lambda_1+\lambda_2}{{\operatorname{tr}}}p=\frac{1}{1+\frac{\lambda_2}{\lambda_1}}{{\operatorname{tr}}}p
=\frac{1}{1+\frac{1}{\hat c}}{{\operatorname{tr}}}p,$$ Therefore $\lambda_1$ is an element of UD, and $\lambda_2={{\operatorname{tr}}}p-\lambda_1$ also. According to the Hamilton-Cayley equation, $(p-\lambda_1)(p-\lambda_2)=0$ and therefore, since, by Proposition \[Am1\], UD is a domain, one of the terms $p-\lambda_i$ is a PI. Therefore $p$ is central or PI. Therefore we see that any semi-homogeneous polynomial is either PI, or central, or trace zero (if the ratio of eigenvalues is $-1$ then the trace is identically zero), or ${{\operatorname{Im}\,}}p$ is Zariski dense. If $p$ is PI then ${{\operatorname{Im}\,}}p=\{0\}$. If $p$ is central then, by Remark \[semcone\], ${{\operatorname{Im}\,}}p$ is a semi-cone, therefore ${{\operatorname{Im}\,}}p$ is either ${\mathbb{R}}_{\geq 0}$, or ${\mathbb{R}}_{\leq 0}$, or ${\mathbb{R}}$. If ${{\operatorname{Im}\,}}p$ has trace zero, then any trace zero matrix $A\in{{\operatorname{sl}}}_2({\mathbb{R}})$ is similar to $-A$. Therefore ${{\operatorname{Im}\,}}p=-{{\operatorname{Im}\,}}p$ is symmetric. Together with Remark \[semcone\] we have that ${{\operatorname{Im}\,}}p$ must be a cone. The determinant cannot be identically zero since otherwise the polynomial is nilpotent, contrary to Proposition \[Am1\]. Hence there exists some value with nonzero determinant. All the trace zero matrices of positive determinant are pairwise similar, and all the trace zero matrices of negative determinant are pairwise similar. Therefore in this case all possible images of $p$ are ${{\operatorname{sl}}}_{2,\geq0}({\mathbb{R}})$, ${{\operatorname{sl}}}_{2,\leq0}({\mathbb{R}})$ and ${{\operatorname{sl}}}_{2}({\mathbb{R}})$.
${{\operatorname{Im}\,}}p$ can be the set of non-negative scalars. Take any central polynomial, say $p(x,y)=[x,y]^2$ and consider $p^2=[x,y]^4$. If one takes $-p^2=-[x,y]^4$, then its image is the set ${\mathbb{R}}_{\leq 0}$.
The question remains open of whether or not there exists an example of a trace zero polynomial with non-negative (or non-positive) discriminant.
There are many polynomials with Zariski dense image which are not dense with respect to the usual Euclidean topology. For example the image of the polynomial $p(x)=x^2$ is the set of matrices with two positive eigenvalues, or two complex conjugate eigenvalues; in particular any matrix $x^2$ has non-negative determinant. The image of the polynomial $p(x,y)=[x,y]^4+[x^4,y^4]$ is the set of matrices with non-negative trace. The question of classifying possible semi-homogeneous Zariski dense images is not simple, and also remains open.
[DK2341]{}
Belov, A.; Malev, S.; Rowen, L. [*The images of non-commutative polynomials evaluated on $2\times 2$ matrices*]{}, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc [**140**]{} (2012), 465–478.
Belov, A.; Malev, S.; Rowen, L. [*The images of multilinear polynomials evaluated on $3\times 3$ matrices*]{}, arXiv:1306.4389
Belov, A.; Rowen, L.H. [*Computational Aspects of Polynomial Identities*]{}, A. K. Peters Ltd., Wellesley, MA. (2005).
Chuang, C.-L. [*On ranges of polynomials in finite matrix rings*]{}, Proceeding of the American Mathematical Society **110** (1990), no. 2, 293–302.
Kulyamin, V.V. [*Images of graded polynomials in matrix rings over finite group algebras*]{} Russ. Math. Surv.**55** (2000), 345–346.
Kulyamin, V.V. [*On images of polynomials in finite matrix rings, Thes. Cand. Phys.-Math. Sci., Moscow Lomonosov state University*]{} Moscow (2000).
Procesi, C. [*The invariant theory of $n\times n$ matrices*]{}, Advances in Math. **19** (1976), 306–381.
Rowen, L. [*Polynomial identities in ring theory*]{}, Academic press, New York (1980).
Špenko, S. [*On the image of a noncommutative polynomial*]{}, Journal of Algebra **377** (2013), 298–311.
[^1]: The author was supported by an Israeli Ministry of Immigrant Absorbtion scholarship.
[^2]: This research was supported by the Israel Science Foundation (grant no. 1207/12).
|
[**Recent progress on HQET lagrangian**]{}\
*A. G. Grozin*\
[Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk 630090, Russia]{}\
[HQET lagrangian up to $1/m^3$ terms is discussed. Consequences of reparameterization invariance are considered. Results for the chromomagnetic interaction coefficient at two loops, and in all orders in the large–$\beta_1$ approximation, are presented.]{}
HQET lagrangian
===============
QCD problems with a single heavy quark staying approximately at rest can be conveniently treated in the heavy quark effective field theory (HQET) (see [@Neubert] for review and references). We shift the energy zero level: $E=m+\omega$, and consider the region where residual energies $\omega$ and momenta $\vec{p}$ are not large: $\omega\sim|\vec{p}|\sim\Lambda\ll m$. The effective field theory is constructed to reproduce QCD on–shell scattering amplitudes expanded to some order $(\Lambda/m)^n$. This is achieved by writing down the most general effective Lagrangian consistent with the required symmetries, and tuning the coefficients to reproduce QCD on-shell amplitudes. Terms with $D_0 Q$ can be eliminated by field redefinitions.
The most general lagrangian up to $1/m^3$ is [@EH1]–[@Manohar] $$\begin{aligned}
&&\hspace{-6mm}L = Q^+ i D_0 Q
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-6mm} + \frac{C_k}{2m} Q^+ \vec{D}^2 Q
+ \frac{C_m}{2m} Q^+ \vec{B}\cdot\vec{\sigma} Q
+ \frac{i C_s}{8m^2} Q^+ (\vec{D}\times\vec{E}-\vec{E}\times\vec{D})
\cdot\vec{\sigma} Q
+ \frac{C_d}{8m^2} Q^+ [\vec{D}\cdot\vec{E}] Q
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-6mm} + \frac{C_{k2}}{8m^3} Q^+ \vec{D}^4 Q
+ \frac{C_{w1}}{8m^3} Q^+ \{\vec{D}^2,\vec{B}\cdot\vec{\sigma}\} Q
- \frac{C_{w2}}{4m^3} Q^+ D^i \vec{B}\cdot\vec{\sigma} D^i Q
\label{l0}\\
&&\hspace{-1mm} + \frac{C_{p'p}}{8m^3} Q^+ (\vec{D} \vec{B}\cdot\vec{D}
+\vec{D}\cdot\vec{B} \vec{D}) \cdot\vec{\sigma} Q
+ \frac{i C_M}{8m^3} Q^+ (\vec{D}\cdot[\vec{D}\times\vec{B}]
+ [\vec{D}\times\vec{B}]\cdot\vec{D}) Q
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-1mm} + \frac{C_{a1}}{8m^3} Q^+ (\vec{B}^2-\vec{E}^2) Q
- \frac{C_{a2}}{16m^3} Q^+ \vec{E}^2 Q
+ \frac{C_{a3}}{8m^3} Q^+ {\mathop{\mathrm{Tr}}\nolimits}(\vec{B}^2-\vec{E}^2) Q
- \frac{C_{a4}}{16m^3} Q^+ {\mathop{\mathrm{Tr}}\nolimits}\vec{E}^2 Q
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-1mm} + \frac{i C_{b1}}{8m^3} Q^+ (\vec{B}\times\vec{B}
-\vec{E}\times\vec{E}) \cdot\vec{\sigma} Q
- \frac{i C_{b2}}{8m^3} Q^+ (\vec{E}\times\vec{E}) \cdot\vec{\sigma} Q
+ \cdots
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $Q$ is 2–component heavy–quark field. Here heavy–light contact interactions are omitted, as well as operators involving only light fields.
HQET can be rewritten in relativistic notations. Momenta of all states are decomposed as $p=mv+k$ where residual momenta $k\sim\Lambda$. The heavy–quark field is now Dirac spinor obeying ${v\llap{/}}Q_v=Q_v$. The lagrangian is $$\begin{aligned}
&&\hspace{-6mm}
L_v = \overline{Q}_v i v\cdot D Q_v
- \frac{C_k}{2m} \overline{Q}_v D_\bot^2 Q_v
- \frac{C_m}{4m} \overline{Q}_v G_{\mu\nu}\sigma^{\mu\nu} Q_v
\label{l1}\\
&&\hspace{-6mm}
+ \frac{i C_s}{8m^2}
\overline{Q}_v \{D_\bot^\mu,G^{\lambda\nu}\}v_\lambda \sigma_{\mu\nu} Q_v
- \frac{C_d}{8m^2} \overline{Q}_v v^\mu [D_\bot^\nu G_{\mu\nu}] Q_v
+ \cdots
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $D_\bot=D-v(vD)$. The velocity $v$ may be changed by an amount $\delta v\lesssim\Lambda/m$ without spoiling the applicability of HQET and changing its predictions. This reparameterization invariance relates coefficients of varying degrees in $1/m$ [@LM]–[@Lee3].
At the tree level, there are easier ways to find the coefficients $C_i$ than QCD/HQET matching: Foldy–Wouthuysen transformation [@KT; @BKP], or using equations of motion [@Lee] (or integrating out lower components [@MRR; @Lee2]) followed by a field redefinition. The result is $$\begin{aligned}
&&C_k=C_m=C_d=C_s=C_{k2}=C_{w1}=C_{a1}=C_{b1}=1\,,
\label{tree}\\
&&C_{w2}=C_{p'p}=C_M=C_{a2}=C_{a3}=C_{a4}=C_{b2}=0\,.
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ However, these algebraic methods don’t generalize to higher loops.
At $1/m$ level, the kinetic coefficient $C_k=1$ due to the reparameterization invariance [@LM]. One–loop matching for the chromomagnetic coefficient $C_m$ was done in [@EH2]; two–loop anomalous dimension of the chromomagnetic operator in HQET was obtained in [@ABN; @CG], and two–loop matching was done in [@CG]; in [@GN], all orders of perturbation theory for $C_m$ were summed at large $\beta_1$.
At $1/m^2$ level, the spin–orbit coefficient $C_s=2C_m-1$ due to the reparameterization invariance [@CKO]–[@BKPR]. The Darwin term reduces to a contact interaction. One–loop matching for the heavy–light contact interactions was done in [@BKPR]. The one–loop anomalous dimension matrix of dimension 6 terms in the HQET lagrangian was obtained in [@BKP], [@BO]–[@BM].
At $1/m^3$ level, one–loop matching was done in [@Manohar] for the terms involving the heavy–quark fields twice and the gluon field once. The one–loop renormalization of dimension 7 terms in the HQET lagrangian was recently considered [@Balzereit2].
Matching quark–quark vertex
===========================
Renormalized QCD on–shell quark–quark proper vertex $$-\overline{u}({p\llap{/}}-m)u
\label{QCD2}$$ gets no correction in the on–shell renormalization scheme. QCD spinors are related to HQET spinors by the Foldy–Wouthuysen transformation $$u=\left(1+\frac{{k\llap{/}}}{2m}+\frac{k^2}{4m^2}+\cdots\right)u_v\,,\quad
{v\llap{/}}u_v=u_v\,.
\label{FW}$$ Expressing QCD proper vertex via HQET spinors, we obtain $$\overline{u}_v \frac{\vec{k}^2}{2m} u_v + \cdots
\label{QCD2h}$$
Let’s denote the sum of bare 1–particle–irreducible self–energy diagrams of the heavy quark in HQET at $1/m^0$ as $-i\frac{1+{v\llap{$\scriptstyle/$}}}{2}\Sigma(\omega)$, $\omega=kv$. At the $1/m$ level, self–energy diagrams with a single chromomagnetic vertex vanish. Let the sum of bare diagrams with a single kinetic vertex be $-i\frac{C_k}{2m}\frac{1+{v\llap{$\scriptstyle/$}}}{2}\Sigma_k(\omega,k_\bot^2)$. Consider variation of $\Sigma$ at $v\to v+\delta v$ for an infinitesimal $\delta v$ ($v\,\delta v=0$). All factors $\frac{1+{v\llap{$\scriptstyle/$}}}{2}$ can be combined into a single one, and the variation $\delta{v\llap{/}}$ in it provides the variation of the $\gamma$–matrix structure in front of $\Sigma$. There are two sources of the variation of $\Sigma$. Terms from the expansion of denominators of the propagators produce insertions $ik\delta v$. Terms from the vertices produce $igt^a\delta v^\mu$. Now consider variation of $\Sigma_k$ at $k_\bot\to k_\bot+\delta k_\bot$ for an infinitesimal $\delta k_\bot$. Quark–quark kinetic vertices produce $i\frac{C_k}{m}k\delta k_\bot$; quark–quark–gluon kinetic vertices produce $i\frac{C_k}{m}gt^a\delta k_\bot^\mu$; two–gluon vertices produce nothing. Therefore, $$\frac{\partial\Sigma_k}{\partial k_\bot^\mu} =
2 \frac{\partial\Sigma}{\partial v^\mu}\,.
\label{Ward1}$$ This is the Ward identity of the reparameterization invariance first derived in [@Balzereit]. Taking into account $\frac{\partial\Sigma_k}{\partial k_\bot^\mu}=
2\frac{\partial\Sigma_k}{\partial k_\bot^2}k_\bot^\mu$ and $\frac{\partial\Sigma}{\partial v^\mu}=
\frac{d\Sigma}{d\omega}k_\bot^\mu$, we obtain $$\frac{\partial\Sigma_k}{\partial k_\bot^2} =
\frac{d\Sigma}{d\omega}\,.
\label{Ward2}$$ The right–hand side does not depend on $k_\bot^2$, and hence $$\Sigma_k(\omega,k_\bot^2) = \frac{d\Sigma(\omega)}{d\omega} k_\bot^2
+ \Sigma_{k0}(\omega)\,.
\label{Ward3}$$ This result can also be understood in a more direct way. Only diagrams with a quark–quark kinetic vertex contain $k_\bot^2$; its coefficient is is $i\frac{C_k}{2m}$. The sum of diagrams with a unit insertion is $-i\frac{d\Sigma}{d\omega}$. Note that diagrams with a quark–quark–gluon kinetic vertex vanish because there is no preferred transverse direction.
On the mass shell ($\omega=0$), the renormalized HQET quark–quark proper vertex is $\frac{C_k}{2m} Z_Q \overline{u}_v \allowbreak
\bigl[ -k_\bot^2 + \Sigma_k(0,k_\bot^2)
\bigr] u_v = - \frac{C_k}{2m} Z_Q \left[ 1 - \frac{d\Sigma}{d\omega}
\right]_{\omega=0} k_\bot^2 \overline{u}_v u_v$. On the mass shell, only diagrams with finite–mass particles in loops contribute (e.g., $c$–quark loops in $b$–quark HQET) (Fig. \[Fig:1\]). Taking into account $Z_Q^{-1}=1-\left.\frac{d\Sigma}{d\omega}\right|_{\omega=0}$ and comparing with (\[QCD2h\]), we finally obtain $$C_k(\mu)=1\,.
\label{Ck}$$ This argument works for an arbitrary $\mu$; hence, the anomalous dimension of the kinetic–energy operator in HQET vanishes exactly. In a similar way, it is not difficult to prove that $$C_{k2}=1\,.
\label{Ck2}$$
![HQET quark–quark proper vertex on the mass shell[]{data-label="Fig:1"}](F1.eps){width="\linewidth"}
Matching quark–quark–gluon vertex
=================================
QCD on–shell proper vertex is characterized by 2 form factors: $$\begin{aligned}
&&\overline{u}(p') t^a \left( {\varepsilon}(q^2) \frac{(p+p')^\mu}{2m}
+ \mu(q^2) \frac{[{q\llap{/}},\gamma^\mu]}{4m} \right) u(p)\,,
\label{FF}\\
&&{\varepsilon}(q^2) = 1 + {\varepsilon}'\frac{q^2}{m^2} + \cdots, \quad
\mu(q^2) = \mu + \mu'\frac{q^2}{m^2} + \cdots
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
The total colour charge of a quark ${\varepsilon}(0)=1$ due to the gauge invariance. Ward identities in the background field formalism [@Abbott] are shown in Fig. \[Fig:2\], where the large dot means convolution with the gluon incoming momentum $q$ and colour polarization $e^a$, the second equalities are valid only for an infinitesimal $q$ (or in the case of an abelian external field), and $(t^a)^{bc}=if^{acb}$ in the adjoint representation. Therefore, the QCD proper vertex $\Lambda_\mu^a(p,q)=\Lambda_\mu t^a$ obeys $\Lambda_\mu^a q^\mu e^a=-\Sigma(p+qe^a t^a)+\Sigma(p)$ for infinitesimal $q$, or $\Lambda_\mu(p,0)=-\frac{\partial\Sigma(p)}{\partial p^\mu}$. The form factor is projected out by ${\varepsilon}(0)=Z_Q\bigl[1+\frac{1}{4}{\mathop{\mathrm{Tr}}\nolimits}\Lambda_\mu v^\mu(1+{v\llap{/}})\bigr]$. On the mass shell, $\frac{1}{4}{\mathop{\mathrm{Tr}}\nolimits}\frac{\partial\Sigma}{\partial p^\mu}=(1-Z_Q^{-1})v_\mu$, and hence ${\varepsilon}(0)=1$.
(160,10) (0,0)[![Ward identities in the background field formalism[]{data-label="Fig:2"}](A0.eps "fig:")]{} (8,6)[(0,0)[$p$]{}]{} (24,6)[(0,0)[$p+q$]{}]{} (32,2.5)[(0,0)\[l\][${}=g\,e^a t^a$]{}]{} (56,2.5)[(0,0)\[l\][$\Biggl[\Biggr.$]{}]{} (57,0)[![Ward identities in the background field formalism[]{data-label="Fig:2"}](A1.eps "fig:")]{} (65,6)[(0,0)[$p+q$]{}]{} (75,2.5)[(0,0)[$-$]{}]{} (77,0)[![Ward identities in the background field formalism[]{data-label="Fig:2"}](A1.eps "fig:")]{} (85,6)[(0,0)[$p$]{}]{} (93,2.5)[(0,0)\[l\][$\Biggl.\Biggr]=g\Biggl[\Biggr.$]{}]{} (104,0)[![Ward identities in the background field formalism[]{data-label="Fig:2"}](A1.eps "fig:")]{} (113,6)[(0,0)[$p+q e^a t^a$]{}]{} (122,2.5)[(0,0)[$-$]{}]{} (124,0)[![Ward identities in the background field formalism[]{data-label="Fig:2"}](A1.eps "fig:")]{} (132,6)[(0,0)[$p$]{}]{} (140,2.5)[(0,0)\[l\][$\Biggl.\Biggr]$]{}]{}
(160,12) (0,0)[![Ward identities in the background field formalism[]{data-label="Fig:2"}](A2.eps "fig:")]{} (8,6)[(0,0)[$p$]{}]{} (24,6)[(0,0)[$p+q$]{}]{} (1,1)[(0,0)\[t\][$n$]{}]{} (31,1)[(0,0)\[t\][$m$]{}]{} (32,2.5)[(0,0)\[l\][${}=g\,e^a (t^a)^{mn}$]{}]{} (56,2.5)[(0,0)\[l\][$\Biggl[\Biggr.$]{}]{} (57,0)[![Ward identities in the background field formalism[]{data-label="Fig:2"}](A3.eps "fig:")]{} (65,6)[(0,0)[$p+q$]{}]{} (75,2.5)[(0,0)[$-$]{}]{} (77,0)[![Ward identities in the background field formalism[]{data-label="Fig:2"}](A3.eps "fig:")]{} (85,6)[(0,0)[$p$]{}]{} (93,2.5)[(0,0)\[l\][$\Biggl.\Biggr]=g\Biggl[\Biggr.$]{}]{} (104,0)[![Ward identities in the background field formalism[]{data-label="Fig:2"}](A3.eps "fig:")]{} (113,6)[(0,0)[$p+q e^a t^a$]{}]{} (122,2.5)[(0,0)[$-$]{}]{} (124,0)[![Ward identities in the background field formalism[]{data-label="Fig:2"}](A3.eps "fig:")]{} (132,6)[(0,0)[$p$]{}]{} (140,2.5)[(0,0)\[l\][$\Biggl.\Biggr]$]{}]{}
(160,18) (0,0)[![Ward identities in the background field formalism[]{data-label="Fig:2"}](A4.eps "fig:")]{} (1,6)[(0,0)[$l$]{}]{} (15,6)[(0,0)[$n$]{}]{} (11,2)[(0,0)[$m$]{}]{} (16,8.5)[(0,0)\[l\][$=g\,e^a\Biggl[\Biggl(\Biggr.\Biggr.$]{}]{} (32,0)[![Ward identities in the background field formalism[]{data-label="Fig:2"}](A5.eps "fig:")]{} (36,13)[(0,0)\[b\][$+q$]{}]{} (33,6)[(0,0)[$x$]{}]{} (50,8.5)[(0,0)[$-$]{}]{} (52,0)[![Ward identities in the background field formalism[]{data-label="Fig:2"}](A6.eps "fig:")]{} (53,6)[(0,0)[$x$]{}]{} (69,8.5)[(0,0)\[l\][$\Biggl.\Biggr)(t^a)^{xl}$]{}]{}
(160,18) (0,8.5)[(0,0)\[l\][${}+\Biggl(\Biggr.$]{}]{} (7,0)[![Ward identities in the background field formalism[]{data-label="Fig:2"}](A8.eps "fig:")]{} (18.5,4)[(0,0)\[l\][$+q$]{}]{} (14,2)[(0,0)\[r\][$x$]{}]{} (25,8.5)[(0,0)[$-$]{}]{} (27,0)[![Ward identities in the background field formalism[]{data-label="Fig:2"}](A6.eps "fig:")]{} (34,2)[(0,0)\[r\][$x$]{}]{} (44,8.5)[(0,0)\[l\][$\Biggl.\Biggr)(t^a)^{xm} + \Biggl(\Biggr.$]{}]{} (63,0)[![Ward identities in the background field formalism[]{data-label="Fig:2"}](A7.eps "fig:")]{} (75,13)[(0,0)\[b\][$+q$]{}]{} (78,6)[(0,0)[$x$]{}]{} (81,8.5)[(0,0)[$-$]{}]{} (83,0)[![Ward identities in the background field formalism[]{data-label="Fig:2"}](A6.eps "fig:")]{} (98,6)[(0,0)[$x$]{}]{} (100,8.5)[(0,0)\[l\][$\Biggl.\Biggr)(t^a)^{xn}\Biggl.\Biggr]$]{}]{}
(160,18) (0,8.5)[(0,0)\[l\][${}=g\Biggl[\Biggr.$]{}]{} (10,0)[![Ward identities in the background field formalism[]{data-label="Fig:2"}](A5.eps "fig:")]{} (15,13)[(0,0)\[b\][$+qet$]{}]{} (28,8.5)[(0,0)[$-$]{}]{} (30,0)[![Ward identities in the background field formalism[]{data-label="Fig:2"}](A6.eps "fig:")]{} (47,8.5)[(0,0)\[l\][$+$]{}]{} (50,0)[![Ward identities in the background field formalism[]{data-label="Fig:2"}](A8.eps "fig:")]{} (61.5,4)[(0,0)\[l\][$+qet$]{}]{} (68,8.5)[(0,0)[$-$]{}]{} (70,0)[![Ward identities in the background field formalism[]{data-label="Fig:2"}](A6.eps "fig:")]{} (87,8.5)[(0,0)\[l\][$+$]{}]{} (90,0)[![Ward identities in the background field formalism[]{data-label="Fig:2"}](A7.eps "fig:")]{} (101,13)[(0,0)\[b\][$+qet$]{}]{} (108,8.5)[(0,0)[$-$]{}]{} (110,0)[![Ward identities in the background field formalism[]{data-label="Fig:2"}](A6.eps "fig:")]{} (127,8.5)[(0,0)\[l\][$\Biggl.\Biggr]$]{}]{}
Let’s denote the sum of bare vertex diagrams in HQET at $1/m^0$ as $igt^a v^\mu \frac{1+{v\llap{$\scriptstyle/$}}}{2}[1+\Lambda(\omega,\Delta)]$, where $\Delta=qv=\omega'-\omega$. The Ward identity for the static quark propagator is the same as for the ordinary one (Fig. \[Fig:2\]). Therefore, $\Delta e^a t^a \Lambda(\omega,\Delta)=
-\Sigma(\omega+\Delta e^a t^a)+\Sigma(\omega)$ for infinitesimal $\Delta$, or $$\Lambda(\omega,0)=-\frac{d\Sigma(\omega)}{d\omega}\,.
\label{Wh}$$ It is interesting, that for an abelian external field $\Lambda(\omega,\Delta)=
-\frac{\Sigma(\omega+\Delta)-\Sigma(\omega)}{\Delta}$ exactly. The total colour charge of a static quark $Z_Q[1+\Lambda(0,0)]=1$, as expected.
The $1/m$ HQET bare proper vertex has the form $$\begin{aligned}
&&i\frac{C_k}{2m}gt^a\frac{1+{v\llap{/}}}{2}\left[(1+\Lambda_k)(p+p')_\bot^\mu
+(\Lambda_{k0}+\Lambda_{k1}p_\bot^2+\Lambda'_{k1}p_\bot^{\prime2}
+\Lambda_{k2}q_\bot^2)v^\mu\right]
\nonumber\\
&&{}+i\frac{C_m}{4m}gt^a\frac{1+{v\llap{/}}}{2}[\gamma^\mu,{q\llap{/}}]
\frac{1+{v\llap{/}}}{2}(1+\Lambda_m)\,,
\label{V1}\end{aligned}$$ where all $\Lambda_i$ depend on $\omega$, $\Delta$; $\Lambda'_{k1}(\omega,\Delta)=\Lambda_{k1}(\omega+\Delta,-\Delta)$; $\Lambda_k(\omega,\Delta)=\Lambda_k(\omega+\Delta,-\Delta)$, and similarly for $\Lambda_{k0}$, $\Lambda_{k2}$. Similarly to the previous Section, we can see that variation of the leading vertex function at $v\to v+\delta v$ coincides with that of the kinetic–energy vertex function at $p_\bot\to p_\bot+\delta p_\bot$, if $\delta v=\frac{C_k}{m}\delta p_\bot$. This requires $$\Lambda_k(\omega,\Delta)=\Lambda(\omega,\Delta)\,, \quad
\Lambda'_{k1}(\omega,\Delta)=
\frac{\partial\Lambda(\omega,\Delta)}{\partial\Delta}
\label{RIV}$$ (and hence $\Lambda_{k1}(\omega,\Delta)=
\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial\omega}-\frac{\partial}{\partial\Delta}\right)
\Lambda(\omega,\Delta)$). The Ward identities of Fig. \[Fig:2\] result in $$\Lambda_{k0}(\omega,0)=-\frac{d\Sigma_{k0}(\omega)}{d\omega}\,, \quad
\Lambda_{k2}(\omega,0)=0
\label{WV}$$ (in an abelian external field, $\Lambda_{k0}(\omega,\Delta)=
-\frac{\Sigma_{k0}(\omega+\Delta)-\Sigma_{k0}(\omega)}{\Delta}$, $\Lambda_{k2}(\omega,\Delta)=0$).
Reparameterization invariance relates the spin–orbit vertex function to the chromomagnetic one, but we shall not discuss details here.
The on–shell HQET vertex at the tree level is $$\overline{u}_v(k') \left( v^\mu + C_k \frac{(k+k')^\mu}{2m}
+ C_m \frac{[{q\llap{/}},\gamma^\mu]}{4m}
+ C_d \frac{q^2}{8m^2}v^\mu
+ C_s \frac{[{k\llap{/}},{q\llap{/}}]}{8m^2}v^\mu + \cdots \right) u_v(k)\,.
\label{HQETv}$$ As we have demonstrated above, there are no corrections to the first two terms. Other terms have corrections starting from two loops, if there is a finite–mass flavour (such as $c$ in $b$–quark HQET). Expressing the on–shell QCD vertex via HQET spinors, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&&\overline{u}_v(k') \Biggl[ {\varepsilon}(q^2) \left( v^\mu + \frac{(k+k')^\mu}{2m}
- \frac{q^2+[{k\llap{/}},{q\llap{/}}]}{8m^2}v^\mu + \cdots \right)
\label{FF2}\\
&&\quad{}
+ \mu(q^2) \left( \frac{[{q\llap{/}},\gamma^\mu]}{4m}
+ \frac{q^2+[{k\llap{/}},{q\llap{/}}]}{4m^2}v^\mu + \cdots \right) \Biggr] u_v(k)
\,.
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, the coefficients in the HQET lagrangian are $$C_k=1\,, \quad C_m=\mu\,, \quad C_d=8{\varepsilon}'+2\mu-1\,, \quad C_s=2\mu-1\,.
\label{M2}$$ The first one has no corrections (\[Ck\]). The coefficients (\[M2\]) are not independent: $$C_s=2C_m-1\,.
\label{RI2}$$ Probably, reparameterization–invariance Ward identities yield relations among corrections from finite–mass loops in HQET which ensure the absence of corrections to (\[RI2\]). However, we shall not trace details here.
Similarly, at the $1/m^3$ level, the coefficients in the HQET lagrangian are $$C_{w1}=4\mu'+{{\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}}\mu+{{\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}}\,, \quad
C_{w2}=4\mu'+{{\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}}\mu-{{\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}}\,, \quad
C_{p'p}=\mu-1\,, \quad
C_M=-4{\varepsilon}'-{{\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}}\mu+{{\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}}\,.
\label{M3}$$ They are not independent: $$C_{w2}=C_{w1}-1\,, \quad
C_{p'p}=C_m-1\,, \quad
C_M={{\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}}\left(C_m-C_d\right)\,.
\label{RI3}$$ Calculation of $C_a$, $C_b$ requires matching amplitudes with two gluons. Calculation of contact terms requires matching amplitudes with light quarks.
Chromomagnetic interaction at two loops
=======================================
As we know, the kinetic coefficient $C_k(\mu)=1$, and the only coefficient in the HQET lagrangian up to $1/m$ level which is not known exactly is the chromomagnetic coefficient $V_m(\mu)$. It is natural to find it from QCD/HQET matching at $\mu\sim m$ where no large logarithms appear. Renormalization group can be used to obtain $C_m$ at $\mu\ll m$: $$C_m(\mu) = C_m(m) \exp\left(-\int\limits_{\alpha_s(m)}^{\alpha_s(\mu)}
\frac{\gamma_m(\alpha)}{2\beta(\alpha)} \frac{d\alpha}{\alpha} \right)\,,
\label{RG}$$ where $C_m(m)=1+C_1\frac{\alpha_s(m)}{4\pi}
+C_2\left(\frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi}\right)^2+\cdots$, $\gamma_m=\frac{d\log Z_m}{d\log\mu}=\gamma_1\frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi}
+\gamma_2\left(\frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi}\right)^2+\cdots$ is the anomalous dimension of the chromomagnetic operator in HQET, and the $\beta$–function is $\beta=-\frac{1}{2}\frac{d\log\alpha_s}{d\log\mu}=\beta_1\frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi}
+\beta_2\left(\frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi}\right)^2+\cdots$ (where $\beta_1=\frac{11}{3}C_A-\frac{4}{3}T_F n_f$). If $L=\log m/\mu$ is not very large, it is better to retain all two–loop terms and neglect higher loops: $$C_m(\mu) = 1 + \left(C_1 - \gamma_1 L \right) \frac{\alpha_s(m)}{4\pi}
+ \left[C_2 - \left(C_1\gamma_1+\gamma_2\right) L
+ \gamma_1\left(\gamma_1-\beta_1\right) L^2 \right]
\left(\frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi}\right)^2\,.
\label{RG1}$$ This approximation holds up to relatively large $L$ because $C_2$ is numerically large. If $L$ is parametrically large, then it is better to sum leading and subleading logarithms: $$C_m(\mu) =
\left(\frac{\alpha_s(\mu)}{\alpha_s(m)}\right)^{-\frac{\gamma_1}{2\beta_1}}
\left[ 1 + C_1 \frac{\alpha_s(m)}{4\pi}
- \frac{\beta_1\gamma_2-\beta_2\gamma_1}{2\beta_1^2}
\frac{\alpha_s(\mu)-\alpha_s(m)}{4\pi} \right]\,.
\label{RG2}$$ In this case, we cannot utilize $C_2$ without knowing $\gamma_3$. In general, the solution of (\[RG\]) can be written as $$C_m(\mu) = \hat{C}_m K(\mu)\,,\quad
\hat{C}_m = \alpha_s(m)^{\frac{\gamma_1}{2\beta_1}}(1+\delta c)\,,\quad
\delta c = c_1 \frac{\alpha_s(m)}{4\pi}
+ c_2 \left(\frac{\alpha_s(m)}{4\pi}\right)^2+\cdots
\label{RG3}$$ where $\hat{C}_m$ is scale– and scheme–independent.
As a simple application, we consider $B$–$B^*$ mass splitting [@Mannel; @BSUV][^1] $$m_{B^*}-m_B = \frac{2C_m(\mu)}{3m}\mu_m^2(\mu) + \frac{1}{3m^2}
\left[ C_m(\mu) \rho_{km}^3(\mu) + C_m^2(\mu) \rho_{mm}^3(\mu)
- C_s(\mu) \rho_s^3(\mu) \right]\,,
\label{spl}$$ where $\mu_m^2(\mu)$ and $\rho_s^3(\mu)$ are local matrix elements of chromomagnetic interaction and spin–orbit one, while $\rho_{km}^3(\mu)$ and $\rho_{mm}^3(\mu)$ are kinetic–chromomagnetic and chromomagnetic–chromomagnetic bilocal matrix elements (in the later case, there are two $\gamma$–matrix structures, 1 and $\sigma_{\mu\nu}$; the coefficient of the second one is implied here). Introducing renormalization group invariants $$\begin{aligned}
&&\hat{\mu}_m^2 = K(\mu) \mu_m^2(\mu)\,,\quad
\hat{\rho}_{km}^3 =
K(\mu) \rho_{km}^3(\mu) + \left[1-K(\mu)\right] \rho_s^3(\mu) \,,\quad
\nonumber\\
&&\hat{\rho}_{mm}^3 = K^2(\mu) \rho_{mm}^3 \,,\quad
\hat{\rho}_s^3 = \rho_s^3(\mu)\,,
\label{spl2}\end{aligned}$$ we can rewrite it as $$m_{B^*}-m_B = \frac{2\hat{C}_m}{3m} \hat{\mu}_m^2
+ \frac{1}{3m^2} \left[
\hat{C}_m \left(\hat{\rho}_{km}^3-2\hat{\rho}_s^3\right)
+ \hat{C}_m^2 \hat{\rho}_{mm}^3 + \hat{\rho}_s^3 \right]\,.
\label{spl3}$$
![Diagrams for the QCD proper vertex[]{data-label="Fig:3"}](F3.eps){width="0.975\linewidth"}
In order to obtain $C_m$, we should calculate the heavy–quark chromomagnetic moment $\mu$ (Fig. \[Fig:3\]). All on–shell massive integrals can be reduced to 3 basis ones $$I_0^2 = \raisebox{-1cm}{\includegraphics{I0.eps}} ,\quad
I_1 = \raisebox{-0.6cm}{\includegraphics{I1.eps}} ,\quad
I_2 = \raisebox{-0.6cm}{\includegraphics{I2.eps}}
\label{I012}$$ using integration by parts [@GBGS]–[@Broadhurst]. $I_0^2$ and $I_1$ are expressed via $\Gamma$–functions of $d$; $I_2$ is expressed via $I_0^2$, $I_1$, and one difficult convergent integral [@Broadhurst] $$I=\pi^2\log 2-\frac{3}{2}\zeta(3)+O({\varepsilon})\,.
\label{I2}$$ The result has the structure $$\begin{aligned}
&&\mu = 1 + \frac{g_0^2 m^{-2{\varepsilon}}}{(4\pi)^{d/2}} (C_F,C_A) \times I_0
\label{mu}\\
&&\quad{} + \frac{g_0^4 m^{-4{\varepsilon}}}{(4\pi)^d}
(C_F^2,C_F C_A,C_A^2,C_F T_F n_l,C_A T_F n_l,C_F T_F,C_A T_F)
\times (I_0^2,I_1,I_2)\,.
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Now we express it via $\alpha_s(\mu)$ and expand in ${\varepsilon}$. The coefficient of $1/{\varepsilon}$ gives the anomalous dimension $$\gamma_m = 2 C_A \frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi}
+ \frac{4}{9} C_A \left(17C_A-13T_F n_f\right)
\left(\frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi}\right)^2
+ \cdots
\label{gam}$$ The chromomagnetic interaction coefficient at $\mu=m$ is $$\begin{aligned}
&&\hspace{-6mm}
C_m(m) = 1 + 2(C_F+C_A) \frac{\alpha_s(m)}{4\pi}
\nonumber\\&&\hspace{-6mm}
+ \Biggl[ C_F^2 \left(-8I+\frac{20}{3}\pi^2-31\right)
+ C_F C_A \left(\frac{4}{3}I+\frac{4}{3}\pi^2+\frac{269}{9}\right)
+ C_A^2 \left(\frac{4}{3}I-\frac{17}{9}\pi^2+\frac{805}{27}\right)
\nonumber\\&&\hspace{-1mm}
+ C_F T_F n_l \left(-\frac{100}{9}\right)
+ C_A T_F n_l \left(-\frac{4}{9}\pi^2-\frac{299}{27}\right)
\label{Cm}\\&&\hspace{-1mm}
+ C_F T_F \left(-\frac{16}{3}\pi^2+\frac{476}{9}\right)
+ C_A T_F \left(\pi^2-\frac{298}{27}\right)
\Biggr] \left(\frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi}\right)^2
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-6mm} = 1 + \frac{13}{6} \frac{\alpha_s(m)}{\pi} +
\left( 21.79 - 1.91 n_l \right) \left(\frac{\alpha_s}{\pi}\right)^2\,.
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The coefficient of $(\alpha_s/\pi)^2$ is about 11 for $n_l=4$ light flavours. It is 40% less than the expectation based on naive nonabelianization [@BG]. The contribution of the heavy quark loop to this coefficient is merely $-0.1$.
Chromomagnetic interaction at higher loops
==========================================
Perturbation series for $C_m$ can be rewritten via $\beta_1$ instead of $n_f$: $$C_m(\mu) = 1 + \sum_{L=1}^{\infty} \sum_{n=0}^{L-1} a_{Ln} \beta_1^n \alpha_s^L
= 1 + \frac{1}{\beta_1} f(\beta_1 \alpha_s) + O\left(\frac{1}{\beta_1^2}\right)
\,.
\label{pert}$$ There is no sensible limit of QCD in which $\beta_1$ may be considered a large parameter (except, may be, $n_f\to-\infty$). However, retaining only the leading $\beta_1$ terms often gives a good approximation to exact multi–loop results [@BG]. This limit is believed to provide information about summability of perturbation series [@Mueller]. At the first order in $1/\beta_1$, multiplicative renormalization amounts to subtraction of $1/{\varepsilon}^n$ terms; $$\frac{\beta_1 g_0^2}{(4\pi)^2} = \bar{\mu}^{2{\varepsilon}} \frac{\beta}{1+\beta/{\varepsilon}}\,,
\quad \beta=\frac{\beta_1 \alpha_s}{4\pi}=\frac{1}{2\log\mu/{\Lambda_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}}}\,.
\label{beta}$$ The perturbation series (\[pert\]) can be rewritten as $$C_m(\mu) = 1 + \frac{1}{\beta_1} \sum_{L=1}^{\infty}
\frac{F({\varepsilon},L{\varepsilon})}{L} \left(\frac{\beta}{{\varepsilon}+\beta}\right)^L
- \mathrm{(subtractions)} + O\left(\frac{1}{\beta_1^2}\right)\,.
\label{pert2}$$
Knowledge of the function $F({\varepsilon},u)$ allows one to obtain the anomalous dimension $$\gamma_m = \frac{2\beta}{\beta_1} F(-\beta,0)
+ O\left(\frac{1}{\beta_1^2}\right)
\label{rgam}$$ and the finite term $$C_m(\mu) = 1 + \frac{1}{\beta_1} \int\limits_{-\beta}^{0} d{\varepsilon}\frac{F({\varepsilon},0)-F(0,0)}{{\varepsilon}}
+ \frac{1}{\beta_1} \int\limits_{0}^{\infty} du\, e^{-u/\beta}
\frac{F(0,u)-F(0,0)}{u} + O\left(\frac{1}{\beta_1^2}\right)
\label{rCm}$$ (this method was used in [@BG]; see references in this paper). Renormalization group invariant (\[RG3\]) is $$\delta c = \frac{1}{\beta_1} \int_0^\infty du\,
e^{-\frac{4\pi}{\beta_1\alpha_s}u}S(u)
+ O\left(\frac{1}{\beta_1^2}\right)\,,\quad
S(u) = e^{-\frac{5}{3}u} \left. \frac{F(0,u)-F(0,0)}{u} \right|_{\mu=m}
\label{rCm2}$$ (here $\alpha_s$ is taken at $\mu=m$ in the $V$–scheme, $\exp\bigl(-\frac{4\pi}{\beta_1\alpha_s}u\bigr)
=\bigl(\frac{\Lambda_V}{m}\bigr)^{-2u}$).
![$L$–loop diagrams with the maximum number of quark loops.[]{data-label="Fig:4"}](F4.eps){width="\linewidth"}
The function $F({\varepsilon},u)$ is determined by the coefficient of the highest degree of $n_f$ in the $L$–loop term, which is given by the diagrams in Fig. \[Fig:4\]. Calculating them, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&&\hspace{-6mm}
F({\varepsilon},u) = \left(\frac{\mu}{m}\right)^{2u}
e^{\gamma{\varepsilon}} \frac{\Gamma(1+u)\Gamma(1-2u)}{\Gamma(3-u-{\varepsilon})}
D({\varepsilon})^{u/{\varepsilon}-1} N({\varepsilon},u)
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-6mm}
D({\varepsilon}) = 6 e^{\gamma{\varepsilon}} \Gamma(1+{\varepsilon}) B(2-{\varepsilon},2-{\varepsilon}) =
1 + {\textstyle\frac{5}{3}} {\varepsilon}+ \cdots
\label{Feu}\\
&&\hspace{-6mm}
N({\varepsilon},u) = C_F 4u(1+u-2{\varepsilon}u)
+ C_A \frac{2-u-{\varepsilon}}{2(1-{\varepsilon})} (2+3u-5{\varepsilon}-6{\varepsilon}u+2{\varepsilon}^2+4{\varepsilon}^2 u)\,.
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ This gives the anomalous dimension $$\begin{aligned}
&&\hspace{-6mm}
\gamma_m = C_A \frac{\alpha_s}{2\pi}
\frac{\beta(1+2\beta)\Gamma(5+2\beta)}
{24(1+\beta)\Gamma^3(2+\beta)\Gamma(1-\beta)}
\label{rgam2}\\
&&\hspace{-4mm}\quad{}
= C_A \frac{\alpha_s}{2\pi} \left[1
+ \frac{13}{6} \frac{\beta_1 \alpha_s}{4\pi}
- \frac{1}{2} \left(\frac{\beta_1 \alpha_s}{4\pi}\right)^2
+ \cdots \right]\,.
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ This perturbation series is convergent with the radius $\beta_1|\alpha_s|<4\pi$. The Borel image of $\delta c$ $$S(u) = \frac{\Gamma(u)\Gamma(1-2u)}{\Gamma(3-u)} \left[ 4u(1+u)C_F
+ {{\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}}(2-u)(2+3u)C_A \right] - e^{-\frac{5}{3}u}\frac{C_A}{u}
\label{Su}$$ has infrared renormalon poles at $u=\frac{n}{2}$. They produce ambiguities in the sum of the perturbation series for $\delta c$, which are of order of the residues ${}\sim(\Lambda_V/m)^n$. The leading ambiguity ($u=\frac{1}{2}$) is $$\Delta \hat{C}_m =
\left(1+\frac{7}{8}\frac{C_A}{C_F}\right)\frac{\Delta m}{m}\,,
\label{dCm}$$ where $\Delta m$ is the ambiguity of the heavy–quark pole mass [@BB; @BSUV2].
Physical quantities, such as the mass splitting (\[spl\]), are factorized into short–distance coefficients and long–distance hadronic matrix elements. In regularization schemes without a hard momentum cut–off, such as $\overline{\mathrm{MS}}$, Wilson coefficients also contain large–distance contributions which produce infrared renormalon ambiguities. Likewise, hadronic matrix elements contain small–distance contributions which produce ultraviolet renormalon ambiguities. In other words, the separation into short– and long–distance contributions is ambiguous; only when they are combined to form a physical quantity, an unambiguous result is obtained. Cancellations between infrared and ultraviolet renormalon ambiguities in HQET were traced in [@NS].
![Diagrams for $\rho_i^3$; quark loops are inserted in all possible ways.[]{data-label="Fig:5"}](diag.ps){width="\linewidth"}
Ultraviolet renormalon ambiguities in matrix elements $\rho_i^3$ don’t depend on external states, and may be calculated at the level of quarks and gluons (Fig. \[Fig:5\]). Note that there is an ultraviolet renormalon ambiguity in the wave function renormalization $\Delta Z_Q=\frac{3}{2}\frac{\Delta m}{m}$ (Fig. \[Fig:5\]d). The result is $$\Delta\rho_{km}^3=-\frac{2}{3}\frac{C_A}{C_F}\mu_m^2\Delta m\,,\quad
\Delta\rho_{mm}^3=-\frac{19}{12}\frac{C_A}{C_F}\mu_m^2\Delta m\,,\quad
\Delta\rho_s^3=-\frac{1}{2}\frac{C_A}{C_F}\mu_m^2\Delta m\,.$$ The sum of ultraviolet ambiguities of the $1/m^2$ contributions to (\[spl\]) cancels the infrared ambiguity of the leading term.
The requirement of cancellation of renormalon ambiguities in the mass splitting (\[spl2\]) for all $m$ allows us to establish the structure of the leading infrared renormalon singularity in $S(u)$ at $u=\frac{1}{2}$ beyond the large $\beta_1$ limit. The ultraviolet ambiguity of the square bracket in (\[spl2\]) should be equal to $\hat{\mu}_m^2$ times $$\Lambda_V=m\,e^{-\frac{2\pi}{\beta_1\alpha_s}}
\alpha_s^{-\frac{\beta_2}{2\beta_1^2}}[1+O(\alpha_s)]\,.
\label{Lam}$$ In order to reproduce the correct fractional powers of $\alpha_s$, $S(u)$ in (\[rCm2\]) should have the branch point at $u=\frac{1}{2}$ instead of a pole: $$S(u)=\frac{1}{\left(\frac{1}{2}-u\right)^{1+\beta_2/2\beta_1^2}}
\left[ 2 C_F K_1 - \frac{1}{3} C_A K_2
+ \frac{19}{12} \frac{C_A K_3}{\left(\frac{1}{2}-u\right)^{-\gamma_1/2\beta_1}}
+ \frac{1}{2} \frac{C_A K_4}{\left(\frac{1}{2}-u\right)^{\gamma_1/2\beta_1}}
\right]\,,$$ where omitted terms are suppressed as $\frac{1}{2}-u$ compared to the displayed ones. Normalization constants are known in the large $\beta_1$ limit only: $K_i=1+O(1/\beta_1)$. The large–order behaviour of the perturbation series for $\delta c$ is $$c_{n+1} = n!\,(2\beta_1)^n\,n^{\beta_2/2\beta_1^2}\,
\left[ 4 C_F K_1 - {{\textstyle\frac{2}{3}}} C_A K_2
+ {{\textstyle\frac{19}{6}}} C_A K_3 n^{-\gamma_1/2\beta_1}
+ C_A K_4 n^{\gamma_1/2\beta_1} \right]\,,$$ where omitted terms are suppressed as $1/n$ compared to the displayed ones.
**Acknowledgements**. I am grateful to A. Czarnecki and M. Neubert for collaboration in writing [@CG; @GN]; to S. Groote for ongoing collaboration; to C. Balzereit for discussing [@Balzereit; @Balzereit2]; to T. Mannel for useful discussions; to J. G. Körner for hospitality at Mainz during preparation of this talk; and to M. Beyer for organization of the workshop.
[99]{}
M. Neubert, [Phys. Reports **245** (1994) 259]{}.
E. Eichten and B. Hill, [Phys. Lett. **B234** (1990) 511]{}.
E. Eichten and B. Hill, [Phys. Lett. **B243** (1990) 427]{}.
A. F. Falk, B. Grinstein, and M. E. Luke, [Nucl. Phys. **B357** (1991) 185]{}
C. L. Y. Lee, Preprint CALT–68–1663 (1991); revised (1997).
A. V. Manohar, [Phys. Rev. **D56** (1997) 230]{}.
M. Luke and A. V. Manohar, [Phys. Lett. **B286** (1992) 348]{}.
Y.–Q. Chen, [Phys. Lett. **B317** (1993) 421]{}.
W. Kilian and T. Ohl, [Phys. Rev. **D50** (1994) 4649]{}.
C. Balzereit, Diploma thesis, Darmstadt (1994).
M. Finkemeier, H. Georgi, and M. McIrvin, [Phys. Rev. **D55** (1997) 6933]{}.
R. Sundrum, Preprint BUHEP–97–14, hep-ph/9704256 (1997); Phys. Rev. **D57**, in print.
C. L. Y. Lee, Preprint UCSD–TH–97–24, hep-ph/9709238 (1997).
J. G. Körner and G. Thompson, [Phys. Lett. **B264** (1991) 185]{}.
S. Balk, J. G. Körner, and D. Pirjol, [Nucl. Phys. **B428** (1994) 499]{}.
T. Mannel, W. Roberts, and Z. Ryzak, [Nucl. Phys. **B368** (19204) 92]{}.
C. L. Y. Lee, Preprint UCSD–TH–97–23, hep-ph/9709237 (1997).
G. Amorós, M. Beneke, and M. Neubert, [Phys. Lett. **B401** (1997) 81]{}.
A. Czarnecki and A. G. Grozin, [Phys. Lett. **B405** (1997) 142]{}.
A. G. Grozin and M. Neubert, Preprint CERN–TH/97–102, hep-ph/9707318 (1997); Nucl. Phys. **B**, in print.
Y.–Q. Chen, Y. P. Kuang, and R. Oakes, [Phys. Rev. **D52** (1995) 264]{}.
C. Balzereit and T. Ohl, [Phys. Lett. **B386** (1996) 335]{}.
M. Finkemeier and M. McIrvin, [Phys. Rev. **D55** (1997) 377]{}.
B. Blok, J. G. Körner, D. Pirjol, and J. C. Rojas, [Nucl. Phys. **B496** (1997) 358]{}.
C.Bauer and A. V. Manohar, Preprint UCSD/PTH 97–19, UTP–97–17, hep-ph/9708306 (1997); Phys. Rev. **D57**, in print.
C. Balzereit, These Proceedings.
L. F. Abbott, Acta Phys. Polonica **13** (1982) 33.
T. Mannel, [Phys. Rev. **D50** (1994) 428]{}.
I. I. Bigi, M. A. Shifman, N. G. Uraltsev, and A. I. Vainshtein, [Phys. Rev. **D52** (1995) 196]{}.
N. Gray, D. J. Broadhurst, W. Grafe, and K. Schilcher, [Zeit. Phys. **C48** (1990) 673]{}.
D. J. Broadhurst, N. Gray, and K. Schilcher, [Zeit. Phys. **C52** (1991) 111]{}.
D. J. Broadhurst, [Zeit. Phys. **C54** (1992) 599]{}.
D. J. Broadhurst and A. G. Grozin, [Phys. Rev. **D52** (1995) 4082]{}.
A. H. Mueller, QCD 20 years later, ed. P. M. Zerwas and H. A. Kastrup, World Scientific (1993), p. 162.
M. Beneke and V. M. Braun, [Nucl. Phys. **B426** (1994) 301]{}.
I. I. Bigi, M. A. Shifman, N. G. Uraltsev, and A. I. Vainshtein, [Phys. Rev. **D50** (1994) 2234]{}.
M. Neubert and C. T. Sachrajda, [Nucl. Phys. **B438** (1995) 235]{}.
[^1]: in [@Mannel], $\rho_{mm}^3$ is missing; in [@BSUV], the leading logarithmic running of $C_m(\mu)$ has a wrong sign.
|
---
abstract: 'Intensity mapping is a promising technique for surveying the large scale structure of our Universe from $z=0$ to $z \sim 150$, using the brightness temperature field of spectral lines to directly observe previously unexplored portions of out cosmic timeline. Examples of targeted lines include the $21\,\textrm{cm}$ hyperfine transition of neutral hydrogen, rotational lines of carbon monoxide, and fine structure lines of singly ionized carbon. Recent efforts have focused on detections of the power spectrum of spatial fluctuations, but have been hindered by systematics such as foreground contamination. This has motivated the decomposition of data into Fourier modes perpendicular and parallel to the line-of-sight, which has been shown to be a particularly powerful way to diagnose systematics. However, such a method is well-defined only in the limit of a narrow-field, flat-sky approximation. This limits the sensitivity of intensity mapping experiments, as it means that wide surveys must be separately analyzed as a patchwork of smaller fields. In this paper, we develop a framework for analyzing intensity mapping data in a spherical Fourier-Bessel basis, which incorporates curved sky effects without difficulty. We use our framework to generalize a number of techniques in intensity mapping data analysis from the flat sky to the curved sky. These include visibility-based estimators for the power spectrum, treatments of interloper lines, and the “foreground wedge" signature of spectrally smooth foregrounds.'
author:
- 'Adrian Liu$^{\dagger}$, Yunfan Zhang, Aaron R. Parsons'
bibliography:
- 'biblio.bib'
title: Spherical Harmonic Analyses of Intensity Mapping Power Spectra
---
Introduction {#sec:Intro}
============
[[^1]]{} In recent years, intensity mapping has been hailed as a promising method for conducting cosmological surveys of unprecedented volume. In an intensity mapping survey, the brightness temperature of an optically thin spectral line is mapped over a three-dimensional volume, with radial distance information provided by the observed frequency (and thus redshift) of the line. By observing brightness temperature fluctuations on cosmologically relevant scales (without resolving individual sources responsible for the emission or absorption), intensity mapping provides a relatively cheap way to survey our Universe. In addition, with an appropriate choice of spectral line and a suitably designed instrument, the volume accessible to an intensity mapping survey is enormous. This allows measurements to be made over a large number of independent cosmological modes, providing highly precise constraints on both astrophysical and cosmological models. For example, intensity mapping experiments tracing the $21\,\textrm{cm}$ hyperfine transition of hydrogen can easily access $\sim 10^9$ independent modes, which is much greater than the $\sim 10^6$ accessible to the Cosmic Microwave Background, in principle unlocking a far greater portion of the available information in our observable Universe [@loeb_and_zaldarriaga2004; @mao_et_al2008; @tegmark_and_zaldarriaga2009; @ma_and_scott2016; @scott_et_al2016].
A large number of intensity mapping experiments are in operation, and more have been proposed. Post-reionization neutral hydrogen $21\,\textrm{cm}$ intensity mapping is being conducted by the Canadian Hydrogen Intensity Mapping Experiment [@bandura_et_al2014], the Green Bank Telescope [@masui_et_al2013], Tianlai telescope [@chen_et_al2012], Baryon Acoustic Oscillations from Integrated Neutral Gas Observations project [@battye_et_al2013], Hydrogen Intensity and Real-time Analysis eXperiment [@newburgh_et_al2016], and BAORadio [@ansari_et_al2012]. These experiments use neutral hydrogen as a tracer of the large scale density field, with a primary scientific goal of constraining dark energy via measurements of the baryon acoustic oscillation feature from $0 < z < 4$ [@wyithe_et_al2008; @chang_et_al2008; @pober_et_al2013a]. At $z \sim 2$ to $3.5$, data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey have been used for Ly $\alpha$ intensity mapping [@croft_et_al2016]. Other experiments such as the CO Power Spectrum Survey [@keating_et_al2015; @keating_et_al2016] and the CO Mapping Array Pathfinder [@li_et_al2016] use CO as a tracer of molecular gas in the epoch of galaxy formation at roughly $z \sim 2$ to $3$. Using \[CII\] instead is the Spectroscopic Terahertz Airborne Receiver for Far-InfraRed Exploration (operating at $0.5 < z < 1.5$; @uzgil_et_al2014), and the Tomographic Ionized carbon Mapping Experiment (operating at $5 < z < 9$; @crites_et_al2014). The highest redshift bins of the latter encroach upon the Epoch of Reionization (EoR), when the first galaxies systematically reionized the hydrogen content of the intergalactic medium. Extending into the EoR, intensity mapping efforts are mainly focused around the $21\,\textrm{cm}$ line. The Donald C. Backer Precision Array for Probing the Epoch of Reionzation array (PAPER; @parsons_et_al2010), the Low Frequency Array [@van_haarlem_et_al2013], the Murchison Widefield Array [@bowman_et_al2012; @tingay_et_al2013], the Giant Metrewave Radio Telescope [@paciga_et_al2013], the Long Wavelength Array (M. W. Eastwood et al., in prep.), 21 Centimeter Array [@huang_et_al2016; @zheng_et_al2016], and the Hydrogen Epoch of Reionization Array [@deboer_et_al2016] are radio interferometers that aim to use the $21\,\textrm{cm}$ line to probe the density, ionization state, and temperature of hydrogen in the range $6 < z < 13$ and beyond. The future Square Kilometre Array [@mellema_et_al2015] will provide yet more collecting area for $21\,\textrm{cm}$ intensity mapping to complement the aforementioned experiments. With such a large suite of instruments covering an expansive range in redshift, tremendous opportunities exist for understanding the formation of the first stars and galaxies via direct measurements of the IGM during all the relevant epochs [@hogan_and_rees1979; @scott_and_rees1990; @madau_et_al1997; @tozzi_et_al2000], as well as fundamental cosmological parameters [@mcquinn_et_al2006; @mao_et_al2008; @visbal_et_al2009; @clesse_et_al2012; @liu_et_al2016] and exotic phenomena such as dark matter annihilations [@valdes_et_al2013; @evoli_et_al2014].
Despite its promise, intensity mapping is challenging, and to date the only positive detections have been tentative detections of Ly $\alpha$ at $z \sim 2$ to $3.5$ [@croft_et_al2016] and CO from $z\sim 2.3$ to $3.3$ [@keating_et_al2016], as well as detections of HI at $z\sim 0.8$ via cross-correlation with optical galaxies [@chang_et_al2010; @masui_et_al2013]. To realize the full potential of intensity mapping, it is necessary to overcome a large number of systematics. A prime example would be radiation from foreground astrophysical sources, which are particularly troublesome for HI intensity mapping. Especially at high redshifts, foregrounds add contaminant emission to the measurement that are orders of magnitude brighter than the cosmological signal [@dimatteo_et_al2002; @santos_et_al2005; @wang_et_al2006; @deOliveiraCosta_et_al2008; @sims_et_al2016]. Low frequency measurements (for instance, those targeting the $21\,\textrm{cm}$ EoR signal), are mainly contaminated by broadband foregrounds such as Galactic synchrotron emission or extragalactic point sources (whether they are bright and resolved or are part of a dim and unresolved continuum). These foregrounds are typically less dominant at the higher frequencies and are thus easier (though still challening) to handle for CO or \[CII\] intensity mapping experiments. However, such experiments must also contend with the problem of interloper lines, where two spectral lines of different rest wavelengths may redshift into the same observation band, leading to confusion as to which spectral line has been observed.
In addition to astrophysical foregrounds, instrumental systematics must be well-controlled for a successful measurement of the cosmological signal. Among others, these systematics include beam-forming errors [@neben_et_al2016b], radio frequency interference [@offringa_et_al2013; @offringa_et_al2015; @huang_et_al2016], polarization leakage [@geil_et_al2011; @moore_et_al2013; @shaw_et_al2014b; @sutinjo_et_al2015; @asad_et_al2015; @moore_et_al2015; @kohn_et_al2016], calibration errors [@newburgh_et_al2014; @trott_and_wayth2016; @barry_et_al2016; @patil_et_al2016], and instrumental reflections [@neben_et_al2016a; @ewall-wice_et_al2016a; @thyagarajan_et_al2016].
In this paper, we focus specifically on measurements of the power spectrum $P(k)$ of spatial fluctuations in brightness temperature, where roughly speaking, the temperature field is Fourier transformed and then squared. In diagnosing the aforementioned systematics as they pertain to spatial fluctuation experiments, it is helpful to decompose the fluctuations into modes that separate purely angular fluctuations from purely radial fluctuations from those that are a mixture of both. In recent years, for example, simulations and measured upper limits of the $21\,\textrm{cm}$ power spectrum have often been expressed as cylindrically binned power spectra. To form cylindrically binned power spectra, one begins with unbinned power spectra $P(\mathbf{k})$, where $\mathbf{k}$ is the three-dimensional wavevector of spatial Fourier modes. If the field of view is narrow, there exists a particular direction that can be identified as the line-of-sight (or radial) direction. One of the three components of $\mathbf{k}$ can then be chosen to lie along this direction and labeled $k_\parallel$ as a reminder that it is *parallel* to the line-of-sight. The remaining two components—which we arbitrarily designate $k_x$ and $k_y$ in this paper—describe transverse (i.e., angular fluctuations), and have a magnitude $k_\perp \equiv \sqrt{k_x^2 + k_y^2}$. Binning $P(\mathbf{k})$ along contours of constant $k_\perp$ gives $P(k_\perp, k_\parallel)$, the cylindrically binned power spectrum.
Expressing the power spectrum as a function of $k_\perp$ and $k_\parallel$ is a powerful diagnostic exercise because intensity mapping surveys probe line-of-sight fluctuations in a fundamentally different way than the way they probe angular fluctuations. Systematics are therefore usually anisotropic and have distinct signatures on the $k_\perp$-$k_\parallel$ plane [@morales_and_hewitt2004]. For example, cable reflections and bandpass calibration errors tend to appear as features parallel to the $k_\parallel$ axis [@dillon_et_al2015; @ewall-wice_et_al2016b; @jacobs_et_al2016]. Thus, the cylindrically binned power spectrum is a useful intermediate quantity to compute before one performs a final binning along constant $k \equiv \sqrt{k_\perp^2 + k_\parallel^2}$ to give an isotropic power spectrum $P(k)$.
The diagnostic capability of $P(k_\perp, k_\parallel)$ is particularly apparent when considering foregrounds. Assuming that they are spectrally smooth, foregrounds preferentially contaminate low $k_\parallel$ modes, since $k_\parallel$ is the Fourier conjugate to line-of-sight distance, which is probed by the frequency spectrum in intensity mapping experiments. The situation is more complicated for the (large) subset of intensity mapping measurements that are performed on interferometers. Interferometers are inherently chromatic in nature, causing intrinsically smooth spectrum foregrounds to acquire spectral structure, which results in leakage to higher $k_\parallel$ modes. Even this leakage, however, has been shown in recent years to have a predictable “wedge" signature on the $k_\perp$-$k_\parallel$ plane, limiting the contaminated region to a triangular-shaped region at high $k_\perp$ and low $k_\parallel$ [@Datta2010; @Vedantham2012; @Morales2012; @Parsons_et_al2012b; @Trott2012; @Thyagarajan2013; @pober_et_al2013b; @dillon_et_al2014; @Hazelton2013; @Thyagarajan_et_al2015a; @Thyagarajan_et_al2015b; @liu_et_al2014a; @liu_et_al2014b; @chapman_et_al2016; @pober_et_al2016; @seo_and_hirata2016; @jensen_et_al2016; @kohn_et_al2016]. In fact, the foreground wedge is considered sufficiently robust that some instruments have been designed around it [@pober_et_al2014; @deboer_et_al2016; @dillon_et_al2016; @neben_et_al2016a; @ewall-wice_et_al2016a; @thyagarajan_et_al2016], implicitly pursuing a strategy of foreground avoidance where the power spectrum can be measured in relatively uncontaminated Fourier modes outside the wedge. This mitigates the need for extremely detailed models of the foregrounds, providing a conservative path towards early detections of the power spectrum.
Despite its utility, the $k_\perp$-$k_\parallel$ power spectrum is limited in that it is ultimately a quantity that is only well-defined in the flat-sky, narrow field-of-view limit, where a single line-of-sight direction can be unambiguously defined. For surveys with wide fields of view, different portions of the survey have different lines of sight that point in different directions with respect to a cosmological reference frame. Note that this is a separate problem from that of wide-field imaging: even if one’s imaging software does not make any flat-sky approximations (so that the resulting images of emission within the survey volume are undistorted by any wide-field effects), the act of forming a power spectrum on a $k_\perp$-$k_\parallel$ invokes a narrow-field approximation. If one insists on forming $P(k_\perp, k_\parallel)$ as a diagnostic, the simplest way to do so is to split up the survey into multiple small patches that are individually small enough to warrant a narrow-field assumption. A separate power spectrum can then be formed from each patch by squaring the Fourier mode amplitudes, and the resulting collection of power spectra can then be averaged together. While correct, such a “square-then-average" procedure results in lower signal-to-noise than a hypothetical “average-then-square" procedure whereby a single power spectrum is formed out of the entire survey. The latter allows the spatial modes of a survey to be averaged together coherently, which allows instrumental noise to be averaged down very quickly. Roughly speaking, if $N$ patches of sky are averaged in a coherent fashion to constrain a particular spatial mode, the noise on the measured mode amplitude averages down as $1/\sqrt{N}$. Squaring this amplitude to form a power spectrum then results in a quicker $1/N$ scaling of noise. In contrast, a “square-then-average" method combines $N$ independent pieces of information after squaring, and thus the power spectrum noise scales more slowly[^2] as $1/\sqrt{N}$. The result is a less sensitive statistic, whether for the diagnosis of systematics or for a cosmological measurement. To be fair, one could recover the lost sensitivity by also computing all cross-correlations between a series of small overlapping patches. However, the necessary geometric adjustments for such high precision mosaicking will likely be computationally wasteful, and it quickly becomes preferable to adopt an approach that incorporates the curved sky from the beginning.
In this paper, we rectify the shortcomings of the $k_\perp$-$k_\parallel$ plane by introducing an alternative that is well-defined in the wide-field limit. Rather than expanding sky emission in a basis of rectilinear Fourier modes, we propose a spherical Fourier-Bessel basis. In this basis, the sky brightness temperature $T(\mathbf{r})$ of a survey (where $\mathbf{r}$ is the comoving position) is expressed in terms of $\overline{T}_{\ell m} (k)$, defined as[^3] $$\label{eq:TellmEverything}
\overline{T}_{\ell m} (k) \equiv \sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}} \int \! d\Omega dr\, r^2 j_\ell (kr) Y_{\ell m}^* ({\hat{\mathbf{r}}}) T(\mathbf{r}),$$ where $k$ is the *total* wavenumber, $\ell$ and $m$ are the spherical harmonic indices, $Y_{\ell m}$ denotes the corresponding spherical harmonic, $r \equiv | \mathbf{r}|$ is the radial distance, $\mathbf{\hat{r}} \equiv \mathbf{r} / r$ is the angular direction unit vector[^4], and $j_\ell$ is the $\ell$th order spherical Bessel function of the first kind. The quantity $P(k_\perp, k_\parallel)$ is replaced by the analogous quantity $S_\ell (k)$, the spherical harmonic power spectrum, which roughly takes the form $$\label{eq:Sellkrough}
S_\ell (k) \propto \frac{1}{2 \ell + 1} \sum_{m = -\ell}^\ell |\overline{T}_{\ell m} (k)|^2,$$ where the sum over $m$ is analogous to the binning of $k_x$ and $k_y$ into $k_\perp$, and a more rigorous definition (with constants of proportionality) will be defined in Section \[sec:SphericalPspecFormalism\]. Instead of the $k_\perp$-$k_\parallel$ plane, power spectrum measurements are now expressed on an $\ell$-$k$ plane. Now, we will show in Section \[sec:SphericalPspecFormalism\] that in the limit of a translationally invariant cosmological field, $S_\ell (k)$ reduces to $P(k)$. Therefore, just as $P(k_\perp, k_\parallel)$ can be averaged along contours of constant $k$ to form $P(k)$ once systematic effects are under control, the same can be done for $S_\ell (k)$ to form $P(k)$ by averaging over all values of $\ell$ for a particular $k$.
Spherical Fourier-Bessel methods have been explored in the past within the galaxy survey literature [@binney_quinn1991; @lahav_et_al1994; @fisher_et_al1994; @fisher_et_al1995; @heavens_taylor1995; @zaroubi_et_al1995; @castro_et_al2005; @leistedt_et_al2012; @rassat_refregier2012; @shapiro_et_al2012; @pratten_munshi2013; @yoo_desjacques2013]. In this paper, we build upon these methods and present a framework for implementing them in an analysis of intensity mapping data. We emphasize the way in which intensity mapping surveys have unique geometric properties, and how these properties affect spherical Fourier-Bessel methods. For instance, we pay special attention to the fact that particularly for the highest redshift observations, intensity mapping experiments probe survey volumes that are radially compressed but angularly expansive (as illustrated in Figure \[fig:surveyGeom\]). In harmonic space, this expectation is reversed, and there is excellent spatial resolution along the line-of-sight (since high spectral resolution is relatively easy to achieve), but poor angular resolution. In addition to addressing these geometric peculiarities, we also show how interferometric data can be analyzed with spherical Fourier-Bessel methods. Importantly, we find that the foregrounds again appear as a wedge in interferometric measurements of $S_\ell (k)$, which suggests that the $\ell$-$k$ plane is at least as powerful a diagnostic tool as the $k_\perp$-$k_\parallel$ plane, particularly given the signal-to-noise advantages discussed above.[^5]
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Section \[sec:Notation\] we establish notational conventions for this paper. Section \[sec:SphericalPspecFormalism\] introduces spherical Fourier-Bessel methods for power spectrum estimation, with the complication of finite surveys (in both the angular and spectral directions) the subject of Section \[sec:FiniteVolume\]. In Section \[sec:Foregrounds\] we compute the signature of smooth spectrum foregrounds on the $\ell$-$k$ plane. Interloper lines are explored in Section \[sec:Interlopers\]. A framework for interferometric power spectrum estimation using spherical Fourier-Bessel methods (which includes a derivation of the foreground wedge) is presented in Section \[sec:Interferometry\]. To build intuition, we develop a parallel series of flat-sky, narrow field-of-view expressions in a series of Appendices. Our conclusions are summarized in Section \[sec:Conclusions\]. Because of the large number of mathematical quantities defined in this paper, we provide a glossary of important symbols for the reader’s convenience in Table \[tab:Definitions\].
Quantity Meaning/Definition Context
------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------
$\mathbf{r}$ Comoving position Section \[sec:Intro\]
$\mathbf{\hat{r}}$ Angular direction unit vector Section \[sec:Intro\]
$\mathbf{r}_\perp$ Comoving transverse distance Eq.
$r(\nu)$ or $r_\nu$ Comoving radial distance Eq.
$s(r)$ Incorrect radial distance assumed for true radial distance $r$ due to interloper lines Eq.
$\nu(r)$ or $\nu_r$ Observed frequency of radio emission Section \[sec:Notation\]
$\alpha$ Linearized conversion factor between frequency and radial comoving distance Eq.
$ \boldsymbol \theta$ Sky image angle Eq.
$\mathbf{k}$ Wavevector of rectilinear spatial Fourier modes Section \[sec:Intro\]
$k_\perp$ Magnitude of wavevector components perpendicular to line of sight Section \[sec:Intro\]
$k_\parallel$ Magnitude of wavevector components parallel to line of sight Section \[sec:Intro\]
$k$ Total wavenumber/wavevector magnitude of rectilinear spatial Fourier modes Section \[sec:Intro\]
$\phi(\mathbf{r})$ Survey volume selection function Section \[sec:FiniteVolume\]
$\phi(r)$ Radial survey profile or survey volume selection function assuming full-sky covarage Section \[sec:FiniteVolume\]
$\Phi(r)$ Radial survey profile centered on radial midpoint of survey Section \[sec:MostlyRadialNoInterferometry\]
$T(\mathbf{r})$ or $T({\hat{\mathbf{r}}}, \nu)$ Sky temperature in configuration space Eq.
$ \overline{T}_{\ell m} (k)$ Sky temperature in spherical Fourier-Bessel space Eq.
$ \overline{T}_{\ell m}^\textrm{meas} (k)$ Estimated sky temperature in spherical Fourier-Bessel space for finite-volume surveys Eq.
$\widetilde{T} (\mathbf{k})$ Sky temperature in rectilinear Fourier space Eq.
$\kappa (\nu)$ Frequency spectrum of foreground contaminants Eq.
$q_\ell (k)$ Frequency spectrum of foreground contaminants in radial spherical Bessel basis Eq.
$a_{\ell m} (\nu)$ Sky temperature in frequency/spherical harmonic space Eq.
$Y_{\ell m} $ Spherical harmonic function Section \[sec:SphericalPspecFormalism\]
$\psi_{\ell m} (k; {\hat{\mathbf{r}}}, \nu)$ Spherical Fourier-Bessel basis function in configuration space Eq.
$j_\ell (kr) $ $\ell$th order spherical Bessel function of the first kind Section \[sec:SphericalPspecFormalism\]
$C_\ell$ Angular power spectrum Section \[sec:RotationalInvarianceOnly\]
$P(\mathbf{k})$ Brightness temperature power spectrum Section \[sec:Intro\]
$P(k_\perp, k_\parallel)$ Brightness temperature power spectrum, assuming cylindrical symmetry Section \[sec:Intro\]
$P(k)$ Brightness temperature power spectrum, assuming isotropy Eq.
$S_\ell (k) $ Spherical harmonic power spectrum Eq.
$ \mathbf{b}$ Interferometer baseline vector Section \[sec:Interferometry\]
$\tau$ Interferometric time delay Eq.
$V(\mathbf{b}, \nu)$ Interferometric visibility Eq.
$\widetilde{V}(\mathbf{b}, \tau)$ Interferometric visibility in delay space Eq.
$A({\hat{\mathbf{r}}}, \nu)$ Primary beam of receiving elements of interferometer Eq.
$B({\hat{\mathbf{r}}}, \nu)$ Rescaled primary beam Eq.
$\overline{B^2}(\theta) $ Squared primary beam profile, averaged azimuthally about a baseline vector Eq.
$\gamma (\nu)$ Delay transform tapering function Eq.
$f_{\ell m} (\mathbf{b}, \nu)$ Response of baseline $\mathbf{b}$ at frequency $\nu$ to unit perturbation of spherical harmonic mode $Y_{\ell m}$ Eq.
$g_{\ell m} (\mathbf{b}, \tau)$ Response of baseline $\mathbf{b}$ at delay $\tau$ to unit perturbation of spherical harmonic mode $Y_{\ell m}$ Eq.
$W_\ell (k; \mathbf{b}, \tau)$ Spherical harmonic power spectrum window function for a single baseline delay-based Eq.
power spectrum estimate
$\Theta(\nu)$ Re-centered frequency profile of the foregrounds as seen in the data, with finite bandwidth Section \[sec:CurvedSkyWedge\]
and tapering effects
$D(\mathbf{r})$ Survey volume selection function including primary beam, bandwidth, and data analysis Appendix \[sec:RectilinearInterferometerPspecNorm\]
tapering effects
Notational preliminaries {#sec:Notation}
========================
Suppose an intensity mapping survey has surveyed the brightness temperature field $T({\hat{\mathbf{r}}}, \nu)$ of a particular spectral line as a function of angle (specified here in terms of unit vector ${\hat{\mathbf{r}}}$) and frequency $\nu$. Such a quantity represents a three-dimensional survey of our Universe, since different frequencies of a spectral line map to different redshifts, and thus different radial distances from the observer. Explicitly, the comoving radial distance $r$ is given by $$\label{eq:ComovingDistDef}
r (\nu) = \frac{c}{H_0} \int_0^{z(\nu)} \frac{dz^\prime}{E(z^\prime)},$$ where $c$ is the speed of light, $H_0$ is the present day Hubble parameter, with $$1 + z \equiv \frac{\nu_\textrm{rest}}{\nu}\quad \textrm{and} \quad E(z) \equiv \sqrt{\Omega_\Lambda + \Omega_m (1+z)^3},$$ where $\nu_\textrm{rest}$ is the rest frequency of the spectral line, $z$ is the redshift, $\Omega_\Lambda$ is the normalized dark energy density, and $\Omega_m$ is the normalized matter density. There is thus a one-to-one mapping between frequency and comoving radial distance, and as shorthand throughout this paper, we will adopt the notation $r_\nu \equiv r(\nu)$. Similarly, we will often use the symbol $\nu_r$ to denote frequency, with the subscript reminding us that the observed frequency is a function of the radial distance. Given a radial distance, transverse distances may also be computed given ${\hat{\mathbf{r}}}$ (or angle on the sky) using simple geometry.
If one’s survey occurs over a narrow radial range, the distance-frequency relation is often replaced by a linearized approximation where $$\label{eq:LinearDistanceApprox}
r - r_\textrm{ref} \approx - \alpha (\nu - \nu_\textrm{ref} ),$$ with $r_\textrm{ref}$ and $\nu_\textrm{ref}$ being a reference comoving radial distance and a reference frequency, respectively, with values constrained by Eq. , and $$\label{eq:AlphaConversion}
\alpha \equiv \frac{1}{\nu_\textrm{rest}} \frac{c}{H_0} \frac{(1+z_\textrm{ref})^2}{E(z_\textrm{ref})},$$ where $1 + z_\textrm{ref} = \nu_\textrm{rest} / \nu_\textrm{ref}$. In this paper, the symbols $\nu_r$ and $r_\nu$ will always refer to the exact nonlinear relations, and any invocations of the linearized approximations will be written out explicitly using Eq. . When using the linearized approximation for the radial distance, we will often (though not always) also make the small angle approximation for converting between the angle $\boldsymbol \theta$ and the transverse comoving position $\mathbf{r}_\perp$ from some reference direction, where $$\label{eq:AngularConversion}
\mathbf{r}_\perp = r \boldsymbol \theta.$$
Given the well-defined prescriptions for converting between instrument-centric parameters (such as frequency $\nu$ and direction on the sky ${\hat{\mathbf{r}}}$) and cosmology-centric ones (such as $r$ and $\mathbf{r}_\perp$), we will often use both sets of parameters to describe the same quantities. For example, we will sometimes write the brightness temperature field as $T({\hat{\mathbf{r}}}, \nu)$, whereas other times we will write the same quantity as $T(\mathbf{r})$, where $\mathbf{r}$ is the comoving position. We will additionally find it useful to exhibit similar flexibility in our notation even for quantities that are not cosmological in nature, such as the primary beam of a radio telescope.
Spherical Fourier-Bessel Formalism {#sec:SphericalPspecFormalism}
==================================
In this section we introduce the mathematical framework for describing the sky in terms of the spherical harmonic power spectrum. Our treatment here is essentially identical to that of @yoo_desjacques2013, albeit with different Fourier-Bessel transform conventions. No claims of originality are made in this section (except perhaps for Section \[sec:RotationalInvarianceOnly\]), and the formalism is included only for completeness. We will, however, occasionally provide previews of how various parts of the framework are particularly helpful for intensity mapping and interferometry. In the spherical Fourier-Bessel basis, angular fluctuations are expressed by expanding the temperature field $T({\hat{\mathbf{r}}}, \nu)$ in spherical harmonics, such that $$\label{eq:SHTdef}
a_{\ell m} (\nu) \equiv \int d\Omega Y_{\ell m}^* ({\hat{\mathbf{r}}}) T({\hat{\mathbf{r}}}, \nu).$$ To capture modes along the line-of-sight, we perform a Fourier-Bessel transform along the frequency direction, yielding $$\label{eq:FBdef}
\overline{T}_{\ell m} (k) \equiv \sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}} \int_0^\infty \! dr\, r^2 j_\ell (kr) a_{\ell m} (\nu_r),$$ with these last two expressions of course combining to give Eq. . The temperature field of the sky may therefore be thought of as being a linear combination of a set of basis functions $\psi_{\ell m } (k; {\hat{\mathbf{r}}}, \nu)$ that are indexed by $(k,\ell,m)$, so that $$\label{eq:InverseTrans}
T({\hat{\mathbf{r}}}, \nu) = \sum_{\ell m} \int dk\, \psi_{\ell m } (k; {\hat{\mathbf{r}}}, \nu) \overline{T}_{\ell m} (k),$$ where $$\label{eq:BasisFcts}
\psi_{\ell m } (k; {\hat{\mathbf{r}}}, \nu) \equiv k^2 \sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}} j_\ell (kr_\nu) Y_{\ell m} ({\hat{\mathbf{r}}}).$$ Eqs. and are the forward transforms into the harmonic basis, while Eqs. and define the inverse transforms back into configuration space. This can be verified by substituting Eq. into Eq. , and using orthonormality of spherical harmonics, as well as the analogous identity for spherical Bessel functions, given by $$\label{eq:BesselOrthog}
\int \! dr \,r^2 j_\ell (k r) j_\ell (k^\prime r) = \frac{\pi}{2 k k^\prime} \delta^D (k - k^\prime),$$ where $\delta^D$ is the Dirac delta function. Note that our convention for the radial transform differs from that of most works in the literature. From Eqs. and , one sees that our convention is symmetric in the following sense. Whether one is switching from $r$-space to $k$-space or vice versa, the prescription is always to multiply by $\sqrt{2 / \pi} j_\ell (kr)$ and the square of the coordinate (i.e., $r^2$ or $k^2$) of the original space before integrating over it. This makes our forward and backward transforms aesthetically and conveniently symmetric. Most previous works (e.g., @leistedt_et_al2012 [@rassat_refregier2012; @yoo_desjacques2013]), in contrast, opt for an asymmetric convention: an extra factor of $k$ is included in the forward transform from $r$ to $k$, and correspondingly there is one fewer factor of $k$ in the backwards transform.
Translationally invariant fields in the spherical Fourier-Bessel formalism {#eq:TransInvarFields}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
In some sense, the decision to expand fluctuation modes along the line of sight in terms of spherical Bessel functions rather than some other set of basis functions is arbitrary. However, we will now show that spherical Bessel functions are a particularly good choice for describing temperature fields that are statistically translation invariant. Translation-invariant fields admit a representation in terms of their power spectrum $P(k)$, which we define implicitly via the equation[^6] $$\label{eq:RectilinearPspecDef}
\langle \widetilde{T} (\mathbf{k}) \widetilde{T}^* (\mathbf{k^\prime}) \rangle = (2 \pi)^3 \delta^D (\mathbf{k} - \mathbf{k}^\prime) P(k),$$ where the angled brackets $\langle \cdots \rangle$ signify an ensemble average over random realizations of the cosmological temperature field $T(\mathbf{r})$, whose Fourier transform $\widetilde{T} (\mathbf{k})$ we define by the convention $$\label{eq:forwardNormal}
\widetilde{T} (\mathbf{k}) = \int \! d^3 r \,e^{-i \mathbf{k} \cdot \mathbf{r}} T(\mathbf{r})$$ with the inverse transform given by $$\label{eq:inverseNormal}
T(\mathbf{r}) = \int \! \frac{d^3 k}{(2 \pi)^3} e^{i \mathbf{k} \cdot \mathbf{r}} \widetilde{T} (\mathbf{k}).$$ Unless otherwise stated, this Fourier convention for the temperature field will be the one used for all Fourier transforms in this paper. Ideally, our spherical Fourier-Bessel description should be directly relatable to $P(k)$, for it would be pointless if an estimation of the power spectrum required first returning to position space. We will now show that this requirement is met by our $\overline{T}_{\ell m} (k)$ modes.
To relate $\overline{T}_{\ell m} (k)$ to $P(k)$, we combine Eqs. , , and to obtain $$\label{eq:YetAnotherTellm}
\overline{T}_{\ell m} (k) = \sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}} \int \! \frac{d^3 k^\prime}{(2 \pi)^3} \widetilde{T} (\mathbf{k}^\prime) \int \! d^3 r\, j_\ell (kr) Y_{\ell m}^*({\hat{\mathbf{r}}}) e^{i \mathbf{k}^\prime \cdot \mathbf{r}}.$$ To simplify this, we expand $e^{i \mathbf{k}^\prime \cdot \mathbf{r}}$ in spherical harmonics using the identity $$\label{eq:PlaneWaveSphericalHarmonicExpansion}
e^{i \mathbf{k} \cdot \mathbf{r}} = 4\pi \sum_{\ell m} i^\ell j_\ell (kr) Y_{\ell m}^* ({\hat{\mathbf{k}}}) Y_{\ell m} ({\hat{\mathbf{r}}}),$$ which leads to $$\label{eq:TlmTkConversion}
\overline{T}_{\ell m} (k) = \frac{i^\ell}{(2\pi)^{\frac{3}{2}}} \int \frac{d^3 k^\prime}{k k^\prime} Y_{\ell m}^* ({\hat{\mathbf{k}}}^\prime) \delta^D (k - k^\prime) \widetilde{T} (\mathbf{k}^\prime).$$ This provides a link between the temperature field as expressed in our $(k,\ell, m)$ basis, and the same field in the rectilinear Fourier basis. Taking a cue from Eq. , where the power spectrum is closely related to the two-point correlation between different rectilinear Fourier modes, we may form a two-point correlator between different modes in our spherical Fourier-Bessel basis, giving $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:CurvedPspecDef}
\langle \overline{T}_{\ell m} (k) \overline{T}_{\ell^\prime m^\prime}^* (k^\prime) \rangle && = \frac{i^\ell (-i)^{\ell^\prime}}{(2\pi)^3} \!\! \int \frac{d^3 k_1}{k k_1} \frac{d^3 k_2}{k^\prime k_2} \nonumber \\
&& \qquad \times Y_{\ell m}^* ({\hat{\mathbf{k}}}_1) Y_{\ell^\prime m^\prime} ({\hat{\mathbf{k}}}_2) \langle \widetilde{T} (\mathbf{k}_1) \widetilde{T} (\mathbf{k}_2)^* \rangle\nonumber \\
&& \qquad \times \delta^D (k - k_1) \delta^D (k^\prime - k_2) \nonumber \\
&& = \frac{\delta^D(k - k^\prime) }{k^2} \delta_{\ell \ell^\prime} \delta_{m m^\prime} P(k),\end{aligned}$$ where the last equality follows from Eq. and some algebraic simplifications. From this, we see that forming the power spectrum from $\overline{T}_{\ell m} (k)$ modes is remarkably similar to forming it from the rectilinear Fourier modes. Comparing Eqs. and , we see that if (roughly speaking) one can form $P(k)$ by squaring $\widetilde{T} (\mathbf{k})$ and normalizing appropriately, one can equally well form $P(k)$ by squaring $\overline{T}_{\ell m} (k)$ and normalizing (albeit with a different—and $k$ dependent—normalization that we will derive more explicitly in Section \[sec:FiniteVolume\]).
To understand why the squaring of $\overline{T}_{\ell m} (k)$ produces such a similar result to squaring $\widetilde{T} (k)$ (with both giving a result proportional to the power spectrum), notice that Eq. can be simplified to give $$\overline{T}_{\ell m} (k) = \frac{i^\ell}{(2\pi)^{\frac{3}{2}}} \int d\Omega_k Y^*_{\ell m} ({\hat{\mathbf{k}}}) \widetilde{T} (\mathbf{k})\bigg{|}_{|\mathbf{k}| = k},$$ where $ \widetilde{T} (\mathbf{k})$ is restricted to the shell where $|\mathbf{k}| = k$. In this form, one sees that an alternate way to understand our spherical harmonic Bessel modes is to view them as a spherical harmonic decomposition of $ \widetilde{T} (\mathbf{k})$ in Fourier space. In other words, going from the rectilinear Fourier modes to spherical harmonic Bessel modes is simply a change of basis—to spherical harmonics—in angular Fourier coordinates. Now, suppose one were to form an estimate of $P(k)$ in by squaring $ \widetilde{T} (\mathbf{k})$ and then averaging over a shell of constant $|\mathbf{k}| = k$. Parseval’s theorem ensures that such a squaring and averaging operation is basis-independent. Thus, it does not matter whether the Fourier amplitudes on the shell of constant $|\mathbf{k}| = k$ are expressed in a spherical harmonic basis. Squaring and averaging $\overline{T}_{\ell m} (k)$ must therefore also yield the power spectrum, up to some $k$-dependent conversion factors to account for the radius of shells in Fourier space. Note that Eq. also cements the interpretation (suggested by our notation) that the quantity $k$ of our Fourier-Bessel basis is the total magnitude of the wavevector $\mathbf{k}$, rather than some wavenumber that only pertains to radial fluctuations.
Rotationally invariant fields in the spherical Fourier-Bessel formalism {#sec:RotationalInvarianceOnly}
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
While the cosmological temperature field is expected to possess translationally invariant statistics, contaminants in an intensity mapping survey (such as foreground emission) will in general not possess such symmetry. This difference in symmetry will result in different signatures on the $\ell$-$k$ plane that can in principle be used to separate contaminants from the cosmological signal.
To elucidate the contrast in these signatures, suppose we discard the assumption (from previous derivations) of translationally invariant statistics. In general, the two-point correlator will cease to exhibit the diagonal form given by Eq. . As a concrete example of this, consider a random temperature field that is statistically isotropic but not homogeneous. In the radial direction, suppose this field has some fixed (non-random and angular position-independent) radial dependence. Such a field would be an appropriate description for a (hypothetical) population of unresolved point sources. Under these assumptions, Eq. reduces to $$\overline{T}_{\ell m} (k) = a_{\ell m} q_\ell (k),$$ where $$\label{eq:qellk}
q_\ell (k) \equiv \sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}} \int_0^\infty dr r^2 j_\ell (kr) \kappa (\nu_r),$$ with $\kappa (\nu_r)$ specifying the spectral (and therefore radial) dependence of our hypothetical sky as it appears in our data. The two-point correlator then becomes $$\langle \overline{T}_{\ell m} (k) \overline{T}_{\ell^\prime m^\prime}^* (k^\prime) \rangle = C_\ell q_\ell(k) q_\ell (k^\prime) \delta_{\ell \ell^\prime} \delta_{m m^\prime},$$ where statistical rotation invariance of the field allows us to invoke relation $\langle a_{\ell m} a_{\ell^\prime m^\prime}^* \rangle \equiv C_\ell \delta_{\ell \ell^\prime} \delta_{m m^\prime}$, with $C_\ell$ signifying the angular power spectrum.
Our example illustrates the way in which the two-point correlator ceases to be diagonal in $k$ and $k^\prime$ once translation invariance is broken. In general, if the sky exhibits rotational invariance (in the statistical sense), the correlator takes the form $$\langle \overline{T}_{\ell m} (k) \overline{T}_{\ell^\prime m^\prime}^* (k^\prime) \rangle \equiv M_\ell (k, k^\prime) \delta_{\ell \ell^\prime} \delta_{m m^\prime},$$ for some function $M_\ell (k, k^\prime)$. In the limit that the sky is statistically homogeneous in addition to isotropic, $M_\ell (k, k^\prime)$ becomes $\ell$-independent and reduces to $P(k) \delta^D (k - k ^\prime) / k^2$, as demonstrated in Eq. . If one is simply squaring $\overline{T}_{\ell m} (k)$ measurements to estimate the power spectrum but there are non-statistically homogeneous contaminants in the data, one obtains $$\langle | \overline{T}_{\ell m} (k)|^2 \rangle \equiv M_\ell (k) \delta_{\ell \ell^\prime} \delta_{m m^\prime},$$ where $M_\ell (k)$ is a function of both $\ell$ and $k$ rather than just $k$ alone.
We thus see that the spherical Fourier-Bessel formulation fulfills the goals we laid out near the beginning of this section. In particular, the foreground contaminants appear differently on the $\ell$-$k$ plane than the cosmological signal does, owing to the translation-invariant statistics of the latter. This generalizes the symmetry arguments for foreground mitigation laid out in @morales_and_hewitt2004 in a way that is well-defined for wide fields of view. We note, however, that as the formalism currently stands, $M_\ell (k)$ and $P(k)$ are not directly comparable; indeed, they have different units. This arises because the two quantities scale differently with volume. For a random cosmological field described by $P(k)$, the magnitude of $\overline{T}_{\ell m} (k)$ scales as $\sqrt{V}$, where $V$ is the volume of a survey. On the other hand, contaminants may not be describable as random fields. In the case of foregrounds, for example, the signal is smooth and coherent along the radial/frequency direction. As a result, $\overline{T}_{\ell m} (k)$ scales more quickly than $\sqrt{V}$. Indeed, the difference between these scalings was proposed as a method for distinguishing between foreground contamination and cosmological signal in @cho_et_al2012. To derive a quantity for describing survey contaminants on the $\ell$-$k$ that is directly comparable to $P(k)$ it is necessary to specify a survey volume. In the following sections, we will depart from the idealized treatment considered in this section, where we imagined having access to a perfectly sampled field over an infinite volume.
Estimating the power spectrum from finite-volume surveys {#sec:FiniteVolume}
========================================================
In this section, we consider the effects of the necessarily finite extent of any real survey. Finite selection effects were considered in @rassat_refregier2012 and @leistedt_et_al2012, and here we provide a complementary treatment that is not only tailored for intensity mapping, but also provides explicit expressions for the power spectrum on the $\ell$-$k$ plane.
Suppose the extent of our survey is given by a function $\phi(\mathbf{r})$, such that $\phi(\mathbf{r})$ is zero everywhere beyond the boundaries of the survey. A survey with uniform sensitivity can then be modeled by setting $\phi(\mathbf{r}) = 1$ inside the survey. In what follows, however, we do not make this assumption, and we allow for spatially varying sensitivity within the survey. This permits the treatment of angular masks as well as radial selection functions. In general, the temperature field that is analyzed is $\phi(\mathbf{r}) T(\mathbf{r})$ rather than $T(\mathbf{r})$. A result, the measured spherical Fourier-Bessel modes $\overline{T}_{\ell m}^\textrm{meas}(k)$ are not described by Eq. , but instead are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Tellm^meas}
\overline{T}_{\ell m}^\textrm{meas} (k) = \frac{i^\ell}{(2\pi)^{\frac{3}{2}}} \int \frac{d^3 k^\prime}{k k^\prime} && \frac{d^3 k^{\prime \prime}}{(2\pi)^3} Y_{\ell m}^* ({\hat{\mathbf{k}}}^\prime) \delta^D (k - k^\prime) \nonumber \\
&& \times \widetilde{\phi} (\mathbf{k}^\prime - \mathbf{k}^{\prime \prime}) \widetilde{T} (\mathbf{k}^{\prime\prime}),\end{aligned}$$ where we have invoked the convolution theorem to write our expression in terms of $\widetilde{\phi}$, the Fourier transform of $\phi$.
Despite this revised expression, one might still expect the power spectrum to be closely related to $\overline{T}_{\ell m}^\textrm{meas} (k)$. Squaring and taking the ensemble average gives $$\begin{aligned}
\langle | \overline{T}_{\ell m}^\textrm{meas} (k) |^2 \rangle
= \frac{1}{(2\pi)^3} \int \frac{d^3 k_a}{k k_a} \frac{d^3 k_b}{k k_b} \frac{d^3 k_c}{(2\pi)^3} Y_{\ell m}^* ({\hat{\mathbf{k}}}_a) Y_{\ell m} ({\hat{\mathbf{k}}}_b) \nonumber \\
\times P(k_c) \widetilde{\phi} (\mathbf{k}_a - \mathbf{k}_c) \widetilde{\phi}^* (\mathbf{k}_b - \mathbf{k}_c) \delta^D (k - k_a) \delta^D (k - k_b),\qquad\end{aligned}$$ where we have again used the definition of the power spectrum from Eq. to simplify the ensemble average of the two factors of $\widetilde{T}$. Now, if the survey volume is reasonably large, $\phi(\mathbf{r})$ will tend to be a relatively broad function, and thus the two copies of $\widetilde{\phi}$ will be sharply peaked about $\mathbf{k}_a \approx \mathbf{k}_b \approx \mathbf{k}_c$. These then work in conjunction with the two Dirac delta functions to require $k \approx k_c$. With all these conditions, the only part of the integrand that contributes substantially to the integral is the part where $P(k_c) \approx P(k)$, allowing the power spectrum to be factored out of the integral (assuming it is a reasonably smooth function). Doing so and subsequently re-expressing $\widetilde{\phi}$ in terms of $\phi$, our expression simplifies to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:TlmPkProportionality}
\langle | \overline{T}_{\ell m}^\textrm{meas} (k) |^2 \rangle && \approx \frac{P(k)}{(2\pi)^3} \int d^3 r \phi^2 (\mathbf{r}) \nonumber \\
&& \quad \times \Bigg{|} \int \frac{d^3 k_a}{k k_a}Y_{\ell m}^* ({\hat{\mathbf{k}}}_a) e^{-i \mathbf{k}_a \cdot \mathbf{r}} \delta^D (k - k_a) \Bigg{|}^2 \nonumber \\
&& = P(k) \frac{2}{\pi} \int d^3 r \phi^2 (\mathbf{r}) j_\ell^2 (kr) \big{|} Y_{\ell m} ({\hat{\mathbf{r}}}) \big{|}^2, \qquad\end{aligned}$$ where in the last equality we performed the integral over $k_a$ by inserting Eq. and invoking the orthonormality of spherical harmonics. The final result is a direct proportionality between the ensemble average of hypothetical noiseless measurements $ | \overline{T}_{\ell m}^\textrm{meas} (k) |^2$ and the power spectrum. Heuristically, this equation implies that the power spectrum can be estimated using any $(k,\ell, m)$ mode simply by taking $| \overline{T}_{\ell m}^\textrm{meas} (k) |^2$ and dividing out by everything on the right hand side[^7] after $P(k)$. A subsequent averaging of such estimates obtained from modes with the same $k$ but different $\ell$ and $m$ increases the signal-to-noise.
A similar proportionality exists within the framework of rectilinear Fourier modes for relating the squares of the measured Fourier amplitudes $\widetilde{T}^\textrm{meas} (\mathbf{k})$ and $P(k)$ (which we derive in Appendix \[sec:RectilinearFKP\] to facilitate the comparative discussion that follows). With rectilinear modes, $\langle |\widetilde{T}^\textrm{meas} (\mathbf{k}) |^2 \rangle$ is also proportional to $P(k)$, with the constant of proportionality also given by an integral that has units of volume. However, there exists a crucial difference between the volume integral seen here and the one for the rectilinear framework in Appendix \[sec:RectilinearFKP\]. With the rectilinear case, the volume factor is independent of the orientation of $\mathbf{k}$ (i.e., ${\hat{\mathbf{k}}}$), so that Fourier modes of all orientations are equally sensitive to the power spectrum. It follows that an optimal estimate of the power spectrum can be obtained by an average of $|\widetilde{T}^\textrm{meas} (\mathbf{k}) |^2$ over spheres of constant $| \mathbf{k}| = k$ with uniform weighting, as we show in Appendix \[sec:RectilinearFKP\].
In contrast, the volume integral in Eq. is a function of $\ell$ and $m$. For a particular $(k, \ell, m)$ mode, the value of $\ell$ determines how much the total wavenumber $k$ is comprised of angular fluctuations (as opposed to radial fluctuations), while the value of $m$ determines the orientation of the angular fluctuations. Putting these facts together, it follows that with $\overline{T}_{\ell m}^\textrm{meas} (k)$ modes, the sensitivity to the power spectrum does depend strongly to a mode’s orientation. As an example, suppose the survey’s sensitivity $\phi(\mathbf{r})$ is localized in small region around some radius $r_0$ away from the observer (illustrated in Figure \[fig:surveyGeom\]), as is typical for many high-redshift intensity mapping surveys. Now consider (as an extreme case), modes where $\ell \gg k r_0$. For such modes, the Bessel function in Eq. can be approximated by a power series as $$j_\ell (kr) \approx \frac{(kr)^\ell}{(2 \ell + 1)!!}.$$ The integral on the right hand side of Eq. thus becomes extremely suppressed by a $[(2 \ell + 1)!!]^2$ dependence, giving a small proportionality constant between $| \overline{T}_{\ell m}^\textrm{meas} (k) |^2$ and $P(k)$ for high $\ell$. Thus, high $\ell$ modes that satisfy $\ell \gg k r_0$ are not high signal-to-noise probes of the power spectrum. To understand this, consider instead the modes with $k \sim \ell / r_0$. Such modes are essentially constant in the radial direction, and describe fluctuations that are almost entirely in the angular direction. Temporarily invoking the language of the flat-sky approximation for the sake of intuition, we may say that in this regime, the total wavenumber $k$ is dominated by $k_\perp$. Increasing $\ell$ beyond this to get back to the case where $\ell \gg k r_0$, we have situation that approximately corresponds to having $k_\perp > k$. Such a scenario would be a mathematical impossibility in the flat-sky approximation, and formally the amplitude of the signal would go to zero. In our curved-sky treatment, however, we see that the cut-off for high $\ell$, while dramatic, is not precisely zero. This is due to projection effects, which cause any given $\ell$ mode to sample a spread of $k$ modes, in principle allowing arbitrarily high $\ell$ modes to have some (tiny) response to Fourier modes with very low $k$ values.
With such a strong dependence in power spectrum sensitivity to the values of $\ell$ and $m$, different modes should be weighted differently when averaged together. In principle, this weighting should depend on both $\ell$ and $m$. For simplicity, we will assume that different $m$ values are averaged together with uniform weights. This is a reasonable approximation for wide-field surveys, which is of course the regime that is being targeted in this paper. Indeed, for an all-sky survey, one can show that the integral in Eq. becomes independent of $m$, implying equal sensitivity to all $m$ modes and thus no reason to favor one specific mode over another. Performing the uniform average over Eq. and invoking Unsöld’s theorem then gives $$\label{eq:TotallyUnsold}
\frac{\sum_{m = -\ell}^\ell\langle | \overline{T}_{\ell m}^\textrm{meas} (k) |^2 \rangle}{2\ell + 1} \approx \frac{P(k)}{2 \pi^2} \int d^3 r \phi^2 (\mathbf{r}) j_\ell^2 (kr).$$ From this, it follows that given a set of modes with some particular $k$ and $\ell$ values, an estimator of the power spectrum can be formed by computing $$\label{eq:SlkDef}
S_\ell (k) \equiv 2 \pi^2 \left[\int d^3 r \phi^2 (\mathbf{r}) j_\ell^2 (kr)\right]^{-1} \frac{\sum_{m} | \overline{T}_{\ell m}^\textrm{meas} (k) |^2}{2 \ell + 1},$$ which we dub the spherical harmonic power spectrum. This is the quantity that we were seeking in Section \[sec:RotationalInvarianceOnly\], a curved sky analog to the cylindrical power spectrum $P(k_\perp, k_\parallel)$. If $\overline{T}_{\ell m}^\textrm{meas} (k)$ consists of contaminants to one’s measurement, $S_\ell (k)$ would essentially be the “power spectrum of contaminants", even though such a quantity is in principle not well-defined as the contaminants are typically not statistically translation-invariant. However, $S_\ell (k)$ and $P(k)$ can be directly compared since the two quantities have the same units, and in the limit of translation invariance, the ensemble average of $S_\ell(k)$ reduces to $P(k)$, by construction. We thus have a well-defined quantity that can be considered “the power spectrum of the signal on the $\ell$-$k$ plane", regardless of the relative ratios of cosmological signal and contaminants.[^8]
Once $S_\ell (k)$ has been computed for all $\ell$ values accessible to an experiment, different $\ell$ modes can be averaged together form a final estimate $\widehat{P} (k)$ of the power spectrum $P(k)$. Unlike with the average over $m$, uneven weights for the $\ell$ average are crucial since different $\ell$ modes can have very different sensitivities to the power spectrum, as our earlier example illustrated. The optimal weights $w_\ell$ for different $\ell$ values will in general depend on the details of one’s survey instrument. As a simple toy example, suppose an instrument has equal noise in all $\overline{T}_{\ell m}(k)$ modes (which is an impossibility in practice, since all instruments have finite angular resolution). An optimal signal-to-noise weighting of $| \overline{T}_{\ell m}^\textrm{meas} (k) |^2$ then reduces to a weighting by the strength of the signal, since the noise is constant. This is given by the integral in Eq. , which quantifies the extent to which the power spectrum is amplified (or depressed) in each $| \overline{T}_{\ell m}^\textrm{meas} (k) |^2$ mode. Forming a minimum variance estimator then requires a variance (i.e., squared) weighting by this factor, giving an estimator $\widehat{P} (k)$ of the power spectrum that takes the form $$\label{eq:WeightedPk}
\widehat{P} (k) \equiv \sum_\ell w_\ell S_\ell (k),$$ where $$\label{eq:MinVarEllWeights}
w_\ell \equiv \frac{ \left[ \int d^3 r \phi^2 (\mathbf{r}) j_{\ell}^2 (kr) \right]^2}{\sum_{\ell^\prime} \left[ \int d^3 r^\prime \phi^2 (\mathbf{r}^\prime) j_{\ell^\prime}^2 (kr^\prime) \right]^2}.$$
Foreground signatures in the spherical harmonic power spectrum {#sec:Foregrounds}
==============================================================
Having established $S_\ell (k)$ as a potential tool for separating contaminants from cosmological signal in a power spectrum measurement, we now specialize and consider the particular case of astrophysical foreground contamination. Our goal is to derive the signature of foreground contamination in $S_\ell (k)$, and to show that $S_\ell (k)$ is indeed a useful diagnostic for separating foregrounds from the cosmological signal. We will find that $S_\ell (k)$ performs this role for wide-field, curved-sky power spectrum analyses just as well as $P(k_\perp, k_\parallel)$ did for narrow fields of view. By this, we mean that in both cases the foregrounds are localized to predictable regions in the $\ell$-$k$ or $k_\perp$-$k_\parallel$ plane, enabling foregrounds to be mitigated by a few simple cuts to data.
![Example spherical Bessel functions $j_\ell (kr)$, arbitrarily normalized for ease of comparison. The grey band indicates the comoving radial extent of a $21\,\textrm{cm}$ intensity mapping survey operating from $145\,\textrm{MHz}$ to $155\,\textrm{MHz}$ (corresponding to a central redshift of 8.5, or a central radial distance of $r_0 \approx 6290h^{-1}$Mpc). The spherical Bessel functions enter in the radial transform from position space to the spherical Fourier-Bessel basis, and are integrated over the grey band with an $r^2$ weighting. Basis functions that describe fluctuations that are predominantly in the angular directions have $\ell \sim kr_0$ behave as power laws over the radial profile of the survey (red curve), and essentially average over the line-of-sight direction. Those whose fluctuations are oriented mainly in the radial direction have $\ell \lesssim kr_0$ behave like slowly modulated sinusoids (blue curve), and effectively take a Fourier transform along the line of sight. Modes with $\ell > kr_0$ (black curve) have very little response.[]{data-label="fig:bessels"}](bessels.pdf){width="48.00000%"}
When performing an intensity mapping survey with a spectral line, the cosmological component of the signal is expected to fluctuate rapidly as a function of frequency, since different frequencies probe different portions of our Universe. Foregrounds, on the other hand, are expected to be spectrally smooth [@dimatteo_et_al2002; @oh_and_mack2003; @deOliveiraCosta_et_al2008; @jelic_et_al2008; @liu_and_tegmark2012]. In principle, this allows foregrounds to be separated from the cosmological signal, for instance by fitting out a smooth spectral component [@wang_et_al2006; @liu_et_al2009a; @bowman_et_al2009; @liu_et_al2009b]. To take an even simpler approach, one expects spectrally smooth foregrounds to appear only at low $k_\parallel$, since $k_\parallel$ is the Fourier dual to line-of-sight distance, which is probed by the frequency spectrum. This is illustrated in the top left panel of Figure \[fig:fgSigs\], where we compute the $P(k_\perp, k_\parallel)$ signature of flat spectrum foregrounds for an intensity mapping survey with a radial profile given by $$\label{eq:CosineRadial}
\phi(r) = \cos \left[ \pi \left( \frac{r-r_0}{r_\textrm{max} - r_\textrm{min}} \right) \right],$$ within the comoving radial range of $r_\textrm{min} \approx 6230\,h^{-1}\textrm{Mpc}$ to $r_\textrm{max} \approx 6350\,h^{-1}\textrm{Mpc}$ and zero outside this range. This is representative of a $21\,\textrm{cm}$ intensity mapping survey with a $10\,\textrm{MHz}$ bandwidth centered around a frequency of $150\,\textrm{MHz}$ (corresponding roughly to $z \sim 8.5$). The precise form of the profile is arbitrary, and is only for illustrative purposes in this paper. In the angular direction we assume all-sky coverage. The foregrounds are assumed to have intrinsically flat (frequency-independent) spectra. One sees that their contribution to the power spectrum decreases in amplitude rapidly towards higher $k_\parallel$, suggesting that foregrounds can be mostly avoided by simply looking away from the lowest $k_\parallel$. Note that we have arbitrarily normalized the power to emphasize the morphology (rather than the absolute level) on the $k_\perp$-$k_\parallel$ plane.
{width="100.00000%"}
We now generalize the signature of foregrounds from the narrow-field to the curved sky using the spherical harmonic power spectrum. The foregrounds are again assumed to be independent of frequency, giving rise to a set of frequency-independent spherical harmonic coefficients $a^\textrm{fg}_{\ell m}$. The resulting $(k,\ell, m)$ modes are then given by $$\label{eq:fgTlm}
\overline{T}_{\ell m}^\textrm{fg} (k) = a_{\ell m}^\textrm{fg} \sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}} \int_0^\infty \!dr\, r^2 j_\ell (kr) \phi(r),$$ which is simply Eq. but with the limitation of a survey volume $\phi$ and a flat spectrum assumption. Note that in this section, we will assume that the survey covers the entire angular extent of the sky (as depicted in Figure \[fig:surveyGeom\]), so that we have $\phi(r) $ rather than $\phi (\mathbf{r})$. In an analysis of real data this assumption may be inappropriate, but here we invoke it for the purposes of mathematical clarity. Inserting this expression into Eq. gives the spherical harmonic power spectrum of flat-spectrum foregrounds $$\label{eq:fgSlk}
S_\ell^\textrm{fg} (k) = 4 \pi C_\ell^\textrm{fg} \frac{\left[\int_0^\infty \!dr\, r^2 j_\ell (kr) \phi(r) \right]^2}{\int_0^\infty \!dr\, r^2 j_\ell^2 (kr) \phi^2(r)},$$ where $C_\ell^\textrm{fg}$ is the angular power spectrum of the foregrounds. For a given survey geometry and foreground model, one can evaluate this expression numerically to derive the signature of foregrounds as manifested in the spherical harmonic power spectrum. Before doing so, however, it is helpful to evaluate $S_\ell^\textrm{fg} (k)$ analytically in various limiting regimes on the $\ell$-$k$ plane to gain intuition for how the spherical harmonic power spectrum behaves. To identify these regimes (which demonstrate qualitatively different behavior), consider Fig. \[fig:bessels\], which shows $j_\ell (kr)$ for various choices of $\ell$ and $k$. Not all parts of these curves are relevant to the integrals in Eq. , since the radial extent of the survey $\phi(r)$ (indicated by the grey band) picks out only regions where $r \approx r_0$ to integrate over. Roughly speaking, there are two limiting regimes of interest. The first is where $\ell \sim k r_0$. In this regime, the Bessel functions behave like power laws that rise to a peak. The other regime is where $\ell \lesssim k r_0$. There, the Bessel functions are highly oscillatory, and the radial transform of Eq. is closely related to a Fourier transform along the line of sight. In principle, there exist modes with $\ell > kr_0$ exist, but as we argued in Section \[sec:FiniteVolume\], these modes have very low signal-to-noise, and we will not consider this regime further.
Mostly angular modes: $\ell \sim k r_0$ {#sec:MostlyAngular}
---------------------------------------
As discussed previously, the condition that $\ell \sim k r_0$ is synonymous with the statement that fluctuations are almost entirely in the angular direction. In this regime, the spherical Fourier-Bessel functions are not highly oscillatory, and are instead reasonably smooth. They are thus relatively broad compared to $\phi(r)$. To a good approximation, then, $r^2 j_\ell (kr)$ and $r^2 j_\ell^2 (kr)$ may be factored out of the integrals in Eq. , evaluating them at $r = r_0$. What remains is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:FinalSlfgkHighEll}
S_\ell^\textrm{fg} (k) \Bigg{|}_{\ell \gtrsim k r_0} &\approx& 4 \pi C_\ell^\textrm{fg} r_0^2 \frac{\left[\int_0^\infty \!dr\, \phi(r) \right]^2}{\int_0^\infty \!dr\, \phi^2(r)} \nonumber \\
&\sim& 4 \pi C_\ell^\textrm{fg} r_0^2 \Delta r_\textrm{survey},\end{aligned}$$ where the final approximation is exact only for a survey that has a tophat profile in the radial direction, but still likely to be correct up to a factor of order unity otherwise. One sees that the $k$ dependence of $S_\ell^\textrm{fg} (k)$ drops out, and the measurement is essentially of the angular power spectrum of foregrounds because the radial Bessel transform effectively just averages all the radial fluctuations of the survey together.
Mostly radial modes: $\ell \ll k r_0$ {#sec:MostlyRadialNoInterferometry}
-------------------------------------
At low $\ell$ values, most of the spatial variations in one’s basis functions are along the line-of-sight. We enter this low $\ell$ regime when $\ell \ll kr_0$, in which case the Bessel functions may be approximated as $$j_\ell (kr) \approx \frac{1}{kr} \sin \left(kr-\frac{\pi \ell}{2} \right).$$ In this limit, the integral in the numerator of Eq. becomes $$\begin{aligned}
&& \int_0^\infty \!dr\, r^2 j_\ell (kr) \phi(r) =\frac{1}{k} \int_0^\infty \! dr\, r \sin \left(kr- \frac{\pi \ell}{2} \right) \phi(r) \nonumber \\
&& =- \frac{1}{k^2} \frac{\partial}{\partial \alpha} \left\{ \textrm{Re} \left[ \int_0^\infty \! dr \,e^{-i\alpha kr +i \pi \ell / 2} \phi(r) \right] \right\}_{\alpha = 1},\end{aligned}$$ where the “$\alpha = 1$" label signifies that $\alpha$ is to be set to unity after the partial derivative is taken. To proceed, we expand the definition of $\phi(r)$ to include the (unphysical) region of $r < 0$, declaring $\phi(r)$ to be zero when $r < 0$. This allows us to extend the integral to $-\infty$, which enables us to interpret it as a Fourier transform. Further defining $\Phi (r - r_0) \equiv \phi (r)$ to be a re-centered version of the radial profile of the survey for our convenience, we have $$\begin{aligned}
&&\int_0^\infty \!dr\, r^2 j_\ell (kr) \phi(r) \nonumber \\
&=& \frac{1}{k} \left[ r_0 \sin \left( k r_0- \frac{\pi \ell}{2} \right) \widetilde{\Phi} (k) - \cos\left( k r_0- \frac{\pi \ell}{2} \right) \widetilde{\Phi}^\prime (k) \right], \qquad\end{aligned}$$ where the $\widetilde{\Phi}^\prime \equiv \partial \widetilde{\Phi} / \partial k$. Using similar manipulations, the denominator of Eq. can be shown to be $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:DenomMostlyRadialFG}
&&\int_0^\infty \!dr\, r^2 j_\ell^2 (kr) \phi^2(r) \nonumber \\
&=& \frac{1}{2 k^2} \left[ \int_{-\infty}^\infty \!dr\, \Phi^2 (r) - \cos\left(2 k r_0- \pi \ell \right) \widetilde{\Phi} \star\widetilde{\Phi} (2 k) \right], \qquad\end{aligned}$$ where $\star$ denotes a convolution. To simplify matters, we may ignore the second term in this expression because it is small compared to the first. To see this, note that the first term can be written as $\widetilde{\Phi^2} (0)$. The relative size of the two terms is therefore determined by the relative magnitudes of $\widetilde{\Phi^2} (0)$ and $ \widetilde{\Phi} \star\widetilde{\Phi} (2 k) $. Now, $\widetilde{\Phi} (k)$ is a function that is reasonably sharply peaked about $k=0$, with a characteristic width given by $\sim 1/ \Delta r_\textrm{survey}$. We expect $\widetilde{\Phi^2}$ to be slightly broader; a back-of-the-envelope estimate would suggest that $\widetilde{\Phi^2}$ is roughly a factor of $\sqrt{2}$ broader than $\widetilde{\Phi}$. Continuing with our approximate line of reasoning, one would then expect $ \widetilde{\Phi} \star\widetilde{\Phi} (2 k)$ to be approximately the same size as $ \widetilde{\Phi} (\sqrt{2} k)$, which is likely to be small because typical $k$ values are of order $\sim 1/ \Delta r_\textrm{survey}$ or larger, placing one beyond the characteristic width of $\widetilde{\Phi}$, where the amplitude is much suppressed compared to the $k=0$ point. We thus conclude that the second term of Eq. may be neglected.
Putting everything together, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:OscOsc}
S_\ell^\textrm{fg} (k) \approx \frac{8 \pi C_\ell^\textrm{fg}}{\int_{-\infty}^\infty \!dr\, \Phi^2 (r)} \bigg{[}&& r_0^2 \sin^2 \left( k r_0- \frac{\pi \ell}{2} \right) \widetilde{\Phi}^2 (k) \nonumber \\
&& -r_0 \sin \left( 2 k r_0- \pi \ell \right) \widetilde{\Phi} (k) \widetilde{\Phi}^\prime (k) \nonumber \\
&&+ \cos^2\left( k r_0- \frac{\pi \ell}{2} \right) \widetilde{\Phi}^{\prime 2} (k) \bigg{]}. \qquad\end{aligned}$$ This result can be further simplified by considering the length scales involved. Recall that that the key approximation of this subsection is that the spatial fluctuations are mostly along the radial direction. For a survey with radial resolution $\Delta r_\textrm{res}$ (determined by an instrument’s spectral resolution), a natural choice for a bin size in $k$ would be $\sim\!2 \pi / \Delta r_\textrm{res}$. Since the value of $k$ is multiplied by $r_0$ inside the oscillatory terms of Eq. , and $r_0 \gg \Delta r_\textrm{res}$, it follows that one goes through many cycles of the sinusoids within each bin in $k$ in any practical measurement. The middle term of Eq. thus averages to zero, while the squared sinusoids average to $1/2$. We thus have $$S_\ell^\textrm{fg} (k) \approx 4 \pi \frac{ C_\ell^\textrm{fg}}{\int_{-\infty}^\infty \!dr\, \Phi^2 (r)} \left[ r_0^2 \widetilde{\Phi}^2 (k) +\widetilde{\Phi}^{\prime 2} (k) \right]$$ Now, the two terms seen here that comprise $S_\ell^\textrm{fg} (k) $ are not of equal importance. Dimensional analysis suggests that the derivative of $\Phi$ is of order $\Phi^\prime \sim \Phi / \Delta r_\textrm{survey}$, while the derivative of its Fourier transform $\widetilde{\Phi}$ is of order $\widetilde{\Phi}^\prime \sim \widetilde{\Phi} \Delta r_\textrm{survey}$, a fact that can be verified by testing various functional forms for $\Phi$. The first term in our expression for $S_\ell^\textrm{fg} (k)$ is thus larger than the second term by a factor of $(r_0 / \Delta r_\textrm{survey})^2$, which greatly exceeds unity for high-redshift measurements. These simplifications yield the final expression $$\label{eq:FinalSlfgkLowEll}
S_\ell^\textrm{fg} (k) \Bigg{|}_{\ell \lesssim k r_0} \approx 4 \pi C_\ell^\textrm{fg} \frac{r_0^2 \widetilde{\Phi}^2 (k)}{\int_{-\infty}^\infty \!dr\, \Phi^2 (r)}.$$ This result is essentially identical to its flat-sky counterpart on the $k_\perp$-$k_\parallel$ plane. There, the foregrounds were seen to be confined mostly to low $k_\parallel$ values, with the characteristic width of the fall-off towards higher $k_\parallel$ of $\sim 1 / \Delta r_\textrm{survey}$, as expected from the Fourier transform of data that spans a length of $\Delta r_\textrm{survey}$. Here, in the regime where our modes are dominated by radial fluctuations, we have $k$ taking the place of $k_\parallel$. But the behavior is the same, since $\widetilde{\Phi} (k)$ falls off as $\sim 1 / \Delta r_\textrm{survey}$.
Numerical Results {#sec:Numerics}
-----------------
Summarizing the last two results, it is pleasing to note that the even though Eqs. and were derived as different limiting cases, the latter converges to the former when $k\rightarrow 0$. This suggests a rather smooth transition between the two regimes and a simple signature of foregrounds as a function of $\ell$ and $k$: at low $k$, the foregrounds are a strong contaminant, but their influence quickly falls off towards higher $k$.
We confirm this behavior in the top right panel of Figure \[fig:fgSigs\] by plotting a numerically computed $S_\ell^\textrm{fg} (k)$. The survey parameters are assumed to be the same as in Section \[sec:Foregrounds\]. There is a qualitative similarity between the flat-sky plot of $P(k_\perp, k_\parallel)$ in the top left panel, and the curved-sky plot of $S_\ell (k)$ in the top right. This suggests that the latter will be just as successful as the former in localizing foregrounds in their respective planes. Quantitatively, one sees a sharp drop-off towards higher $k$ (or $k_\parallel$), with some ringing due to our cosine radial profile. Admittedly, the drop-off is not quite as steep as one might hope, given that the foregrounds can easily be six to nine orders of magnitude brighter than the cosmological in power spectrum units [@santos_et_al2005; @jelic_et_al2008; @bernardi_et_al2009; @bernardi_et_al2010]. However, a large number of tools can be employed to further suppress foregrounds at high $k$ (or $k_\parallel$). For example, foregrounds can be filtered or directly subtracted, whether via the construction of foreground models or through blind methods [@wang_et_al2006; @gleser_et_al2008; @liu_et_al2009a; @bowman_et_al2009; @liu_et_al2009b; @harker_et_al2009; @petrovic_and_oh2011; @paciga_et_al2011; @Parsons_et_al2012b; @liu_and_tegmark2012; @chapman_et_al2012; @chapman_et_al2013; @wolz_et_al2014; @shaw_et_al2014a; @shaw_et_al2014b; @wolz_et_al2015]. Leakage of foregrounds from low $k$ to high $k$ can be mitigated by imposing tapering functions to apodize the radial profile $\phi(r)$ [@Thyagarajan2013]. This would, for instance, reduce the Fourier space ringing from the cosine form of Eq. , which causes the horizontal stripes that are visually obvious in the top row of Figure \[fig:fgSigs\]. Finally, statistical methods can be employed to selectively downweight foreground contaminated modes, whether prior to the squaring of temperature data in power spectrum estimation [@liu_and_tegmark2011; @liu_et_al2014a; @trott_et_al2016] or after [@dillon_et_al2014; @liu_et_al2014b]. Our goal here was only to show that $S_\ell (k)$ is just as viable a foreground diagnostic for the curved sky as $P(k_\perp, k_\parallel)$ is for the flat sky, and Figure \[fig:fgSigs\] shows that this is indeed the case.
Interloper lines in the spherical harmonic power spectrum {#sec:Interlopers}
=========================================================
Aside from broadband foregrounds that are spectrally smooth, some intensity mapping surveys must also deal with the problem of interloper lines, where emission from two different spectral lines that are sourced at different radial distances may nonetheless redshift into the same observing band. More concretely, an interloper line with a rest frequency of $\nu_\textrm{rest}^\prime$ emitted at redshift $z^\prime$ will appear at the same observed frequency as another line (say, the one targeted by an intensity mapping survey) with rest frequency $\nu_\textrm{rest}$ at redshift $z$ if $(1+z^\prime) / \nu_\textrm{rest}^\prime = (1+z) / \nu_\textrm{rest}$. The interloper line thus acts as an additional foreground contaminant. For $21\,\textrm{cm}$ intensity mapping this is typically not a problem, simply because there lack plausible spectral line candidates with appropriate rest frequencies. In contrast, \[CII\] and CO lines are both candidates for intensity mapping surveys, and can easily be confused with one another.
Since interloper lines may themselves trace cosmic structure (albeit at different redshifts), they are not spectrally smooth foreground contaminants, and thus cannot be mitigated by the methods described in the rest of this paper. To deal with this, a variety of techniques have been proposed in the literature, including source masking [@silva_et_al2015; @yue_et_al2015; @breysse_et_al2015], cross-correlation with external datasets [@visbal_and_loeb2010; @gong_et_al2012; @gong_et_al2014], comparison to companion lines [@kogut_et_al2015], and the exploitation of angular fluctuations to reconstruct three-dimensional source distributions [@dePutter_et_al2014]. Recently, @cheng_et_al2016 and @lidz_and_taylor2016 proposed a method for separating interloper lines by invoking the statistical isotropy of the cosmological signal. The key observation is that the rest frequency of a line enters the frequency-radial distance mapping of Eq. in a different way than it does in the angle-transverse distance conversion of Eq. . If emission from an interloper line is mistaken as the targeted line in a survey, it will be mapped to incorrect cosmological coordinates. As a result, the emission will no longer be statistically isotropic, in contrast to emission from the targeted line, which will have been mapped correctly and thus will be statistically isotropic. In terms of the power spectrum, emission from the targeted line will appear in the cylindrical power spectrum $P(k_\perp, k_\parallel)$ as a function of $k \equiv (k_\perp^2 + k_\parallel^2)^{1/2}$ only, while interloper emission will have a non-trivial dependence on $k_\perp$ and $k_\parallel$. This difference in $k_\perp$-$k_\parallel$ signature provides a way to identify interloper emission.
In this section, we build on the work of @cheng_et_al2016 and @lidz_and_taylor2016, generalizing their flat-sky treatment to the curved sky using the spherical harmonic power spectrum. Our goal will be to show that just as $P(k_\perp, k_\parallel)$ is no longer just a function of $k$ if the incorrect rest frequency $\nu_\textrm{inc}$ is assumed, $S_\ell (k)$ will similarly develop a dependence on $\ell$ under those circumstances. To begin, we note that Eq. is always exact, since it only relies on angular information, which does not require knowledge of the rest frequency of the spectral line. The assumption of an incorrect rest frequency enters only in Eq. , when one must map frequencies to radial distances. Suppose some emission originates from a comoving location $\mathbf{r} = r {\hat{\mathbf{r}}}$. If the incorrect frequency-radial distance relation is used due to a mistaken assumption about the rest frequency of the emission, this emission will be mapped to a location $\mathbf{r} \equiv s(r) {\hat{\mathbf{r}}}$ instead, where $s$ is the incorrect radial distance, which is a function of the correct distance $r$. As a result, Eq. becomes $\overline{T}_{\ell m}^\textrm{inc} (k)$, the incorrectly mapped version of $\overline{T}_{\ell m} (k)$, and take the form $$\overline{T}_{\ell m}^\textrm{inc} (k) \equiv \sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}} \int d^3 r j_\ell (kr) Y_{\ell m}^* ({\hat{\mathbf{r}}}) T[s(r) {\hat{\mathbf{r}}}] \phi[s(r) {\hat{\mathbf{r}}}],$$ where we have included the finite volume of our survey via the function $\phi$, just as we did in the previous section. Writing the $T\phi$ term in terms of their Fourier transforms and repeating steps analogous to the ones used between Eqs. and , we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\overline{T}_{\ell m}^\textrm{inc} (k) = i^\ell 4 \sqrt{2 \pi} \int \frac{d^3 k^\prime}{(2\pi)^3} \frac{d^3 k^{\prime \prime}}{(2\pi)^3} Y_{\ell m} ({\hat{\mathbf{k}}}^\prime ) \widetilde{\phi} (\mathbf{k}^\prime - \mathbf{k}^{\prime \prime}) \nonumber \\
\times \widetilde{T} (\mathbf{k}^{\prime \prime}) \int dr r^2 j_\ell (kr) j_\ell [ k^\prime s(r)]. \quad \end{aligned}$$ To relate this to the power spectrum, we square this expression, take the ensemble average, and average over $m$ values. Performing manipulations similar to those that led to Eq. results in $$\begin{aligned}
&&\frac{\sum_{m = -\ell}^\ell\langle | \overline{T}_{\ell m}^\textrm{meas} (k) |^2 \rangle}{2\ell + 1} \approx P(\overline{k}) \frac{2}{\pi^4} \int d^3 r \phi^2 (\mathbf{r}) \nonumber \\
&&\times \left( \int dr^\prime r^{\prime 2} d k^\prime k^{\prime 2} j_\ell (k^\prime r) j_\ell(k r^\prime) j_\ell [ k^\prime s (r^\prime)] \right)^2, \qquad\end{aligned}$$ where $\overline{k}$ is some wavenumber that is not necessarily equal to $k$. In other words, with an incorrect mapping of radial distances, we should not necessarily expect $\langle | \overline{T}_{\ell m}^\textrm{meas} (k) |^2 \rangle$ to probe a distribution of power that is sharply peaked around $k$. Any bias in the probed wavenumber, however, is irrelevant for our present purposes, which is simply to show that an $\ell$ dependence is acquired in our (no longer isotropic) estimate of the power spectrum. Performing the $k^\prime$ integral using Eq. (but with $r$ and $k$ swapping roles) and inserting the result into Eq. , one obtains $$\begin{aligned}
S_\ell^\textrm{inc} (k)=&&P(\overline{k}) \left[ \int d^3 r \phi^2 (\mathbf{r}) j_\ell^2 (kr) \right]^{-1} \nonumber \\
&&\times \int d^3 r \frac{\phi^2 (\mathbf{r})}{s^\prime [s^{-1} (r)]} \left(\frac{s^{-1} (r)}{r}\right)^2 j_\ell^2 [ks^{-1} (r)] \qquad\end{aligned}$$ for the estimated spherical harmonic power spectrum under the assumption of a mistaken rest frequency. Here, $s^\prime \equiv \partial s / \partial r$ (i.e., the derivative of the incorrectly mapped radial distance with respect to the true radial distance) and $s^{-1}$ denotes an inverse mapping, not a reciprocal. Notice that if the rest frequency is correct (i.e., one is dealing with emission from the targeted line rather than the interloper line), then $s$ is the identity function, $s^\prime$ is unity, and the two integrals cancel to leave a result that is $\ell$-independent. In general, however, the result will be $\ell$-dependent. We thus conclude that just as anisotropies in $P(k_\perp, k_\parallel)$ can be used to detect interloper lines within the flat-sky approximation, $S_\ell (k)$ can be used in the same way for a full curved-sky treatment.
Spherical Harmonic Power Spectrum Measurements with Interferometers {#sec:Interferometry}
===================================================================
In previous sections, we have focused on understanding the *intrinsic* spherical harmonic power spectrum $S_\ell (k)$ without the inclusion of any instrumental effects other than a selection function to account for survey geometry. For some intensity mapping efforts, the exclusion of these effects will not result in major differences in $S_\ell (k)$. For instance, at higher frequencies (say, those relevant to \[CII\] intensity mapping) it is common to perform intensity mapping with traditional single dish telescopes and spectrometers. With such systems, the equations derived so far in this paper are a reasonable approximation for what one might see in real data, perhaps with the addition of a high noise component at high $\ell$ and $k$ to reflect finite angular and spectral resolution. In contrast, at low frequencies it is common to perform intensity mapping using radio interferometers. In this section, we will show that with data from interferometers, $S_\ell (k)$ behaves qualitatively differently from what we have considered so far. Despite these differences, once the data (and any accompanying metrics for describing their statistical properties) are reduced to modes in the spherical Fourier-Bessel basis, it is irrelevant whether they were collecting using single dish telescopes or interferometers. The spherical Fourier-Bessel basis and the spherical harmonic power spectrum $S_\ell (k)$ may thus be a useful meeting point for cross-correlations between the $21\,\textrm{cm}$ and CO/\[CII\] lines (e.g., as proposed in @lidz_et_al2011).
Interferometers are frequently used for intensity mapping measurements because they are essentially Fourier-space instruments, with each baseline of an interferometer directly sampling a fringe pattern that approximates one of the spatial Fourier modes of interest. They are therefore a relatively inexpensive way to perform high-sensitivity measurements of the power spectrum. However, the picture of an interferometer as a Fourier-space instrument is precisely correct only in the limit that the sky is flat. This assumption is typically invoked in derivations of estimators for connecting interferometric measurements to power spectra [@hobson_et_al1995; @white_et_al1999; @padin_et_al2001; @halverson_et_al2002; @hobson_et_al2002; @myers_et_al2003; @parsons_et_al2012a; @parsons_et_al2014]. It is, however, explicitly violated by the wide-field nature of many instruments built for intensity mapping. In this section, we will address this shortcoming, using the spherical Fourier-Bessel formalism to relate interferometric data to the cosmological power spectrum in a way that fully respects curved sky effects.
For the purposes of three-dimensional intensity mapping experiments, interferometers come with the added complication of being inherently chromatic instruments. Consider, for example, the visibility measured by a single baseline of an interferometric array:
$$\begin{aligned}
V(\mathbf{b}, \nu) &=& \int d\Omega \phi(r_\nu) A({\hat{\mathbf{r}}}, \nu) I({\hat{\mathbf{r}}}, \nu)e^{ - i 2\pi \nu \mathbf{b} \cdot{\hat{\mathbf{r}}}/ c} \label{eq:VisDef}\\
&\equiv&\int d \Omega \phi(r_\nu) B({\hat{\mathbf{r}}}, \nu) T({\hat{\mathbf{r}}}, \nu) e^{ - i 2\pi \nu \mathbf{b} \cdot{\hat{\mathbf{r}}}/ c} \label{eq:CurvedVisibility}\\
&\approx& \int \frac{d^2 r_\perp}{r_\nu^2} \phi(r_\nu) B({\hat{\mathbf{r}}}, \nu) T({\hat{\mathbf{r}}}, \nu)e^{ - i 2\pi \nu \mathbf{b} \cdot \mathbf{r}_\perp / c r_\nu}, \label{eq:FlatVisibility}\qquad\quad \end{aligned}$$
where in the last line we invoked the narrow-field, flat-sky approximation, allowing a “line-of-sight" direction to be unambiguously identified and a position vector $\mathbf{r}_\perp$ transverse to this direction to be defined. In the penultimate line we used the Rayleigh-Jeans Law to convert from intensity to brightness temperature, defining a modified primary beam $$\label{eq:Bdef}
B({\hat{\mathbf{r}}}, \nu) \equiv \frac{2 k_B}{c^2} \nu^2 A({\hat{\mathbf{r}}}, \nu).$$ One sees that in the flat-sky limit, the complex exponential takes the form of $\exp \left( - i \mathbf{k}_\perp \cdot \mathbf{r}_\perp \right)$, and thus the baseline probes a spatial mode perpendicular to the line of sight with wavevector $\mathbf{k}_\perp = 2 \pi \nu \mathbf{b} / c r_\nu$. The key feature to note here is that this spatial scale is dependent on $\nu$. Interferometers are therefore inherently chromatic in the sense that the Fourier mode probed by a particular baseline depends on frequency, particularly if the baseline is long. This complicates the power spectrum measurement, for in order to access Fourier modes along the line of sight (characterized by wavenumber $k_\parallel$), it is necessary to perform a Fourier transform along the frequency axis. At least for data from a single baseline, the chromaticity means that $\mathbf{k}_\perp$ is not held constant during the line of sight Fourier transform. This causes couplings between $k_\parallel$ and $\mathbf{k}_\perp$ modes, and is responsible for the wedge feature that has been discussed extensively in the previous literature. The wedge arises when the chromaticity of an interferometer imprints this chromaticity on observed foregrounds. Being spectrally smooth, the foregrounds should in principle be localized to low $k_\parallel$ modes (as we saw in the top panels of Figure \[fig:fgSigs\]), but in practice the imprinted chromaticity causes them to appear at higher $k_\parallel$ modes in a wedge-like signature.
The wedge is both a problem and an opportunity. The wedge is a problem because it increases (compared to a theoretically ideal situation with no instrument chromaticity) the number of Fourier modes that are foreground-dominated and thus unavailable for a measurement of the cosmological signal. These unavailable modes are often the ones that are highest in signal-to-noise, resulting in a significant reduction in sensitivity [@pober_et_al2014; @chapman_et_al2016]. However, the wedge is also an opportunity because it can be shown (in a reasonably general manner) that it is limited in extent, i.e., the foreground contamination does not extend beyond the confines of the wedge shape. Observations can therefore be targeted at modes that are outside the wedge, and instruments may be designed conservatively to optimize such observations [@parsons_et_al2012a]. Indeed, this is the general principle behind the design of HERA [@deboer_et_al2016].
That smooth spectrum foregrounds have a well-defined signature in the form of the wedge is one of the reasons that recent works have espoused the $P(k_\perp,k_\parallel)$ power spectrum as a useful diagnostic for data analysis. In order for our proposed statistic $S_\ell (k)$ to be useful in the same way, it is necessary to show that the chromatic influence of an interferometer also gives a well-defined and well-localized signature $\ell$-$k$ space. We will do so in the following subsections once we have established the connection between curved sky power spectra and interferometeric data, finding that foregrounds are again localized to a wedge. We will focus on single-baselines analyses of the data, as this provides a conservative estimate for the extent of the foreground wedge in $S_\ell (k)$. Multi-baseline information can be used to alleviate wedge effects, because one can essentially combine data from different frequencies and different baselines that have the same ratio $\nu \mathbf{b} / r_\nu$, alleviating the chromatic effects that caused the wedge in the first place. There thus exist methods for reducing the extent of the wedge, and our single-baseline treatment should be considered a worst-case scenario.
Delay spectrum power spectrum estimation {#sec:DelayIntro}
----------------------------------------
To estimate the power spectrum from a single baseline, one begins by forming the *delay spectrum* of the baseline’s visibility. This is accomplished by Fourier transforming the visibility along the frequency axis to obtain $$\label{eq:DelayDef}
\widetilde{V} (\mathbf{b}, \tau) \equiv \int \!d\nu\, \gamma(\nu) e^{i 2\pi \nu \tau} V(\mathbf{b}, \nu),$$ where $\gamma (\nu)$ is an optional tapering function chosen by the data analyst. Given that $V$ approximates the sky brightness Fourier transformed in the axes perpendicular to the line of sight, $\widetilde{V}$ serves as an approximation for the $\widetilde{T}(\mathbf{k})$. The delay spectrum can then be squared and normalized to yield an estimator for the power spectrum $P(k)$.
As we discussed above, a single baseline probes different $\mathbf{k}_\perp$ scales at different frequencies. Power spectra estimated using delay spectra are therefore often considered mere approximations to “true" power spectra. However, an estimator formed from the delay spectrum represents a perfectly valid estimator, so long as error statistics are included in the final results. The quoted error statistics on a power spectrum estimate $\widehat{P}(k_*)$ at some spatial scale $k_*$ should include not only the error bars on the value of $\widehat{P}$ itself, but also window functions for describing the (sometimes broad) distribution of $k$ values that contribute to a power estimate that is centered on $k = k_*$. Because single-baseline estimators have a chromatic scale-dependence, their resulting window functions will be wider than what might be in principle achievable using a well-controlled multi-baseline approach. In general, however, the latter will still give windows of non-zero width (due to a combination of finite-volume and analysis pipeline effects), and in that sense a delay spectrum power spectrum with well-documented error statistics is not any more of an approximation than any other method.[^9]
In the following subsections we establish the framework for single-baseline analyses of the power spectrum in the curved sky. Section \[sec:WindowFcts\] computes the window functions associated with delay spectrum power spectrum estimation. Section \[sec:SingleBlNorm\] provides a rigorous derivation of power spectrum normalization, using our spherical harmonic formalism to incorporate curved sky treatments that have so far been neglected in the literature. Section \[sec:CurvedSkyWedge\] then demonstrates how the foreground wedge signature seen in $P(k_\perp, k_\parallel)$ spectra is preserved in $S_\ell (k)$.
Window functions of a delay-based power spectrum estimate {#sec:WindowFcts}
---------------------------------------------------------
As mentioned above, one estimates the power spectrum from a single baseline by first forming the delay spectrum $\widetilde{V}$, followed by a subsequent squaring of the result. Computing the window functions of such an estimate requires relating our measurements to a theoretical power spectrum. To do so, we take the definition of a single baseline’s visibility from Eq. and expand the temperature field in spherical harmonics, giving $$V(\mathbf{b}, \nu) = \sum_{\ell m} \phi (r_\nu) a_{\ell m} (\nu) f_{\ell m} (\mathbf{b}, \nu),$$ where we have defined $$\label{eq:flm}
f_{\ell m}(\mathbf{b}, \nu) \equiv \int d \Omega B({\hat{\mathbf{r}}}, \nu) Y_{\ell m} ({\hat{\mathbf{r}}}) e^{ - i 2\pi \nu \mathbf{b} \cdot{\hat{\mathbf{r}}}/ c}.$$ as the response of a baseline $\mathbf{b}$ to an excitation of the spherical harmonic with indices $\ell$ and $m$. The detailed properties of this response function have previously been explored in the literature [@shaw_et_al2014a; @zheng_et_al2014; @shaw_et_al2014b; @zhang_et_al2016a; @zhang_et_al2016b]. Here, we relate this response function to a delay spectrum approach. To proceed, we use Eq. (or rather, the inverse of the transformation it describes) to express $a_{\ell m}$ in terms of its spherical Fourier-Bessel expansion, giving $$\label{eq:VisTlmConnection}
V(\mathbf{b}, \nu) = \sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}} \sum_{\ell m} \int \!dk\, k^2 j_\ell (k r_\nu) \overline{T}_{\ell m} (k) f_{\ell m} (\mathbf{b}, \nu) \phi(r_\nu).$$ Forming the delay spectrum $\widetilde{V}$ from this then yields $$\label{eq:VtildeInToverline}
\widetilde{V} (\mathbf{b}, \tau) = \sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}} \sum_{\ell m} \int \!dk\, k^2 g_{\ell m} (k; \mathbf{b}, \tau) \overline{T}_{\ell m} (k),$$ where $$\label{eq:glm}
g_{\ell m}(k; \mathbf{b}, \tau) \equiv \int d\nu e^{i 2\pi \nu \tau} j_\ell (k r_\nu) f_{\ell m} (\mathbf{b}, \nu) \phi(r_\nu) \gamma (\nu).$$
Now suppose the measured sky consists only of the cosmological signal. The $\overline{T}_{\ell m} (k)$ modes are then directly related to the power spectrum via Eq. , and the ensemble average of the square of the delay spectrum reduces to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:delayWindow}
\langle |\widetilde{V} (\mathbf{b}, \tau) |^2 \rangle && = \frac{2}{\pi} \sum_{\ell m \ell^\prime m^\prime} \int dk dk^\prime k^2 k^{\prime 2} \langle \overline{T}_{\ell m} (k) \overline{T}_{\ell^\prime m^\prime}^* (k^\prime)\rangle\nonumber \\
&& \qquad \times \, g_{\ell m} (k; \mathbf{b}, \tau) g_{\ell^\prime m^\prime}^* (k^\prime; \mathbf{b}, \tau) \nonumber \\
&& = \sum_{\ell} \int dk W_\ell^\textrm{unnorm} (k; \mathbf{b}, \tau) P(k), \qquad \end{aligned}$$ where $$\label{eq:DelayWindowFcts}
W_\ell^\textrm{unnorm} (k; \mathbf{b}, \tau) \equiv \frac{2k^2}{\pi} \sum_m | g_{\ell m} (k ; \mathbf{b}, \tau)|^2$$ are the (unnormalized) window functions. For given values of $\mathbf{b}$ and $\tau$, Eq. shows that the window function describes the linear combination of modes on the $\ell$-$k$ plane that are probed by the quantity $\langle |\widetilde{V} (\mathbf{b}, \tau) |^2 \rangle$. If $ |\widetilde{V} (\mathbf{b}, \tau)|^2$ is to be a good estimator of the power spectrum, the window function for each $(\mathbf{b},\tau)$ pair should satisfy two conditions. First, each window function should be reasonably sharply peaked around some location on the $\ell$-$k$, giving a precise measurement of the power spectrum on some scale rather than a broad combination of scales. Second, the window functions for different values of $(\mathbf{b},\tau)$ should be centered on different locations on the $\ell$-$k$ plane. In other words, the ideal collection of window functions should divide the $\ell$-$k$ plane into a set of mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive cells [@tegmark_et_al1998].
![Example window functions on the $\ell$-$k$ plane, given by Eq. . Each set of contours describes the linear combination of modes on the $\ell$-$k$ plane sampled by a power spectrum estimator formed by a particular baseline-delay combination. From bottom to top, the three rows correspond to the windows for estimators with delay $\tau = 273\,\textrm{ns}$, $703\,\textrm{ns}$, and $1133\,\textrm{ns}$. From left to right, each column corresponds to windows for estimators with baseline lengths from $10\,\textrm{m}$ to $190\,\textrm{m}$ in $10\,\textrm{m}$ increments. To allow everything to be easily visualized on a common color scale, each window function is normalized to peak at unity. The boundary $\ell = k r_0$ is demarcated by the bold red line. Parts of the plane below this line are difficult to access, and all window functions are seen to taper off towards the line.[]{data-label="fig:windowFcts"}](windowFcts.pdf){width="48.00000%"}
In Figure \[fig:windowFcts\] we show example $\ell$-$k$ plane window functions for various choices of $(\mathbf{b},\tau)$, computed using the same survey parameters as in Section \[sec:Numerics\]. All the window functions tend to taper off towards the line $\ell = kr_0$, consistent with our previous argument that regions below this line are difficult to probe with any substantial signal-to-noise. We find that to a good approximation, the peaks of the window functions are located at $$\label{eq:PeakLocs}
k \approx 2 \pi \sqrt{\left(\frac{\tau}{\alpha_0}\right)^2 + \left(\frac{b \nu_0}{c r_0}\right)^2}; \quad \ell \approx \frac{2 \pi b \nu_0}{c},$$ where $\alpha_0$ is the radial distance-frequency conversion from Eq. evaluated with the reference frequency set to $\nu_0$, the frequency at the middle of our observational band. These expressions are what one would write down assuming a flat-sky mapping between interferometer parameters $(\mathbf{b}, \tau)$ and spatial fluctuation wavenumbers $\ell$ and $k$. Given this, it is unsurprising that the accuracy of these approximations goes down at low $\ell$, where curved sky effects are expected to be the most important. Nonetheless, the accuracy is reasonable throughout: we find that the $\ell$ location of the peaks predicted by Eq. to be good to $\sim 10\%$ at $\ell \sim 30$, improving to $5\%$ by $\ell \sim 50$ and with further improvements as $\ell$ increases. Nowhere in the $\ell$-$k$ range bracketed by the window functions shown in Figure \[fig:windowFcts\] do we find the errors to be larger than $10\%$. Our prediction for the $k$ location of the peaks is better yet, with the errors never exceeding $\sim 5\%$, and more typically at the sub-percent level. In any case, our approximations are meant for illustration purposes only. In a practical estimation of power spectra, one should compute the exact window functions (as we have done here by numerical means), and these window functions should accompany any power spectrum results that are presented.
For $|\widetilde{V} (\mathbf{b}, \tau)|^2$ to serve as a useful estimator of the power spectrum, its window functions must not only be centered on different parts of the $\ell$-$k$ plane for different values of $\mathbf{b}$ and $\tau$ (as we have just shown). The windows must also be relatively compact, and we see in Figure \[fig:windowFcts\] that this is indeed the case. A key feature, however, is that the window functions become elongated in the $k$ direction as one moves to higher $\ell$. This effect is exactly analogous to the $k_\parallel$ elongation of window functions at high $k_\perp$ in the flat-sky case examined in @liu_et_al2014a, and is due to the fact that the higher $\ell$ (or $k_\perp$) are probed by longer baselines, which (as we discussed in Section \[sec:Interferometry\]) exhibit a more chromatic response. The elongation seen here is our first hint of the foreground wedge, since an extended window function in $k$ (or $k_\parallel$) will pick up more foreground contamination from the lower portions of the $\ell$-$k$, where foregrounds intrinsically reside. This causes foregrounds to leak “upwards" on the plane, with the extent of the leakage tracking the increasingly exaggerated elongation towards higher $\ell$ (or $k_\perp$), thus resulting in a wedge-like feature. We will derive the $\ell$-$k$ plane foreground wedge more rigorously in Section \[sec:CurvedSkyWedge\]. For now, it suffices to say that since the window functions seen in Figure \[fig:windowFcts\] are reasonably compact, we have successfully demonstrated that $|\widetilde{V} (\mathbf{b}, \tau)|^2$ is just as potent an estimator of the power spectrum in our full curved-sky formalism as it is in the flat-sky.
Normalizing a delay-based power spectrum estimate {#sec:SingleBlNorm}
-------------------------------------------------
In the previous subsection, we showed that the $|\widetilde{V} (\mathbf{b}, \tau)|^2$ is a suitable estimator for the cosmological power spectrum. However, it is not yet properly normalized. Here, we derive the normalization factor that $|\widetilde{V} (\mathbf{b}, \tau)|^2$ must be divided by to obtain an unbiased estimate of the power spectrum.
From Eq. , we see that $\langle |\widetilde{V} (\mathbf{b}, \tau) |^2 \rangle$ measures a weighted sum/integral of the power spectrum. For our estimator to be properly normalized, the weighted sum/integral ought to be a weighted average instead. We can accomplish this by dividing $\langle |\widetilde{V} (\mathbf{b}, \tau) |^2 \rangle$ by the sum/integral of $W_\ell^\textrm{unnorm} (k; \mathbf{b}, \tau)$, which serves as a normalization factor. This normalization can be considerably simplified: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:DelayNormSimplification}
\sum_{\ell m} \!\!\!&&\int dk W_\ell^\textrm{unnorm} (k; \mathbf{b}, \tau) \nonumber \\
&=& \frac{2}{\pi} \sum_{\ell m} \!\int dk \,k^2 |g_{\ell m} (k; \mathbf{b}, \tau)|^2 \nonumber \\
&=& \frac{2}{\pi} \int d\nu d\nu^\prime e^{i 2\pi (\nu-\nu^\prime) \tau} \int dk k^2 j_\ell (kr_\nu) j_\ell(k r_{\nu^\prime}) \nonumber \\
&& \qquad \phi(r_\nu) \phi(r_{\nu^\prime}) \gamma (\nu) \gamma (\nu^\prime) \sum_{\ell m} f_{\ell m} (\mathbf{b}, \nu) f_{\ell m}^* (\mathbf{b}, \nu^\prime) \qquad \nonumber \\
&=& \int \frac{d\nu}{r_\nu} \frac{d\nu^\prime}{r_{\nu^\prime}} e^{i 2\pi (\nu-\nu^\prime) \tau} \delta^D (r_\nu - r_{\nu^\prime}) \nonumber \\
&& \qquad \phi(r_\nu) \phi(r_{\nu^\prime}) \gamma (\nu) \gamma (\nu^\prime) \sum_{\ell m} f_{\ell m} (\mathbf{b}, \nu) f_{\ell m}^* (\mathbf{b}, \nu^\prime), \qquad\end{aligned}$$ where in the last line we invoked the orthnormality of spherical bessel functions with different arguments. Continuing, we have $$\begin{aligned}
&& \int \frac{d\nu}{r_\nu} \frac{d\nu^\prime}{r_{\nu^\prime}} e^{i 2\pi (\nu-\nu^\prime) \tau} \frac{\delta^D (\nu - \nu^\prime)}{\alpha_\nu} \nonumber \\
&& \qquad \phi(r_\nu) \phi(r_{\nu^\prime}) \gamma (\nu) \gamma (\nu^\prime) \sum_{\ell m} f_{\ell m} (\mathbf{b}, \nu) f_{\ell m}^* (\mathbf{b}, \nu^\prime) \nonumber \\
&=& \int \frac{d\nu}{r_\nu^2 \alpha_\nu} \phi^2(r_\nu) \gamma^2 (\nu) \sum_{\ell m} | f_{\ell m} (\mathbf{b}, \nu)|^2 \nonumber \\
&=& \int d\Omega d\nu \frac{B^2 ({\hat{\mathbf{r}}}, \nu) \phi^2(r_\nu) \gamma^2 (\nu)}{r_\nu^2 \alpha_\nu},
\end{aligned}$$ where in the last equality we used Eq. in conjunction with the fact that $\sum_{\ell m} Y_{\ell m} ({\hat{\mathbf{r}}}) Y_{\ell m}^* ({\hat{\mathbf{r}}}^\prime) = \delta^D({\hat{\mathbf{r}}}, {\hat{\mathbf{r}}}^\prime)$.
Putting everything together, a properly normalized estimator $\widehat{P}(k)$ of the power spectrum is given by $$\label{eq:curvedSkyNormFinalResult}
\widehat{P} (k) = \left( \frac{c^2}{2k_B} \right)^2 \frac{|\widetilde{V} (\mathbf{b}, \tau) |^2}{ \int d\Omega d\nu \nu^4 A^2 ({\hat{\mathbf{r}}}, \nu) \phi^2(r_\nu) \gamma^2 (\nu) / r_\nu^2 \alpha_\nu},$$ where it is understood that the copy of $k$ on the left hand side is tied to the values of $\mathbf{b}$ and $\tau$ on the right hand side via Eq. . Remarkably, this result is almost identical to the estimator previously derived in the literature with many more assumptions (chiefly the flat-sky approximation), reproduced in Appendix \[sec:RectilinearInterferometerPspecNorm\] for completeness. Comparing Eqs. and , one sees that the flat-sky approximation has only a minor effect on the result. The two expressions differ only in that with the curved sky case, $r_\nu$ and $\alpha_\nu$ appear inside a radial integral and are evaluated using their full nonlinear expressions, whereas in the flat-sky case, they appear outside the integral and are evaluated at the middle of the radial profile of our survey. Numerically, we find that for the PAPER primary beam, the difference between the Eqs. and is $\sim 0.1\%$. This rigorously justifies the previous use of flat-sky normalization factors in delay-spectrum-based estimates of the power spectrum [@pober_et_al2013b; @parsons_et_al2014; @ali_et_al2015; @jacobs_et_al2015], regardless of whether an instrument’s beam is narrow.
The foreground wedge in the spherical Fourier-Bessel formalism {#sec:CurvedSkyWedge}
--------------------------------------------------------------
In Section \[sec:WindowFcts\], we saw that our power spectrum window functions became elongated at high $\ell$, providing our first hints of the foreground wedge. However, these hints were not derived in an entirely rigorous fashion, since Section \[sec:WindowFcts\] and Section \[sec:SingleBlNorm\] both assumed that the sky temperature is comprised entirely of the cosmological signal. For the purposes of deriving a power spectrum normalization, this is the correct assumption to make. On the other hand, this is insufficient for a derivation of the foreground wedge, since we saw from Section \[sec:RotationalInvarianceOnly\] that foregrounds have different statistical properties than the cosmological signal.
When the sky consists of more than just the cosmological signal, Eq. becomes more complicated because the two-point correlator of $\overline{T}_{\ell m}(k)$ is no longer proportional to the cosmological power spectrum. Instead, foregrounds form an additive contribution to $\overline{T}_{\ell m}(k)$, and—since they are uncorrelated with the cosmological signal—an additive contribution to the two-point correlator. As a simple example, consider the foreground model discussed in Section \[sec:RotationalInvarianceOnly\], where the foregrounds possess (statistical) rotation invariance but not translation invariance along the radial/frequency direction. With these foregrounds, Eq. becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\langle |\widetilde{V} (\mathbf{b}, \tau) |^2 \rangle = \sum_{\ell} \int \! dk \,W_\ell^\textrm{unnorm} (k; \mathbf{b}, \tau) P(k) \nonumber \\
+ \frac{2}{\pi} \sum_{\ell m} C_\ell \Bigg{|} \int \! dk \,k^2 q_\ell (k) g_{\ell m} (k ; \mathbf{b}, \tau) \Bigg{|}^2,\end{aligned}$$ where $q_\ell (k)$ is the radial spherical Fourier-Bessel transform of the foreground spectrum, as defined by Eq. . Inserting explicit expressions for the $q_\ell$ and $g_{\ell m}$ results in considerable simplifications to the integral in the second term of our expression: $$\begin{aligned}
&& \int \! dk \, k^2 q_\ell (k) g_{\ell m} (k ; \mathbf{b}, \tau) \nonumber \\
&& = \sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}} \int \! d\nu dr^\prime e^{i 2\pi \nu \tau} r^{\prime 2} f_{\ell m} (\mathbf{b}, \nu) \phi(r_\nu) \gamma (\nu) \kappa(\nu_{r^\prime}) \nonumber \\
&& \quad \times \int dk \,k^2 j_\ell (k r^\prime) j_\ell (k r_\nu) \nonumber \\
&& = \sqrt{\frac{\pi}{2}} \int \! d\nu\, e^{i 2\pi \nu \tau} f_{\ell m} (\mathbf{b}, \nu) \phi(r_\nu) \gamma (\nu) \kappa (\nu),\end{aligned}$$ where in the second equality we used the orthogonality of spherical Bessel functions from Eq. . Inserting $f_{\ell m }$ from Eq. then gives $$\sqrt{\frac{\pi}{2}} \int d\Omega B({\hat{\mathbf{r}}}) Y_{\ell m} ({\hat{\mathbf{r}}}) \int \! d\nu\, e^{i 2\pi \nu (\tau - \mathbf{b} \cdot {\hat{\mathbf{r}}}/ c)} \phi(r_\nu) \gamma (\nu) \kappa (\nu),$$ where in this section we are assuming that $B({\hat{\mathbf{r}}})$ is approximately frequency independent in order to highlight the interferometric phenomenology of the foreground wedge. Now, define for notational convenience the quantity $\Theta ( \nu - \nu_0) \equiv \phi(r_\nu) \gamma(\nu_r) \kappa(\nu_r)$ as a re-centered frequency profile of the foregrounds as seen in the data (i.e., including the finite bandwidth $\phi$ of the instrument and the tapering function $\gamma$ imposed by the data analyst). The foreground contribution to $\langle |\widetilde{V} (\mathbf{b}, \tau) |^2 \rangle$ then becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:VtildeSqFgCell}
\langle |\widetilde{V} (\mathbf{b}, \tau) |^2 \rangle \Big{|}_\textrm{fg} = \sum_{\ell m} C_\ell && \Bigg{|} \int d\Omega B({\hat{\mathbf{r}}}) Y_{\ell m} e^{i 2\pi \nu_0 (\tau - \mathbf{b} \cdot {\hat{\mathbf{r}}}/ c)} \nonumber \\
&& \times \widetilde{\Theta} \left[ 2 \pi \left( \tau - \frac{\mathbf{b} \cdot {\hat{\mathbf{r}}}}{c} \right) \right] \Bigg{|}^2.\end{aligned}$$ To prevent any obscuration of our understanding of the foreground wedge in the spherical Fourier-Bessel formalism, we assume at this point that $C_\ell$ is a constant. As an extreme example of why this is necessary, consider the case where $C_\ell$ is zero everywhere except for one particular value of $\ell$. Clearly, the signature of foregrounds on the $\ell$-$k$ would then be dominated by the rather peculiar form for $C_\ell$, rather than the chromatic interferometric effects we wish to examine here. Setting $C_\ell$ to a constant, our expression reduces to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:FinalWedgeEq}
\langle |\widetilde{V} (\mathbf{b}, \tau) |^2 \rangle \Big{|}_\textrm{fg} \propto \int d\Omega B^2 ({\hat{\mathbf{r}}}) \Bigg{|} \widetilde{\Theta} \left[ 2 \pi \left( \tau - \frac{\mathbf{b} \cdot {\hat{\mathbf{r}}}}{c} \right) \right] \Bigg{|}^2 \nonumber \\
= \frac{c}{b} \int_{2\pi ( \tau - b/c)}^{2\pi ( \tau + b/c)} ds\overline{B^2} \left[ \arcsin\left( \frac{c \tau}{b} - \frac{sc}{2\pi b} \right) \right] | \widetilde{\Theta} (s) |^2, \quad\end{aligned}$$ where we performed the polar integral by aligning our polar axis along the direction of the baseline. We then defined $\overline{B^2}$ to be the beam squared profile averaged azimuthally about the baseline axis. However, in the final form of the expression we assumed that the profile has a hemispherical reflection symmetry about the plane perpendicular to the baseline axis, and used this to express $\overline{B^2}$ in a more conventional coordinate system where the polar axis is pointed at zenith.
Eq. contains all the details of the foreground wedge. To make this clear, consider the long baseline limit, which we know from Eq. maps to the high $\ell$ portion of the power spectrum. In this regime, $\overline{B^2}$ is a very broad function of $s$ compared to $\widetilde{\Theta}$, which is compactly localized around $s\approx 0$ (since $\Theta$ is a centered spectral profile) for spectrally smooth foregrounds that are surveyed by an instrument with broad frequency coverage. We may thus factor $\overline{B^2}$ out of the integral, evaluating it at $s=0$ to give $$\label{eq:approxFinalWedgeEq}
\langle |\widetilde{V} (\mathbf{b}, \tau) |^2 \rangle \Big{|}_\textrm{fg} {\mathrel{\vcenter{
\offinterlineskip\halign{\hfil$##$\cr
\propto\cr\noalign{\kern2pt}\sim\cr\noalign{\kern-2pt}}}}}\frac{c}{b} \overline{B^2} \left[ \arcsin\left( \frac{c \tau}{b} \right) \right] \int_{2\pi ( \tau - b/c)}^{2\pi ( \tau + b/c)} ds| \widetilde{\Theta} (s) |^2.$$ There are two key features to this equation. The first is that $\langle |\widetilde{V} (\mathbf{b}, \tau) |^2 \rangle$ is zero if $\tau$ is not within $\pm b / c$ of zero, because $\widetilde{\Theta}$ is peaked around zero. This means that there will be no foreground emission beyond $\tau > b/c$. Inserting Eq. into this condition implies that foreground on the $\ell$-$k$ plane will be restricted to $$k < \ell \left( \frac{1}{\alpha_0^2 \nu_0^2}+\frac{1}{r_0^2}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}},$$ or in terms cosmological quantities, $$\label{eq:Finalkellwedge}
k < \ell \frac{H_0}{c} \left[\frac{E^2(z)}{(1+z)^2} + \left( \int_0^z \frac{dz^\prime}{E(z^\prime)}\right)^{-2}\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}.$$ We therefore have a wedge signature (beyond which there is minimal foreground contamination) similar to what is seen on the $k_\perp$-$k_\parallel$ plane. This is seen in the bottom right panel of Figure \[fig:fgSigs\], where we numerically evaluate Eq. for a flat intrinsic angular power spectrum for the foregrounds, with survey parameters kept the same as they were in previous sections.
The other key feature Eq. is the way in which foreground power drops off as one approaches the edge of the wedge. For regions of the $\ell$-$k$ plane that satisfy Eq. (i.e., “inside/below the wedge"), the integral in Eq. evaluates to a constant factor, leaving a spherical harmonic power spectrum signature $\widehat{S}_\ell^\textrm{fg} (k)$ of the form[^10] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Sellfgk}
\widehat{S}_\ell^\textrm{fg} (k) &\propto& \langle |\widetilde{V} (\mathbf{b}, \tau) |^2 \rangle \Big{|}_\textrm{fg} \nonumber \\
&{\mathrel{\vcenter{
\offinterlineskip\halign{\hfil$##$\cr
\propto\cr\noalign{\kern2pt}\sim\cr\noalign{\kern-2pt}}}}}&\frac{1}{\ell} \overline{B^2} \left[ \arcsin\left( \alpha_0 \nu_0 \sqrt{\frac{k^2}{\ell^2} - \frac{1}{r_0^2}} \right) \right].\end{aligned}$$ Ignoring the $1/\ell$ prefactor (which only weakly tilts the power profile), this expression shows that for regions within the wedge on the $k$-$\ell$ plane, contours of constant power take the form of straight lines where $k \propto \ell$. As $k$ increases, these contours decrease in power with a profile determined by the square of the beam, averaged along the direction perpendicular to the baseline.
Eq. does not hold for short baselines (i.e., at low $\ell$) because the approximations that led to Eq. no longer apply. In such a regime, the profile becomes proportional to $| \widetilde{\Theta} ( \alpha_0 k )|^2$, leading to the horizontally oriented power patterns seen at low $\ell$ in Figure \[fig:fgSigs\]. This contrast in behavior between low and high $\ell$ regions is familiar from the $k_\perp$-$k_\parallel$ plane: at low $\ell$ or low $k_\perp$, the leakage of flat-spectrum foregrounds towards the upper portions of the plane is driven by the radial extent of the survey, while at high $\ell$ or high $k_\perp$ the leakage is driven by the baseline chromaticity that causes the wedge. In intermediate regimes, Eq. is similar in form to a convolution. In fact, it would be precisely a convolution were it not for the $\arcsin$ and the some constant factors needed for unit conversions. This convolution-like operation enacts a smooth transition in behavior between the low- and high-$\ell$ regimes.
Fundamentally, the wedge signature arises because the chromaticity of an interferometer causes spectrally smooth foregrounds from low $k$ or $k_\parallel$ (as seen in the top row of Figure \[fig:fgSigs\]) to leak to higher $k$ and $k_\parallel$. In other words, power is smeared out along the $k$ or $k_\parallel$ axes. Though its most dominant effect is to cause the foreground wedge, this smearing affects all modes on the $k_\perp$-$k_\parallel$ and $\ell$-$k$ planes, particularly at high $k_\perp$ and high $\ell$ where chromatic effects are more prominent. This can be seen by examining Figure \[fig:windowFcts\], where the window functions for the cosmological signal are seen to vertically broaden at high $\ell$, regardless of location along the $k$ axis. (In principle, Figure \[fig:windowFcts\] only applies to signals that possess translation-invariant statistics, but the effects are qualitatively the same). The broadening with increasing $\ell$ can be seen by comparing the non-interferometric (top row) and interferometric (bottom row) results in Figure \[fig:fgSigs\]. As discussed in Section \[sec:Numerics\], the cosine radial profile given by Eq. causes ringing in Fourier space that gives horizontal stripes that are visually obvious in the non-interferometric case. For the interferometric case, the ringing is still present, but the peaks are smeared out, especially at high $\ell$. This reinforces what was found in @liu_et_al2014a, where it was argued that chromatic interferometric effects do not only cause the wedge, but also reduce the independence of different Fourier modes.
In summary, we have seen in this section that the spherical power spectrum provides the same foreground diagnostic capabilities on the $\ell$-$k$ plane as the rectlinear power spectrum did on the $k_\perp$-$k_\parallel$ plane. In the spherical Fourier-Bessel formalism, the foregrounds continue to be confined to a wedge. This is good news for analysts of wide-field intensity mapping data from interferometers, for it suggests that one’s intuition for the $k_\perp$-$k_\parallel$ plane can be easily transferred to the $\ell$-$k$ plane.
Conclusions {#sec:Conclusions}
===========
In this paper, we have established a framework for analyzing intensity mapping data using spherical Fourier-Bessel techniques. Such techniques easily incorporate the wide-field nature of many intensity mapping surveys, obviating the need to split up one’s field into several approximately flat fields during analysis. This builds sensitivity for science measurements as well as diagnostic tests, and additionally provides access to the largest angular scales on the sky.
Adapting spherical Fourier-Bessel techniques from galaxy surveys requires one to pay special attention to the unique properties of intensity mapping. For example, we saw in Figure \[fig:surveyGeom\] that intensity mapping surveys (particularly those that operate at high redshifts) tend to be compressed in the radial direction and have very fine radial resolution compared to angular resolution. Intensity mapping experiments must also contend with extremely bright foregrounds that overwhelm the cosmological signals of interest. A successful spherical Fourier-Bessel analysis framework must demonstrate that it is able to deal with such systematics at least as well as traditional rectilinear Fourier techniques can.
This paper demonstrates that spherical Fourier-Bessel modes are indeed a suitable basis for intensity mapping analyses. Focusing on power spectrum measurements, in Section \[sec:FiniteVolume\] we proposed that the cylindrically binned power spectrum $P(k_\perp, k_\parallel)$ be replaced by the spherical harmonic power spectrum $S_\ell (k)$. The quantity $S_\ell (k)$ is conveniently defined so that a weighted average of it over different $\ell$ values yields the spherically binned cosmological power spectrum $P(k)$. At the same time, by splitting up the measured power spectrum into a function of $\ell$ and $k$, angular fluctuations are separated from arbitrarily oriented spatial fluctuations. This separation of fluctuations into angular and non-angular modes provides a powerful diagnostic for systematics. This has historically been the motivation for viewing the power spectrum as a function of $k_\perp$ and $k_\parallel$, and $S_\ell (k)$ preserves this crucial property of $P(k_\perp, k_\parallel)$. Of course, this is not to say that the data should not also be examined in bases like $(\mathbf{b}, \tau)$ that are more closely related to the actual instrument’s measurement [@Vedantham2012; @Parsons_et_al2012b]. Doing so is particularly valuable prior to the squaring of the data to form power spectra, and both approaches can and should be used.
Chief amongst the systematics that may be discerningly diagnosed on the $k_\perp$-$k_\parallel$ plane are astrophysical foregrounds. Foregrounds are expected to have localized signatures in $P(k_\perp, k_\parallel)$, facilitating their removal. We have shown in this paper that the same is true for $S_\ell (k)$. For non-interferometric intensity mapping surveys, we have shown that the spectrally smooth nature of foregrounds results in their being sequestered at low $k$, and that interloper lines can be detected using $S_\ell (k)$ just as easily as they can be using $P(k_\perp, k_\parallel)$. For interferometric surveys, foregrounds tend to limited to a wedge-like feature on the $k_\perp$-$k_\parallel$ plane. Foregrounds are limited to a similar wedge on the $\ell$-$k$ plane. This suggests that $S_\ell(k)$ is just as capable a diagnostic quantity as $P(k_\perp, k_\parallel)$ for intensity mapping surveys, while simultaneously discarding unwarranted flat-sky approximations seen in previous papers. Another attractive property of our spherical Fourier-Bessel formulation is that many of the relevant formulae derived in this paper (such as the equation delineating the boundary of the foreground wedge) are very similar to their flat-sky counterparts. Intuition for the behavior of $P(k_\perp, k_\parallel)$ that has been built up in the prior literature is thus almost entirely transferrable to $S_\ell (k)$.
Our framework may be generalized in several ways in future work. For instance, we have thus far neglected to describe redshift space distortions, although the spherical formalism that we espouse here should be particularly well-suited for the purpose (C. J. Schmit et al., in prep.). A crucial area of investigation will be to determine whether cosmological redshift space distortions interfere with the signature of interloper lines. Another area of future development would be the incorporation of light-cone effects, since it has been shown that cosmological evolution cannot be neglected over the survey volume of a typical intensity mapping survey [@barkana_and_loeb2006; @datta_et_al2012; @datta_et_al2014; @laplante_et_al2014; @zawada_et_al2014; @ghara_et_al2015]. For now, however, this paper points to the promise of spherical Fourier-Bessel techniques for rigorous data analysis, providing yet another powerful diagnostic tool in the continuing progress of intensity mapping towards surveying an unprecedentedly large volume of our observable Universe.
The authors gratefully acknowledge delightful and helpful discussions with James Aguirre, Michael Eastwood, Aaron Ewall-Wice, Daniel Jacobs, Gregg Hallinan, Bryna Hazelton, Jacqueline Hewitt, Saul Kohn, Miguel Morales, Jonathan Pober, Jonathan Pritchard, Claude Schmit, Richard Shaw, and Nithya Thyagarajan. This research was completed as part of the University of California Cosmic Dawn Initiative. AL and ARP acknowledge support from the University of California Office of the President Multicampus Research Programs and Initiatives through award MR-15-328388, as well as from NSF CAREER award No. 1352519, NSF AST grant No.1129258, and NSF AST grant No. 1440343. AL acknowledges support for this work by NASA through Hubble Fellowship grant \#HST-HF2-51363.001-A awarded by the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., for NASA, under contract NAS5-26555. This research used resources of the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center, a DOE Office of Science User Facility supported by the Office of Science of the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.
Estimating the power spectrum from rectilinear Fourier modes {#sec:RectilinearFKP}
============================================================
In this Appendix, we derive a relation between measured rectilinear Fourier amplitudes of the sky $\widetilde{T}^\textrm{meas} (k)$ and the power spectrum, analogous to Eq. for the spherical Fourier-Bessel modes. The derivation presented here is a standard one, and is only included to serve as an analogy to Eq. .
For a survey specified by the function $\phi (\mathbf{r})$—so that the measured temperature field is $\phi(r) T(\mathbf{r})$ rather than just $T(\mathbf{r})$—the measured Fourier amplitudes $\widetilde{T}^\textrm{meas} (\mathbf{k})$ are related to the true Fourier amplitudes $\widetilde{T} (\mathbf{k})$ by the convolution theorem, which gives $$\widetilde{T}^\textrm{meas} (\mathbf{k}) = \int \frac{d^3 k^\prime}{(2 \pi)^3} \widetilde{T} (\mathbf{k}^\prime) \widetilde{\phi} (\mathbf{k} - \mathbf{k}^\prime).$$ Squaring and ensemble averaging the result gives $$\langle | \widetilde{T}^\textrm{meas} (\mathbf{k}) |^2 \rangle = \int \frac{d^3 k^\prime}{(2 \pi)^3} \big{|} \widetilde{\phi} (\mathbf{k} - \mathbf{k}^\prime) \big{|}^2 P(k^\prime),$$ where we used Eq. to relate the ensemble average of the true Fourier amplitudes to the power spectrum. Assuming $|\widetilde{\phi}|^2$ is sharply peaked, $P(k^\prime)$ can be approximately factored out of the integral and evaluated at $k$. Changing integration variables from $\mathbf{k}^\prime$ to $\mathbf{k} - \mathbf{k}^\prime$ for the remaining integral and invoking Parseval’s theorem then yields $$\langle | \widetilde{T}^\textrm{meas} (\mathbf{k}) |^2 \rangle = P(k) \int d^3 r \phi^2 (\mathbf{r}).$$ This suggests that a power spectrum estimator $\widehat{P} (k)$ can be constructed by computing $$\widehat{P} (k) = \frac{\sum_{|\mathbf{k}| = k} | \widetilde{T}^\textrm{meas} (\mathbf{k}) |^2}{N_k \int d^3 r \phi^2 (\mathbf{r})},$$ where $N_k$ is the number of independent Fourier modes in the shell where $|\mathbf{k}| = k$. The rest of the normalization factor that comprises the denominator (i.e., the integral) is independent of $k$ and is a sensitivity-weighted volume factor. For a survey with uniform sensitivity, for example, $\phi(\mathbf{r}) = 1$ everywhere inside the survey and the integral is exactly the volume of the survey. Because this integral is independent of $\mathbf{k}$, it follows that the orientation of a Fourier mode (i.e., ${\hat{\mathbf{k}}}$) has no bearing on its sensitivity to the power spectrum, and all orientations are equally sensitive.
Delay spectrum normalization in the narrow-field flat-sky limit {#sec:RectilinearInterferometerPspecNorm}
===============================================================
For orientation, we now briefly review how visibility-based estimators of the power spectrum are usually derived. Again, the derivation that follows is not new to this paper, but we include it to provide a pedagogical comparison to Section \[sec:SingleBlNorm\], as well as to place a special emphasis on the approximations involved.
Our first approximation will be the flat-sky, narrow-field approximation. This makes Eq. the appropriate expression to use for our interferometric visibility. Next, we assume that the interferometric fringe in this visibility is frequency-independent, so that the factor of $\nu$ in the complex exponential term may be replaced by $\nu_0$, the median frequency of one’s observing volume. This is equivalent to the approximation that one has very short baselines (since the baseline vector $\mathbf{b}$ is multiplied by $\nu$), or alternatively, that most spectral structure comes from either the primary beam or the sky temperature. Correspondingly, we also replace all copies of $r_\nu$ with $r_0$ to yield[^11] $$V(\mathbf{b}, \nu) = \frac{1}{r_0^2}\int d^2 r_\perp \phi(r) B(\mathbf{r_\perp}, \nu) T(\mathbf{r_\perp}, \nu)e^{ - i 2\pi \nu_0 \mathbf{b} \cdot \mathbf{r}_\perp / c r_0}.$$ To access Fourier modes along the line-of-sight, we perform the delay transform defined by Eq. . Converting again to cosmological coordinates and defining $$\label{eq:kperpConversions}
\mathbf{k}_\perp \equiv \frac{2 \pi \nu_0}{r_0 c} \mathbf{b}; \qquad k_\parallel \equiv \frac{2 \pi \tau}{\alpha},$$ along with $\mathbf{k} \equiv (\mathbf{k}_\perp, k_\parallel)$, one obtains $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{V}(\mathbf{b}, \tau) & = & \frac{e^{i 2\pi \nu_0 \tau - i k_\parallel r_0}}{r_0^2 \alpha_0 } \int d^3r D(\mathbf{r})T(\mathbf{r}) \exp \left( - i \mathbf{k} \cdot \mathbf{r} \right) \nonumber \\
& = & \frac{e^{i 2\pi \nu_0 \tau - i k_\parallel r_0}}{r_0^2 \alpha_0 } \int \frac{d^3 k^\prime}{(2 \pi)^3} \widetilde{T} (\mathbf{k}^\prime) \widetilde{D} ( \mathbf{k} - \mathbf{k}^\prime),\end{aligned}$$ where $\gamma$ is the tapering functions used in Eq. , $\alpha_0$ is the distance-frequency conversion from Eq. evaluated at the redshift corresponding to the central frequency of the survey, and we have defined $D(\mathbf{r}) \equiv B(\mathbf{r}) \phi(r) \gamma(\nu_{r_\parallel}) $, with $\widetilde{D}$ denoting its Fourier transform. While survey geometry and tapering factors such as $\phi$ and $\gamma$ have not typically been included in literature derivations such as those in @parsons_et_al2012a and @parsons_et_al2014, they are crucial in practical analyses of the data (e.g., in @ali_et_al2015), and thus we include them here.
As suggested in Section \[sec:DelayIntro\], we may relate the delay-transformed visibility to the power spectrum by squaring $\widetilde{V}(\mathbf{b}, \tau)$ and taking an ensemble average over realizations of the random temperature field. This gives $$\begin{aligned}
\langle | \widetilde{V}(\mathbf{b}, \tau) |^2 \rangle &= & \left( \frac{1}{r_0^2 \alpha_0 } \right)^2 \int \frac{d^3 k^\prime}{(2 \pi)^3} \frac{d^3 k^{\prime \prime}}{(2 \pi)^3} \nonumber \\
&& \widetilde{D} ( \mathbf{k} - \mathbf{k}^\prime) \widetilde{D}^* ( \mathbf{k} - \mathbf{k}^{\prime \prime}) \langle \widetilde{T} (\mathbf{k}^\prime) \widetilde{T}^* (\mathbf{k}^{\prime \prime}) \rangle \nonumber \\
& = & \left( \frac{1}{r_0^2 \alpha_0 } \right)^2 \int \frac{d^3 k^\prime}{(2 \pi)^3} P(\mathbf{k}^\prime) |\widetilde{D} ( \mathbf{k} - \mathbf{k}^{\prime})|^2, \qquad\end{aligned}$$ where in the last equality we invoked the definition of the power spectrum, i.e., Eq. . At this point, we may make the approximation that the power spectrum is a relatively broad function, while $|\widetilde{D} ( \mathbf{k} - \mathbf{k}^{\prime})|^2$ is fairly sharply peaked at $\mathbf{k} = \mathbf{k}^\prime$. This allows $P (\mathbf{k})$ to be factored out of the integral, and by invoking Parseval’s theorem on what remains, we obtain $$\langle | \widetilde{V}(\mathbf{b}, \tau) |^2 \rangle \approx \left( \frac{1}{r_0^2 \alpha_0 } \right)^2 P (\mathbf{k}) \int d^3 r D^2 (\mathbf{r}).$$ A sensible estimator $\widehat{P} (\mathbf{k})$ for the power spectrum would thus be $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat{P} (\mathbf{k}) &=& r_0^4 \alpha^2 \left[ \int d^3 r D^2 (\mathbf{r}) \right]^{-1} | \widetilde{V}(\mathbf{b}, \tau) |^2 \nonumber \\
& =& \frac{\alpha r_0^2 }{ \int d^2\theta d\nu B^2 ({\boldsymbol \theta}, \nu) \gamma(\nu) \phi(r_\nu)} | \widetilde{V}(\mathbf{b}, \tau) |^2. \qquad\quad\end{aligned}$$ Now, even though this expression was derived using the flat-sky approximation, it has been applied to wide-field instruments in the past. The flat-sky approximation is crudely undone by promoting $d^2 \theta$ back to $d \Omega$, giving $$\label{eq:flatSkyNormFinalResult}
\widehat{P} (\mathbf{k}) = \left( \frac{ c^2}{2 k_B } \right)^2 \frac{r_0^2 \alpha | \widetilde{V}(\mathbf{b}, \tau) |^2 }{\int \!d\nu d\Omega \,\nu^4 A^2 ({\hat{\mathbf{r}}}, \nu)\gamma(\nu) \phi(r_\nu) },$$ where we have reinserted Eq. . It is implicitly assumed that the value of $\mathbf{k}$ on the left hand side of this equation is related to $\mathbf{b}$ and $\tau$ by Eq. .
The foreground wedge in the narrow-field limit
==============================================
In this Appendix, we work in the narrow-field limit and derive an analytic form for the signature of foregrounds in a power spectrum expressed in terms of rectilinear $k_\perp$-$k_\parallel$ Fourier modes (i.e., the “foreground wedge" on the $k_\perp$-$k_\parallel$ plane). Our starting point will be Eq. , but written in terms of angles on the sky and assuming a frequency-independent modified primary beam $B(\boldsymbol \theta)$: $$V(\mathbf{b}, \nu) = \int d^2 \theta \phi(r_\nu) B(\boldsymbol \theta) T(\boldsymbol \theta, \nu)e^{ - i 2\pi \nu \mathbf{b} \cdot \boldsymbol \theta / c}.$$ The delay-transformed visibility then takes the form $$\widetilde{V} (\mathbf{b}, \tau) = \int d\nu d^2 \theta \gamma(\nu) \phi(r_\nu) B(\boldsymbol \theta) T(\boldsymbol \theta, \nu) e^{i 2 \pi \nu ( \tau - \mathbf{b} \cdot \boldsymbol \theta / c)}.$$
In principle, our sky temperature $T(\boldsymbol \theta, \nu)$ should include contributions from both the cosmological signal and the foregrounds. However, if we assume that foregrounds and the cosmological signal are uncorrelated (as we did in Section \[sec:CurvedSkyWedge\]), we may derive the foreground wedge without including the cosmological signal. We thus assume in this Appendix that $T(\boldsymbol \theta, \nu)$ consists solely of foregrounds, taking the form $$T(\boldsymbol \theta, \nu) = T_\perp^\textrm{fg} (\boldsymbol \theta) \kappa(\nu),$$ and thus our delay-transformed visibility becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{V} (\mathbf{b}, \tau) & = & \int d^2 \theta B(\boldsymbol \theta) T_\perp^\textrm{fg} (\boldsymbol \theta) e^{i 2 \pi \nu_0 ( \tau - \mathbf{b} \cdot \boldsymbol \theta / c)} \nonumber \\
&& \qquad \times \widetilde{\Theta} \left[ 2 \pi \left( \tau - \frac{\mathbf{b} \cdot \boldsymbol \theta}{c}\right)\right] \nonumber \\
&=& \int \frac{d^2 \ell}{(2\pi)^2} \widetilde{T}_\perp^\textrm{fg} (\boldsymbol \ell) \int d^2 \theta B(\boldsymbol \theta) e^{i \boldsymbol \ell \cdot \boldsymbol \theta} e^{i 2 \pi \nu_0 ( \tau - \mathbf{b} \cdot \boldsymbol \theta / c)} \nonumber \\
&& \qquad \times \widetilde{\Theta} \left[ 2 \pi \left( \tau - \frac{\mathbf{b} \cdot \boldsymbol \theta}{c}\right)\right],\end{aligned}$$ where $\widetilde{T}_\perp^\textrm{fg} (\boldsymbol \ell) \equiv \int d^2\theta e^{i \boldsymbol \ell \cdot \boldsymbol \theta} T_\perp^\textrm{fg} (\boldsymbol \theta)$ is the Fourier transform of $T_\perp^\textrm{fg}$, which we assume (as we did in Sections \[sec:RotationalInvarianceOnly\] and \[sec:CurvedSkyWedge\]) is a field with rotationally invariant statistics. This means that $$\langle \widetilde{T}_\perp^\textrm{fg} (\boldsymbol \ell) \widetilde{T}_\perp^\textrm{fg} (\boldsymbol \ell)^* \rangle = (2\pi)^2 \delta^D (\boldsymbol \ell - \boldsymbol \ell^\prime) C_\ell^\textrm{fg},$$ where we have suggestively chosen the symbol $C_\ell^\textrm{fg}$ on the right hand side because in the flat-sky limit, $C_\ell^\textrm{fg}$ can be shown to converge to the angular power spectrum [@hu2000].
Following Section \[sec:CurvedSkyWedge\], we form our estimator of the power spectrum by squaring the absolute magnitude of the delay-transformed visibility to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\langle | \widetilde{V} (\mathbf{b}, \tau) |^2 \rangle = \int \frac{d^2 \ell}{(2\pi)^2} C_\ell^\textrm{fg} \Bigg{|} \int d^2 \theta e^{i (\boldsymbol \ell - 2 \pi \nu_0 \mathbf{b} / c) \cdot \boldsymbol \theta} \nonumber \\
\times B(\boldsymbol \theta) \widetilde{\Theta} \left[ 2 \pi \left( \tau - \frac{\mathbf{b} \cdot \boldsymbol \theta}{c}\right)\right] \Bigg{|}^2. \qquad\end{aligned}$$ Again, we may consider the special case where $C_\ell^\textrm{fg}$ is a constant in order to elucidate the effects of the foreground wedge. This yields $$\begin{aligned}
\langle | \widetilde{V} (\mathbf{b}, \tau) |^2 \rangle &\propto& \int d^2 \theta B^2 (\boldsymbol \theta) \Bigg{|} \widetilde{\Theta} \left[ 2 \pi \left( \tau - \frac{\mathbf{b} \cdot \boldsymbol \theta}{c} \right) \right] \Bigg{|}^2 \nonumber \\
&=& 2 \pi \int d \theta \overline{B^2} (\theta) \widetilde{\Theta} \left[ 2 \pi \left( \tau - \frac{b \theta}{c} \right) \right] \Bigg{|}^2 \nonumber \\
&=& \frac{c}{b} \int ds \overline{B^2} \left( \frac{c \tau}{b} - \frac{sc}{2\pi b} \right) | \widetilde{\Theta} (s) |^2 \nonumber \\
&\approx & \frac{c}{b} \overline{B^2} \left( \frac{c \tau}{b} \right) \int ds | \widetilde{\Theta} (s) |^2\end{aligned}$$ where $\overline{B^2} (\theta) \equiv (1/2\pi) \int d\theta^\prime B^2(\theta, \theta^\prime) $, and in the last line we assumed we were in the long baseline (or the high $k_\perp$) regime where the foreground wedge is relevant. This allowed $\overline{B^2}$ to be factored out of the integral.
Recalling that $\langle | \widetilde{V} (\mathbf{b}, \tau) |^2 $ serves as a good estimator for the power spectrum at Fourier coordinates given by Eq. , the foreground contamination $\widehat{P}^\textrm{fg}$ of our power spectrum estimate is thus given by $$\widehat{P}^\textrm{fg} (k_\perp, k_\parallel) \propto \frac{1}{k_\perp} \overline{B^2} \left( \frac{\alpha_0 \nu_0 k_\parallel}{r_0 k_\perp}\right).
\vspace{0.1cm}$$ Contours of constant foreground power are therefore along lines where $k_\parallel \propto k_\perp$, and if $\overline{B^2}$ is zero (or negligible) beyond some characteristic angle $\theta_c$ away from its peak, foreground emission will be confined to $$\label{eq:WedgeLineEquation}
k_\parallel < k_\perp \frac{H_0 r_0 E(z) \theta_c}{c (1+z)} ,$$ where we have written $\alpha_0$ in terms of cosmological parameters. Since $k = (k_\perp^2 + k_\parallel^2)^{1/2}$, we may also write this in terms of $k$ and $k_\perp$. This gives $$k < k_\perp r_0 \frac{H_0}{c} \left[\frac{\theta_c^2 E^2(z)}{(1+z)^2} + \left( \int_0^z \frac{dz^\prime}{E(z^\prime)}\right)^{-2}\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}.$$\
Recalling that $\ell \approx k_\perp r_0$ in the flat-sky approximation, this is essentially the same as the full curved-sky expression, Eq. . The only slight difference is that in the flat-sky approximation, the angular coordinates are rectilinear and formally go from $-\infty$ to $+\infty$, necessitating some arbitrary cut-off angle $\theta_c$ for the primary beam. In the curved sky treatment, a cutoff is naturally imposed by the horizon.
[^1]: $^{\dagger}$Hubble Fellow
[^2]: In @parsons_et_al2016 it was shown that in specialized situations it is possible to pre-filter visibility data from an interferometer to recover some of the loss of sensitivity from a square-then-average approach. However, such an approach does not recover large scale angular modes from a wide field of view.
[^3]: It is an unfortunate coincidence that the spherical harmonic indices are typically denoted by $\ell$ and $m$ in the cosmological literature, while in radio astronomy they are reserved for the direction cosines from zenith in the east-west and north-south directions, respectively. In this paper, $\ell$ and $m$ will always represent spherical harmonic indices, and never direction cosines.
[^4]: In this paper, we use hats for two different purposes. When placed above a vector (e.g., with ${\hat{\mathbf{r}}}$), the hat indicates that the vector is a unit vector. When placed above a scalar (e.g., with $\widehat{P}$), the hat indicates an estimator of the hatless quantity.
[^5]: This does not, of course, preclude the examination of systematics in other spaces. For example, though cable reflections may have well-defined signatures on the $k_\perp$-$k_\parallel$ or $\ell$-$k$ planes, they are an example of a systematic that can (and should) also be diagnosed in spaces appropriate for raw data coming off an instrument.
[^6]: We implicitly assume throughout this paper that we are dealing only with temperature *fluctuations*. In other words, we assume that that the mean sky temperature has already been subtracted off (or simply does not enter the measurement itself, as is the case with most interferometric measurements).
[^7]: Note that even though this was derived assuming that $P(k)$ is smooth (which does not necessarily hold when substantial foreground contaminants are involved; @liu_et_al2014b), the resulting normalization is still the correct one to use.
[^8]: As expected from Section \[sec:RotationalInvarianceOnly\], the definition of $S_\ell (k)$ depends on the survey geometry $\phi(\mathbf{r})$. This dependence cancels out for the cosmological signal, but not for contaminants. Thus, while two different surveys should give identical results for the cosmological power spectrum $P(k)$, the contaminant (e.g., foreground) contributions to the power are not directly comparable, and two surveys with identical contaminating influences but different sky coverage may measure different total power spectra. Note that this argument is due purely to the differences in scaling with survey volume discussed in Section \[sec:RotationalInvarianceOnly\]. It thus applies equally well to both $P(k_\perp, k_\parallel)$ and $S_\ell (k)$, and is not simply a peculiarity of the latter.
[^9]: The term “window function" is unfortunately rather overused. In various parts of the literature, it has been used to refer to what we have called the tapering function $\gamma$ in this paper, and in other parts of the literature it has been used to describe what we have called the survey profile $\phi$. In this paper, a window function will *always* refer to the function that describes the linear combination of true power spectrum probed by one’s statistical estimator of the power spectrum. A mathematically precise definition for the window functions of our particular estimator will be provided in Eqs. and .
[^10]: Note that while our results for the boundary of the wedge and its profile are qualitatively robust, minor differences can arise depending on the precise form of the power spectrum estimator that is employed. Consider, for example, the estimator used in @liu_et_al2014a where visibility data was convolved onto a Fourier-space grid using the primary beam as a gridding kernel. There, the profile of the wedge was shown to be primary beam convolved with itself, rather than the primary beam squared as we have it here for our estimator.
[^11]: In principle, converting $\nu_0$ to a radial distance does not yield $r_0$ because the distance-frequency relation is nonlinear. In practice, the radially compressed geometry of a typical intensity mapping survey (see Figure \[fig:surveyGeom\]) means that linearized distance-frequency relations such as Eq. are excellent approximations. We are thus justified in making the assumption that $\nu_0$ and $r_0$ roughly refer to the same radial distance.
|
---
abstract: |
We investigate lattice Weinberg - Salam model without fermions numerically for the realistic choice of coupling constants correspondent to the value of the Weinberg angle $\theta_W \sim 30^o$, and bare fine structure constant around $\alpha \sim \frac{1}{150}$. We consider the values of the scalar self coupling corresponding to Higgs mass $M_H \sim 100, 150, 270$ GeV. It has been found that nonperturbative effects become important while approaching continuum physics within the lattice model. When the ultraviolet cutoff $\Lambda =
\frac{\pi}{a}$ (where $a$ is the lattice spacing) is increased and achieves the value around $1$ TeV one encounters the fluctuational region (on the phase diagram of the lattice model), where the fluctuations of the scalar field become strong. The classical Nambu monopole can be considered as an embryo of the unphysical symmetric phase within the physical phase. In the fluctuational region quantum Nambu monopoles are dense and, therefore, the use of the perturbation expansion around trivial vacuum in this region is limited. Further increase of the cutoff is accompanied by a transition to the region of the phase diagram, where the scalar field is not condensed (this happens at the value of $\Lambda$ around $1.4$ TeV for the considered lattice sizes). Within this region further increase of the cutoff is possible although we do not observe this in details due to the strong fluctuations of the gauge boson correlator. Both mentioned above regions look unphysical. Therefore we come to the conclusion that the maximal value of the cutoff admitted within lattice Electroweak theory cannot exceed the value of the order of $1$ TeV.
author:
- 'M.A.Zubkov'
title: 'How to approach continuum physics in lattice Weinberg - Salam model'
---
Introduction
============
It is well - known [@M_W_T], that the finite temperature perturbation expansion breaks down at the temperatures above the electroweak transition/crossover already for Higgs masses above about $60$ GeV. Therefore the present lower bound on the Higgs mass requires the use of nonperturbative techniques while investigating electroweak physics at high temperature.
Nambu monopoles are not described by means of a perturbation expansion around the trivial vacuum background. Therefore, nonperturbative methods should be used in order to investigate their physics. However, their mass is estimated at the Tev scale. That’s why at zero temperature and at the energies much less than $1$ Tev their effect on physical observables is negligible. However, when energy of the processes approaches $1$ Tev we expect these objects influence the dynamics. Recently the indications in favor of this point of view were indeed found [@BVZ2007; @VZ2008; @Z2009].
In this paper we consider lattice realization of zero temperature Electroweak theory (without fermions). The phase diagram of the correspondent lattice model contains physical Higgs phase, where scalar field is condensed and gauge bosons $Z$ and $W$ acquire their masses. This physical phase is bounded by the phase transition surface. Crossing this surface one leaves the Higgs phase and enters the phase of the lattice theory, where the scalar field is not condensed.
In the lattice theory the ultraviolet cutoff is finite and is equal to the momentum ${\Lambda} = \frac{\pi}{a}$ (see, for example, [@UV]), where $a$ is the lattice spacing. The physical scale can be fixed, for example, using the value of the $Z$-boson mass $M^{\rm phys}_Z \sim 90$ GeV. Therefore the lattice spacing is evaluated to be $a \sim [90\,{\rm GeV}]^{-1} M_Z$, where $M_Z$ is the $Z$ boson mass in lattice units. Within the physical phase of the theory the lines of constant physics (LCP) are defined that correspond to constant renormalized physical couplings (the fine structure constant $\alpha$, the Weinberg angle $\theta_W$, and Higgs mass to Z-boson mass ratio $\eta =
M_H/M_Z$). The points on LCP are parametrized by the lattice spacing. Our observation is that the LCP corresponding to realistic values of $\alpha$, $\theta_W$, and $\eta$ crosses the transition between the two “phases” at a certain value $a = a_c$ and for $a < a_c$ the scalar field is not condensed. We denote the corresponding value of the cutoff $\Lambda_c = \frac{\pi}{a_c}$. Our estimate for the considered values of the Higgs mass $M_H \sim 100, 160,
270$ Gev is $\Lambda_c = 1.4 \pm 0.2$ Tev (for the considered lattice sizes). We do not observe the dependence of $\Lambda_c$ on the lattice size. That’s why the value $\Lambda_c$ might appear as the maximal possible value of the cutoff allowed in the conventional Electroweak theory.
It is important to compare this result with the limitations on the Ultraviolet Cutoff, that come from the perturbation theory. From the point of view of perturbation theory the energy scale $1$ TeV appears in the Hierarchy problem [@TEV]. Namely, the mass parameter $\mu^2$ for the scalar field receives a quadratically divergent contribution in one loop. Therefore, the initial mass parameter ($\mu^2= - \lambda_c v^2$, where $v$ is the vacuum average of the scalar field) should be set to infinity in such a way that the renormalized mass $\mu^2_R$ remains negative and finite. This is the content of the so-called fine tuning. It is commonly believed that this fine tuning is not natural [@TEV] and, therefore, one should set up the finite ultraviolet cutoff $\Lambda$. From the requirement that the one-loop contribution to $\mu^2$ is less than $10 |\mu_R^2|$ one derives that $\Lambda \sim 1$ TeV. However, strictly speaking, the possibility that the mentioned fine tuning takes place is not excluded.
In the perturbation theory there is also more solid limitation on the Ultraviolet cutoff. It appears as a consequence of the triviality problem, which is related to Landau pole in scalar field self coupling $\lambda$ and in the fine structure constant $\alpha$. The Landau pole in fine structure constant is related to the fermion loops and, therefore, has no direct connection with our lattice result (we neglect dynamical fermions in our consideration). Due to the Landau pole the renormalized $\lambda$ is zero, and the only way to keep it equal to its measured value is to impose the limitation on the cutoff. That’s why the Electroweak theory is usually thought of as a finite cutoff theory. For small Higgs masses (less than about $350$ GeV) the correspondent energy scale $\Lambda_c^{0}$ calculated within the perturbation theory is much larger, than $1$ Tev. In particular, for $M_H \sim 300$ GeV we have $\Lambda_c^{0}\sim 1000$ TeV. It is worth mentioning that for $\lambda
\rightarrow \infty$ the perturbation expansion in $\lambda$ cannot be used. In this case Higgs mass approaches its absolute upper bound[^1], and both triviality and Hierarchy scales approach each other.
From the previous research we know that the phase diagram in the $\beta$ - $\gamma$ plane of the lattice $SU(2)$ Gauge - Higgs for any fixed $\lambda$ resembles the phase diagram for the lattice Weinberg - Salam model. The only difference is that in the $SU(2)$ Gauge - Higgs model the confinement-deconfinement phase transition corresponding to the $U(1)$ constituents of the model is absent. The direct measurement of the renormalized coupling $\beta_R$ shows [@1; @2; @3; @4; @5; @6; @7; @8; @9; @10; @11; @12; @13; @14] that the line of constant renormalized coupling constant (with the value close to the experimental one) intersects the phase transition line. Also we know from the direct measurements of $M_W$ in the $SU(2)$ Gauge - Higgs model that the ultraviolet cutoff is increased when one is moving along this line from the physical Higgs phase to the symmetric phase.
On the tree level the gauge boson mass in lattice units vanishes on the transition surface at small enough $\lambda$. This means that the tree level estimate predicts the appearance of an infinite ultraviolet cutoff at the transition point for small $\lambda$. At infinite $\lambda$ the tree level estimate gives nonzero values of lattice masses at the transition point. Our numerical investigation of $SU(2)\otimes U(1)$ model (at $\lambda = 0.0025,
0.009, 0.001$) and previous calculations in the $SU(2)$ Gauge Higgs model (both at finite $\lambda$ and at $\lambda = \infty$) showed that for the considered lattice sizes renormalized masses do not vanish and the transition is either of the first order or a crossover. (Actually, the situation, when the cutoff tends to infinity at the position of the transition point means that there is a second order phase transition.) The dependence on the lattice sizes for the $SU(2)$ Gauge Higgs model was investigated, for example, in [@10]. Namely, for $\beta = 8$, $\lambda \sim 0.00116$, where $M_H \sim M_W$, the correlation lengths were evaluated at the transition points. For different lattice sizes (from $12^3\times 28$ to $18^3 \times 36$) no change in correlation length was observed [@10].
In table 1 of [@BVZ2007] the data on the ultraviolet cutoff achieved in selected lattice studies of the $SU(2)$ Gauge Higgs model are presented. Everywhere $\beta$ is around $\beta \sim 8$ and the renormalized fine structure constant is around $\alpha \sim
1/110$. This table shows that the maximal value of the cutoff ${\Lambda} = \frac{\pi}{a}$ ever achieved in these studies is around $1.4$ Tev.
Thus the predictions on the value of $\Lambda_c$ given by our lattice study and on the value $\Lambda_c^{0}$ given by the perturbation theory contradict with each other. A possible explanation of this contradiction we suggested in [@Z2009]. Namely, it was demonstrated that in the vicinity of the transition there exists the fluctuational region. Within this region the application of the perturbation theory is limited. This situation is similar to that of some phenomenological models that describe condensed matter systems[^2], where there exists the vicinity of the finite temperature phase transition that is also called fluctuational region. In this region the fluctuations of the order parameter become strong. The contribution of these fluctuations to certain physical observables becomes larger than the tree level estimate. Thus the perturbation theory in these models fails down within the fluctuational region.
We find that there exists the vicinity of the phase transition between the Higgs phase and the symmetric phase in the Weinberg - Salam model, where the fluctuations of the scalar field become strong and the perturbation expansion around trivial vacuum cannot be applied. According to the numerical results the continuum theory is to be approached within the vicinity of the phase transition, i.e. the cutoff is increased along the line of constant physics when one approaches the point of the transition. That’s why the conventional prediction on the value of the cutoff admitted in the Standard Model based on the perturbation theory may be incorrect.
In the present paper we proceed the investigation [@Z2009] of the model at the value of the scalar self coupling $\lambda = 0.009$ (corresponds to the Higgs boson mass around $270$ Gev in the vicinity of the phase transition), bare Weinberg angle $\theta_W = 30^o$, and bare fine structure constant around $1/150$. The results presented now correspond to essentially larger lattices than that of used in [@Z2009]. Namely, in [@Z2009] main results correspond to lattices $8^3\times 16$; some results were checked on the lattice $12^3\times 16$; two points were checked on the lattice $16^4$. Now our main results are obtained on the lattice $16^4$ while the results at the transition point were checked on the lattice $20^3\times 24$.
In addition we investigate the model at the value of the scalar self coupling $\lambda = 0.0025$, bare Weinberg angle $\theta_W = 30^o$, and bare fine structure constant around $\alpha_0 \sim 1/150$. These values of couplings correspond to the Higgs boson mass around $150$ Gev in the vicinity of the phase transition. The results are obtained using lattices $8^3\times 16$, $12^3\times 16$, and $16^4$. We also present results for $\lambda = 0.001$, $\theta_W = 30^o$, $\alpha_0 \sim 1/150$. These values of couplings correspond to the Higgs boson mass around $100$ Gev. The results are obtained using lattices $8^3\times 16$, $12^3\times 16$.
It is worth mentioning that far from the transition point the renormalized fine structure constant slowly approaches the tree level estimate. Contrary to the maximal value of the cutoff the renormalized fine structure constant depends on the lattice size. And for the larger lattice the value of $\alpha_R$ is closer to the tree level estimate than for the smaller one. For example, for $\beta = 12, \gamma \sim 1, \lambda
= 0.001$ (far from the transition point) on the lattice $8^3\times 16$ the value of $\alpha_R$ is around $1/130$ while on the lattice $12^3\times 16$ it is around $1/140$. Within the fluctuational region the deviation from tree level estimate becomes essentially strong. For example, for $\lambda = 0.009,
\gamma = 0.274$ (near the transition point) the renormalized value of $\alpha_R$ calculated on the lattice $8^3\times 16$ is around $1/99$ while on the lattice $20^3\times 24$ its value is around $1/106$. As it is seen from our numerical results and as it will be explained in the Conclusions we guess the mentioned finite volume effects present in the value of renormalized $\alpha$ do not affect the main observables we considered like the value of $\Lambda_c$ and the Nambu monopole density.
We calculate the constraint effective potential $V(|\Phi|)$ for the Higgs field $\Phi$. In the physical Higgs phase this potential has a minimum at a certain nonzero value $\phi_m$ of $|\Phi|$. This shows that the spontaneous breakdown of the Electroweak symmetry takes place as it should. However, there exists the vicinity of the phase transition, where the fluctuations of the Higgs field are of the order of $\phi_m$ while the hight of the “potential barrier”[^3] $H = V(0) - V(\phi_m)$ is of the order of $V(\phi_m + \delta \phi)-V(\phi_m)$, where $\delta \phi$ is the fluctuation of $|\Phi|$. We expect that in this region the perturbation expansion around trivial vacuum $\Phi = (\phi_m,0)^T$ cannot be applied. This region of the phase diagram is called the fluctuational region (FR).
The nature of the fluctuational region is illustrated by the behavior of quantum Nambu monopoles [@Nambu; @Chernodub_Nambu]. We show that their lattice density increases when the phase transition point is approached. Within the FR these objects are so dense that it is not possible at all to speak of them as of single monopoles [^4]. Namely, within this region the average distance between the Nambu monopoles is of the order of their size. Such complicated configurations obviously have nothing to do with the conventional vacuum used in the continuum perturbation theory.
The lattice model under investigation
=====================================
The lattice Weinberg - Salam Model without fermions contains gauge field ${\cal U} = (U,
\theta)$ (where $ \quad U
\in SU(2), \quad e^{i\theta} \in U(1)$ are realized as link variables), and the scalar doublet $ \Phi_{\alpha}, \;(\alpha = 1,2)$ defined on sites.
The action is taken in the form $$\begin{aligned}
S & = & \beta \!\! \sum_{\rm plaquettes}\!\!
((1-\mbox{${\small \frac{1}{2}}$} \, {\rm Tr}\, U_p )
+ \frac{1}{{\rm tg}^2 \theta_W} (1-\cos \theta_p))+\nonumber\\
&& - \gamma \sum_{xy} Re(\Phi^+U_{xy} e^{i\theta_{xy}}\Phi) + \sum_x (|\Phi_x|^2 +
\lambda(|\Phi_x|^2-1)^2), \label{S}\end{aligned}$$ where the plaquette variables are defined as $U_p = U_{xy} U_{yz} U_{wz}^* U_{xw}^*$, and $\theta_p = \theta_{xy} + \theta_{yz} - \theta_{wz} - \theta_{xw}$ for the plaquette composed of the vertices $x,y,z,w$. Here $\lambda$ is the scalar self coupling, and $\gamma = 2\kappa$, where $\kappa$ corresponds to the constant used in the investigations of the $SU(2)$ gauge Higgs model. $\theta_W$ is the Weinberg angle.
Bare fine structure constant $\alpha$ is expressed through $\beta$ and $\theta_W$ as $\alpha = \frac{{\rm tg}^2 \theta_W}{\pi \beta(1+{\rm tg}^2
\theta_W)}$. In order to demonstrate this we consider naive continuum limit of (\[S\]). We set $$\begin{aligned}
\quad U_{x,\mu} = e^{iA_{\mu}(x)a}, \quad e^{i\theta_{x,\mu}} = e^{iB_{\mu}(x)a}\end{aligned}$$ Here $a$ is the lattice spacing. The field $B_{\mu}=\frac{\tilde{B_{\mu}}}{2}$, where $\tilde{B_{\mu}}$ - is the conventional $U(1)$ field while $A_{\mu}$ is the conventional $SU(2)$ field. In continuum limit (\[S\]) must become $$\begin{aligned}
S_g & = & \int d^4x
\{\frac{1}{2g_2^2} {\rm Tr}\, [ 2 \times \sum_{i>j}G^2_{ij}]
+ \frac{1}{4g_1^2} [ 2 \times \sum_{i>j}\tilde{F}^2_{ij}]
\},\label{Act0c}\end{aligned}$$ Here $\tilde{F}_{ij} = \partial_{i}\tilde{B}_j - \partial_{j}\tilde{B}_i = 2
(\partial_{i}{B}_j - \partial_{j}{B}_i) = 2 F_{ij}$, ${G}_{ij} =
\partial_{i}{A}_j -
\partial_{j}{A}_i - i[A_i,A_j]$. We also have the following correspondence between the plaquette variables and the field strengths: $$\begin{aligned}
\quad {\rm Tr} U_{x,\mu\nu} &=& {\rm Tr}[1-\frac{1}{2}G^2_{\mu
\nu}a^4],
\nonumber\\ \quad {\rm cos} \, N {\theta_{x,\mu\nu}} &=& [1-\frac{N^2}{2}{F}^2_{\mu \nu}a^4]\end{aligned}$$
Now in order to clarify the correspondence between constants $g_{1,2}$ and $\beta$ we must substitute the expressions for the field strengths to (\[S\]) and compare it to (\[Act0c\]). We have: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{g^2_1} = \frac{1}{4{\rm tg}^2 \theta_W} \times \beta , \quad \frac{1}{g^2_2} =
\beta/4\end{aligned}$$
Thus $$\begin{aligned}
{\rm tg} \theta_W &=& \frac{g_1}{g_2} ,\nonumber\\
\quad \alpha &=&
\frac{e^2}{4\pi}= \frac{[\frac{1}{g^2_1}+\frac{1}{g^2_2}]^{-1}}{4\pi}= \frac{{\rm tg}^2 \theta_W}{\pi \beta(1+{\rm tg}^2
\theta_W)}\end{aligned}$$
We consider the region of the phase diagram with $\beta \sim 12$ and $\theta_W \sim
\pi/6$. Therefore, bare couplings are ${\rm sin}^2 \theta_W \sim 0.25$; $\alpha \sim
\frac{1}{150}$. These values are to be compared with the experimental ones ${\rm sin}^2
\theta_W(100 {\rm Gev}) \sim 0.23$; $\alpha(100 {\rm Gev}) \sim \frac{1}{128}$.
The simulations were performed on lattices of sizes $8^3\times 16$, $12^3\times
16$. For $\lambda = 0.0025, 0.009$ we investigate the system on the lattice $16^4$. The transition point at $\lambda = 0.009$ was checked using the larger lattice ($20^3\times 24$). In order to simulate the system we used Metropolis algorithm. The acceptance rate is kept around $0.5$ via the automatical self - tuning of the suggested distribution of the fields. At each step of the suggestion the random value is added to the old value of the scalar field while the old value of Gauge field is multiplied by random $SU(2)\otimes U(1)$ matrix. We use Gaussian distribution both for the random value added to the scalar field and the parameters of the random matrix multiplied by the lattice Gauge field. We use two independent parameters for these distributions: one for the Gauge fields and another for the scalar field. The program code has been tested for the case of frozen scalar field. And the results of the papers [@VZ2008] are reproduced. We also have tested our code for the $U(1)$ field frozen and repeat the results of [@Montvayold]. Far from the transition point the autocorrelation time for the gauge fields is estimated as about $N^g_{auto} \sim 500$ Metropolis steps. In the vicinity of the transition point the autocorrelation time is several times larger and is about $N^g_{auto} \sim 1500$ Metropolis steps. (The correlation between the values of the gauge field is less than $3 \%$ for the configurations separated by $N^g_{auto}$ Metropolis steps. Each metropolis step consists of the renewing the fields over all the lattice.) The autocorrelation time for the scalar field is essentially smaller than for the gauge fields and is of the order of $N^{\phi}_{auto} \sim 20$. The estimated time for preparing the equilibrium starting from the cold start far from the phase transition within the Higgs phase is about $18000$ Metropolis steps for the considered values of couplings. At the same time near the phase transition and within the symmetric phase the estimated time for preparing the equilibrium is up to $3$ times larger.
The tree level estimates of lattice quantities
==============================================
At finite $\lambda$ the line of constant renormalized $\alpha$ is not a line of constant physics, because the mass of the Higgs boson depends on the position on this line. Thus, in order to investigate the line of constant physics one should vary $\lambda$ together with $\gamma$ to keep the ratio of lattice masses $M_H/M_W$ constant.
In order to obtain the tree level estimates let us rewrite the lattice action in an appropriate way. Namely, we define the scalar field $\tilde{\Phi} =
\sqrt{\frac{\gamma}{2}} \Phi$. We have:
$$\begin{aligned}
S & = & \beta \!\! \sum_{\rm plaquettes}\!\!
((1-\mbox{${\small \frac{1}{2}}$} \, {\rm Tr}\, U_p )
+ \frac{1}{{\rm tg}^2 \theta_W} (1-\cos \theta_p))+\nonumber\\
&& + \sum_{xy} |\tilde{\Phi}_x - U_{xy} e^{i\theta_{xy}}\tilde{\Phi}_y|^2 + \sum_x (\mu^2 |\tilde{\Phi}_x|^2 +
\tilde{\lambda} |\tilde{\Phi}_x|^4) + \omega , \label{S2}\end{aligned}$$
where $\mu^2 = - 2(4+(2\lambda-1)/\gamma)$, $\tilde{\lambda} =
4\frac{\lambda}{\gamma^2}$, and $\omega = \lambda V$. Here $V = L^4$ is the lattice volume, and $L$ is the lattice size.
For negative $\mu^2$ we fix Unitary gauge $\tilde{\Phi}_2=0$, ${\rm Im}\, \tilde{\Phi}_1
= 0$, and introduce the vacuum value of $\tilde{\Phi}$: $v =
\frac{|\mu|}{\sqrt{2\tilde{\lambda}}}$. We also introduce the scalar field $\sigma$ instead of $\tilde{\Phi}$: $\tilde{\Phi}_1 = v + \sigma$. We denote $V_{xy} =
(U^{11}_{xy}e^{i\theta_{xy}} - 1)$, and obtain: $$\begin{aligned}
S & = & \beta \!\! \sum_{\rm plaquettes}\!\!
((1-\mbox{${\small \frac{1}{2}}$} \, {\rm Tr}\, U_p )
+ \frac{1}{{\rm tg}^2 \theta_W} (1-\cos \theta_p))+\nonumber\\
&& + \sum_{xy} ((\sigma_x - \sigma_y)^2 + |V_{xy}|^2 v^2) + \sum_x 2|\mu|^2 \sigma_x^2 \nonumber\\
&& + \sum_{xy} ((\sigma^2_y+2v \sigma_y)|V_{xy}|^2 - 2(\sigma_x - \sigma_y){\rm Re} V_{xy} (\sigma_y +v) ) + \nonumber\\
&& + \sum_x \tilde{\lambda} \sigma_x^2 (\sigma_x^2 + 4 v \sigma_x) + \tilde{\omega} , \label{S2}\end{aligned}$$ where $\tilde{\omega} = \omega - \tilde{\lambda} v^4 V$.
Now we easily derive the tree level estimates: $$\begin{aligned}
M_H &=& \sqrt{2}|\mu| = 2\sqrt{4+(2\lambda-1)/\gamma}; \nonumber\\
M_W &=& \sqrt{2} \frac{v}{\sqrt{\beta}} = \sqrt{\frac{\gamma(4\gamma+2\lambda-1)}{2\lambda\beta}}; \nonumber\\
M_W &=& {\rm cos}\theta_W M_Z\nonumber\\
M_H/M_W &=& \sqrt{8\lambda \beta/\gamma^2};\nonumber\\
\Lambda &=&\pi \sqrt{\frac{2\lambda\beta}{\gamma(4\gamma+2\lambda-1)}} \, [80\, {\rm
GeV}];\label{tree}\end{aligned}$$ The fine structure constant is given by $\alpha = \frac{{\rm tg}^2 \theta_W}{\pi
\beta(1+{\rm tg}^2 \theta_W)}$ and does not depend on $\lambda$ and $\gamma$. From (\[tree\]) we learn that at the tree level LCP on the phase diagram corresponds to fixed $\beta = \frac{{\rm tg}^2 \theta_W}{\pi \alpha(1+{\rm tg}^2 \theta_W)} \sim 10 $ and $\eta = M_H/M_W$, and is given by the equation $\lambda(\gamma) =
\frac{\eta^2}{8\beta} \gamma^2$.
The important case is $\lambda = \infty$, where the tree level estimates give $$\begin{aligned}
M_H &=& \infty; \nonumber\\
M_W &=& \sqrt{\frac{\gamma}{\beta}}; \nonumber\\
M_Z &=& \sqrt{\frac{\gamma}{\beta}}{\rm cos}^{-1}\theta_W; \nonumber\\
\Lambda &=& \pi \sqrt{\frac{\beta}{\gamma}} \, [80\, {\rm GeV}];\label{treei}\end{aligned}$$
In the $SU(2)$ gauge Higgs model for the small values of $\lambda << 0.1$ the tree level estimate for $M_H/M_W$ gives values that differ from the renormalized ratio by about 20%[@11]. The tree level estimate for the ultraviolet cutoff is about $1$ TeV at $\lambda =
\infty,\gamma = 1, \beta = 15$ that is not far from the numerical result given in [@VZ2008]. In the $SU(2)$ Gauge Higgs model at $\lambda = \infty$ the critical $\gamma_c = 0.63$ for $\beta = 8$ [@14]. At this point the tree level estimate gives $\Lambda = 0.9$ Tev while the direct measurements give $\Lambda \in [0.8; 1.5]$ Tev for values of $\gamma \in [0.64; 0.95]$ [@14]. The investigations of the $SU(2)$ Gauge Higgs model showed that a consideration of finite $\lambda$ does not change much the estimate for the gauge boson mass. However, at finite $\lambda$ and values of $\gamma$ close to the phase-transition point the tree level formula does not work at all.
The tree level estimate for the critical $\gamma$ is $\gamma_c = (1-2\lambda)/4$. At small $\lambda$ this formula gives values that are close to the ones obtained by the numerical simulations [@12; @13; @14]. In particular, $\gamma_c \rightarrow 0.25$ ($\kappa_c \rightarrow 0.125$) at $\lambda << 1$. However, this formula clearly does not work for $\lambda > 1/2$. From [@Montvay; @12; @13; @14] we know that the critical coupling in the $SU(2)$ Gauge Higgs model is about $2 - 4$ times smaller for $\lambda =0$ than for $\lambda = \infty$.
Tree level estimate predicts that there is the second order phase transition. This means that according to the tree level estimate the value of the cutoff at the transition point is infinite. Our numerical simulations, however, show that the cutoff remains finite and the transition is, most likely, a crossover at the considered values of $\theta_W$, $\lambda$ and $\beta$.
Nambu monopoles
===============
In this section we remind the reader what is called Nambu monopole [@Nambu]. First let us define the continuum Electroweak fields as they appear in the Weinberg-Salam model. The continuum scalar doublet is denoted as $\Phi$. The $Z$-boson field $Z^{\mu}$ and electromagnetic field $A_{\rm EM}^{\mu}$ are defined as $$\begin{aligned}
Z^{\mu} = - \frac{1}{\sqrt{\Phi^+ \Phi}} \Phi^+ A^{\mu} \Phi - B^{\mu},
\nonumber\\
A_{\rm EM}^{\mu} = 2 B^{\mu} + 2 \,{\rm sin}^2\, \theta_W
Z^{\mu},\label{FSM}\end{aligned}$$ where $A^{\mu}$ and $B^{\mu}$ are the corresponding $SU(2)$ and $U(1)$ gauge fields of the Standard Model.
After fixing the unitary gauge $\Phi_2=const.$, $\Phi_1 = 0$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
Z^{\mu} = \frac{g_z}{2}[\frac{\tilde{A_3}^{\mu}}{g_2}{\rm cos}\theta_W - \frac{\tilde{B}^{\mu}}{g_1}{\rm sin}\theta_W] = \frac{1}{2}\tilde{Z}^{\mu},
\nonumber\\
A_{\rm EM}^{\mu} = e[\frac{\tilde{A_3}^{\mu}}{g_2}{\rm sin}\theta_W + \frac{\tilde{B}^{\mu}}{g_1}{\rm cos}\theta_W] = \tilde{A}^{\mu},\end{aligned}$$ where $\frac{\tilde{A}_3}{g_2} = \frac{1}{g_2}{\rm Tr}\, A \sigma^3$, $\frac{\tilde{B}}{g_1} = 2 B/g_1$, $\frac{\tilde{Z}}{g_z}$, $\frac{\tilde{A}}{e}$ - conventional Standard Model fields, and $g_z = \sqrt{g_1^2+g_2^2}$.
Nambu monopoles are defined as the endpoints of the $Z$-string [@Nambu]. The $Z$-string is the classical field configuration that represents the object, which is characterized by the magnetic flux extracted from the $Z$-boson field. Namely, for a small contour $\cal C$ winding around the $Z$ - string one should have $$\int_{\cal C} Z^{\mu} dx^{\mu} \sim 2\pi;\,
\int_{\cal C} A_{\rm EM}^{\mu} dx^{\mu} \sim 0;\,
\int_{\cal C} B^{\mu} dx^{\mu} \sim 2\pi {\rm sin}^2\, \theta_W .$$ The string terminates at the position of the Nambu monopole. The hypercharge flux is supposed to be conserved at that point. Therefore, a Nambu monopole carries electromagnetic flux $4\pi {\rm sin}^2\, \theta_W$. The size of Nambu monopoles was estimated [@Nambu] to be of the order of the inverse Higgs mass, while its mass should be of the order of a few TeV. According to [@Nambu] Nambu monopoles may appear only in the form of a bound state of a monopole-antimonopole pair.
In lattice theory the following variables are considered as creating the $Z$ boson: $$Z_{xy} = Z^{\mu}_{x} \;
= - {\rm sin} \,[{\rm Arg} (\Phi_x^+U_{xy} e^{i\theta_{xy}}\Phi_y) ]. \label{Z1}$$ and: $$Z^{\prime}_{xy} = Z^{\mu}_{x} \;
= - \,[{\rm Arg} (\Phi_x^+U_{xy} e^{i\theta_{xy}}\Phi_y) ]. \label{Z1_}$$
The classical solution corresponding to a $Z$-string should be formed around the $2$-dimensional topological defect which is represented by the integer-valued field defined on the dual lattice $ \Sigma = \frac{1}{2\pi}^*([d
Z^{\prime}]_{{\rm mod} 2\pi} - d Z^{\prime})$. (Here we used the notations of differential forms on the lattice. For a definition of those notations see, for example, [@forms]. Lattice field $Z^\prime$ is defined in Eg. (\[Z1\_\]).) Therefore, $\Sigma$ can be treated as the worldsheet of a [*quantum*]{} $Z$-string [@Chernodub_Nambu]. Then, the worldlines of quantum Nambu monopoles appear as the boundary of the $Z$-string worldsheet: $ j_Z =
\delta \Sigma $.
For historical reasons in lattice simulations we fix unitary gauge $\Phi_2 = 0$; $\Phi_1
\in {\cal R}$; $\Phi_1 \ge 0$ (instead of the usual $\Phi_1 = 0$; $\Phi_2 \in {\cal R}$), and the lattice Electroweak theory becomes a lattice $U(1)$ gauge theory with the $U(1)$ gauge field $$A_{xy} = A^{\mu}_{x} \;
= \,[Z^{\prime} + 2\theta_{xy}] \,{\rm mod}
\,2\pi, \label{A}$$ (The usual lattice Electromagnetic field is related to $A$ as $ A_{\rm EM} = A -
Z^{\prime} + 2 \,{\rm sin}^2\, \theta_W Z^{\prime}$.) One may try to extract monopole trajectories directly from $A$. The monopole current is given by $$j_{A} = \frac{1}{2\pi} {}^*d([d A]{\rm mod}2\pi)
\label{Am}$$ Both $j_Z$, and $j_A$ carry magnetic charges. That’s why it is important to find the correspondence between them.
In continuum notations we have $$A^{\mu} = Z^{\mu} + 2 B^{\mu},$$ where $B$ is the hypercharge field. Its strength is divergenceless. As a result in continuum theory the net $Z$ flux emanating from the center of the monopole is equal to the net $A$ flux. (Both $A$ and $Z$ are undefined inside the monopole.) This means that in the continuum limit the position of the Nambu monopole must coincide with the position of the antimonopole extracted from the field $A$. Therefore, one can consider Eq. (\[Am\]) as another definition of a quantum Nambu monopole [@VZ2008]. Actually, in our numerical simulations we use the definition of Eq. (\[Am\]).
Phase diagram
=============
In our lattice study we fix bare $\theta_W = \pi/6$. Then in the three - dimensional ($\beta, \gamma, \lambda$) phase diagram the transition surfaces are two - dimensional. The lines of constant physics on the tree level are the lines ($\frac{\lambda}{\gamma^2} = \frac{1}{8 \beta} \frac{M^2_H}{M^2_W} = {\rm
const}$; $\beta = \frac{1}{4\pi \alpha}={\rm const}$). We suppose that in the vicinity of the transition the deviation of the lines of constant physics from the tree level estimate may be significant. However, qualitatively their behavior is the same. Namely, the cutoff is increased along the line of constant physics when $\gamma$ is decreased and the maximal value of the cutoff is achieved at the transition point. Nambu monopole density in lattice units is also increased when the ultraviolet cutoff is increased.
(0,0)(0,0) (-120,-20)[$\chi$]{} (80,-190)[$\Large \gamma$]{}
At $\beta = 12$ (corresponds to bare $\alpha \sim 1/150$) the phase diagram is represented on Fig. \[fig.2\]. This diagram is obtained, mainly, using the lattice $8^3\times 16$. Some regions ($\lambda = 0.009,0.0025, 0.001$), however, were checked using larger lattices. According to our data there is no dependence of the diagram on the lattice size. The physical Higgs phase is situated right to the transition line. The position of the transition $\gamma_c(\lambda)$ is localized here at the point where the susceptibility extracted from the Higgs field creation operator achieves its maximum. We use the susceptibility $$\chi = \langle H^2 \rangle - \langle H\rangle^2 \label{chiH}$$ extracted from $H = \sum_{y}
Z^2_{xy}$ (see, for example, Fig. \[fig.6\_\_\]). We observe no difference between the values of the susceptibility calculated using the lattices of different sizes. This indicates that the transition at $\gamma_c$ is a crossover. Indeed we find that gauge boson masses do not vanish in a certain vicinity of $\gamma_c$ even within the symmetric phase. In the next section we shall see that within the statistical errors $\gamma_c$ coincides with the value of $\gamma$, where the scalar field condensate disappears. Actually, there also exist two other crucial points: $\gamma_{c0}(\lambda) <
\gamma_c(\lambda) < \gamma_{c2}(\lambda)$ (say, at $\lambda = 0.001$ we have $\gamma_{c0} = 0.252\pm 0.001$, $\gamma_{c} = 0.256\pm 0.001$, $\gamma_{c2} =
0.258\pm 0.001$, see the next sections for the details). $\gamma_{c2}$ denotes the boundary of the fluctuational region. At $\gamma_{c0}$ the extrapolation of the dependence of lattice $Z$ - boson mass $M_Z(\gamma)$ on $\gamma$ indicates that $M_Z(\gamma_{c0})$ may vanish. In the symmetric phase the perturbation theory predicts vanishing of the gauge boson masses. Therefore, supposition that $M_Z$ vanishes at a certain point is very natural. The perturbation theory also predicts that the mass parameter present in the effective action for the scalar field vanishes at the point of the transition between Higgs phase and the symmetric phase. Our analysis shows that at the point, where the scalar field condensate disappears lattice $M_H$ does not vanish. However, it may vanish, in principle, at some other point. If both $M_Z$ and $M_H$ vanish simultaneously at $\gamma_{c0}$, at this point the model becomes scale invariant and formal continuum limit of the lattice model can be achieved at $\gamma_{c0}$. This point may then appear as the point of the second order phase transition. Near $\gamma_{c0}$ the fluctuations of the gauge boson correlator are strong and at the present moment we do not make definite conclusions on the behavior of the system at $\gamma_{c0}$. However, the calculated susceptibilities do not have peaks at this point that is an indirect indication that the real second order phase transition cannot appear at $\gamma_{c0}$. It is worth mentioning that within the region $(\gamma_{c0},
\gamma_c)$ the scalar field is not condensed. That’s why we guess this region has nothing to do with real continuum physics.
We investigated carefully the region $\gamma \ge \gamma_c$ for $\lambda =
0.001, 0.0025, 0.009$. We observe that for $\gamma_c < \gamma < \gamma_{c2}$ Nambu monopoles dominate vacuum and the usual perturbation theory cannot be applied. For this reason, most likely, the interval $(\gamma_c, \gamma_{c2})$ also has no connection with the conventional continuum Electroweak theory. At the same time for $\gamma
>> \gamma_{c2}$ the behavior of the system is close to what one would expect basing on the usual perturbative continuum Weinberg - Salam model. It is worth mentioning that the value of the renormalized Higgs boson mass does not deviate significantly from its bare value near the transition point $\gamma_c$. For example, for $\lambda$ around $0.009$ and $\gamma = 0.274$ bare value of the Higgs mass is around $270$ Gev while the observed renormalized value is $300
\pm 70$ Gev.
Effective constraint potential
==============================
(0,0)(0,0) (-125,170)[$\phi_m$]{} (80,10)[$\Large \gamma$]{}
We have calculated the constraint effective potential for $|\Phi|$ using the histogram method. The calculations have been performed on the lattice $8^3\times 16$. The probability $h(\phi)$ to find the value of $|\Phi|$ within the interval $[\phi-0.05;\phi+0.05)$ has been calculated for $\phi = 0.05 + N*0.1$, $N = 0,1,2, ...$ This probability is related to the effective potential as $ h(\phi) = \phi^3
e^{-V(\phi)}$. That’s why we extract the potential from $h(\phi)$ as $$V(\phi) = - {\rm log}\, h(\phi) + 3 \, {\rm log} \, \phi \label{CEP}$$ (See Fig. \[fig.1\].) It is worth mentioning that $h(0.05)$ is calculated as the probability to find the value of $|\Phi|$ within the interval $[0;0.1]$. Within this interval ${\rm log}\, \phi$ is ill defined. That’s why we exclude the point $\phi = 0.05$ from our data. Instead we calculate $V(0)$ using the extrapolation of the data at $0.15 \le \phi \le 2.0$. The extrapolation is performed using the polynomial fit with the powers of $\phi$ up to the third (average deviation of the fit from the data is around $1$ per cent). Next, we introduce the useful quantity $H = V(0) - V(\phi_m)$, which is called the potential barrier hight (here $\phi_m$ is the point, where $V$ achieves its minimum).
(0,0)(0,0) (90,195)[$H$]{} (90,110)[$H_{fluct}$]{} (100,10)[$\Large \gamma$]{}
(0,0)(0,0) (-125,170)[$|\phi|$]{} (90,10)[$\Large \gamma$]{}
As an example we represent on Fig. \[fig.4\_\] the values of $\phi_m$ for $\lambda = 0.001$, $\beta = 12$. On Fig. \[fig.3\_\] we represent the values of $H$ for $\lambda = 0.009$, $\beta = 12$. One can see that the values of $\phi_m$ and $H$ increase when $\gamma$ is increased. The maximum of the susceptibility constructed of the Higgs field creation operator $H_x = \sum_{y}
Z^2_{xy}$ (see, for example, Fig. \[fig.6\_\_\]) coincides with the point, where $\phi_m$ vanishes within the statistical errors. We localize the position of the transition points at the points where $\phi_m$ vanishes: $\gamma_c = 0.274\pm 0.001$ at $\lambda = 0.009$; $\gamma_c = 0.26 \pm 0.001$ at $\lambda = 0.0025$; and $\gamma_c = 0.256 \pm 0.001$ at $\lambda = 0.001$.
The maximum of the scalar field fluctuation (see, for example, Fig. \[fig.6\_2\_3\]) is shifted to larger values of $\gamma$ than the transition point. Again we do not observe any difference in $\delta \phi$ for the considered lattice sizes. This also indicates that the transition at these values of $\lambda$ is a crossover.
It is important to understand which value of barrier hight can be considered as small and which value can be considered as large. Our suggestion is to compare $H = V(0) - V(\phi_m)$ with $H_{\rm fluct} = V(\phi_m + \delta \phi) -
V(\phi_m)$, where $\delta \phi$ is the fluctuation of $|\Phi|$. From Fig. \[fig.3\_\] it is clear that there exists the value of $\gamma$ (we denote it $\gamma_{c2}$) such that at $\gamma_c < \gamma < \gamma_{c2}$ the barrier hight $H$ is of the order of $H_{\rm fluct}$ while for $\gamma_{c2} << \gamma$ the barrier hight is essentially larger than $H_{\rm fluct}$. The rough estimate for this pseudocritical value is $\gamma_{c2} \sim 0.278$ at $\lambda=0.009$.
The fluctuations of $|\Phi|$ are around $\delta \phi \sim 0.6$ for all considered values of $\gamma$ at $\lambda = 0.009, 0.0025, 0.001$, $\beta =
12$. It follows from our data (see also Fig. \[fig.2\_\] ) that $\phi_m,
\langle |\phi|\rangle
>> \delta \phi$ at $\gamma_{c2} << \gamma$ while $\phi_m, \langle |\phi|\rangle \sim \delta \phi$ at $\gamma_{c2} > \gamma$. Basing on these observations we expect that in the region $\gamma_{c2} << \gamma$ the usual perturbation expansion around trivial vacuum of spontaneously broken theory can be applied to the lattice Weinberg - Salam model while in the FR $\gamma_c < \gamma < \gamma_{c2}$ it cannot be applied. In the same way we define the pseudocritical value $\gamma_{c2}$ at $\lambda = 0.001, 0.0025$. Namely, $\gamma_{c2} \sim 0.278$ for $\lambda =
0.009$; $\sim 0.262$ for $\lambda = 0.0025$; $\sim 0.258$ for $\lambda =
0.001$.
(0,0)(0,0) (-130,175)[$\delta \phi$]{} (90,10)[$\Large \gamma$]{}
The renormalized coupling
=========================
In order to calculate the renormalized fine structure constant $\alpha_R = e^2/4\pi$ (where $e$ is the electric charge) we use the potential for infinitely heavy external fermions.
We consider Wilson loops for the right-handed external leptons: $${\cal W}^{\rm R}_{\rm lept}(l) =
\langle {\rm Re} \,\Pi_{(xy) \in l} e^{2i\theta_{xy}}\rangle.
\label{WR}$$ Here $l$ denotes a closed contour on the lattice. We consider the following quantity constructed from the rectangular Wilson loop of size $r\times t$: $${\cal V}(r) = {\rm log}\, \lim_{t \rightarrow \infty}
\frac{ {\cal W}(r\times t)}{{\cal W}(r\times (t+1))}.\label{vinf}$$
(0,0)(0,0) (-130,165)[${\cal V}(R)$]{} (85,10)[$\Large 1/R$]{}
Due to exchange by virtual photons at large enough distances we expect the appearance of the Coulomb interaction $${\cal V}(r) = -\frac{\alpha_R}{r} + const. \label{V1}$$ It should be mentioned here, that in order to extract the renormalized value of $\alpha$ one may apply to $\cal V$ the fit obtained using the Coulomb interaction in momentum space. The lattice Fourier transform then gives
$$\begin{aligned}
{\cal V}(r) & = & -\alpha_R \, {\cal U}(r)+ const,\,
\nonumber\\
{\cal U}(r) & = & \frac{ \pi}{N^3}\sum_{\bar{p}\ne 0} \frac{e^{i p_3 r}}{{\rm sin}^2
p_1/2 + {\rm sin}^2 p_2/2 + {\rm sin}^2
p_3/2}
\label{V2}\end{aligned}$$
Here $N$ is the lattice size, $p_i = \frac{2\pi}{L} k_i, k_i = 0, ..., L-1$. On large enough lattices at $r << L$ both definitions approach each other. On the lattices we use the values of the renormalized $\alpha_R$ extracted from (\[V1\]) and (\[V2\]) are essentially different from each other. Any of the two ways, (\[V1\]) or (\[V2\]), may be considered as the [*definition*]{} of the renormalized $\alpha$ on the finite lattice. And there is no particular reason to prefer the potential defined using the lattice Fourier transform of the Coulomb law in momentum space. Actually, our study shows that the single $1/r$ fit approximates $\cal V$ much better. Moreover, the values of renormalized $\alpha$ calculated using this fit are essentially closer to the tree level estimate than that of calculated using the fit (\[V2\]).
In practise instead of (\[vinf\]) we use the potential that depends on additional parameter $T$: $${\cal V}(r,T) = {\rm log}\,
\frac{ {\cal W}(r\times T)}{{\cal W}(r\times (T+1))}.$$ For example, on the lattice $16^4$ the values $T = 4,5,6,7,8$ are used; on the lattice $12^3\times 16$ the values $T = 4,5,6$ are used; on the lattice $8^3\times 16$ the value $T = 4$ is used. As a result $\alpha_R = \alpha_R(T)$ may depend both on the lattice size and on $T$. The dependence on $T$ was missed in [@Z2009] (where for lattices $12^3\times 16, 16^4$ we used $T =5$, while for the lattice $8^3\times 16$ we used $T=4$).
(0,0)(0,0) (-125,160)[$1/\alpha$]{} (90,10)[$\Large \gamma$]{}
On Fig. \[fig.1\_1\_\] we represent as an example the dependence of the potential for $T = 8$ on $1/R$. As it was already mentioned (\[V1\]) approximates the potential much better than (\[V2\]). Therefore we used the fit (\[V1\]) to extract $\alpha_R$. This should be compared with the results of [@14], where for similar reasons the single $e^{-\mu r}/r$ fit (instead of the lattice Yukawa fit) was used in order to determine the renormalized coupling constant in the $SU(2)$ Gauge Higgs model.
Due to the dependence of $\alpha_R(T)$ on $T$ there is the essential uncertainty in definition of $\alpha_R$ related to finite volume effects. For example, at $\gamma = 0.29$, $\lambda =0.009$, and $\beta = 12$ the value of $\alpha_R$ calculated on the lattice $16^4$ varies between $\alpha_R(4) \sim
1/(93\pm 1)$ and $\alpha_R(8) \sim 1/(108\pm 2)$ (at the same time on the lattice $8^3\times 16$ the value is $\alpha_R(4) = 1/(100\pm 1)$). At $\gamma =
0.274$, $\lambda =0.009$, and $\beta = 12$ the value of $\alpha_R$ calculated on the lattice $20^3\times 24$ varies between $\alpha_R(4) \sim 1/(98\pm 1)$ and $\alpha_R(10) = 1/(106\pm 1)$ (at the same time on the lattice $8^3\times
16$ the value is $\alpha_R(4) = 1/(99\pm 1)$). Below for the lattice $8^3\times
16$ we use $T = 4$, for the lattice $12^3\times 16$ we use $T = 6$, for the lattice $16^4$ we use $T = 8$. Therefore, the dependence on $T$ is absorbed into the dependence on the lattice size. As an example, on Fig. \[fig.1\_\] we represent the renormalized fine structure constant (calculated using the fit (\[V1\])) at $\lambda = 0.0025$, $ \beta = 12$. The calculated values are to be compared with bare constant $\alpha_0 = 1/(4\pi
\beta)\sim 1/150$ at $\beta = 12$. One can see, that for $\gamma >>
\gamma_{c2}$ the tree level estimate is approached slowly while within the FR the renormalized $\alpha$ differs essentially from the tree level estimate. This is in correspondence with our supposition that the perturbation theory cannot be valid within the FR while it works well far from the FR. The dependence of $\alpha_R$ on the lattice size is clear: for the larger lattices $\alpha_R$ approaches its tree level estimate faster than for the smaller ones. Unfortunately, due to the difficulties in simulation of the system at large $\gamma$ we cannot observe this pattern in detail. At the present moment the value of $\alpha_R$ most close to the tree level estimate is obtained on the lattice $12^3\times 16$ and is about $1/140$ (at $\lambda = 0.0025, 0.001; \beta = 12; \gamma \sim 1$).
Masses and the lattice spacing
==============================
After fixing the unitary gauge $\Phi_1 \in R$, $\Phi_2 = 0$, $\Phi_1 \ge 0$ the following variables are considered as creating a $Z$ boson and a $W$ boson, respectively:
$$\begin{aligned}
Z_{xy} & = & Z^{\mu}_{x} \;
= - {\rm sin} \,[{\rm Arg} (U^{11}_{xy} e^{i\theta_{xy}}) ]
\nonumber\\
W_{xy} & = & W^{\mu}_{x} \,= \,U_{xy}^{12} e^{-i\theta_{xy}}.\label{Z1}\end{aligned}$$
Here, $\mu$ represents the direction $(xy)$. The electromagnetic $U(1)$ symmetry remains: $$\begin{aligned}
U_{xy} & \rightarrow & g^\dag_x U_{xy} g_y, \nonumber\\
\theta_{xy} & \rightarrow & \theta_{xy} - \alpha_y/2 + \alpha_x/2,\end{aligned}$$ where $g_x = {\rm diag} (e^{i\alpha_x/2},e^{-i\alpha_x/2})$. There exists a $U(1)$ lattice gauge field, which is defined as $$A_{xy} = A^{\mu}_{x} \;
= \,[-{\rm Arg} U_{xy}^{11} + \theta_{xy}] \,{\rm mod} \,2\pi
\label{A}$$ that transforms as $A_{xy} \rightarrow A_{xy} - \alpha_y + \alpha_x$. The field $W$ transforms as $W_{xy} \rightarrow W_{xy}e^{-i\alpha_x}$.
(0,0)(0,0) (-120,185)[$M_Z$]{} (85,10)[$\Large \gamma$]{}
The $W$ boson field is charged with respect to the $U(1)$ symmetry. Therefore we fix the lattice Landau gauge in order to investigate the $W$ boson propagator. The lattice Landau gauge is fixed via minimizing (with respect to the $U(1)$ gauge transformations) the following functional: $$F = \sum_{xy}(1 - \cos(A_{xy})).$$ Then we extract the mass of the $W$ boson from the correlator $$\frac{1}{N^6} \sum_{\bar{x},\bar{y}} \langle \sum_{\mu} W^{\mu}_{x}
(W^{\mu}_{y})^{\dagger} \rangle \sim
e^{-M_{W}|x_0-y_0|}+ e^{-M_{W}(L - |x_0-y_0|)}
\label{corW}$$ Here the summation $\sum_{\bar{x},\bar{y}}$ is over the three “space" components of the four - vectors $x$ and $y$ while $x_0, y_0$ denote their “time“ components. $N$ is the lattice length in ”space“ direction. $L$ is the lattice length in the ”time" direction.
(0,0)(0,0) (-120,190)[$M_Z$]{} (85,10)[$\Large \gamma$]{}
In order to evaluate the masses of the $Z$-boson and the Higgs boson we use the correlators: $$\frac{1}{N^6} \sum_{\bar{x},\bar{y}} \langle \sum_{\mu} Z^{\mu}_{x} Z^{\mu}_{y} \rangle
\sim
e^{-M_{Z}|x_0-y_0|}+ e^{-M_{Z}(L - |x_0-y_0|)}
\label{corZ}$$ and $$\frac{1}{N^6}\sum_{\bar{x},\bar{y}}(\langle H_{x} H_{y}\rangle - \langle H\rangle^2)
\sim
e^{-M_{H}|x_0-y_0|}+ e^{-M_{H}(L - |x_0-y_0|)},
\label{cor}$$
In lattice calculations we used two different operators that create Higgs bosons: $ H_x =
|\Phi|$ and $H_x = \sum_{y} Z^2_{xy}$. In both cases $H_x$ is defined at the site $x$, the sum $\sum_y$ is over its neighboring sites $y$.
(0,0)(0,0) (-125,170)[$M_Z$]{} (85,15)[$\Large \gamma$]{}
The physical scale is given in our lattice theory by the value of the $Z$-boson mass $M^{phys}_Z \sim 91$ GeV. Therefore the lattice spacing is evaluated to be $a \sim [91
{\rm GeV}]^{-1} M_Z$, where $M_Z$ is the $Z$ boson mass in lattice units. The similar calculations have been performed in [@VZ2008] for $\lambda = \infty$. It has been found that the $W$ - boson mass contains an artificial dependence on the lattice size. We suppose, that this dependence is due to the photon cloud surrounding the $W$ - boson. The energy of this cloud is related to the renormalization of the fine structure constant. Therefore the $Z$ - boson mass was used in order to fix the scale.
Our data show that $\Lambda= \frac{\pi}{a} = (\pi \times 91~{\rm GeV})/M_Z$ is increased slowly with the decrease of $\gamma$ at any fixed $\lambda$. We investigated carefully the vicinity of the transition point at fixed $\lambda =
0.001, 0.0025, 0.009$ and $\beta = 12$. It has been found that at the transition point the value of $\Lambda$ is equal to $1.4 \pm 0.2$ TeV for $\lambda = 0.009, 0.0025, 0.001$. Check of the dependence on the lattice size ($8^3\times 16$, $12^3\times 16$, $16^4$, $20^3\times 24$ at $\lambda =0.009$; $8^3\times 16$, $12^3\times 16$, $16^4$ at $\lambda =0.0025$; $8^3\times 16$, $12^3\times 16$ at $\lambda =0.001$) does not show an essential dependence of this value on the lattice size. This is illustrated by Fig. \[fig.3\], Fig.\[fig.3\_3\_\], and Fig. \[fig.3\_2\]. From these figures it also follows that at the value of $\gamma$ equal to $\gamma_{c2} (\sim 0.278$ for $\lambda =
0.009$; $\sim 0.262$ for $\lambda = 0.0025$; $\sim 0.258$ for $\lambda =
0.001$) the calculated value of the cutoff is about $1$ TeV.
It is worth mentioning that the linear fit applied (in some vicinity of $\gamma_c$) to the dependence of $M_Z$ on $\gamma$ predicts vanishing of $M_Z(\gamma)$ at $\gamma$ equal to $\gamma_{c0} < \gamma_c$. Within the statistical errors $\gamma_{c0} = 0.253\pm 0.001$ for $\lambda = 0.001$, $\gamma_{c0} = 0.253\pm 0.001$ for $\lambda = 0.0025$, $\gamma_{c0} = 0.254\pm
0.001$ for $\lambda = 0.009$. We perform direct calculations within the region $(\gamma_{c0}, \gamma_c)$ at $\lambda = 0.001, 0.0025$. These calculations show that the fluctuations of the correlator (\[corZ\]) are increased (compared with the values of the correlator) fast when $\gamma$ is decreased. Already for $\gamma = 0.255$ at $\lambda = 0.0025$ ($\gamma_c = 0.26$) and for $\gamma =
0.254$ at $\lambda = 0.001$ ($\gamma_c = 0.258$) the values of the correlator at $|x_0 - y_0| > 0$ are smaller than the statistical errors. Most likely, at $\gamma \le \gamma_{c0}$ it is necessary to apply another gauge (like in pure $SU(2)\times U(1)$ gauge model) in order to calculate gauge boson propagators. At the present moment we do not estimate the scalar particle mass at $\gamma_{c0}$ because of the lack of statistics. The behavior of the other quantities is smooth at $\gamma \sim \gamma_{c0}$, no maximum of $\delta \phi$ or other susceptibilities is observed there (see, for example, Fig. \[fig.6\_\_\]). Basing on our data it is natural to suppose that lattice gauge boson mass may vanish at $\gamma \sim \gamma_{c0}$ although we do not observe the correspondent pattern in details because of the strong fluctuations of correlator (\[corZ\]) near $\gamma_{c0}$. As it was mentioned above the transition for the considered values of couplings is, most likely, a crossover. There are $3$ exceptional points: $\gamma_{c0}$, where lattice value of $M_Z$ may vanish, $\gamma_c$, where scalar field condensate disappears, and $\gamma_{c2}$ that denotes the boundary of the fluctuational region. This situation is typical for the crossovers: different quantities change their behavior at different points on the phase diagram. At the present moment we do not exclude that the second order phase transition may take place at $\gamma_{c0}$. This would happen if both mass parameters (Z boson mass and scalar particle mass) vanish simultaneously at this point. The careful investigation of the vicinity of $\gamma_{c0}$ is to be the subject of a further research.
In the Higgs channel the situation is more difficult. Due to the lack of statistics we cannot estimate the masses in this channel using the correlators (\[cor\]) at all considered values of coupling constants. Moreover, at several points, where we have estimated the renormalized Higgs boson mass the statistical errors are much larger than that of for the Z - boson mass. At the present moment we can represent the data at four points on the lattice $8^3\times16$: ($\gamma = 0.274$, $\lambda =0.009$, $\beta = 12$), ($\gamma =
0.290$, $\lambda =0.009$, $\beta = 12$), ($\gamma = 0.261$, $\lambda =0.0025$, $\beta = 12$), and ($\gamma = 0.257$, $\lambda =0.001$, $\beta = 12$).
The first point roughly corresponds to the position of the transition at $\lambda =0.009$, $\beta = 12$ while the second point is situated deep within the Higgs phase. These two points correspond to bare Higgs mass around $270$ Gev. At the point ($\gamma = 0.274$, $\lambda =0.009$, $\beta = 12$) we have collected enough statistics to calculate correlator (\[cor\]) up to the “time” separation $|x_0-y_0| = 4$. The value $\gamma = 0.274$ corresponds roughly to the position of the phase transition. We estimate at this point $M_H
= 300 \pm 40$ Gev. At the point ($\gamma = 0.29$, $\lambda =0.009$, $\beta =
12$) we calculate the correlator with reasonable accuracy up to $|x_0-y_0| =
3$. At this point $M_H = 265 \pm 70$ Gev.
For $\lambda = 0.001, 0.0025$ we calculate the Higgs boson mass close to the transition points. Similar to the case $\lambda = 0.009$ we do not observe here essential deviation from the tree level estimates. Namely, for $\lambda =
0.001, \gamma = 0.257$ we have $M_H = 90 \pm 20$ GeV (tree level value is $M^0_H \sim 100$ GeV). In this point we have collected enough statistics to calculate correlator (\[cor\]) up to the “time” separation $|x_0-y_0| = 8$. For $\lambda =
0.0025, \gamma = 0.261$ we have $M_H = 170 \pm 30$ GeV (tree level value is $M^0_H \sim 150$ GeV). In this point we have collected enough statistics to calculate correlator (\[cor\]) up to the “time” separation $|x_0-y_0| = 4$. It is worth mentioning that in order to calculate $Z$ - boson mass we fit correlator (\[corZ\]) for $8 \ge |x_0-y_0| \ge 1$.
Nambu monopole density
=======================
The worldlines of the quantum Nambu monopoles can be extracted from the field configurations according to Eq. (\[Am\]). The monopole density is defined as $ \rho = \left\langle \frac{\sum_{\rm links}|j_{\rm
link}|}{4V^L}
\right\rangle,$ where $V^L$ is the lattice volume.
On Fig \[fig.5\_\], Fig. \[fig.5\_1\], and Fig. \[fig.5\_1\_\] we represent Nambu monopole density as a function of $\gamma$ at $\lambda = 0.009, 0.0025,
0.001$, $\beta = 12$. The value of monopole density at $\gamma_c$ is around $0.1$.
According to the classical picture the Nambu monopole size is of the order of $M^{-1}_H$. Therefore, for example, for $a^{-1} \sim 430$ Gev and $M_H \sim 300, 150, 100$ Gev the expected size of the monopole is about a lattice spacing. The monopole density around $0.1$ means that among $10$ sites there exist $4$ sites that are occupied by the monopole. Average distance between the two monopoles is, therefore, less than $1$ lattice spacing and it is not possible at all to speak of the given configurations as of representing the physical Nambu monopole.
(0,0)(0,0) (-125,175)[$\rho$]{} (85,10)[$\Large \gamma$]{}
At $\gamma = \gamma_{c2}$ the Nambu monopole density is of the order of $0.01$. This means that among about $25$ sites there exists one site that is occupied by the monopole. Average distance between the two monopoles is, therefore, between one and two lattice spacings. We see that at this value of $\gamma$ the average distance between Nambu monopoles is of the order of their size.
We summarize the above observations as follows. Within the fluctuational region the configurations under consideration do not represent single Nambu monopoles. Instead these configurations can be considered as the collection of monopole - like objects that is so dense that the average distance between the objects is of the order of their size. On the other hand, at $\gamma
>> \gamma_{c2}$ the considered configurations do represent single Nambu monopoles and the average distance between them is much larger than their size. In other words out of the FR vacuum can be treated as a gas of Nambu monopoles while within the FR vacuum can be treated as a liquid composed of monopole - like objects.
(0,0)(0,0) (-125,175)[$\rho$]{} (85,10)[$\Large \gamma$]{}
It is worth mentioning that somewhere inside the $Z$ string connecting the classical Nambu monopoles the Higgs field is zero: $|\Phi| = 0$. This means that the $Z$ string with the Nambu monopoles at its ends can be considered as an embryo of the symmetric phase within the Higgs phase. We observe that the density of these embryos is increased when the phase transition is approached. Within the fluctuational region the two phases are mixed, which is related to the large value of Nambu monopole density.
That’s why we come to the conclusion that vacuum of lattice Weinberg - Salam model within the FR has nothing to do with the continuum perturbation theory. This means that the usual perturbation expansion around trivial vacuum (gauge field equal to zero, the scalar field equal to $(\phi_m,0)^T$) cannot be valid within the FR. This might explain why we do not observe in our numerical simulations the large values of $\Lambda$ predicted by the conventional perturbation theory.
(0,0)(0,0) (-125,175)[$\rho$]{} (85,10)[$\Large \gamma$]{}
Conclusions
===========
In the present paper we demonstrate that while approaching continuum physics in lattice Weinberg - Salam model one encounters the nonperturbative effects. Namely, the continuum physics is to be approached in the vicinity of the transition between the physical Higgs phase and the symmetric phase of the model (in the symmetric phase the scalar field is not condensed). The ultraviolet cutoff is increased when the transition point is approached along the line of constant physics. There exists the fluctuational region (FR) on the phase diagram of the lattice Weinberg - Salam model. This region is situated in the vicinity of the transition between the Higgs phase and the symmetric phase (where scalar field is not condensed). According to our data this transition is, most likely, a crossover. We localize its position at the point $\gamma_c(\lambda, \beta, \theta_W)$, where the scalar field condensate disappears. We calculate the effective constraint potential $V(\phi)$ for the Higgs field. It has a minimum at the nonzero value $\phi_m$ in the physical Higgs phase. At the considered values of $\lambda,
\beta, \theta_W$ for $\gamma$ between $\gamma_c$ and $\gamma_{c2}$ ($\gamma_{c2}$ is in the Higgs phase) the fluctuations of the scalar field become of the order of $\phi_m$. Moreover, the “barrier hight” $H = V(0) -
V(\phi_m)$ is of the order of $V(\phi_m + \delta \phi)- V(\phi_m)$, where $\delta \phi$ is the fluctuation of $|\Phi|$. Therefore, we refer to this region as to FR.
The scalar field must be equal to zero somewhere within the classical Nambu monopole. That’s why this object can be considered as an embryo of the unphysical symmetric phase within the physical Higgs phase of the model. We investigate properties of the quantum Nambu monopoles. Within the FR they are so dense that the average distance between them becomes of the order of their size. This means that the two phases are mixed within the FR. All these results show that the vacuum of lattice Weinberg - Salam model in the FR is essentially different from the trivial vacuum used in the conventional perturbation theory. As a result the use of the perturbation theory in this region is limited.
Our numerical results show that at $M_H$ around $270, 150, 100$ GeV and the bare fine structure constant around $1/150$ the maximal value of the cutoff admitted out of the FR for the considered lattice sizes cannot exceed the value around $1$ Tev. Within the FR the larger values of the cutoff can be achieved in principle. The maximum for the value of the cutoff $\Lambda_c$ within the Higgs “phase” of the lattice model is achieved at the point of the transition to the region of the phase diagram, where the scalar field is not condensed. Our estimate for this value is $\Lambda_c = 1.4 \pm 0.2$ Tev for the considered lattice sizes. Far from the fluctuational region the behavior of the lattice model in general is close to what we expect basing on the continuous perturbation theory. As it was already mentioned at the considered values of couplings the transition is, most likely, a crossover. This follows from the observation that various quantities (Z boson mass, the fluctuation of the scalar field etc) do not depend on the lattice size at the transition point. Within the symmetric “phase” of the lattice model (where the scalar field is not condensed) in some vicinity of the transition between this phase and the Higgs phase (where the scalar field is condensed) the lattice gauge boson masses do not vanish. The statistical error for $M_Z$ is increased fast when $\gamma$ is decreased starting from the pseudocritical value $\gamma_c$. At $\gamma \le \gamma_{c0} < \gamma_c$ (within the symmetric phase) the values of the $Z$ - boson correlator (\[corZ\]) are smaller than the statistical errors. Therefore, our procedure cannot give the values of gauge boson masses in this region. Most likely, here the other gauge is to be applied in order to calculate gauge boson propagators (we used in our simulations the Unitary gauge). It is worth mentioning that the perturbation theory predicts zero gauge boson masses within the symmetric phase. Most likely, this prediction is failed within the interval $(\gamma_{c0}, \gamma_c)$ due to nonperturbative effects.
An important question is how to treat finite volume effects that are present in all observables that contain long - ranged Electromagnetic Coulomb interactions. In particular, we see that these effects are strong in renormalized fine structure constant (about $10\%$ when the lattice size varies from $8^3\times 16$ to $16^4$) and in the mass of electrically charged $W$ - boson. On the other hand all observables related to $SU(2)$ constituent of the model do not possess essential dependence on the lattice size. In particular, $Z$ - boson mass $M_Z$ (and the cutoff $\Lambda$), density $\rho_{\rm Nambu}$ of Nambu monopoles [^5], fluctuation of the scalar field $\delta \phi$ as well as the position of the transition between the “phases” of the lattice model practically do not depend on the lattice size. Our point of view is that the influence of long - ranged Electromagnetic interactions on these observables is negligible compared to their tree - level and nonperturbative constituents. Actually, Electromagnetic interactions can be taken into account perturbatively, with the renormalized $\alpha \sim 1/100$ as the parameter of the perturbation expansion. This was the reason why in the previous numerical studies of $SU(2)$ Gauge - Higgs model the $U(1)$ constituent of Weinberg - Salam model was completely disregarded [@1; @2; @3; @4; @5; @6; @7; @8; @9; @10; @11; @12; @13; @14]. To summarize, we suppose that in spite of the presence of finite volume effects in fine structure constant and $W$ boson mass, the calculated values of $M_Z$ , $\Lambda$, $\rho_{\rm Nambu}$, $\delta \phi$ etc can be considered as free of these effects[^6] (up to the perturbations suppressed by the factor $\alpha
\sim 1/100$).
Basing on our data it is natural to suppose that lattice gauge boson mass may vanish at $\gamma \sim \gamma_{c0}$ although we do not observe the correspondent pattern in details because of the strong fluctuations of correlator (\[corZ\]) near $\gamma_{c0}$. If so, there exist $3$ pseudocritical points: $\gamma_{c0}$, where lattice value of $M_Z$ vanishes (at this point the cutoff calculated as $\Lambda= (\pi \times 91~{\rm GeV})/M_Z$ tends to infinity), $\gamma_c$, where scalar field condensate disappears, and $\gamma_{c2}$ that denotes the boundary of the fluctuational region (at $\gamma
\sim \gamma_{c2}$ the average distance between Nambu monopoles becomes of the order of their size). This situation is typical for the crossovers: different quantities change their behavior at different points on the phase diagram. There still exists the possibility that the point $\gamma_{c0}$ corresponds to the second order phase transition (this may happen if, in addition, the scalar particle mass vanishes at $\gamma_{c0}$). However, the absence of a peak in the scalar field fluctuation and in susceptibility (\[chiH\]) at this point indicates that this is a crossover. Actually, this possibility is to be checked carefully but this is to be a subject of another work. There is an important question: what is the relation between the conventional Electroweak physics and the regions $(\gamma_{c0}, \gamma_c)$ and $(\gamma_{c}, \gamma_{c2})$. Our expectation is that both these regions have nothing to do with real continuum physics. For the first region this is more or less obvious: there the scalar field is not condensed that contradicts with the usual spontaneous breakdown pattern. As for the second region, the situation is not so obvious. However, there the nonperturbative effects are strong and the Nambu monopoles dominate vacuum that seems to us unphysical. With all mentioned above we come to the conclusion that our data indicate the appearance of the maximal value of the cutoff in Electroweak theory that cannot exceed the value of the order of $1$ TeV. This prediction is made basing on the numerical investigation of the lattice model on the finite lattices. However, as it was mentioned above, our main results do not depend on the lattice size.
This work was partly supported by RFBR grants 09-02-00338, 08-02-00661, by Grant for leading scientific schools 679.2008.2. The numerical simulations have been performed using the facilities of Moscow Joint Supercomputer Center.
[99]{}
Peter Arnold and Olivier Espinosa, Phys. Rev. D [**47**]{}, 3546 (1993)\
Z. Fodor and A. Hebecker, Nucl. Phys. B [**432**]{}, 127 (1994)\
W. Buchmuller, Z. Fodor, and A. Hebecker, Nucl. Phys. B [**447**]{}, 317 (1995)
B.L.G. Bakker, A.I. Veselov, M.A. Zubkov. J.Phys.G[**36**]{}, 075008 (2009)
M.A. Zubkov, A.I. Veselov. JHEP [**0812**]{}, 109 (2008)
M.A. Zubkov. Phys.Lett.B [**684**]{}, 141 (2010)
K.Holland, Plenary talk presented at Lattice2004, Fermilab, June 21-26, 2004, arXiv:hep-lat/0409112
Zoltan Fodor, Kieran Holland, Julius Kuti, Daniel Nogradi, Chris Schroeder, The XXV International Symposium on Lattice Field Theory, July 30 - August 4 2007, Regensburg, Germany, PoS (LATTICE 2007), 056, arXiv:0710.3151
J.A. Casas, J.R. Espinosa, and I. Hidalgo, Nucl.Phys.B [**777**]{}, 226 (2007)
F. Csikor, Z. Fodor, J. Heitger Phys.Rev.Lett. [**82**]{}, 21 (1999), Phys.Rev. D[**58**]{}, 094504 (1998), Nucl.Phys.Proc.Suppl. [**63**]{}, 569 (1998)
F. Csikor, Z. Fodor, J. Heitger Phys.Lett. B [**441**]{}, 354 (1998)
F. Csikor, Z. Fodor, J. Hein, A. Jaster, I. Montvay Nucl.Phys. B [**474**]{}, 421 (1996)
Joachim Hein (DESY), Jochen Heitger, Phys.Lett. B [**385**]{}, 242 (1996)
F. Csikor, Z. Fodor, J. Hein, J. Heitger, A. Jaster, I. Montvay Nucl.Phys.Proc.Suppl. [**53**]{}, 612 (1997)
Z. Fodor, J. Hein, K. Jansen, A. Jaster, I. Montvay Nucl.Phys. B [**439**]{} (1995)
F. Csikor, Z. Fodor, J. Hein, J. Heitger, Phys.Lett. B [**357**]{}, 156 (1995)
F. Csikor, Z. Fodor, J. Hein, K.Jansen, A. Jaster, I. Montvay Nucl.Phys.Proc.Suppl. [**42**]{}, 569 (1995)
F. Csikor, Z. Fodor, J. Hein, K.Jansen, A. Jaster, I. Montvay Phys.Lett. B [**334**]{}, 405 (1994)
Y. Aoki, F. Csikor, Z. Fodor, A. Ukawa Phys.Rev. D [**60**]{}, 013001 (1999), Nucl.Phys.Proc.Suppl. [**73**]{}, 656 (1999)
Y. Aoki Phys.Rev. D [**56**]{}, 3860 (1997)
W.Langguth, I.Montvay, P.Weisz Nucl.Phys.B [**277**]{}, 11 (1986)
W. Langguth, I. Montvay, Z.Phys.C [**36**]{}, 725 (1987)
Anna Hasenfratz, Thomas Neuhaus, Nucl.Phys.B [**297**]{}, 205 (1988)
Y. Nambu, Nucl.Phys. B [**130**]{}, 505 (1977);\
Ana Achucarro and Tanmay Vachaspati, Phys. Rept. [**327**]{}, 347 (2000); Phys. Rept. [**327**]{}, 427 (2000)
M.I. Polikarpov, U.J. Wiese, and M.A. Zubkov, Phys. Lett. B [**309**]{}, 133 (1993)
M.N. Chernodub, JETP Lett. [**66**]{}, 605 (1997)
Bohdan Grzadkowski, Jose Wudka, Acta Phys. Polon. B [**32**]{}, 3769 (2001)
B.L.G. Bakker, A.I. Veselov, M.A. Zubkov. Yad.Fiz.[**68**]{}, 1045 (2005), Phys.Atom.Nucl.[**68**]{}, 1007 (2005)
B.L.G. Bakker, A.I. Veselov, M.A. Zubkov. Phys.Lett.B [**620**]{}, 156 (2005)
B.L.G. Bakker, A.I. Veselov, M.A. Zubkov. Phys.Lett.B [**642**]{}, 147 (2006)
A.I. Veselov, B.L.G. Bakker, M.A. Zubkov, The XXV International Symposium on Lattice Field Theory, July 30 - August 4 2007, Regensburg, Germany, PoS (LATTICE 2007), 337 (2007), arXiv:0708.2864
I. Montvay, Nucl. Phys. B [**269**]{}, 170 (1986)
W.Langguth, I.Montvay, P.Weisz, Nucl.Phys.B [**277**]{}, 11 (1986)
R. Shrock, Phys. Lett. B [**162**]{}, 165 (1985); Nucl. Phys. B [**267**]{}, 301 (1986)
I. Montvay, DESY preprint 86-143 (1986), DESY preprint 87-019 (1987)
Bohdan Grzadkowski, Jacek Pliszka, Jose Wudka Phys.Rev. D [**69**]{}, 033001 (2004)
M.N. Chernodub, Phys.Rev.Lett. [**95**]{}, 252002 (2005)
[^1]: According to the previous investigations of the $SU(2)$ Gauge - Higgs model this upper bound cannot exceed $10 M_W$.
[^2]: One of the examples of such models is the Ginzburg - Landau theory of superconductivity.
[^3]: The meaning of the words “potential barrier” here is different from that of the one - dimensional quantum mechanics as here different minima of the potential form the three - dimensional sphere while in usual $1D$ quantum mechanics with the similar potential there are two separated minima with the potential barrier between them. Nevertheless we feel it appropriate to use the chosen terminology as the value of the “potential barrier hight” measures the difference between the potentials with and without spontaneous symmetry breaking.
[^4]: It has been shown in [@VZ2008] that at the infinite value of the scalar self coupling $\lambda =
\infty$ moving along the line of constant physics we reach the point on the phase diagram where the monopole worldlines begin to percolate. This point was found to coincide roughly with the position of the transition between the physical Higgs phase and the unphysical symmetric phase of the lattice model. This transition is a crossover and the ultraviolet cutoff achieves its maximal value around $1.4$ Tev at the transition point.
[^5]: Nambu monopoles in practise correspond to $SU(2)$ variables as the monopole configurations extracted from the Hypercharge U(1) field disappear at realistic values of coupling constants.
[^6]: The inverse seem to us incorrect: influence of nonperturbative effects on $\alpha_R$ is not suppressed by any small factor. We indeed observe that in the FR, where nonperturbative effects are large the renormalized $\alpha$ differs from its bare value by about $50\%$ while far from the FR the difference is within $10\%$ (for the lattice size $12^3\times16$).
|
---
abstract: 'The ability to simultaneously leverage multiple modes of sensor information is critical for perception of an automated vehicle’s physical surroundings. Spatio-temporal alignment of registration of the incoming information is often a prerequisite to analyzing the fused data. The persistence and reliability of multi-modal registration is therefore the key to the stability of decision support systems ingesting the fused information. LiDAR-video systems like on those many driverless cars are a common example of where keeping the LiDAR and video channels registered to common physical features is important. We develop a deep learning method that takes multiple channels of heterogeneous data, to detect the misalignment of the LiDAR-video inputs. A number of variations were tested on the Ford LiDAR-video driving test data set and will be discussed. To the best of our knowledge the use of multi-modal deep convolutional neural networks for dynamic real-time LiDAR-video registration has not been presented.'
author:
- |
Michael Giering, Vivek Venugopalan and Kishore Reddy\
United Technologies Research Center\
E. Hartford, CT 06018, USA\
Email: {gierinmj, venugov, reddykk}@utrc.utc.com
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
title: 'Multi-modal Sensor Registration for Vehicle Perception via Deep Neural Networks'
---
Motivation {#sec:motivation}
==========
Navigation and situational awareness of optionally manned vehicles requires the integration of multiple sensing modalities such as Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) and video, but could just as easily be extended to other modalities including Radio Detection And Ranging (RADAR), Short-Wavelength Infrared (SWIR) and Global Positioning System (GPS). Spatio-temporal registration of information from multi-modal sensors is technically challenging in its own right. For many tasks such as pedestrian and object detection tasks that make use of multiple sensors, decision support methods rest on the assumption of proper registration. Most approaches [@Bodensteiner2012Real-time-] in LiDAR-video for instance, build separate vision and LiDAR feature extraction methods and identify common anchor points in both. Alternatively, by generating a single feature set on LiDAR, Video and optical flow, it enables the system to to capture mutual information among modalities more efficiently. The ability to dynamically register information from the available data channels for perception related tasks can alleviate the need for anchor points *between* sensor modalities. We see auto-registration as a prerequisite need for operating on multi-modal information with confidence.
Deep neural networks (DNN) lend themselves in a seamless manner for data fusion on time series data. For some challenges in which the modalities share significant mutual information, the features generated on the fused information can provide insight that neither input alone can [@Ngiam2011Multimodal]. In effect the ML version of, “the whole is greater than the sum of it’s parts”.
Autonomous navigation places significant constraints on the speed of perception algorithms and their ability to drive decision making in real-time. Though computationally intensive to train, our implemented DCNN run easily within our real-time frame rates of 8 fps and could accommodate more standard rates of 30 fps. With most research in deep neural networks focused on algorithmic improvements and novel applications, a significant benefit to applied researchers is sometimes under appreciated. The automated feature generation of DNNs enables us to create mutli-modal systems with far less overhead. The need for domain experts and hand-crafted feature design are lessened, allowing more rapid prototyping and testing. The generalization of auto-registration across multiple assets is clearly a path to be explored.
In this paper, the main contributions are: (i) formulation of an image registration problem as a fusion of modalities from different sensors, namely LIDAR (L), video (Grayscale or R,G,B) and optical flow (U,V); (ii) performance evaluation of deep convolutional neural networks (DCNN) with various input parameters, such as kernel filter size and different combinations of input channels (R,G,B,Gr,L,U,V); (iii) fusion of patch-level and image-level predictions to generate alignment at the frame-level. The experiments were conducted using a publicly available dataset from FORD and the University of Michigan [@Pandey2011Ford-Campu]. The DCNN implementation was executed on an NVIDIA Tesla K40 GPU with 2880 cores and compute power of 5 TFLOPS (single precision). The paper is organized into the following sections: Section \[sec:motivation\] describes the introduction and motivation for this work; Section \[sec:previous\_work\] provides a survey of the related work; the problem formulation along with the dataset description and the preprocessing is explained in Section \[sec:problem\_statement\]; Section \[sec:model\_description\] gives the details of the DCNN setup for the different experiments; Section \[sec:experiments\] describes the experiments and the post-processing steps for visualizing the qualitative results; finally Section \[sec:conclusions\_and\_future\_work\] summarizes the paper and concludes with future research thrusts.
Previous Work {#sec:previous_work}
=============
A great amount has been published on various multi-modal fusion methods [@Ross2003Informatio], [@Gregor2011Learning-R], [@Wu2004Optimal-Mu], [@Snoek2006The-Challe]. The most common approaches taken generate features of interest in each modality separately and create a decision support mechanism that aggregates features across modalities. If spatial alignment is required across modalities, as it is for LiDAR-video such filter methods [@Thrun2011Googles-dr] are required to ensure proper inter-modal registration. These filter methods for leveraging 3D LiDAR and 2D images are often geometric in nature and make use of projections between the different data spaces.
Automatic registration of 2D video and 3D LiDAR has been a widely researched topic for over a decade [@Wang2009A-Robust-A], [@Kim2014Automatic-], [@Mastin2009Automatic-], [@Bodensteiner2012Real-time-]. Its application in real-time autonomous navigation makes it a challenging problem. Majority of the 2D-3D registration algorithms are based on feature matching. Geometric features like corners and edges are extracted from detected vanishing points [@Liu2007-Vanishing-points], [@Ding2008-Vanishing-point], line segments [@Frueh2004-Linesegment], [@Stamos2008-Linesegment], and shadows [@Troccoli2004-ashadow]. Feature based approaches generally rely on dense 3D point cloud and additional knowledge of relative sun position and GPS/inertial navigation system (INS). Another approach used for video and LiDAR auto-registration is to reconstruct 3D point cloud from video sequences using structure from motion (SFM) and performing 3D-3D registration [@Zhao2004-alignment-3Dcloud], [@Liu2006-alignment-sfm]. 3D-3D registration is more difficult and computationally expensive compared to 2D-3D registration. The use of deep neural networks to analyze multi-modal sensor inputs has increased sharply in just the last few years, including audio-video [@Ngiam2011Multimodal], [@Kim2013Deep-Learn], image/text [@Srivastava2012Multimodal], image/depth [@Lenz2013Deep-Learn] and LiDAR-video To the best of our knowledge the use of multi-modal deep neural networks for dynamic LiDAR-video registration has not been presented.
A common challenge for data fusion methods is deciding at what level features from the differing sensor streams should be brought together. The deep neural network (DNN) approach most similar to the more traditional data fusion methods is to train DNNs independently on sensor modalities and then use the high-level outputs of those networks as inputs to a subsequent aggregator, which could also be a DNN. This is analogous to the earlier example of learning 3D/2D features and the process of identifying common geometric features.
It is possible however to apply DNNs with a more agnostic view enabling a unified set of features to be learned across multi-modal data. In these cases the input channels aren’t differentiated. Unsupervised methods including deep Boltzmann machines and deep auto-encoders for learning such joint representations have been successful.
Deep convolutional neural networks (DCNN) enable a similar agnostic approach to input channels. A significant difference is that target data is required to train them as classifiers. This is the approach chosen by us for automating the registration of LiDAR-video and optical-flow, in which we are combining 1D/3D/2D data representations respectively to learn a unified model across as many as 6D.
Problem Statement {#sec:problem_statement}
=================
Being able to detect and correct the misalignment (registration, calibration) among sensors of the same or different kinds, is critical for decision support systems operating on their fused information streams. For our work DCNNs were implemented for the detection of small spatial misalignments in LiDAR and Video frames. The methodology is directly applicable to temporal registration as well. LiDAR-video data collected from a driverless car was chosen for the multi-modal fusion test case. LiDAR-video is a common combination for providing perception capabilities to many types of ground and airborne platforms including driverless cars [@Thrun2011Googles-dr].
Ford LiDAR-video Dataset and Experimental Setup {#sub:ford_lidar_video_dataset_and_experimental_setup}
-----------------------------------------------
The FORD LiDAR-video dataset [@Pandey2011Ford-Campu] is collected by an autonomous Ford F-250 vehicle integrated with the following perception and navigation sensors as follows:
- Velodyne HDL-64E LiDAR with two blocks of lasers spinning at 10 Hz and a maximum range of 120m.
- Point Grey Ladybug3 omni-directional camera system with six 2-Mega-pixel cameras collecting video data at 8fps with $1600\times1600$ resolution.
- Two Riegl LMS-Q120 LIDAR sensors installed in the front of the vehicle generating range and intensity data when the laser sweeps its $80\degree$ field of view (FOV).
- Applanix POS-LV420 INS with Trimble GPS system providing the 6 degrees of freedom (DOF) estimates at 100 Hz.
- Xsens MTi-G sensor consisting of accelerometer, gyroscope, magnetometer, integrated GPS receiver, static pressure sensor and temperature sensor. It measures the GPS co-ordinates of the vehicle and also provides the 3D velocity and 3D rate of turn.
![Training (A to B) and testing (C to D) tracks in the downtown Dearborn Michigan.[]{data-label="fig:ford_train_test_track"}](ford_train_test_track.jpg)
This dataset is generated by the vehicle while driving in and around the Ford research campus and downtown Michigan. The data includes feature rich downtown areas as well as featureless empty parking lots. As shown in Figure \[fig:ford\_train\_test\_track\], we divided the data set into training and testing sections A to B and C to D respectively. They were chosen in a manner that minimizes the likelihood of contamination between training and testing. Because of this, the direction of the light source is never the same in the testing and training sets.
Optical Flow {#sub:optical_flow}
------------
![Optical flow: Hue indicates orientation and saturation indicates magnitude[]{data-label="fig:Figures_OptFlow placeholder"}](OpticalFlow_example_final.png)
In the area of navigation of mobile robots, optical flow has been widely used to estimate egomotion [@Prazdny1980-egomotion-OF], depth maps [@Shahraray1988-depthestimation-OF], reconstruct dynamic 3D scene depth [@Yang2012-reconstruction-OF], and segment moving objects [@Shao2002-seg-OF]. Optical flow provides information of the scene dynamics and is expressed as an estimate of velocity at each pixel from two consecutive frames, denoted by $\vec{u}$ and $\vec{v}$. The motion field from these two frames is measured by the motion of the pixel brightness pattern, where the changes in image brightness is due to the camera or object motion. [@Liu2009Beyond-Pix] describes an algorithm for computing optical flow from images, which is used during the preprocessing step. Figure \[fig:Figures\_OptFlow placeholder\] shows an example of the optical flow computed using two consecutive frames from the Ford LiDAR-video dataset. By including optical flow as input channels, we imbue the DCNN with information on the dynamics observed across time steps.
Preprocessing {#sub:preprocessing}
-------------
At each video frame timestep, the inputs to our model consist of *C* channels of data with *C* ranging from 3-6 channels. Channels consist of grayscale *Gr* or *(R,G,B)* information from the video, horizontal and vertical components of optical flow *(U,V)* and depth information *L* from LiDAR The data from each modality is reshaped to a fixed size of $800\times256$ values, which are partitioned into $p\times p$ patches at a prescribed stride. Each patch $p\times p$ is stacked across *C* channels, effectively generating a vector of *C* dimensions. The different preprocessing parameters are denoted by patch size *p*, stride *s* and the number of input channels *C*.
Preprocessing is repeated *N* times, where *N* is the number of offset classes. For each offset class, the video (R,G,B) and optical flow (U,V) channels are kept static and the depth (L) channel from the LiDAR is moved by the offset simulating a misalignment between the video and the LiDAR sensors. In order to accurately detect the misalignment in the LiDAR and Video sensor data, a threshold is set to limit the information available in each channel. The LiDAR data has regions of sparsity and hence the LiDAR patches with a variance (${\sigma}^2 < 15\%$) are dropped from the final dataset. This leads to the elimination of the majority of foreground patches in the data set, reducing the size of the training and testing set by approximately $80\%$. Figure \[fig:Figures\_Ellipse\] shows a $N = 9$ class elliptically distributed set of offsets and Figure \[fig:ImageChStride\] shows a $p\times p$ patch stacked across all the different *C* channels.
Model Description {#sec:model_description}
=================
Our models for auto-registration are DCNNs trained to classify the current misalignment of the LiDAR-video data streams into one of a predefined set of offsets. DCNNs are probably the most successful deep learning model to date on fielded applications. The fact that the algorithm shares weights in the training phase, results in fewer model parameters and more efficient training. DCNNs are particularly useful for problems in which local structure is important, such as object recognition in images and temporal information for voice recognition. The alternating steps of convolution and pooling generates features at multiple scales which in turn imbues DCNN’s with scale invariant characteristics.
The model shown in Figure \[fig:Figures\_lidar\_dcnn\_setup1\] consists of 3 pairs of convolution-pooling layers, that estimates the offset between the LiDAR-video inputs at each time step. For each patch within a timestep, there are $N$ variants with the LiDAR-video-optical flow inputs offset by the predetermined amounts. The CNN outputs to a softmax layer, thereby providing an offset classification value for each patch of the frame. As described in Section \[sub:preprocessing\], $32\times32$ patches were stacked across the different channels and provided as the input to the DCNN. All the $6$ channels *RGBLUV* were used for the majority of the experiments, whereas only $4$ channels were required for the *RGBL* and the *GrLUV* experiments. The first convolutional layer uses $32$ filters (or kernels) of size $5 \times 5 \times \mathit{C} $ with a stride of $1$ pixel and padding of $2$ pixels on the edges. The following pooling layer generates the input data (of size $16 \times 16 \times 32$) for the second convolutional layer. This layer uses $32$ filters of size $5 \times 5 \times 32$ with a stride of $1$ pixel and padding of $2$ pixels on the edges. A second pooling layer, similar to the first one is used to generate input with size $8 \times 8 \times 32$ for the third convolutional layer that uses $64$ filters of size $5 \times 5 \times 32$ with the stride and padding same as previous convolutional layer. The third pooling layer with similar configuration as the two previous pooling layers connects to an output softmax layer with labels corresponding to the $N=9$ classes. The DCNN described above was trained using stochastic gradient descent with a mini-batch size of $100$ epochs. The DCNN is configured with Rectified Linear Units (ReLUs), as they train several times faster than their equivalents with $\tanh$ connections [@Nair2010Rectified-]
The NVIDIA Kepler series K40 GPUs [@NVIDIA-Inc.2012NVIDIAs-Ne] are very FLOPS/Watt efficient and are being used to drive real-time image processing capabilities [@Venugopal2013Accelerati]. These GPUs consist of 2880 cores with 12 GB of on-board device memory (RAM). Deep Learning applications have been targeted on GPUs previously in [@Krizhevsky2012Imagenet-C] and these implementations are both compute and memory bound. Stacking of channels results in a vector of $32 \times 32 \times \mathit{C}$, which is suitable for the Single Instruction Multiple Datapath (SIMD) architecture of the GPUs. At the same time, the training batch size caches in the GPU memory, so the utilization of the K40 GPU’s memory is very high. This also results in our experiments to run successfully on a single GPU instead of partitioning the different layers over multiple GPUs.
Experiments {#sec:experiments}
===========
Dataset using elliptically distributed offsets {#sub:dataset_using_elliptically_distributed_offsets}
----------------------------------------------
In our experiments, elliptically distributed set of $N = 9$ offsets of the LiDAR-video data were considered. The LiDAR data is displaced along an ellipse with a major axis of $32$ pixels and a minor axis of $16$ pixels rotated clockwise from x-axis by $45\degree$ as shown in Figure \[fig:Figures\_Ellipse\]. Separate training and testing sets were generated from two different tracks as shown in Figure \[fig:ford\_train\_test\_track\] for all the $N = 9$ offsets of LiDAR data. Training and testing tracks have never seen regions and also have different lighting conditions. Our preprocessing step described in Section \[sub:preprocessing\] results in $223,371$ and $126,513$ patches for testing and training extracted from $469$ and $224$ images respectively.
In the testing phase, for each frame a simple voting scheme is used to aggregate the patch level offset predictions to a single frame level prediction. A sample histogram of the patch level predictions is show in Figure \[fig:Figures\_Voting\]. We color each patch of the frame with a color corresponding to the predicted class as shown in Figure \[fig:Figures\_Voting\].
Experimental results {#sub:experimental_results}
--------------------
Table \[table:cnn\_param\] lists the inputs and CNN parameters explored ranked in the order of increasing accuracy. We averaged the values across the diagonal of the confusion matrix to determine the image level and patch level accuracy. Patch level accuracy is the individual performance of all the $32\times32$ patches from the testing images. Classification of patches belonging to a single time-step are voted to predict the shift for image level accuracy. In Table \[table:cnn\_param\], the first 3 columns show the results for different number of filter combinations in the convolutional layers with fixed number of filters and input channels *RGBLUV*. We observed that the image and patch level accuracy decreased with the increase in the number of filters. For experiments shown in columns 4 and 5, the filter size was increased, with the number of filters constant at $(32,32,64)$. We observed that for the 6 channels *RGBLUV*, filter size of 9 gave the best image level accuracy of $63.03\%$. Column 6 shows the results of our experiment after dropping the optical flow *UV* channels. The image and patch level accuracy decreased for this case, indicating that optical flow contributed significantly towards image registration. The remaining experiments utilized the Grayscale information *Gr* instead of *RGB* and produced the best results with $76.69\%$ and $41.05\%$ image and patch level accuracy respectively. Table \[table:temporal\_performance\] shows that by using information from consecutive frames the performance increases significantly.
**Channels** RGBL
----------------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------- ------- ------- ------- -----------
**Filter size** 7 9 9
**\# of filters** (32,32,32) (32,32,64) (64,64,64)
**Image Level accuracy(%)** 61.75 61.06 60.09 61.79 63.03 60.66 68.03 **76.69**
**Patch Level accuracy(%)** 38.74 38.57 38.49 38.03 39.00 39.28 40.96 **41.05**
\[table:cnn\_param\]
**Number of consecutive time-steps used** **1** **2** **3** **4** **5** **6** **7** **8**
------------------------------------------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
**Accuracy(%)** 76.33 85.42 88.88 90.30 92.52 93.85 94.29 95.12
\[table:temporal\_performance\]
Conclusions and Future Work {#sec:conclusions_and_future_work}
===========================
In this paper, we proposed a deep learning method to do LiDAR-Video registration. We demonstrated the effect of filter size, number of filters and different channels. We also showed the advantage of using temporal information, optical flow and grayscale. The next step in taking this work forward is to complete our development of a deep auto-registration method for ground and aerial platforms requiring no a priori calibration ground truth. Our aerospace applications in particular present noisier data with an increased number of degrees of freedom. The extension of these methods to simultaneously register information across multiple platforms and larger numbers of modalities will provide interesting challenges that we look forward to working on.
|
---
abstract: 'A Spin filtering device through quantum spin interference is addressed, in two dimensions, in a GaAs/AlGaAs electron gas that has both Rashba and Dresselhaus spin-orbit couplings and an applied external magnetic field. We propose an experimentally feasible electronic Mach Zehnder Interferometer and derive a map, in parameter space, that determines perfect spin filtering conditions. We find two broad spin filtering regimes, one where filtering is achieved in the original incoming quantization basis, that takes advantage of the purely non-Abelian nature of spin rotations, and the other, where one needs a tilted preferential axis to observe the polarized output spinor. Both solutions apply for arbitrary incoming electron polarization and energy, and are only limited in output amplitude by the randomness of the incoming spinor state. A full account of beam splitter and mirror effects on spin renders solutions only on the tilted basis, but encompasses a broad range of filtering conditions.'
address:
- '$^1$Centro de Física, Instituto Venezolano de Investigaciones Científicas, Apartado 21874, Caracas 1020-A, Venezuela'
- '$^2$Departamento de Física, Universidad Central de Venezuela, Caracas, Venezuela'
- '$^3$Statistical Physics Group, P2M, Institut Jean Lamour, Nancy Université, BP70239, F- 54506 Vandœuvre les Nancy, France'
author:
- 'Alexander López$^1$, Ernesto Medina$^{1,2,3}$, Nelson Bolívar$^2$ and Bertrand Berche$^3$'
title: 'Perfect spin filtering device through a Mach Zehnder interferometer in GaAs/AlGaAs electron gas'
---
Introduction
============
The Rashba and Dresselhaus SO interactions arise in materials which lack either structural or bulk inversion symmetry, respectively[@Rashba; @Dresselhaus; @winkler]. These two kinds of interactions have recently been given a great deal of attention due to their potential role in the generation and manipulation of spin polarized currents, spin filters[@Nitta; @Ionicioiu; @Hatano; @SHChen], spin accumulation[@SarmaReview], and spin optics[@BalseiroUsaj].
A reformulation of the spin-orbit coupling Hamiltonian in terms of non-Abelian gauge fields[@ryder] was explicitly given in ref. [@Rebei; @Jin; @Leurs; @Medina] where the SO interaction is presented as a $SU(2)\times U(1)$ gauge theory. As the Yang-Mills gauge theory is well understood and is the underpinning of well established theory, enormous insight can be brought upon new problems. Such gauge point of view, in more general terms, has been known for some time[@Goldhaber; @Mineev; @Frohlich]. This formulation is very revealing, since the consistent gauge structure of the theory becomes obvious and the physics of spin currents, persistent currents and color diamagnetism[@Tokatly] can be understood in a manner analogous to the well known $U(1)$ gauge theories. A consistent $SU(2)\times U(1)$ gauge approach was presented in reference [@Leurs; @Medina] where it was found that for the Pauli type Hamiltonians (including Rashba and 2 dimensional reductions of the Dresselhaus Hamiltonian), Gauge Symmetry Breaking (GSB) is necessarily built into the theory and leads to vanishing of the spin conductivity in constant electric fields[@Medina]. In addition, the Yang Mills interpretation of the Rashba and Dresselhaus SO interactions renders the associated gauge fields real, with topological consequences analogous to the Aharonov Casher effect[@Leurs; @Medina].
Recent proposals were recently reported for the construction of perfect spin filters based on active Rashba spin orbit media[@Hatano], ballistic spin interferometers[@Koga] and the analysis of the persistent spin helix[@Bernevig2; @SHChen], where the Yang Mills gauge point of view is advantageous. Here we readdress the problem of spin filtering by interferometry in a quasi two dimensional system, and make connection to an experimentally feasible test of these ideas through an electronic Mach Zehnder interferometer (MZI) within Rashba and Dresselhaus media. Recent proposals contemplating this setup as an spin intereference device include quantum logic gates[@ZulickeAlone], bit controlled Stern-Gerlach devices[@Ionicioiu] and tunable entanglement[@SignalZulicke]. Our analysis, within this setup, enables us to obtain exact conditions for spin filtering which can be achieved by tuning appropriate experimental parameters. Such conditions for spin filtering greatly generalize previous special situations where the spin polarization is a conserved quantity[@Ting], and show new possibilities for spin filtering beyond previous approximate treatments.
The structure of the paper is as follows. First we consider the Hamiltonian with both Rashba and Dresselhaus interactions for a two dimensional electron gas (2DEG) including a magnetic flux described by a $U(1)$ gauge field. Following the approach given in ref. [@SHChen], we rewrite the Rashba and Dresselhaus contributions in terms of a Yang Mills gauge field and review how this approach leads to the introduction of a GSB term analogous to the Proca term for the Maxwell field. Then, we propose an interference setup in the form of an electronic MZI where the electron’s spin transport is modulated due to the presence of Rashba and Dresselhaus active media. We derive the conditions for perfect spin filtering that are applicable independently of the incoming spin state and the full energy range of the injected electrons. Finally, we give some concluding remarks.
Spin-Orbit scattering for two dimensional electron gas
======================================================
We consider a two dimensional system consisting of non interacting electrons subject to both Rashba and Dresselhaus spin orbit interactions. In addition, one can apply an external transverse magnetic flux $\Phi_B$ described by a $U(1)$ gauge vector potential $\bf A$. Two recent works have shown how to measure and control the Rashba and Dresselhaus parameters using gate voltages in two dimensional GaAs/AlGaAs electron gas[@MillerGoldhaberGordon; @Studer]. It is striking that one can achieve SO magnetic fields of 2-3 mT. The SO physics beautifully follows an extended weak localization theory that allows for a detailed access to the material parameters.
One can address the two dimensional GaAs/AlGaAs electron gas by a single particle Hamiltonian including the previously described couplings by $$\label{Hamiltonian}
H= \frac{{\bf \Pi}^2}{2m^*} + V - \alpha (\Pi_x\sigma^y-\Pi_y \sigma^x)- \beta(\Pi_y\sigma^y-\Pi_x\sigma^x)+ \frac{\hbar \omega_B}{2}\sigma^z, \label{H1}$$ where ${\bf \Pi}={\mathbf p}+e{\mathbf A}$, $-e$ and $m^*$ are the electron’s charge and effective mass, $V$ a substrate lattice potential that can be assumed periodic, $\boldsymbol \sigma$ is a vector of Pauli matrices, and $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are material-dependent parameters characterizing the Rashba and Dresselhaus interactions, respectively. The last term is the Zeeman energy. The term linear in $k$ describing the Dresselhaus interaction results from averaging a cubic in $k$ contribution (for the bulk) in the confining direction and neglecting other cubic terms in the strong lateral confinement situation[@Halperin]. In the rest of this work we ignore the effect of the Zeeman term in the limit of small magnetic fields (a few flux quanta through a ${\rm 200}\times {\rm 200} \mu {\rm m}^2$ area) such that the spin orbit energy is much larger than the Zeeman energy[@Takayanagi]. According to measured parameters in ref. [@MillerGoldhaberGordon] the SO energy for an GaAs/AlGaAs electron gas is 5 orders of magnitude greater than the Zeeman energy for the proposed field strengths. This way the external magnetic field results in strong phase effects through the vector potential but no appreciable precession occurs due to the Zeeman term. Nevertheless, we will see that there are spin filtering scenarios for the device even for zero external magnetic field.
Following [@Hatano; @SHChen], we introduce a spin dependent (non-Abelian) gauge field ${{\cal W}\!\!\!\!\!\!{\cal W}}$ whose components are given by $$\frac{g}{m^*}{{\cal W}\!\!\!\!\!\!{\cal W}}^a\tau^a
= (\beta\tau^x-\alpha\tau^y)\hat {\mathbf x}+(\alpha\tau^x-\beta\tau^y)\hat {\mathbf y},$$ with $\tau^a=\sigma^a/2$, and $g/\hbar$ is the $SU(2)$ coupling constant. Using this gauge field we can rewrite equation (\[H1\]), having ignored the Zeeman contribution, in the form $$\begin{aligned}
H=\frac{\left ({\mathbf p}+e{\mathbf A}+g{{\cal W}\!\!\!\!\!\!{\cal W}}^a\tau^a\right)^2}{2m^*}+eA_0-\frac{g^2{{\cal W}\!\!\!\!\!\!{\cal W}}^a\cdot{{\cal W}\!\!\!\!\!\!{\cal W}}^a}{8 m^*}.
\label{Pauli2}\end{aligned}$$
![Sketch of the electronic Mach Zenhder interferometer setup. The arms of the square are made of active SO Rashba and Dresselhaus media. The beam splitters are implemented through two Quantum Point Contacts (QPCs). There is a magnetic flux $\Phi_B$ through the square.[]{data-label="fig1"}](Figure1.eps){width="8"}
The first term describes the total kinetic energy taking into account the contribution from the regular vector potential due to an external magnetic field and the non Abelian gauge field. The second term is the background lattice potential whereas the third term represents a gauge symmetry breaking contribution similar to the field originally discussed in references [@Leurs; @Medina; @Comment] responsible for rendering the spin currents physical.
Electronic Mach Zehnder spin interferometer
===========================================
A device configuration that allows us to address the problem of spin filtering in a gauge independent[@Medina] manner is the Mach Zehnder Interferometer (MZI). The setup for an MZI is sketched in (figure \[fig1\]). Here we are interested in determining the resulting amplitude $\Psi_{D_i}$ at detector $D_i$, with $i=1,2$ and to find the conditions for perfect spin filtering [@Hatano] at either detector. There is an interesting issue that must be discussed regarding spin $1/2$ filtering. If the state at the input is a pure state spinor of spin $1/2$, the electron is polarized on some indeterminate axis, in principle random, coming from the Fermi sea of the input conductor. If one could find this axis for every electron extracted then one would have a perfect spin filter for each electron. Nevertheless the resulting current is unpolarized. We thus define the spin filter as one acting on any entering (pure state) polarization and returning a polarized state along a definite axis. This approach will serve to build a polarized spin current.
The relevant processes within the interferometer are described as follows (see figure \[fig1\]): Single electrons are assumed to be extracted from the Fermi sea as pure states $\Psi_0={\psi^+_0\choose\psi^-_0}$. The electrons then pass through a beam splitter that can be implemented by a combination of Quantum Point Contacts[@OliverYamamoto] the first of which we label ${\rm QPC_1}$ described by a $4\times 4$ scattering matrix $S_1$ that mixes spin orientations on perpendicular reflection, while it is diagonal for direct (no change in direction) transmission[@Yamamoto]. Mixing of spin orientations occurs at all reflections (including mirrors) due to changes in direction of the electron ${\bf k}$ vector within spin-orbit active media that changes the orientation of the implied wavevector-dependent magnetic field. Furthermore, as we consider both Rashba and Dresselhaus interactions, we need to derive general reflection conditions at the beam splitters and mirrors. In reference [@Yamamoto], this was done for Rashba assuming that small enough spin-orbit strength would yield only a small divergence of the reflected spin states in a ${\bf k}$ dependent basis. Surprisingly, when only the Rashba interaction is involved, the reflection matrix depends only on the incident angle and the reflection coefficient. On the other hand, if both Dresselhaus and Rashba are included, this is no longer true, and except for special angles of incidence, the reflection matrix depends on both Rashba and Dresselhaus strengths. The general reflection matrices are derived in the appendix. In this paper we will take the limit of $\pi/4$ reflections, that leads to simple, spin-orbit independent matrix elements.
The resulting beams follow path $I$ ($II$) that consists of a first horizontal ${\cal L}_I$ (vertical ${\cal L}_{II}$) arm made of Rashba-Dresselhaus medium whose length is $L_I$ ($L_{II}$). The electrons are then specularly reflected from an ideal mirror $M_1$ ($M_2$), that also mixes spin directions, followed by a vertical ${\cal L'}_I$ (horizontal ${\cal L'}_{II}$) arm of length $L_I$ ($L_{II}$) of the same material. The mirrors can be implemented as a simplified version of the beam splitters of reference [@OliverYamamoto]. Then the electrons pass through a second QPC (${\rm QPC_2}$) described by the corresponding S-Matrix $S_2$. Finally, two electron beams are collected at detector $D_i$ ($i=1,2$), and we have $\Psi_{D_i}= \Psi_{I,i}+\Psi_{II,i}$, where, $\Psi_{I,i}$ ($\Psi_{II,i}$) is the corresponding transferred spinor through the i[*th*]{}-arm. These amplitudes can be written in terms of the injected spinor $\Psi_0$ as $\Psi_{D_i}={\cal U}_{D_i}\Psi_0$, where the $2\times 2$ matrices ${\cal U}_{D_i}$ (generalized comparator operators [@Peskin]) are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{phase1}
\fl{\cal U}_{D_1}=(t_2) \exp{\Big [\frac{i}{\hbar}\int_{{\mathcal L'}_I}{d {\bf l}\cdot}({\bf p}-e{\bf A}-g{{\cal W}\!\!\!\!\!\!{\cal W}}^a\tau^a)\Big]} (r_l)\exp{\Big[\frac{i}{\hbar}\int_{{\mathcal L}_I}{d {\bf l}\cdot}({\bf p}-e{\bf A}-g{{\cal W}\!\!\!\!\!\!{\cal W}}^a\tau^a)\Big ]}(t_1)+\nonumber\\
(r_{2l}) \exp{\Big [\frac{i}{\hbar}\int_{{\mathcal L'}_{II}}{d {\bf l}\cdot}({\bf p}-e{\bf A}-g{{\cal W}\!\!\!\!\!\!{\cal W}}^a\tau^a)\Big]} (r_r)\exp{\Big[\frac{i}{\hbar}\int_{{\mathcal L}_{II}}{d {\bf l}\cdot}({\bf p}-e{\bf A}-g{{\cal W}\!\!\!\!\!\!{\cal W}}^a\tau^a)\Big ]}(r_{1l}),\nonumber\\
\fl{\cal U}_{D_2}=(r_{2r}) \exp{\Big [\frac{i}{\hbar}\int_{{\mathcal L'}_{I}}{d {\bf l}\cdot}({\bf p}-e{\bf A}-g{{\cal W}\!\!\!\!\!\!{\cal W}}^a\tau^a)\Big]} (r_l)\exp{\Big[\frac{i}{\hbar}\int_{{\mathcal L}_I}{d {\bf l}\cdot}({\bf p}-e{\bf A}-g{{\cal W}\!\!\!\!\!\!{\cal W}}^a\tau^a)\Big ]}(t_1)+\nonumber\\
(t_2) \exp{\Big [\frac{i}{\hbar}\int_{{\mathcal L'}_{II}}{d {\bf l}\cdot}({\bf p}-e{\bf A}-g{{\cal W}\!\!\!\!\!\!{\cal W}}^a\tau^a)\Big]} (r_r)\exp{\Big[\frac{i}{\hbar}\int_{{\mathcal L}_{II}}{d {\bf l}\cdot}({\bf p}-e{\bf A}-g{{\cal W}\!\!\!\!\!\!{\cal W}}^a\tau^a)\Big ]}(r_{1l}).\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ Such operators applied to the initial state do not change the energy expectation value. The transmission and reflection matrices regarding both Rashba and Dresselhaus interactions, for $\pi/4$ incidence angle, are given by $$\label{reflectionmatrix}
(t_j)=\left (
\begin{array}{cc}
t_j & 0\\
0 & t_j
\end{array}\right )~~;~~
(r_{j[l,r]})=\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}\left (
\begin{array}{cc}
r_j & \pm ir_j\\
\pm ir_j & r_j
\end{array}\right ),$$ where the subscripts $j$ correspond to the beam splitter index (see figure \[fig1\]) and $r,l$ (corresponding to $+,-$ in the non diagonal matrix elements, respectively) encode whether the electron current is reflected counter-clockwise ($l$) or clockwise ($r$). $r_j$ and $t_j$ are the reflection and transmission coefficients for the $j-$th beam splitter, while for the mirrors, the reflection coefficients are equal to 1. Note that ${\cal U}_{D_i}$ is not a unitary operator. The normalization condition $|\Psi_{D_1}|^2+|\Psi_{D_2}|^2=1$ for the total probability at the detectors require that ${\cal U}^{\dagger}_{D_1}{\cal U}_{D_1}+{\cal U}^{\dagger}_{D_2}{\cal U}_{D_2}=\nbOne$, the unit matrix. This simply means that the amplitudes received at the detectors do not interfere. The arms of the interferometer can be built from gate defined quasi one dimensional paths implemented on a 2DEG, where all transport is kept within one of the available transverse modes. The scattering length is assumed to be long enough, so that phase relations can be accurately described by the path lengths and the spin-orbit strengths as in the Datta Das[@DattaDas] switch arrangement.
Results: Spin diagonal mirrors and beam splitters
=================================================
In this section we consider a simplified version of the filtering device where beam splitters and mirrors are considered diagonal matrices or scalars. Although this approximation does not contemplate the matrix nature of the reflections we will obtain a simple scenario for the filtering properties of the device. The full problem will be treated below where essentially the same qualitative results are obtained.
If the electric field ${\bf E}$ is uniform and static, the operators ${\bf p}-e{\bf A}$ and $g{{\cal W}\!\!\!\!\!\!{\cal W}}^a\tau^a$ commute. Thus, we can separate the [*orbital*]{} from the [*internal*]{} translation operators. For simplicity we will assume a square interferometer, thus $L_I=L_{II}=L$. Otherwise there are no restrictions or approximations related to the dimensions of the arms of the interferometer. As in Chen and Chang [@SHChen] we will make the discussion general by treating both the Rashba and Dresselhaus spin-orbit coupling on equal footing.
Concerning the [*orbital*]{} contribution, it is easy to see that this will consist of a global phase $\exp[{{\bf p} \cdot ({\bf L_1+L_2})}]$ which we can drop, and a relative $U(1)$ phase $\varphi_B$ which arises from the noncommutation of ${\bf p}$ and ${\bf A}$. Using the definition for the magnetic flux $\Phi_B=BL^2$ and that for the flux quantum $\phi_0=h/e$, the nontrivial [*orbital*]{} phase is written as $2\pi\varphi_B=2\pi\Phi_B/\phi_0$. On the other hand, the internal part gives rise to the $SU(2)$ spin-dependent phase contribution. In order to simplify the resulting expressions, we introduce the adimensional variable $$\label{Lambda}
\Lambda=(m^*L/\hbar)\sqrt{\alpha^2+\beta^2},$$ that will be the crucial control parameter governing the SO interaction. Furthermore, we introduce the definitions $\theta\equiv\tan^{-1}(\beta/\alpha)$ along with the matrices $\tilde{\sigma}^1\equiv\cos\theta\sigma^x-\sin\theta\sigma^y$ and $\tilde{\sigma}^2\equiv\sin\theta \sigma^x-\cos\theta \sigma^y$, such that $(\tilde{\sigma}^i)^2=\nbOne$, with $\nbOne$ the identity matrix in spin space. After the previous considerations we can rewrite equation \[phase1\] in the form $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal U}_{D_1}&=&(t_2)\exp({-i\Lambda\tilde{\sigma}^1})(r_l)\exp({-i\Lambda\tilde{\sigma}^2})(t_1)+\nonumber\\
&& \exp({2\pi i\varphi_B})(r_{2r})\exp({-i\Lambda\tilde{\sigma}^2})(r_r)\exp({-i\Lambda\tilde{\sigma}^1})(r_{1l}),\\
{\cal U}_{D_2}&=&(r_{2r}) \exp({-i\Lambda\tilde{\sigma}^1})(r_l)\exp({-i\Lambda\tilde{\sigma}^2})(t_1)+\nonumber\\
&& \exp({2i\pi\varphi_B})(t_2)\exp({-i\Lambda\tilde{\sigma}^2})(r_r)\exp({-i\Lambda\tilde{\sigma}^1})(r_{1l}).\end{aligned}$$ Due to the symmetry of these expressions (${\cal U}_{D_2}$ is obtained from ${\cal U}_{D_1}$ by the substitutions $r_2\leftrightarrow t_2$) we can focus on the first process, and obtain the second by making the necessary substitutions. Using the identity $\exp(\pm i \gamma \sigma^n)=\cos \gamma\nbOne \pm i\sigma^n\sin\gamma$, valid also for our redefined $\tilde{\sigma}$, the matrix ${\cal U}_{D_1}$ takes the form $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal U}_{D_1}&=&t_1 t_2 [\cos^2\Lambda\nbOne-i\sin\Lambda\cos\Lambda(\tilde{\sigma}^1+\tilde{\sigma}^2)-\tilde{\sigma}^1\tilde{\sigma}^2\sin^2\Lambda]+\nonumber\\
&& r_1 r_2 e^{{2i\pi\varphi_B}}[\cos^2\Lambda\nbOne-i\sin\Lambda\cos\Lambda(\tilde{\sigma}^1+\tilde{\sigma}^2)-\tilde{\sigma}^2\tilde{\sigma}^1\sin^2\Lambda].\end{aligned}$$ Now, we can easily determine that $\tilde{\sigma}^1\tilde{\sigma}^2=\sin 2\theta\nbOne-i{\sigma}^z\cos 2\theta$ thus $\tilde{\sigma}^2\tilde{\sigma}^1=\sin2\theta\nbOne+i{\sigma}^z\cos 2\theta$ and $\tilde{\sigma}^1+\tilde{\sigma}^2=(\cos\theta+\sin\theta)(\sigma^x-\sigma^y)$. Substituting these results and rearranging the obtained expressions leads to $${\cal U}_{D_1}={\mathcal A}_{+}[\cos^2\Lambda-\sin^2\Lambda\sin 2\theta]\nbOne+i\sin\Lambda \nbM,$$ where we have introduced the traceless matrix $\nbM={\mathcal A}_{-}\sin\Lambda\cos 2\theta\sigma^z-{\mathcal A}_{+}\cos\Lambda(\cos\theta+\sin\theta)(\sigma^x-\sigma^y)$ and ${\mathcal A}_{\pm}=t_1t_2\pm r_1r_2 e^{2i\pi\varphi_B}$. The traceless condition simplifies the diagonalization of $\nbM$, and the eigenvalues for ${\cal U}_{D_1}$ are easily found to be $$\begin{aligned}
\label{evalue1}
&&\fl \lambda^{D_1}_{\pm}={\mathcal A}_{+}[\cos^2\Lambda-\sin^2\Lambda\sin 2\theta]\mp i\sin\Lambda\sqrt{{\mathcal A}^2_{-}\sin^2\Lambda\cos^2 2\theta+2{\mathcal A}^2_{+}\cos^2\Lambda(1+\sin 2\theta)}.
\end{aligned}$$ If we now define ${\mathcal B}_{\pm}=t_1 r_2\pm r_1 t_2 e^{2i\pi\varphi_B}$, the eigenvalues of the matrix ${\cal U}_{D_2}$ are obtained from the previous result by making the substitution ${\mathcal A}_{\pm}\rightarrow {\mathcal B}_{\pm}$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{evalue2}
&&\fl \lambda^{D_2}_{\pm}={\mathcal B}_{+}[\cos^2\Lambda-\sin^2\Lambda\sin 2\theta]\mp i\sin\Lambda\sqrt{{\mathcal B}^2_{-}\sin^2\Lambda\cos^2 2\theta+2{\mathcal B}^2_{+}\cos^2\Lambda(1+\sin 2\theta)}.
\end{aligned}$$ In order to get more insight into the nature of the conditions for perfect spin filtering we will specialize the previous expression to symmetric beam splitters i.e. $r_1=r_2=r$, and $t_1=t_2=t$. Within this case, we have $\mathcal{A}_{\pm}=t^2 \pm r^2e^{2i\pi\varphi_B}$. Since we are interested in filtering one spin component, say the up component, we now proceed to determine the vanishing conditions of the corresponding eigenvalue $\lambda^{D_1}_{+}$.
From expressions (\[evalue1\], \[evalue2\]), these vanishing conditions can be found by either having $\cos\Lambda=0$ or $\cos\Lambda\ne0$ (see also equation \[Lambda\]). Although the former condition is mathematically only a particular case of the general solution, we distinguish it because the corresponding ${\cal U}_{D_1}$ becomes diagonal with respect to the original quantization axis, so we can speak of filtering along a [*non-tilted*]{} axis. Such a solution is also the simplest from the detection point of view since it involves the choice of a single quantization axis for the whole setup. The second condition ($\cos\Lambda\ne0$) corresponds to finding a new axis where the up spin is filtered and we call such axis the [*tilted*]{} quantization axis. Note that both these filtering conditions (non-tilted and tilted) are [*independent of the polarization axis and the energy of the incoming state*]{}. We will comment further on this below.
Non-tilted filtering
--------------------
Let us first analyze the [*non-tilted*]{} situation. In this case the filtering condition requiring $\lambda_+^{D_1}=0$ for all incoming energies (see equation \[evalue1\]), leads to the relation $$\tan 2\theta=-\frac{i(t^2 - r^2 e^{2i\pi\varphi_B})}{(t^2 + r^2 e^{2i\pi\varphi_B})}.$$ Two $50-50$ beam splitters for which $r=i/\sqrt 2$, $t=1/\sqrt 2$, will then lead to the relation $\sin{\pi\varphi_B}\sin 2\theta=\cos{\pi\varphi_B}\cos 2\theta$, equivalent to the simple expression $\cos({\pi\varphi_B+2\theta})=0$, satisfied by the condition $$\label{nontilted}
\pi\varphi_B+2\theta=(2n+1)\frac{\pi}{2},$$ where $n$ is an integer. Figure \[fig2\] depicts the relation between the spin-orbit parameters and the magnetic flux, for $n,l=0$, necessary for perfect filtering of the up component in the original quantization axis. The spin-orbit parameters are in a reasonable range, as depicted in the figure, since for a GaAs heterostructure $\hbar\alpha\sim 3.9\times 10^{-12}{\rm eV~ m}$[@DattaDas], $\hbar\beta\sim 2.4\times 10^{-12} {\rm eV~m}$ and $\hbar^2/m^* L\sim 1.7 \times 10^{-12}{\rm eV~ m}$, assuming the arm of the interferometer $\sim 1 \mu m$ and an effective mass of $m^*=0.046 m_0$. These parameters yield $|\alpha|, |\beta| < 6$ in units of $\hbar/(m^* L)$. Note that our definition of $\alpha,\beta$ differs by a factor $\hbar$ to the standard definition (see equation \[H1\]). In reference[@MillerGoldhaberGordon] it is shown that gate control can vary $\alpha$ and $\beta$ parameters by a factor of 6 by applying gate voltages in the hundreds of mV.
The solutions are on a helix, as can be shown from the previous relations where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{nontilted1}
\alpha&=&\frac{\hbar}{m^* L}\sqrt{(2l+1)\pi/2}\cos[\pi/4(2n+1-2\varphi_B)],\nonumber\\
\beta&=&\frac{\hbar}{m^* L}\sqrt{(2l+1)\pi/2}\sin[\pi/4(2n+1-2\varphi_B)].\end{aligned}$$ The integer $n$ was defined in equation \[nontilted\] while the second integer $l$ is defined by the condition $\cos{\Lambda}=0$.
![Perfect filtering for the non-tilted axis (original incoming basis). The plot shows the relation between $\alpha$, $\beta$ in units of $\hbar/(m^* L)$, and $\varphi_B$ that yields perfect polarization of the spin from an unpolarized input. The figure corresponds the values $n,l=0$ according to equation \[nontilted1\].[]{data-label="fig2"}](Figure2.eps){width="7"}
The previous conditions, depicted in figure \[fig2\], do not tell us about the intensity of the signal received in detector $D_1$ i.e. the efficiency of the filter given an incident intensity. For this, one has to look back at the eigenvalues. While $\lambda^{D_1}_+=0$ the amplitude of the outgoing polarized spinor at detector $D_1$ is given by $$\label{outputnontilted}
\Psi_{D_1}={0 \choose \lambda^{D_1}_-\psi^-_0}={0 \choose i e^{i\pi\varphi_B}\cos({\pi\varphi_B-2\theta})\psi^-_0},$$ whose modulus squared is $\cos^2(\pi\varphi_B-2\theta)|\psi^-_0|^2$. Figure \[fig3\] shows a polar plot for the amplitude of the filtered signal (radius vector) as a function of the parameter designating the field flux $\varphi_B$ and the $\alpha,\beta$ combination given by equation \[nontilted1\] for $n=0,1$ and $l=0$. The figure shows that while filtering occurs for all the fluxes (given the appropriate values of $\alpha,\beta$) the amplitude can be zero, or very small, for some flux values i.e. in this case, the detector $D_2$ gets most of the total amplitude. On the other hand, for some values of the flux, filtering can be very strong since the probability for a polarized spin can approach unity.
![Filtering probability for the non-tilted solution of detector $D_1$ for $n=0$, $l=0$ solid (blue) curve and n=1, l=0 dashed (red) line. The radius vector depicted shows the filtered probability for the output spinor for one whole period in the parameters $\alpha,\beta$ as given in the figure \[fig2\]. The position of the dashed vector corresponds to $\varphi_B=0.25$. The grey points represent “spin flipping" or opposite filtering solutions for detector $D_2$.[]{data-label="fig3"}](Figure3.eps){width="9"}
The behavior of the second detector $D_2$, while the first detector sees a filtered signal, can be obtained through the eigenvalues of that detector having substituted the condition $\lambda_+^{D_1}=0$, namely $$\begin{aligned}
&&\lambda^{D_2}_{+}=-ie^{i\pi\varphi_B},\nonumber\\
&&\lambda^{D_2}_{-}=ie^{i\pi\varphi_B}\sin({\pi\varphi_B-2\theta}). \end{aligned}$$ It is obvious that the second detector $D_2$ does not filter concomitantly with the $D_1$ in general. Furthermore, one can only find conditions for the second component to be zero (opposite filtering to detector $D_1$) since the first component has modulus one. This takes us to the non-tilting [*spin flipped*]{} or opposite filtering solution at detector $D_2$, only occurring while detector $D_1$ is filtering with maximal efficiency i.e. maximal polar radii in figure \[fig3\].
The filtering amplitude is proportional to the projection of the incoming spinor (which has arbitrary weights onto the chosen quantization axis) to the surviving component at the output (see equation \[outputnontilted\]). This means that for each arbitrary incident spinor from the Fermi sea one gets a filtering probability that depends on this projection. The resulting polarized current will thus have a random noise associated with this effect besides the contribution from shot noise.
It is important to note that this solution does not appear in Abelian approximation (only exact in the case $\alpha^2=\beta^2$ and in one dimension) to the translation operator, where the $SU(2)$ gauge vector operator has the same algebra as the $U(1)$ gauge vector. The previous approximation was implemented in reference [@SHChen] by neglecting the commutator between components of the $SU(2)$ gauge vector within a finite difference scheme. In this sense, the non-tilted case is an intrinsically non-Abelian scenario for spin filtering.
Tilted filtering axis {#idealtilted}
---------------------
The tilted axis filtering scenario was discussed, within the tight-binding model, by Hatano, Shirasaki and Nakamura[@Hatano] when the Rashba coupling is present. In their approach, the interferometer involves an incoming lead and one outgoing lead, in contrast to our Mach-Zehnder configuration. The non-Abelian treatment is exact within their model, and requires a tilted outgoing axis to realize perfect spin filtering.
For the Mach-Zehnder configuration, addressed here, the [*tilted*]{} axis solution (i.e. $\cos\Lambda \neq 0$), requires $\lambda^{D_1}_+=0$, which implies $$\begin{aligned}
&&~~~\fl {\mathcal A}_{+}[\cos^2\Lambda-\sin^2\Lambda\sin 2\theta]= i\sin\Lambda\nonumber
\sqrt{{\mathcal A}^2_{-}\sin^2\Lambda\cos^2 2\theta+2{\mathcal A}^2_{+}\cos^2\Lambda(1+\sin 2\theta)}. \end{aligned}$$ Squaring both sides and after some algebra one finds $$\label{casi1}
{\mathcal A}^2_{+}=\sin^4\Lambda\cos^2 2\theta({\mathcal A}^2_{+}-{\mathcal A}^2_{-}).$$ Using the definitions for ${\mathcal A}_{\pm}$, and taking the square root, we reduce equation \[casi1\] to $$t^2+r^2 e^{2i\pi\varphi_B}=2rte^{i\pi\varphi_B}\sin^2\Lambda\cos 2\theta.$$ Employing the $50-50$ mirror condition, we get after substitution $$\label{nontilted5050}
\sin\pi\varphi_B=\sin^2\Lambda\cos 2\theta.$$
![ a) Perfect filtering by interference for the tilted axis. The plot shows the relation between $\alpha$, $\beta$ in units of $\hbar/(m^* L)$, and $\sin\pi\varphi_B$ in a contourplot, the darker regions indicate larger values for the magnetic flux needed to yield perfect filtering, from an unpolarized input. Highlighted circles depict the zero flux solutions that yield perfect filtering. b) Perfect filtering probability for the tilted axis. The plot shows the relation between $\alpha$, $\beta$ in units of $\hbar/(m^* L)$, and the filtered intensity in a contourplot. The lighter regions indicate larger values for the intensity of filtering for the relation between parameters depicted in figure \[fig45\]a. Note that the circles evident from figure \[fig45\]a correspond to zero output amplitude.[]{data-label="fig45"}](Figure4.eps){width="15"}
This is the relation between the spin-orbit parameters and the magnetic flux that leads to perfect filtering in the tilted axis. The solution is depicted in a contourplot in figure \[fig45\]a where the value of $\sin\pi\varphi_B$ is represented in shades of gray as a function of $\alpha$ and $\beta$. Each contour corresponds to a constant magnetic flux value and runs over the perfect filtering values of $\alpha$ and $\beta$. The circular contour, depicted in the figure, corresponds to a $\varphi_B=0$ solution to equation \[nontilted5050\] that leads to $(m^*L/\hbar)\sqrt{\alpha^2+\beta^2}=p\pi$, for $p$ integer. The figure depicts the solution for $p=1,2$, i.e. circles in units of $\hbar/(m^*L)$.
In order to see if the filter is actually working, we must address the filtered amplitudes by looking to the second eigenvalue at detector $D_1$. For the filtering condition $$\lambda^{D_1}_{-}=-2ie^{i\pi \varphi_B}\sin\pi \varphi_B\left[ \cos^2\Lambda-\sin^2\Lambda\sin 2\theta\right].$$ Substituting equation \[nontilted5050\] in this expression and computing the modulus squared of the eigenvalue, we determine the strength of the filtered output, as was done in equation \[outputnontilted\]. We have depicted the analytical solution for a range of values of $\alpha,\beta$ in the contour plot of figure \[fig45\]b. The darkest shade corresponds to zero amplitude, and as the shade lightens the probability is higher for the filtered output. We note that the filtering solutions for the circular contours in figure \[fig45\]a and the lines $\alpha=\pm\beta$ have zero amplitude. Such zero amplitude solutions correspond to those of “localized solutions” of Cheng and Chang[@SHChen] where there is no filtered output.
![Detector $D_2$ output while $D_1$ filters out the up spin component (spin down polarization). The plus (minus) zones represent the regions where only the up spin (down) survives at the $D_2$ detector. Note that either one or the other is filtered. The white regions represent no output in the detector and correspond to the localized phase. On can have either up or down spin filtering in $D_2$ while up spin is filtered out in $D_1$.[]{data-label="fig6"}](Figure5.eps){width="8"}
Behavior of detector $D_2$, while $D_1$ is filtering out the spin up component (spin down polarization), is shown in figure \[fig6\]. Regions with plus (minus) signs depict up (down) spin phases for detector $D_2$. Note that the two regions are mutually exclusive so that while pure spin down is being detected in $D_1$ one can have either spin up or spin down in $D_2$ depending on the range of $\alpha,\beta$. The white regions correspond to no output at $D_2$. Comparing with figure \[fig45\]b we see that no-output region are not identical for both detectors, these being larger for $D_1$, i.e. one can have zero output at $D_1$ while having non-zero output at $D_2$. As discussed before, the outputs depicted in figure \[fig6\] are also modulated by the magnitude of the corresponding component at the input, so the probability of the output exhibits noise coming from the random input spin orientation.
![The zeroes of the first (dashed line or red online) and second (solid line, blue online) eigenvalues of ${\cal U}_{D_2}$. When the first eigenvalue vanishes (and the second is non-zero), for specific combinations of $\alpha,\beta ~{\rm and}~\varphi_B$ the interferometer produces a perfectly polarized output in the $|- \rangle$ state. Only a particular discrete set of solutions for $\varphi_B$ is depicted.[]{data-label="fig7"}](Figure6.eps){width="12cm"}
Non diagonal mirror and beam splitter reflections
=================================================
Including the non diagonal matrix character of reflections at mirrors and beam splitters shifts the operation parameters of the spin filter but yields essentially the same qualitative results. The conditions must now be derived numerically. We start from equation \[phase1\] with the transmission and reflection matrices in equation \[reflectionmatrix\]. For the particular choice of $\pi/4$ incidence on the mirrors (see Appendix), the particularly simple non-tilting scenario described above is not possible. The extra parameter given by the angle of incidence on the mirrors/beam splitters lends itself to making this regime accessible, but we will not pursue it here. The more general scenario of a tilted axis yields a whole range of possible filtering solutions.
Diagonalizing ${\cal U}_{D_2}$ in equation \[phase1\] we find two eigenvalues. Setting the first eigenvalue to zero implies that in this rotated space the spinor is fully polarized (one of the entries of the output spinor is zero) as described in equation \[outputnontilted\]. Setting this eigenvalue to zero means setting its real and imaginary parts to zero. Such zeroes are depicted in figure \[fig7\] by the dashed lines (red online) for different values of the magnetic field and specific combinations $\Lambda(\alpha,\beta)$, defined in equation \[Lambda\], and $\theta=\tan^{-1}(\beta/\alpha)$. In order for filtering to be performed such zeroes must be accompanied by non-zero values of the second eigenvalue in the same detector. The zeroes of the second eigenvalue are depicted in figure \[fig7\] by the solid lines (blue online) which are non-overlapping with the dashed lines for the first eigenvalue. Thus the figure shows alternative filtering conditions for either spin up or spin down in the tilted basis.
The circular empty region in the middle of the plot correspond to non-polarized output in the tilted axis. Such a region contains some pointlike solutions that are of less interest experimentally since they would be difficult to tune. We recall that the previous discussion in section \[idealtilted\] is equally valid in this case, all incoming electrons at the input are polarized at the output no matter their energy as long as particular parameters ranges in the $\alpha,\beta,\Phi_B$ space are met.
![The dashed curves represent zeroes of the first eigenvalue for $\varphi_B=5 \pi/100$ upon a contourplot for the modulus of the second eigenvalue. The lighter shades represent higher values of the output polarization. One can extract the SO strengths from the plot by solving a simple system of equations for each value read off on the dashed curves.[]{data-label="fig8"}](Figure7.eps){width="15cm"}
In order to see the magnitude of the spin polarization for a particular value of the external magnetic field we draw a contour map of the magnitude of the second eigenvalue while the first one is zero. The background value at the dashed curves in figure \[fig8\], show the intensity of the pure down spin polarization at detector $D_2$ when at $\varphi_B=5\pi/100$. The highest values of output achieved corresponds to the lighter shades on the contourmap.
Summary
=======
We have proposed a perfect spin filtering device based on a Mach-Zehnder type spin interferometer. The regimes of operation are subject to no limitations on the spin-orbit strengths and interferometer dimensions as in previous work. The treatment can be easily extended to unequal arm lengths and angles of incidence on the mirrors/beam splitters, that are likely to occur in the actual implementation of the interferometer. Such a generalization would provide additional parameters to manipulate filtering conditions. In the simpler analysis above involving scalar mirrors, we find both a non-tilted and tilted axis spin filtering solutions referred to the axis of quantization in which one writes the input states and for arbitrary incoming energies. The non-tilted case is not found in the scenario where the $SU(2)$ gauge field is approximated by a $U(1)$ like gauge, and is peculiar to the full non-Abelian treatment. This solution has the advantage of simplicity. On the other hand, the tilted axis solutions are shown to be well approximated by the Abelianized forms of reference [@SHChen] valid for certain reasonable conditions of SO strengths in relation to the interferometer arm lengths. When realistic mirrors/beam splitters are introduced, the mixing of the spinor components leads only to non-tilted solutions when $\pi/4$ reflections are contemplated. In this situation we run out of adjustable parameters to tune a non-tilted solution, that should be recovered when other incidence angles are considered. The qualitative scenarios for the operation of the diagonal and non-diagonal mirrors are the same and only the parameter combinations for filtering change.
Perfect filtering means that all spins in one of the detectors are polarized always in the same axis and orientation. This has the drawback that the current is not steady since the probability of producing a completely polarized electron varies with the initial projection, of the input spinor, onto the chosen quantization axis. This projection is random as electrons are injected from the Fermi sea[@Yamamoto]. A density matrix approach should be implemented so that one can also assess finite temperature effects on the filter operation. It should be also noted that the interference setup does not produce a pure spin current, since polarization is accompanied by a charge current.
An interesting insight, exploiting the analogy with the Aharonov-Bohm effect in the Abelian case, comes from observing the role of $\Lambda$ in the non-Abelian case. $\Lambda$ and the voltage $V$ essentially play the same role as the pair $2\pi\varphi_B$ and magnetic flux. Indeed, for a purely Pauli type SO interaction, as $\Lambda=(mL/{\hbar})\alpha$ and $\alpha=\hbar eE/(m^2 c^2)$, then $\Lambda$ can be rewritten as $2\pi E L/(2\pi m c^2/e)=2\pi V_E/V_0$, where $V_E=EL$, the voltage along the arm of length $L$ in an electric field of strength $E$. $V_0$ is a quantum of voltage[@Medina]. Although $V_0$ is very large for this calculation, the material Rashba coefficient would lower it to the order of $1~ eV/e$.
We acknowledge fruitful discussions with C. Chatelain, J. C. Egues and R. Winkler. This work was supported by CNRS-Fonacit grant PI-2008000272.
Appendix {#appendix .unnumbered}
========
Here we derive the general conditions for reflection at a beam splitter on a mirror in the presence of both Rashba and Dresselhaus interactions. Starting from Hamiltonian in equation \[Hamiltonian\] we can solve exactly for the eigenvalues and eigenfunctions. Ignoring the Zeeman term we have
![Detector $D_2$ output while $D_1$ filters out the up spin component (spin down polarization). []{data-label="figappendix"}](AppendixFig.eps){width="10cm"}
$$\varepsilon_{\pm}=\frac{\hbar^2k^2}{2m^*}\pm\sqrt{k^2(\alpha^2+\beta^2)+4 \alpha\beta k_x k_y},$$
with eigenfunctions given by $$\fl | {\bf k} ~\pm \rangle_{i}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left (
\begin{array}{cc}
1\\
\mp F(k_x,k_y)
\end{array}\right )~~,~~ F(k_x,k_y)=\frac{k_x(\beta-i\alpha)+k_y(\alpha-i\beta)}{\sqrt{k^2(\alpha^2+\beta^2)+4\alpha\beta k_x k_y}},$$ where ${\bf k}=(k_x,k_y)$, $\pm$ stand for the two eigenvalues and the subindex $i$ stands for incident wave. The convention we take, according to the figure, is that $k_x~\rm{and} ~k_y$ are positive components for the incident electron. Referred to those components, one can obtain the reflected basis components by changing $k_x\rightarrow - k_x$ and $k_y\rightarrow k_y$ as the momentum in the $y$ direction is conserved. To obtain the projections in terms of the reflected basis we write $$| {\bf k} ~\pm \rangle_{i}= a_{\pm} | {\bf k} ~+ \rangle_{r}+b_{\pm} | {\bf k} ~- \rangle_{r},$$ where the subindex on the right indicates the reflected complete basis set. One can then compute the superposition coefficients $a_{\pm}$ and $b_{\pm}$ by performing the appropriate overlaps between incoming and outgoing wavefunctions $$\begin{aligned}
a_{\pm} &=& _r\langle k + |k \pm\rangle_i=1/2\left [1 \pm F^*(-k_x,k_y)F(k_x, k_y)\right ],\cr
b_{\pm}&=& _r\langle k - |k \pm\rangle_i=1/2\left [1 \mp F^*(-k_x,k_y)F(k_x, k_y)\right ].
\end{aligned}$$ Each of the outgoing amplitudes gets multiplied by the scalar reflection coefficient $r$ in the case of the beam splitter and $r=1$ for perfect mirrors. The previous coefficients govern the ${\rm QPC_1}$, the upper reflection of ${\rm QPC_2}$ and $M_1$ in figure \[fig1\], while exchanges of $k_x\rightarrow -k_x$ would generate the corresponding matrix for the $M_2$ and the bottom reflection of ${\rm QPC_2}$.
The wavector components can be expressed as ${\bf k}=(k \sin\gamma,k \cos\gamma)$ for a generic incident angle as seen in the figure. For the case of $\gamma=\pi/4$, the reflection matrices are particularly simple and one obtains equation \[reflectionmatrix\], where the transmission matrix is trivially diagonal since the electron beam does not change direction.
A coordinate independent way to state the general result is by identifying $F(k_x, k_y)=\exp{i\phi_i}$ and $F(-k_x, k_y)=\exp{i\phi_r}$ then one can write the full reflection/transmission matrix as $$\fl \left (
\begin{array}{cccc}
r\cos[(\phi_r-\phi_i)/2] & i r\sin[(\phi_r-\phi_i)/2] & t & 0\\
i r\sin[(\phi_r-\phi_i)/2] & r\cos[(\phi_r-\phi_i)/2] & 0 & t\\
t & 0 & r\cos[(\phi_r-\phi_i)/2] & -i r \sin[(\phi_r-\phi_i)/2]\\
0 & t & -i r\sin[(\phi_r-\phi_i)/2] & r\cos[(\phi_r-\phi_i)/2]
\end{array}\right )$$
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[10]{} Rashba E I 1960 [*Sov. Phys. Solid State*]{} [**2**]{} 1109 Dresselhaus G 1955 [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**100**]{} 580 Winkler R 2003 [*Spin-Orbit Coupling Effects in Two Dimensional Electron and Hole Systems*]{} (Springer) Nitta J and Koga T 2003 [*J. Supercond.*]{} [**16**]{} 689 Ionicioiu R, D’Amico I 2003 [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**67**]{} 041307(R) Hatano N, Shirasaki R and Nakamura H 2007 [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**75**]{} 032107 Chen S -H and Chang C -R 2008 [*Phys. Rev. B.*]{} [**77**]{} 045324 Zutic I, Fabian J and Das Sarma S 2004 [*Rev. Mod. Phys.*]{} [**76**]{} 323 Usaj G and Balseiro C A 2005 [*Europhys. Lett.*]{} [**72**]{} 631 Ryder L H 1985 [*Quantum Field Theory*]{}, (Cambridge University Press) Rebei A and Heinonen O 2006 [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**73**]{} 153306 Jin P Q, Li Y Q and Zhang F C 2006 [*J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.*]{} [**39**]{} 7115 Leurs B W A, Nazario Z, Santiago D I and Zaanen J 2008 [*Ann. Phys.*]{} [**323**]{} 907 Medina E, López A and Berche B 2008 [*Europhys. Lett.*]{} [**83**]{} 47005 Goldhaber A S 1989 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**62**]{} 482 Mineev V P, Volovik G E 1992 [*J. Low Temp. Phys.*]{} [**89**]{} 823 Fr$\ddot{\rm o}$hlich J and Studer U M 1993 [*Rev. Mod. Phys.*]{} [**65**]{} 733 Tokatly I V 2008 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**101**]{} 106601 Koga T, Nitta J and van Veenhuizen M 2004 [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**70**]{} 161302(R) Bernevig B A, Orenstein J and Zhang S C 2006 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**97**]{} 236601 Zulicke U 2004 [*Appl. Phys. Lett.*]{} [**85**]{} 2616 Signal A I, Zulicke U 2005 [*Appl. Phys. Lett.*]{} [**87**]{} 102102 Ting D Z -Y and Cartoixa X 2003 [*Phys. Rev. B.*]{} [**68**]{} 235320 Miller J B, Zumbuhl D M, Marcus C M, Lyanda-Geller Y B, Goldhaber-Gordon D, Campman K and Gossard A C 2003 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**90**]{} 076807 Studer M, Salis G, Ensslin K, Driscoll D C and Gossard A C 2009 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**103**]{} 027201 Engel H A, Rashba E I and Halperin B I [*Preprint*]{} arXiv:cond-mat/0603306v3. Nitta J, Meijer F E and Takayanagi H 1999 [*Appl. Phys. Lett.*]{} [**75**]{} 695 López A, Medina E, Bolívar N and B. Berche [*Preprint*]{} arXiv:cond-mat/0902.4635. Oliver W D, Kim J, Liu R C and Yamamoto Y 1999 [*Science*]{} [**284**]{} 299 Feve G, Oliver W D, Aranzana M, and Yamamoto Y 2002 [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**66**]{} 155328 Peskin M E and Schroeder D V 1995 [*Quantum Field Theory*]{} (Westview) Datta S and Das B 1990 [*Appl. Phys. Lett.*]{} [**56**]{} 665
|
---
abstract: 'We present parallax and proper motion measurements, near-infrared spectra, and WISE photometry for the low surface gravity L5$\gamma$ dwarf 2MASSJ035523.37+113343.7 (2M0355). We use these data to evaluate photometric, spectral, and kinematic signatures of youth as 2M0355 is the reddest isolated L dwarf yet classified. We confirm its low-gravity spectral morphology and find a strong resemblance to the sharp triangular shaped $H$-band spectrum of the $\sim$10 Myr planetary-mass object 2M1207b. We find that 2M0355 is underluminous compared to a normal field L5 dwarf in the optical and MKO $J,H$, and $K$ bands and transitions to being overluminous from 3-12 $\mu$m, indicating that enhanced photospheric dust shifts flux to longer wavelengths for young, low-gravity objects, creating a red spectral energy distribution. Investigating the near-infrared color magnitude diagram for brown dwarfs confirms that 2M0355 is redder and underluminous compared to the known brown dwarf population, similar to the peculiarities of directly imaged exoplanets 2M1207b and HR8799bcd. We calculate UVW space velocities and find that the motion of 2M0355 is consistent with young disk objects ($<$ 2-3 Gyr) and it shows a high likelihood of membership in the AB Doradus association.'
author:
- 'Jacqueline K. Faherty, Emily L. Rice, Kelle L. Cruz, Eric E. Mamajek, Alejandro Núñez'
bibliography:
- 'paper2.bib'
title: '2MASSJ035523.37+113343.7: A Young, Dusty, Nearby, Isolated Brown Dwarf Resembling A Giant Exoplanet'
---
2MASSJ035523.37+113343.7
INTRODUCTION
============
With masses intermediate between stars and planets (i.e., below the hydrogen burning and above the deuterium burning mass limit), brown dwarfs provide a natural link between stellar astrophysics and the planetary science of gas-giants (@Saumon1996; @Chabrier1997). Studies of the population have informed our understanding of low-mass star formation as well as the physical and chemical composition of low-temperature photospheres (e.g. @Burrows01 [@Burrows97]; @Chabrier00). With an increasing number of brown dwarf discoveries, the diversity of the population in age, atmospheric properties, and chemical composition is becoming apparent.
Brown dwarfs are classified using red optical or near-infrared spectra and show characteristics which distinguish them as L (T$_{eff}\sim$2200 - 1300K) or T/Y (T$_{eff}<$1300) dwarfs (@Kirkpatrick99; @Burgasser02; @Cushing11). The majority of spectrally classified field brown dwarfs within the literature are nearby isolated L dwarfs. Among the $\sim$1000 objects spanning this temperature regime, a significant portion exhibit near-infrared colors, spectral energy distributions (SEDs), and kinematics consistent with a field age population (e.g., @Kirkpatrick00; @Knapp04; @Cruz07; @Chiu06; @Faherty09; @Schmidt10). However there are subsets exhibiting strong deviations in observational properties from the general population including low-metallicity subdwarfs, low surface gravity objects, and potentially cloudy/cloudless L dwarfs (@Burgasser03 [@Burgasser04; @Burgasser07]; @Looper08; @Cruz09; @Cushing09; @Kirkpatrick10; @Rice10; @Radigan12).
The most relevant sub-population to giant exoplanet studies are young (i.e., low surface gravity) isolated L dwarfs. The archetypal low surface gravity L dwarf, 2MASSJ01415823$-$4633574 (2M0141), was discovered by @Kirkpatrick06. Its optical spectrum exhibits strong bands of VO but abnormally weak TiO, K, and Na absorption. In the near-infrared, its red $J-K_{s}$ color (2MASS $J-K_{s}$=1.73) and triangular $H$-band spectral morphology distinguish it from field L dwarfs (@Kirkpatrick10; @Patience12). It is suspected to be a member of the $\beta$ Pictoris or Tucana-Horologium association, although the precise kinematics required to confirm association have not yet been determined (@Kirkpatrick10). After the discovery and characterization of 2M0141, additional isolated L dwarfs sharing similar photometric and spectral peculiarities attributed to a low surface gravity were reported (e.g. @Reid08; @Cruz09; @Kirkpatrick10). While the ages of these seemingly young L dwarfs remain largely unconstrained, there are kinematic and spatial indications that they represent the lowest mass members of nearby moving groups such as AB Doradus, $\beta$ Pictoris, Tucana-Horalogium (@Cruz09; @Kirkpatrick10).
@Cruz09 point out that the majority of objects defining the population of the lowest surface gravity L dwarfs show spectral deviations indicating that they are younger than the Pleiades. Therefore using an age range[^1] of $<$ 10-100 Myr and spectral classifications of early-mid type L dwarfs, these objects have masses close to–or in some cases below– the deuterium burning limit, making them exoplanet analogs. Since young brown dwarfs are nearby and isolated, they are ideal laboratories for detailed studies of cool, low-gravity, dusty atmospheres that are similar to directly imaged exoplanets.
In this paper we examine the kinematic, photometric, and spectral features of the low surface gravity L5$\gamma$ dwarf 2MASSJ035523.37+113343.7 (2M0355). In section 2 we review published observations of 2M0355. In section 3 we describe new near-infrared spectral and imaging data, and in section 4 we evaluate indications of youth, including potential membership in nearby young moving groups. In section 5 we discuss the spectral energy distribution (SED) for 2M0355 as well as the near-infrared color-magnitude diagram for the brown dwarf population, highlighting the location of 2M0355 compared to directly imaged exoplanets. Conclusions are presented in section 6.
Published Observations of 2M0355
================================
2M0355 was discovered by @Reid06 in a search of the 2MASS database for ultracool dwarfs, but its observational peculiarities were not discussed until @Reid08 and @Cruz09. 2M0355 is classified as an L5$\gamma$ dwarf[^2], demonstrating strong Li absorption (EW 7.0$\AA$) and other signatures of low surface gravity in the optical (@Reid08, @Cruz09). Notably this source is the reddest isolated L dwarf yet classified, with a 2MASS $J-K_{s}$ color of 2.52$\pm$0.03.
@Reid06 examined 2M0355 for a close companion with the Near-Infrared Camera and Mutli-Object Spectrometer NIC1 on the *Hubble Space Telescope* and found it unresolved. @Blake07 examined this source for radial velocity variations but found no appreciable change over time and excluded the possibility of a companion with $M$ $sin$ $i$ $>$ 2.0 M$_{J}$ at any separation. We note that @Blake07 assumed an L dwarf primary mass of 100 M$_{J}$ which is large for even a field aged object, therefore, given the RV constraints, the limit is likely below 2.0 M$_{Jup}$. @Bernat10 claimed the detection of a near-equal mass companion at 82.5 mas using aperture masking interferometry; however, this result falls at the low end of their confidence limits (90%) and such a companion should have been detected by the @Reid06 imaging campaign (although @Bernat10 note this object may be at the limit of @Reid06 detections).
Radial velocities of 12.24$\pm$0.18 and 11.92$\pm$0.22 km s$^{-1}$ were measured by @Blake07 [@Blake10], respectively, using high-resolution $K$-band spectra from NIRSPEC on the Keck II telescope and forward modeling techniques for high precision. Proper motion measurements have been reported in @Schmidt07, [@Casewell08], and [@Faherty09]. We present an updated proper motion as well as a parallax in Section \[kinematics\].
New Observations of 2M0355
==========================
We obtained near-infrared spectroscopy and imaging of 2M0355 and report new low and medium resolution spectroscopy of the source as well as a parallax and improved proper motion measurements.
Near-Infrared Spectroscopy
--------------------------
We obtained low- and medium resolution near-infrared spectroscopy using the SpeX spectrograph (@Rayner03) mounted on the 3m NASA Infrared Telescope Facility (IRTF). On 2007 November 13, we used the spectrograph in cross-dispersed mode (SXD) with the 0$\farcs$5 slit aligned to the parallactic angle to obtain $R~\equiv~\lambda$ / $\Delta\lambda~\approx$ 1200 spectral data over the wavelength range of 0.7–2.5 $\mu$m. The conditions of this run were clear and stable with seeing of 0$\farcs$5 at $K$. We obtained 6 individual exposure times of 300 seconds in an ABBA dither pattern along the slit.
On 2011 December 7, we used the spectrograph in prism mode with the 0$\farcs$5 slit aligned to the parallactic angle. This resulted in $R~\equiv~\lambda$ / $\Delta\lambda~\approx$ 120 spectral data over the wavelength range of 0.7–2.5 $\mu$m. Conditions included light cirrus and the seeing was 0$\farcs$8 at $K$. We obtained 10 individual exposure times of 90 seconds in an ABBA dither pattern along the slit. Table \[observing\] contains details on all observations reported in this work.
Immediately after the science observation we observed the A0V star HD 25175 (Prism mode) or HD 25258 (SXD mode) at a similar airmass for telluric corrections and flux calibration. Internal flat-field and Ar arc lamp exposures were acquired for pixel response and wavelength calibration, respectively. All data were reduced using the SpeXtool package version 3.4 using standard settings (@Cushing04, @vacca03).
Near-Infrared Imaging
---------------------
We observed 2M0355 with the Infrared Side Port Imager (ISPI, @van-der-Bliek04) on the CTIO 4m Blanco telescope six times between 2008 October 11 and 2012 February 05. All observations used the $J$ band filter, under seeing conditions up to 2$\arcsec$ full width half maximum (FWHM) with typical conditions between 0.8–1.1$\arcsec$. ISPI has an $\sim$ 8 arcminute field of view and plate scale of 0.303$\arcsec$ per pixel. At each epoch and depending on the conditions, 5-10 images with 10-30 s and 2-4 co-adds were obtained while the target was $\pm$30 minutes off the meridian (Table \[observing\]). Dark frames and lights on/off dome flats were obtained at the start of each evening. We used the Carnegie Astrometric Planet Search software to extract all point sources from each epoch and solve for relative parallaxes and proper motions (@Boss09). The full image reduction procedures as well as the description of the parallax pipeline are described in @Faherty12.
Evaluating Youth Indicators\[youth\]
====================================
Youth indicators for isolated L dwarfs are not yet fully quantified or calibrated, but a number of distinguishing characteristics have been extrapolated from low-mass members (primarily late-type M dwarfs) of nearby young moving groups, open clusters and star forming regions or companions to young stars and confirmed by low-gravity atmosphere models (e.g. @Lucas01; @Gorlova03; @Luhman04; @McGovern04; @Allers07; @Rice10 [@Rice11], @Patience12).
Among the strongest indicators is the shape of the near-infrared spectra of young brown dwarfs which are subtly different than those of their field counterparts. Known brown dwarf members of the Chamaelleon II, Ophiuchus, Orion Nebula Cluster, TW Hydrae, and $\beta$ Pictoris groups demonstrate various degrees of sharply peaked $H$-band spectra compared to field aged objects. The shape of the near-infrared continuum induced by steam absorption is sensitive to an objects surface gravity; therefore at younger ages, hence lower gravities, the $H-$band spectrum is peaked (@Luhman04 and Figure 6 from @Rice11).
An equally important indicator for brown dwarf members of young groups is a strong deviation in near-infrared color (significantly redder J-K$_{s}$) from the mean of a given spectral subtype. The clearest example is 2MASS J12073346$-$3932539 (2M1207b), a late-L dwarf member of the TW Hydrae association with $J-K$=3.05, $\sim$0.5 mag redder than any other known L dwarf (@Chauvin04; @Mohanty07). Similar to the spectral deviations of young brown dwarfs, the photometric peculiarities can be explained as a consequence of lower surface gravity. At lower values–hence lower pressure at a given temperature in the photosphere–, H$_{2}$ collision induced absorption (CIA) is reduced leading to a reduction of the strongest absorption feature at 2.5 $\mu$m (less absorption at $K$ band relative to $J$ band) and a red $J-K$ color (@Kirkpatrick06). An evolutionary model comparison of a large collection of low-surface gravity or young companion brown dwarfs to tracks with differing cloud, metallicity and gravity properties demonstrates that the change in near-IR color is attributed to changes in CIA H$_{2}$ affected by lower-surface gravities (see @Faherty12 and references there-in).
Additionally, the kinematics of young brown dwarfs as a population can be used as an indicator of youth as they are distinctly different from the kinematics of the field brown dwarf population. As discussed in @Faherty09 [@Faherty12] low surface gravity brown dwarfs have significantly smaller tangential velocities and dispersions than the overall brown dwarf population. The young age (likely $<$ 1 Gyr) of these sources means they have spent less time in the disk so they have had minimal interactions with nearby stars and giant molecular clouds that will eventually increase their overall velocity dispersion (e.g. @Weinberg87; @Faherty10; @Dhital10). In the following subsections we compare the photometry, near-infrared spectral features, and kinematics of 2M0355 to known young brown dwarfs, directly-imaged exoplanets, and the field population in order to evaluate signatures of youth for this unusual object.
Photometry\[Photometry\]
------------------------
2M0355 is the reddest isolated L dwarf known. In Figure \[fig:jmk\] we show the mean $J-K_{s}$ color and standard deviation for L dwarfs (binned by 0.5 subtype) calculated from a compilation of field objects[^3] with photometric uncertainties $<$ 0.1, excluding known young objects and subdwarfs. For comparison, other confirmed low-gravity L$\gamma$ dwarfs are plotted as filled circles and 2M0355 as a filled five-point star. In Table \[meancolors\] we list the average infrared photometric properties of field L dwarfs, and in Tables \[low-G\] and \[colorslow-G\] we list the infrared photometry and colors of low-gravity L dwarfs, respectively.
With a $J-K_{s}$ color of 2.52$\pm$0.03, 2M0355 is 0.8 mag redder than the average for L5 dwarfs, or nearly 4$\sigma$ from the mean color. A similar deviation from the mean of the subtype is seen among other low surface-gravity L$\gamma$ dwarfs listed in Tables \[low-G\]- \[colorslow-G\], but 2M0355 is the most extreme example (although we note that the L4 dwarf 2MASSJ1615+4953 shows very similar deviations in both its J-K$_{s}$ and W1-W2 colors). As discussed above, low surface gravity effects leading to a reduction in H$_{2}$ collision induced absorption is the likely cause for the extreme deviation. However we note that not all unusually red L dwarfs demonstrate low surface gravity spectral features; therefore this peculiarity alone is not conclusive about age (e.g. @Looper08).
In the same manner as Figure \[fig:jmk\] we compile WISE photometry of known field L dwarfs with photometric uncertainties $<$ 0.1, excluding subdwarfs and confirmed young objects, to calculate the mean $W1-W2$ color and corresponding standard deviation for spectral subtypes (again binned by 0.5 subtype) and highlight the photometry of 2M0355 (see also Table \[meancolors\]). As demonstrated in Figure \[fig:w1mw2\], with a $W1-W2$ color of 0.59, 2M0355 is 0.24 mag redder than the average of its spectral subtype or 3$\sigma$ from the mean color. Comparing with the 25 similarly classified L$\gamma$ dwarfs, we find that 2M0355 is the reddest known isolated L dwarf in near and mid-infrared colors.
Spectral Features\[spectra\]
----------------------------
2M0355 is classified as an L5$\gamma$ in the optical by @Cruz09 based on its similarity to field L5’s but with very weak FeH absorption and weak Na [I]{} and K [I]{} lines, which are typically interpreted as signatures of low surface gravity. In Figure \[fig:SpeX2\] we show the SpeX prism spectrum for 2M0355 and compare it to the field L5 (presumed age $>$ 1 Gyr) near-infrared standard 2MASSJ08350622+1953050 (2M0835) as well as the $\sim$10 Myr L dwarf 2M1207b (@Chiu06; @Kirkpatrick10; @Patience12). We normalize the spectra separately in each bandpass and smooth 2M1207b by a factor of 3. The shape of 2M0355 in all three bands deviates significantly from the spectrum of the field standard. Compared to 2M1207b, the $H$ and $K$ bands are very similar, but the $J$ band is intriguingly different. 2M0355 has a steeper slope from 1.1-1.25 $\mu$m and a wider peak at 1.30$\mu$m that is more similar to the field object. In a forthcoming paper, we will present a detailed $J$ band spectral analysis of 2M0355 and other young brown dwarfs compared to their field counterparts.
Several near-infrared spectral features are sensitive to surface gravity, including the $H$-band where a sharp triangular peak is seen consistently for known young brown dwarfs at a range of ages (e.g. @Lucas01; @Luhman04; @Allers07; @Rice10 [@Rice11]). In Figure \[fig:SpeX\], we present higher-resolution ($R\sim$1200) $H$-band spectra of 2M0355 as well as the same comparative objects shown in Figure \[fig:SpeX2\]. There is an excellent match between the sharp peak of 2M1207b and 2M0355, distinct from the plateau at $\sim$1.55–1.70 $\mu$m of the field object. Combined with the photometric peculiarities, this is a strong indicator that 2M0355 is significantly younger than the field object ($<<$ 1 Gyr).
Kinematics\[kinematics\]
------------------------
Using multi-epoch ISPI data (see Figure \[fig:astrometry\]), we report improved proper motion and parallax measurements for 2M0355. The proper motion was measured previously by @Schmidt07, [@Casewell08], and [@Faherty09]. Our updated value is consistent with previous values but with 50-60$\%$ smaller error bars. The new parallax measurement of $\pi_{abs}$=122$\pm$13 mas[^4] for 2M0355 places the L5$\gamma$ dwarf at a distance of 8.2$^{+1.0}_{-0.8}$ pc. We list all astrometric and photometric properties in Table \[properties\].
Moving Group Membership
-----------------------
At a distance of 8.2 pc and with spectral and photometric differences from the field population resembling those of the $\sim$10 Myr 2M1207b, we investigate whether 2M0355 could be kinematically associated with one of the nearby young moving groups. Using the proper motion and parallax measured in this work with the most recent radial velocity from @Blake10, we calculate ($U,V,W$) = ($-$5.9$\pm$1.5, $-$23.6$\pm$2.0, $-$14.6$\pm$1.3) km s$^{-1}$ for 2M0355[^5]. These calculated space velocities are consistent with thin disk membership (age $<$ $\sim$2-3 Gyr), and the tangential velocity of 21.5$\pm$1.2 km s$^{-1}$ is consistent with the population of low gravity, kinematically young brown dwarfs (@Faherty09 [@Faherty12]; @Eggen89a [@Eggen89]). In Figure \[fig:space\] we show the $UV$ velocities for a number of young stars or clusters within 200 pc of the Sun and find that 2M0355 is at the edge of a well populated region of velocity space. Figure \[fig:kinematics\] shows Galactic space velocities compared to $\beta$ Pictoris, and AB Doradus, the two closest moving groups to the Sun and the most likely groups of which 2M0355 might be a member. We find that 2M0355 overlaps within 1$\sigma$ of the range in UVW values for probable members of AB Doradus.
To examine the likelihood of 2M0355’s membership in nearby moving groups, we determine the $\chi^{2}$ probability for several known stellar groups within 75pc. We include a field star model and nearby moving group parameters from @Malo12 and supplement with the parameters for the Ursa Major, Hyades, and Carina Near groups. For most groups, we adopt the centroid positions and dispersions calculated by @Malo12, however we use velocity estimates either calculated by us or from the recent literature, where we split the uncertainties in the centroid velocities from their 1D intrinsic velocity dispersions [^6].
We first determine a $\chi^{2}$ probability that estimates the percentage of real members of a given group expected to have $\chi^{2}$ values higher than that of 2M0355–allowing for 2M0355’s observational errors and the estimated intrinsic velocity spread and spatial distribution of group members. Then we calculate a “final" probability, normalizing by the sum of the individual (marginal) star-group probabilities. At this time, equal weights are assigned to the field star and individual group models (further refinement would be beyond the focus of this study).
The initial $\chi^{2}$ probability for 6 degrees of freedom is calculated as:
$$\chi^{2} =A+B$$
$$A=\frac{(U_{o} - U_{g})^{2}}{\sigma^{2}_{U}} + \frac{(V_{o} - V_{g})^{2}}{\sigma^{2}_{V}} + \frac{(W_{o} - W_{g})^{2}}{\sigma^{2}_{W}}$$
$$\sigma_{i}=\sqrt{\sigma_{i,o}^{2}+\sigma_{i,g}^{2}+\sigma_{i,d}^{2}}$$
where $i$ is indexed as $U,V$ or $W$, $o$ is the component for 2M0355, $g$ is the component of the group, and $d$ is the intrinsic 1-D $i$-velocity dispersion of the group.
$$B=\frac{(X_{o} - X_{g})^2}{\Delta_{X}^{2}} + \frac{(Y_{o} - Y_{g})^{2}}{\Delta_{Y}^{2}} + \frac{(Z_{o} - Z_{g})^2}{\Delta_{Z}^{2}}$$
$$\Delta_{j} = \sqrt{\Delta_{j,o}^{2} + \Delta_{j,g}^{2}}$$
where $j$ is indexed as $X,Y$, or $Z$, $\Delta_{j}$ is defined as the 1$\sigma$ dispersion in the Galactic cartesian coordinates; $o$ is the component for 2M0355, $g$ is the component for the group (we ignore the uncertainties in the group centroids which are negligible compared to the 1$\sigma$ dispersions).
Using this method, we estimate that 73% of AB Doradus members would have velocities and positions more discrepant than that for 2M0355, while only 0.06% of $\beta$ Pictoris members would have more discrepant values. Approximately 99.9% of field stars would have velocities and positions more discrepant than that of 2M0355, although this is likely skewed by the fact that the field star centroid (as well as our source) is so close to the Sun.
The $\chi^{2}$ probabilities for the other groups investigated within 75 pc (Ursa Majoris, Carina Near, Tucana Horologium, Hyades, Argus, TWA), all yielded probabilities of $<$10$^{-17}$%. If one sums the individual marginal group and field star membership probabilities and assigns equal weights, then we estimate that 2M0355 has a 42% chance of being an AB Doradus member, a 58% chance of being a field star, and a $<$0.04% chance of being a $\beta$ Pictoris group member. Further work calculating the relative densities of the young stellar groups could refine these probabilities, but at this point it appears most plausible that 2M0355 is either a member of the AB Doradus moving group or a field star. Given the photometric and spectroscopic evidence for youth shown here-in combined with the low density of very young field stars, we believe that the kinematic evidence points towards 2M0355 being a likely member of the AB Doradus group.
Discussion
==========
Among the known population of low surface gravity L dwarfs, 2M0355+11 is the latest spectral type or one of the coolest isolated young brown dwarfs known. To extend the comparison of young brown dwarfs and planetary-mass objects, we investigate the colors and luminosities of 2M1207b and the directly imaged planets HR 8799bcd.
We calculated the absolute magnitude of 2M0355 from the new parallax as well as Mauna Kea Observatory (MKO; @Tokunaga02) apparent magnitudes converted from 2MASS photometry using the @Stephens04 relations. Comparing M$_{JHK}$ for 2M0355 to the predicted values for an equivalent spectral type object based on the @Faherty12 polynomial, we find it to be \[-0.9,-0.5,-0.1\] magnitude underluminous at M$_{J}$,M$_{H}$, and M$_{K}$, respectively. As noted in @Faherty12, the population of low surface gravity L dwarfs is consistently red and underluminous–by up to 1.0 mag in M$_{JHK}$– compared to equivalent spectral type objects. As demonstrated in Figure \[fig:spt\], 2M0355 clearly follows this trend. As discussed in @Faherty12 evolutionary models trace low-surface gravity objects at temperatures several hundred degrees lower than expected for equivalent spectral type objects on near-IR color magnitude diagrams, providing a potential explanation for the deviation in absolute magnitudes of low-gravity L dwarfs. Extending this analysis to 2M0355 we conclude that one explanation for its peculiar near-IR absolute magnitudes is that this source is cooler than normal L5 field dwarfs.
In Figure \[fig:SED\] we compare the full spectral energy distribution (SED) of 2M0355 to the field L5 dwarf 2MASSJ1507476-162738 (2M1507-@Reid00; @Dahn02). Combining the optical spectra, MKO $JHK$, and WISE $W1,W2,W3$ absolute photometry for each we confirm that the SED for 2M0355 is underluminous compared to the field object through $K$ band. However, redward of $\sim$ 2.5$\mu$m, 2M0355 switches to being overluminous through at least 12 $\mu$m. Following the method described in @Cushing05, we combine the flux-calibrated optical and near-IR spectra as well as WISE photometry and calculate bolometric luminosities for both 2M0355 and 2M1507. We linearly interpolate between the centers of each WISE bandpass (W1: 3.4; W2: 4.6; W3: 11.6) and assume a Rayleigh-Jeans tail for $\lambda>$11.6 $\mu$m. We find that 2M0355 is slightly more luminous than 2M1507 by $\Delta$ log$_{10}$ (L$_{2M0355}$/L$_{2M1507}$)=0.12$\pm$0.1. The overall luminosity of our source is further evidence that it is young, and we surmise that enhanced photospheric dust which weakens molecular bands and shifts flux to longer wavelengths is the most likely cause of the red SED.
In Figure \[fig:TM0355\] we show the near-infrared color-magnitude diagram for the field brown dwarf population (color-coded by spectral type), 2M1207b, the HR8799bcd planets, and 2M0355. The low luminosity and extremely red $J-K$ color of 2M0355 place it at the red edge of the brown dwarf population, in a similar region as 2M1207b. @Barman11 find the positions of the giant exoplanets on this color-magnitude diagram–which are also redward and underluminous of the brown dwarf population–can be reproduced by allowing low T$_{eff}$ models (typically assumed cloud-free) to have clouds extending across their photospheres (see also @Bowler10; @Currie11; @Hinz10; @Marley12; @Madhusudhan11; @Skemer12). 2M1207b and HR8799bcd are young ($\sim$10 Myr and 30-160 Myr; respectively: @Chauvin04; @Marois08; @Marois10) so youth is thought to be correlated with enhanced photospheric dust among the low-luminosity, low-temperature brown dwarfs and giant exoplanets (see also @Burgasser10; @Faherty12).
Consequently, the position of 2M0355 on Figure \[fig:TM0355\] leads us to conclude that in agreement with indications from the SED in Figure \[fig:SED\] this source is both young and dusty.
Conclusions
===========
2M0355 is the reddest isolated L dwarfs yet characterized in the near- and mid-infrared. @Cruz09 classified 2M0355 as L5$\gamma$, indicating low surface gravity spectral signatures. The similarity of the near-infrared spectrum to that of the $\sim$10 Myr planetary-mass object 2M1207b supports the conclusion that the object is young. Furthermore, a comparison with the near and mid-infrared colors of the known population of low surface gravity or L$\gamma$ dwarfs demonstrates that 2M0355 is the most extreme example of this class currently known.
Combining optical spectra and absolute near to mid-IR photometry, we compared the full spectral energy distribution of 2M0355 with the field L5 dwarf 2M1507-16. We find that 2M0355 is underluminous in optical through $K$ band then switches to overluminous through at least 12$\mu$m compared to 2M1507-16. Calculating the bolometric luminosity by integrating over the optical and near-IR spectra as well as WISE photometry, shows that the overall luminosity of 2M0355 is overluminous compared to the field object. We conclude that enhanced photospheric dust, thought to be correlated with young, low-temperature, low-luminosity brown dwarfs and giant exoplanets, shifts flux to longer wavelengths creating the red SED. The position of 2M0355 on the near-IR color magnitude diagram supports this conclusion as it appears redward and underluminous of the known population in a similar region as 2M1207b and HR8799bcd.
Combining new proper motion and parallax measurements we calculate UVW velocities to evaluate membership in nearby young moving groups. We find the kinematics consistent with the young thin disk and the UV velocities for 2M0355 place it in a busy part of velocity space for young objects. A careful kinematic comparison with nearby young groups and the field population leads us to conclude that 2M0355 has a 42% chance of membership in AB Doradus. 2M0355 remains the brightest isolated low surface gravity L dwarf studied to date and will prove to be a useful comparative object in low-temperature atmosphere studies directly applicable to giant exoplanets.
Despite the spectral similarity to 2M1207b in $H$ and $K$, 2M0355 is substantially different from the planetary-mass object in $J$band. This, combined with the older age estimate for 2M0355, cause the temperature and mass of 2M0355 to remain ambiguous. Nevertheless, we can use the object’s absolute photometry and constrained age (assuming membership in AB Doradus) to estimate these key properties. Using the evolutionary tracks for young, low mass objects of @Baraffe02, we estimate an effective temperature of $/sim$1500 K and a mass of $/sim$13 M$_{Jup}$ for an age of 50 Myr (the lower limit for the age of AB Doradus). At the upper age limit for AB Doradus, $/sim$150 Myr, the mass of 2M0355 would be closer to $/sim$30 M$_{Jup}$. As a field object, the absolute magnitudes of 2M0355 correspond to an object of $\sim$70 M$_{Jup}$, slightly below hydrogen burning minimum mass.
{width=".55\hsize"}
[lcccrrrrrrrrrrr]{} \[tab:tab1\] CTIO 4M & ISPI & 30x2 & 5 & 2008 October 11 & 1.3 & $J$\
& & 10x4 & 5 & 2008 December 12 & 1.3 & $J$\
& & 10x4 & 5 & 2009 November 30 & 1.3 & $J$\
& & 10x4 & 5 & 2010 January 28 & 1.5 & $J$\
& & 30x4 & 10 & 2011 November 11 & 1.3 & $J$\
& & 30x2 & 10 & 2012 January 03 & 1.3 & $J$\
& & 30x4 & 5 & 2012 February 05 & 1.4 & $J$\
IRTF & SpeX& 90x1 &10 &2011 December 7 & 1.2 & Prism\
& SpeX&300x1 &6 &2007 November 13 &1.0 & SXD\
[ccccccccccccccr]{} \[tab:tab1\] L0 & 143 & 102 & 11 & 1.30 & 0.15 & 0.27 & 0.06\
L1 & 125 & 95 & 2 & 1.35 & 0.16 & 0.26 & 0.06\
L2 & 58 & 60 & 3 & 1.48 & 0.17 & 0.28 & 0.07\
L3 & 69 & 51 & 3 & 1.64 & 0.18 & 0.31 & 0.06\
L4 & 37 & 33 & 5 & 1.69 & 0.24 & 0.34 & 0.08\
L5 & 43 & 28 & 2 & 1.72 & 0.22 & 0.35 & 0.08\
L6 & 25 & 13 & 0 & 1.84 & 0.25 & 0.42 & 0.11\
L7 & 13 & 9 & 0 & 1.75 & 0.26 & 0.46 & 0.09\
L8-9 & 19 & 10 & 0 & 1.85 & 0.17 & 0.54 & 0.08\
[lcccccccccccccr]{} \[tab:tab2\]
2MASSJ003255.84-440505.8 & L0.0$\gamma$ & 14.78 $\pm$ 0.03 & 13.86 $\pm$ 0.03 & 13.27 $\pm$ 0.04 & 12.82 $\pm$ 0.03 & 12.49 $\pm$ 0.03 & 11.73 $\pm$ 0.19 & 9.29 $\pm$ null & 1,2\
2MASSJ003743.06-584622.9 & L0.0$\gamma$ & 15.37 $\pm$ 0.05 & 14.26 $\pm$ 0.05 & 13.59 $\pm$ 0.04 & 13.13 $\pm$ 0.03 & 12.74 $\pm$ 0.03 & 12.56 $\pm$ 0.38 & 9.32 $\pm$ null & 1,2\
2MASSJ012445.99-574537.9 & L0.0$\gamma$ & 16.31 $\pm$ 0.10 & 15.06 $\pm$ 0.09 & 14.32 $\pm$ 0.09 & 13.77 $\pm$ 0.03 & 13.34 $\pm$ 0.03 & 12.45 $\pm$ 0.31 & 8.91 $\pm$ null & 1,2\
2MASSJ014158.23-463357.4 & L0.0$\gamma$ & 14.83 $\pm$ 0.04 & 13.88 $\pm$ 0.02 & 13.10 $\pm$ 0.03 & 12.55 $\pm$ 0.02 & 12.17 $\pm$ 0.02 & 11.92 $\pm$ 0.21 & 9.24 $\pm$ null & 3,2\
2MASSJ022354.64-581506.7 & L0.0$\gamma$ & 15.07 $\pm$ 0.05 & 14.00 $\pm$ 0.04 & 13.42 $\pm$ 0.04 & 12.82 $\pm$ 0.02 & 12.43 $\pm$ 0.02 & 11.64 $\pm$ 0.15 & 9.47 $\pm$ null & 1,2\
2MASSJ023400.93-644206.8 & L0.0$\gamma$ & 15.33 $\pm$ 0.06 & 14.44 $\pm$ 0.06 & 13.85 $\pm$ 0.07 & 13.25 $\pm$ 0.03 & 12.91 $\pm$ 0.03 & 12.62 $\pm$ 0.28 & 9.49 $\pm$ null & 4\
2MASSJ024111.51-032658.7 & L0.0$\gamma$ & 15.80 $\pm$ 0.06 & 14.81 $\pm$ 0.05 & 14.04 $\pm$ 0.05 & 13.64 $\pm$ 0.03 & 13.26 $\pm$ 0.03 & 12.77 $\pm$ 0.42 & 9.00 $\pm$ null & 2,5\
2MASSJ032310.02-463123.7 & L0.0$\gamma$ & 15.39 $\pm$ 0.07 & 14.32 $\pm$ 0.06 & 13.70 $\pm$ 0.05 & 13.08 $\pm$ 0.02 & 12.67 $\pm$ 0.02 & 11.94 $\pm$ 0.16 & 9.18 $\pm$ null & 1,2\
2MASSJ040626.77-381210.2 & L0.0$\gamma$ & 16.77 $\pm$ 0.13 & 15.71 $\pm$ 0.10 & 15.11 $\pm$ 0.12 & 14.45 $\pm$ 0.03 & 14.10 $\pm$ 0.04 & 12.52 $\pm$ null & 9.10 $\pm$ null & 4\
2MASSJ195647.00-754227.0 & L0.0$\gamma$ & 16.15 $\pm$ 0.10 & 15.04 $\pm$ 0.10 & 14.23 $\pm$ 0.07 & 13.69 $\pm$ 0.03 & 13.25 $\pm$ 0.03 & 12.68 $\pm$ null & 9.17 $\pm$ null & 1,2\
2MASSJ221344.91-213607.9 & L0.0$\gamma$ & 15.38 $\pm$ 0.03 & 14.40 $\pm$ 0.06 & 13.76 $\pm$ 0.04 & 13.23 $\pm$ 0.03 & 12.83 $\pm$ 0.03 & 11.55 $\pm$ 0.20 & 9.07 $\pm$ null & 2,5\
2MASSJ000402.88-641035.8 & L1.0$\gamma$ & 15.79 $\pm$ 0.07 & 14.83 $\pm$ 0.07 & 14.01 $\pm$ 0.05 & 13.37 $\pm$ 0.03 & 12.94 $\pm$ 0.03 & 12.18 $\pm$ 0.24 & 9.16 $\pm$ null & 4\
2MASSJ051846.16-275645.7 & L1.0$\gamma$ & 15.26 $\pm$ 0.04 & 14.30 $\pm$ 0.05 & 13.62 $\pm$ 0.04 & 13.05 $\pm$ 0.02 & 12.66 $\pm$ 0.03 & 12.58 $\pm$ 0.35 & 9.22 $\pm$ null & 5,6\
2MASSJ030320.42-731230.0 & L2.0$\gamma$ & 16.14 $\pm$ 0.11 & 15.10 $\pm$ 0.09 & 14.32 $\pm$ 0.08 & 13.78 $\pm$ 0.03 & 13.35 $\pm$ 0.03 & 12.29 $\pm$ 0.17 & 9.34 $\pm$ 0.34 & 4\
2MASSJ053619.98-192039.6 & L2.0$\gamma$ & 15.77 $\pm$ 0.07 & 14.69 $\pm$ 0.07 & 13.85 $\pm$ 0.06 & 13.26 $\pm$ 0.03 & 12.79 $\pm$ 0.03 & 12.55 $\pm$ 0.40 & 9.24 $\pm$ null & 5,6\
2MASSJ232252.99-615127.5 & L2.0$\gamma$ & 15.55 $\pm$ 0.06 & 14.54 $\pm$ 0.06 & 13.86 $\pm$ 0.04 & 13.24 $\pm$ 0.03 & 12.84 $\pm$ 0.03 & 12.68 $\pm$ 0.39 & 9.38 $\pm$ null & 1,2\
2MASSJ172600.07+153819.0 & L3.5$\gamma$ & 15.67 $\pm$ 0.06 & 14.47 $\pm$ 0.05 & 13.66 $\pm$ 0.05 & 13.07 $\pm$ 0.03 & 12.69 $\pm$ 0.03 & 11.56 $\pm$ 0.16 & 9.31 $\pm$ null & 2,7\
2MASSJ212650.40-814029.3 & L3.0$\gamma$ & 15.54 $\pm$ 0.06 & 14.41 $\pm$ 0.05 & 13.55 $\pm$ 0.04 & 12.91 $\pm$ 0.02 & 12.47 $\pm$ 0.02 & 11.89 $\pm$ 0.16 & 9.36 $\pm$ null & 1,2\
2MASSJ220813.63+292121.5 & L3.0$\gamma$ & 15.80 $\pm$ 0.08 & 14.79 $\pm$ 0.07 & 14.15 $\pm$ 0.07 & 13.35 $\pm$ 0.03 & 12.89 $\pm$ 0.03 & 12.58 $\pm$ 0.39 & 9.30 $\pm$ null & 2,7\
2MASSJ012621.09+142805.7 & L4.0$\gamma$ & 17.11 $\pm$ 0.21 & 16.17 $\pm$ 0.22 & 15.28 $\pm$ 0.15 & 14.24 $\pm$ 0.03 & 13.70 $\pm$ 0.04 & 12.38 $\pm$ null & 9.13 $\pm$ null & 6,8\
2MASSJ050124.06-001045.2 & L4.0$\gamma$ & 14.98 $\pm$ 0.04 & 13.71 $\pm$ 0.03 & 12.96 $\pm$ 0.03 & 12.05 $\pm$ 0.02 & 11.52 $\pm$ 0.02 & 10.95 $\pm$ 0.11 & 9.17 $\pm$ null & 1,2\
2MASSJ155152.37+094114.8 & L4.0$\gamma$ & 16.32 $\pm$ 0.11 & 15.11 $\pm$ 0.07 & 14.31 $\pm$ 0.06 & 13.60 $\pm$ 0.03 & 13.12 $\pm$ 0.03 & 12.68 $\pm$ 0.48 & 9.16 $\pm$ null & 1,6\
2MASSJ161542.55+495321.1 & L4.0$\gamma$ & 16.79 $\pm$ 0.14 & 15.33 $\pm$ 0.10 & 14.31 $\pm$ 0.07 & 13.20 $\pm$ 0.02 & 12.62 $\pm$ 0.02 & 12.13 $\pm$ 0.13 & 9.31 $\pm$ null & 5,6\
2MASSJ224953.45+004404.6 & L4.0$\gamma$ & 16.59 $\pm$ 0.12 & 15.42 $\pm$ 0.11 & 14.36 $\pm$ 0.07 & 13.58 $\pm$ 0.03 & 13.14 $\pm$ 0.05 & 11.28 $\pm$ null & 7.69 $\pm$ null & 6,9,10,11\
2MASSJ035523.37+113343.7 & L5.0$\gamma$ & 14.05 $\pm$ 0.02 & 12.53 $\pm$ 0.03 & 11.53 $\pm$ 0.02 & 10.53 $\pm$ 0.02 & 9.94 $\pm$ 0.02 & 9.29 $\pm$ 0.04 & 8.32 $\pm$ null & 1 ,2\
2MASSJ042107.18-630602.2 & L5.0$\gamma$ & 15.57 $\pm$ 0.05 & 14.28 $\pm$ 0.04 & 13.45 $\pm$ 0.04 & 12.56 $\pm$ 0.02 & 12.14 $\pm$ 0.02 & 11.60 $\pm$ 0.10 & 9.25 $\pm$ null & 2,5\
[ccccccccccccccr]{} \[tab:tab2\] 2MASSJ0032-4405 & L0.0$\gamma$ & 1.51 $\pm$ 0.05 & 0.33 $\pm$ 0.04 & 0.21 & 0.06\
2MASSJ0037-5846 & L0.0$\gamma$ & 1.78 $\pm$ 0.06 & 0.39 $\pm$ 0.04 & 0.48 & 0.12\
2MASSJ0124-5745 & L0.0$\gamma$ & 1.99 $\pm$ 0.13 & 0.43 $\pm$ 0.04 & 0.69 & 0.16\
2MASSJ0141-4633 & L0.0$\gamma$ & 1.73 $\pm$ 0.05 & 0.38 $\pm$ 0.03 & 0.43 & 0.11\
2MASSJ0223-5815 & L0.0$\gamma$ & 1.65 $\pm$ 0.06 & 0.39 $\pm$ 0.03 & 0.35 & 0.12\
2MASSJ0234-6442 & L0.0$\gamma$ & 1.48 $\pm$ 0.09 & 0.34 $\pm$ 0.04 & 0.18 & 0.07\
2MASSJ0241-0326 & L0.0$\gamma$ & 1.76 $\pm$ 0.08 & 0.38 $\pm$ 0.04 & 0.46 & 0.11\
2MASSJ0323-4631 & L0.0$\gamma$ & 1.69 $\pm$ 0.09 & 0.41 $\pm$ 0.03 & 0.39 & 0.14\
2MASSJ0406-3812 & L0.0$\gamma$ & 1.66 $\pm$ 0.18 & 0.35 $\pm$ 0.05 & 0.36 & 0.08\
2MASSJ1956-7542 & L0.0$\gamma$ & 1.92 $\pm$ 0.12 & 0.44 $\pm$ 0.04 & 0.62 & 0.17\
2MASSJ2213-2136 & L0.0$\gamma$ & 1.62 $\pm$ 0.05 & 0.40 $\pm$ 0.04 & 0.32 & 0.13\
2MASSJ0004-6410 & L1.0$\gamma$ & 1.78 $\pm$ 0.09 & 0.43 $\pm$ 0.04 & 0.43 & 0.17\
2MASSJ0518-2756 & L1.0$\gamma$ & 1.64 $\pm$ 0.06 & 0.39 $\pm$ 0.04 & 0.29 & 0.13\
2MASSJ0303-7312 & L2.0$\gamma$ & 1.82 $\pm$ 0.14 & 0.43 $\pm$ 0.04 & 0.34 & 0.15\
2MASSJ0536-1920 & L2.0$\gamma$ & 1.92 $\pm$ 0.09 & 0.47 $\pm$ 0.04 & 0.44 & 0.19\
2MASSJ2322-6151 & L2.0$\gamma$ & 1.69 $\pm$ 0.07 & 0.40 $\pm$ 0.04 & 0.21 & 0.12\
2MASSJ1726+1538 & L3.5$\gamma$ & 2.01 $\pm$ 0.08 & 0.38 $\pm$ 0.04 & 0.37 & 0.07\
2MASSJ2126-8140 & L3.0$\gamma$ & 1.99 $\pm$ 0.07 & 0.44 $\pm$ 0.03 & 0.35 & 0.13\
2MASSJ2208+2921 & L3.0$\gamma$ & 1.65 $\pm$ 0.11 & 0.47 $\pm$ 0.04 & 0.01 & 0.16\
2MASSJ0126+1428 & L4.0$\gamma$ & 1.83 $\pm$ 0.26 & 0.54 $\pm$ 0.05 & 0.14 & 0.20\
2MASSJ0501-0010 & L4.0$\gamma$ & 2.02 $\pm$ 0.05 & 0.53 $\pm$ 0.03 & 0.33 & 0.19\
2MASSJ1551+0941 & L4.0$\gamma$ & 2.01 $\pm$ 0.12 & 0.48 $\pm$ 0.04 & 0.32 & 0.14\
2MASSJ1615+4953 & L4.0$\gamma$ & 2.48 $\pm$ 0.16 & 0.58 $\pm$ 0.03 & 0.79 & 0.24\
2MASSJ2249+0044 & L4.0$\gamma$ & 2.23 $\pm$ 0.14 & 0.43 $\pm$ 0.06 & 0.54 & 0.09\
2MASSJ0355+1133 & L5.0$\gamma$ & 2.52 $\pm$ 0.03 & 0.59 $\pm$ 0.03 & 0.80 & 0.24\
2MASSJ0421-6306 & L5.0$\gamma$ & 2.12 $\pm$ 0.06 & 0.42 $\pm$ 0.03 & 0.40 & 0.07\
[lll]{} \[tab:tab5\] Parameter & Value & Reference\
RA,Dec (J2000) & 03$^{h}$55$^{m}$23.37$^{s}$ +11$^{\circ}$33$^{`}$43.7$^{"}$ & 1\
Optical SpT & L5$\gamma$&2\
J (2MASS)&14.05$\pm$0.02&1\
H (2MASS)&12.53$\pm$0.03&1\
K$_{s}$ (2MASS)&11.53$\pm$0.02&1\
J (MKO)&13.90$\pm$0.03 &4\
H (MKO)&12.60$\pm$0.03&4\
K (MKO)&11.46$\pm$0.02&4\
M$_{J}$ (MKO)&14.33$\pm$0.24 &4\
M$_{H}$ (MKO)&13.03$\pm$0.24 &4\
M$_{K}$ (MKO)&11.89$\pm$0.23 &4\
W1&10.53$\pm$0.02&3\
W2&9.94$\pm$ 0.02&3\
W3&9.29$\pm$ 0.04&3\
W4&8.32$\pm$ null&3\
$\mu_{\alpha}$&218$\pm$ 5 mas yr$^{-1}$&4\
$\mu_{\delta}$& -626$\pm$ 5 mas yr$^{-1}$&4\
$\pi_{abs}$&122$\pm$ 13 mas &4\
RV&11.92$\pm$0.22 km s$^{-1}$&5\
U&-5.9$\pm$1.5 km s$^{-1}$&4\
V&-23.6$\pm$2.0 km s$^{-1}$&4\
W&-14.6$\pm$1.3 km s$^{-1}$&4\
X&-7.0$\pm$0.7 pc&4\
Y&0.2$\pm$0.4 pc&4\
Z&-4.2$\pm$0.4 pc&4\
Age & 50-150 Myr & 4\
Mass &13 - 30 M$_{Jup}$ & 4\
[^1]: 10 Myr chosen as the low-end range based on the age of the youngest nearby moving group. 100 Myr chosen as the upper limit based on an extrapolation and comparison to Pleiades age objects.
[^2]: As suggested by @Kirkpatrick05 [@Kirkpatrick06] and @Cruz09 very low-gravity spectra are designated with subtype $\gamma$, intermediate gravity with $\beta$, and normal field objects with $\alpha$ (although $\alpha$ is typically omitted/implied for field objects.
[^3]: The compiled list of L dwarfs comes primarily from the DwarfArchives.org combined with the results of @Schmidt10.
[^4]: We measure $\pi_{rel}$=120$\pm$ 12 mas with a 2 mas correction from relative to absolute astrometry.
[^5]: UVW values are calculated in a left-handed coordinate system with $U$ positive toward the Galactic center.
[^6]: We adopt the following parameters throughout the analysis (centroid velocities and standard errors, followed by centroid positions and $1\sigma$ dispersions): Ursa Major: $(U, V, W)$ = (15.0, 2.8, -8.1) $\pm$ (0.4, 0.7, 1.0) km s$^{-1}$ and $(X, Y, Z)$ = (-4.4, 6.2, 18.2) $\pm$ (16.7, 15.4, 17.0) pc (calculated using membership from @Madsen02). Carina Near: $(U, V, W)$ = (-24.8,-18.2, -2.3) $\pm$ (0.7, 0.7, 0.4) km s$^{-1}$ and $(X, Y, Z)$ = (0.1, -31.7, -9.2) $\pm$ (4.3, 5.6, 1.1) pc (calculated using membership from @Zuckerman06). Hyades: $(U, V, W)$ = (-42.3, -19.1, -1.5) $\pm$ (0.1, 0.1, 0.2) km s$^{-1}$ and $(X, Y, Z)$ = (-43.0, 0.3, -17.3) $\pm$ (3.8, 3.5, 3.1) pc. For the TWA group we adopt the recent centroid velocity from @Weinberger11 of $(U, V, W)$ = (-11.1, -18.6, -5.1) $\pm$ (0.3, 0.2, 0.2) km s$^{-1}$. Based on unpublished calculations by @Mamajek10, in prep) we adopt intrinsic 1D velocity dispersions of 1.0 km s$^{-1}$ for AB Doradus, 1.1 km s$^{-1}$ for Tucana-Horologium, 1.3 km s$^{-1}$ for Carina Near, 1.5 km s$^{-1}$ for Ursa Majoris, and $\beta$ Pictoris, 0.8 km s$^{-1}$ for TWA (Mamajek 2005), and 1 km s$^{-1}$ for the Hyades and Argus.
|
---
abstract: 'Using the path integral approach to equilibrium statistical physics the effect of dissipation on Landau diamagnetism is calculated. The calculation clarifies the essential role of the boundary of the container in which the electrons move. Further, the derived result for diamagnetization also matches with the expression obtained from a time-dependent quantum Langevin equation in the asymptotic limit, provided a certain order is maintained in taking limits. This identification then unifies equilibrium and nonequilibrium statistical physics for a phenomenon like diamagnetism, which is inherently quantum and strongly dependent on boundary effects.'
author:
- Malay Bandyopadhyay and Sushanta Dattagupta
title: 'Dissipative Diamagnetism — A Case Study for Equilibrium and Nonequilibrium Statistical Mechanics of Mesoscopic Systems.'
---
-0.5cm
An unconventional approach to statistical physics, which may be referred to as the Einstein approach, involves the derivation of equilibrium results from the long-time limit of time-dependent equations [@kadanoff]. Specifically, a set of Langevin equations (or their equivalent in the phase space, called the Fokker-Planck equation), with built-in detailed balance conditions, can naturally yield asymptotic results that can be independently calculated from the Gibbs ensemble idea of statistical physics. The underlying concept is physically appealing because not only does it sidetrack the issue of ergodicity, which is assumed at the outset in the Gibbs prescription, it also connects directly to experimental measurements, which necessarily involve time-averages. In this centenary of Einstein’s [*annus mirabilis*]{} it is momentously appropriate to assess the validity and usefulness of this approach to statistical physics, that relies on the central paradigm of Brownian motion [@brown].\
Given this motivation we want to further explore the Einstein approach in this Letter by going beyond the classical into the quantum domain. The phenomenon of interest happens to be intrinsically and essentially quantum mechanical — it relates to the issue of diamagnetism exhibited by a collection of electrons subjected to an applied magnetic field. Diamagnetism is an enigmatic subject in that not only does it require a quantum treatment, as provided by the landmark work of Landau [@landau], but it also needs a careful analysis of the boundary of the container in which the electrons are constrained to move. As has been discussed lucidly by Van Vleck [@van; @vleck], the boundary electrons exactly cancel the contribution of the bulk electrons, in classical physics, leading to the celebrated Bohr-Van Leeuwen theorem [@bohr]. However this cancellation is incomplete in the quantum regime, because as Peierls points out [@peirls], it is the boundary electrons which have the “skipping orbits” that yield the edge currents, familiar also in quantum Hall effect [@datta], which make an essential contribution to diamagnetism. A few years ago, we have examined the question of Landau diamagnetism in a dissipative and confined system [@sdg].\
The following issues were addressed in I: (a) the approach to equilibrium of a quantum dissipative system, the analysis of which brings out the subtle role of boundary electrons, (b) the effect of dissipation on Landau diamagnetism, an equilibrium property, (c) quantum - classical crossover as the system transits from the Landau to the Bohr-Van Leeuwen regime as a function of damping and (d) the combined effect of dissipation and confinement on Landau diamagnetism, the latter arising from coherent cyclotron motion of the electrons. The item (d) is particularly relevant in the context of intrinsic decoherence in mesoscopic structures in view of heat bath induced influence [@datta; @mohanty; @imry]. Dissipation was incorporated in I with the aid of a quantum Langevin equation, driven by a systematic Lorentz force, that can be derived from an underlying Hamiltonian in a system-plus-bath formulation in which the bath degrees of freedom are integrated out [@ford]. In the infinite past the bath is assumed to be in thermal equilibrium such that the fluctuations of its degrees of freedom are governed by quantum statistics. Thus, detailed balance conditions are automatically expressed through a ‘fluctuation-dissipation’ relation that relates the noise spectrum to the damping term in the quantum Langevin equation.\
The starting point of I as indeed in this Letter is the Feynman-Vernon [@feynman] Hamiltonian for a charged particle $e$ in a magnetic field $\vec{B}$: $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal{H}} & = & \frac{1}{2m}\omega_{0}^{2}{\vec{x}}^{2}+ \frac{1}{2m}\Big(\vec{p} - \frac{e \vec{A}}{c}{\Big)}^{2} \nonumber \\
& & + \sum_{j=1}^{N}{\Big[}\frac{1}{2m_{j}}\vec{p_{j}}^{2} +\frac{1}{2}m_{j}{\omega_{j}}^{2}({\vec{x}}_{j}-\vec{x})^{2}{\Big]},\end{aligned}$$ where the first term is the Darwin [@darwin] term representing a confining potential, $\vec{p}$ and $\vec{x}$ are the momentum and position operators of the particle, ${\vec{p}}_{j}$ and ${\vec{x}}_{j}$ are the corresponding variables for the bath particles, and $\vec{A}$ is the vector potential. The bilinear coupling between $\vec{x}$ and $\vec{x}_{j}$ as envisaged in Eq. (1) has been the hall mark of the Caldeira-Leggett approach to dissipative quantum mechanics [@legget1; @legget2]. Assuming the $\vec{B}$ field to be along the $z$-axis, all the vectors in Eq. (1) can be taken to lie in the $xy$-plane. From the quantum Langevin equation , derived from Eq. (1) by following the steps mentioned above, the nonequilibrium or time-dependent magnetization along the $z$-axis, $M_{z}(t)$ is computed in I. It is important to note that the Landau answer for the magnetization, in equilibrium, ensues from $M_{z}(t)$ only by following the limiting procedures in a specific order, viz; by first taking t $\rightarrow \infty$ and then setting $\omega_{0} \rightarrow$ 0. If these two limits are interchanged one ends up with a piece of the Landau answer that misses out the boundary contribution.\
Having laid down the background to the myriad perplexing issues concerning diamagnetism we pose and answer the following question in this Letter. Should we not be able to calculate the equilibrium magnetization directly from Eq. (1) by following the usual Gibbsian statistical mechanics in which all the terms in Eq. (1) are treated on the same footing and there is no separation between what is a system and what is a bath? If the answer to this question is in the affirmative and the resultant magnetization matches with the result derived in I in the ‘equilibrium limit’ that would indeed lend the Einstein approach yet another foundational basis.\
The energy eigenvalues for the Hamiltonian in Eq. (1) have been computed by Hong and Wheatley [@hong]. However our method of calculation is based on the functional integral approach to statistical mechanics which we find to be the most convenient tool for studying charged particle dynamics in a magnetic field [@feynman1; @feynman2; @kleinert; @weiss; @ingold]. The Euclidean action corresponding to the Hamiltonian in Eq. (1) can be written as :
$${\cal{A}}_{e} = \int_{0}^{\hbar \beta}d\tau [{\cal{L}}_{S}(\tau) + {\cal{L}}_{B}(\tau) + {\cal{L}}_{I}(\tau)],$$
where the subscripts S, B and I stand for ‘system’, ‘bath’ and ‘interaction’ respectively. The corresponding Lagrangians are enumerated as: $${\cal{L}}_{S}(\tau) = \frac{M}{2}\Big[\dot {\vec{x}}(\tau)^{2} + \omega_{0}^{2}\vec{x}(\tau)^{2} - \omega_{c}(\vec{x}(\tau) \times \dot{\vec{x}}(\tau))_{z}\Big],$$ where $\omega_{c}= \frac{eB}{Mc}$, is the cyclotron frequency, $${\cal{L}}_{B}(\tau) = \sum_{j=1}^{N} \frac{1}{2}m_{j}[\dot {\vec{x}_{j}}(\tau)^{2} + \omega_{j}^{2}\vec{x}_{j}(\tau)^{2}],$$ $${\cal{L}}_{I}(\tau) = \sum_{j=1}^{N} \frac{1}{2}m_{j}\omega_{j}^{2}[\vec{x}(\tau)^{2} - 2\vec{x}_{j}(\tau)\cdot\vec{x}(\tau)] .$$ We introduce now imaginary time Fourier series expansion of system variables and bath variables as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\vec{x}(\tau) & = & \sum_{n}\vec{\tilde{x}}(\nu_{n})e^{-i\nu_{n}\tau}, \\
\vec{x}_{j}(\tau) & = & \sum_{n}{\vec{\tilde{x}}}_{j}(\nu_{n})e^{-i\nu_{n}\tau},\end{aligned}$$ where the Bosonic Matsubara frequencies $\nu_{n}$ are given by $$\nu_{n} = \frac{2\pi n}{\hbar \beta}, \quad {n} = 0,\pm 1,\pm 2, .....,$$ The system-part of the action in terms of Fourier components is: $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal{A}}_{e}^{S} & = & \frac{M}{2}\hbar \beta \sum_{n}\Big[(\nu_{n}^{2} + \omega_{0}^{2})(\vec{\tilde{x}}(\nu_{n})\cdot \vec{\tilde{x^{*}}}(\nu_{n})) \nonumber \\
& & +\omega_{c} \nu_{n}(\vec{\tilde{x}}(\nu_{n}) \times \vec{\tilde{x^{*}}}(\nu_{n}))\Big]. \end{aligned}$$ In deriving Eq. (9) we have used the identity: $$\int_{0}^{\hbar \beta} d\tau e^{-i\tau(\nu_{n}+\nu_{n^{\prime}})} = \hbar \beta \delta (n +n^{\prime}).$$ Following the detailed treatment given by Weiss [@weiss], the combined contributions of the bath and the interaction terms to the action can be written as: $${\cal{A}}_{e}^{B-I} = \frac{M}{2}\hbar \beta \sum_{n}\xi(\nu_{n})(\vec{\tilde{x}}(\nu_{n})\cdot\vec{\tilde{x}^{*}}(\nu_{n})) ,$$ where $$\xi(\nu_{n}) = \frac{1}{M} \sum_{j=1}^{N} m_{j}\omega_{j}^{2}\frac{\nu_{n}^{2}}{(\nu_{n}^{2}+\omega_{j}^{2})}.$$ Introducing the spectral density for bath excitations as: $$J(\omega) = \frac{\pi}{2}\sum_{j=1}^{N}m_{j}\omega_{j}^{3}\delta(\omega - \omega_{j}),$$ we may rewrite $$\xi(\nu_{n}) = \frac {2}{M\pi}\int_{0}^{\infty}d\omega \frac{J(\omega)}{\omega} \frac{\nu_{n}^{2}}{(\nu_{n}^{2} + \omega^{2})}.$$ Now combining Eq. (11) with Eq. (9), the full action can be expressed as: $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal{A}}_{e} & = & \frac{M}{2}\hbar \beta \sum_{n}[(\nu_{n}^{2} + \omega_{0}^{2} + \nu_{n}\tilde{\gamma}(\nu_{n}))(\vec{\tilde{x}}(\nu_{n})\cdot \vec{\tilde{x^{*}}}(\nu_{n})) \nonumber \\
& & +\omega_{c} \nu_{n}(\vec{\tilde{x}}(\nu_{n}) \times \vec{\tilde{x^{*}}}(\nu_{n}))], \end{aligned}$$ where the ‘memory-friction’ is given by $$\tilde{\gamma}(\nu_{n}) =\frac{2}{M\pi}\int_{0}^{\infty}d\omega \frac{J(\omega)}{\omega} \frac{\nu_{n}}{(\nu_{n}^{2} + \omega^{2})}.$$ Note that $\vec{\tilde{x}}(\nu_{n})$ is a two-dimensional vector ($\tilde{x}(\nu_{n}),\tilde{y}(\nu_{n})$). Introducing then normal modes: $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{z}_{+}(\nu_{n}) & = & \frac{1}{\sqrt2}(\tilde{x}(\nu_{n})+i\tilde{y}(\nu_{n})) \nonumber \\
\tilde{z}_{-}(\nu_{n}) & = & \frac{1}{\sqrt2}(\tilde{x}(\nu_{n})-i\tilde{y}(\nu_{n})), \end{aligned}$$ Eq. (15) can be rewritten in a ‘separable’ form: $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal{A}}_{e} & = &\frac{M}{2}\hbar \beta \sum_{n}\Big[(\nu_{n}^{2} + \omega_{0}^{2} + \nu_{n}\tilde{\gamma}(\nu_{n})+i\omega_{c}\nu_{n}) \nonumber \\
& &(\tilde{z}_{+}(\nu_{n})\tilde{z}^{*}_{+}(\nu_{n})) \nonumber \\
& & + (\nu_{n}^{2} + \omega_{0}^{2} + \nu_{n}\tilde{\gamma}(\nu_{n})-i\omega_{c}\nu_{n}) \nonumber \\
& & (\tilde{z}_{-}(\nu_{n})\tilde{z}^{*}_{-}(\nu_{n}))\Big]. \end{aligned}$$ The partition function is then given by: $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal{Z}} & = & {\prod}_{n}\int d\tilde{z}_{+}(\nu_{n})d\tilde{z}^{*}_{+}(\nu_{n})d\tilde{z}_{-}(\nu_{n})d\tilde{z}^{*}_{-}(\nu_{n}) \nonumber \\
& & \exp\Big[-\frac{1}{2}M\beta(\nu_{n}^{2}+ \omega_{0}^{2} + \nu_{n}\tilde{\gamma}(\nu_{n})+i\omega_{c}\nu_{n}) \nonumber \\
& & (\tilde{z}_{+}(\nu_{n})\tilde{z}^{*}_{+}(\nu_{n}))\Big]\nonumber \\
& & \exp\Big[-\frac{1}{2}M\beta(\nu_{n}^{2}+ \omega_{0}^{2} + \nu_{n}\tilde{\gamma}(\nu_{n})-i\omega_{c}\nu_{n}) \nonumber \\
& & (\tilde{z}_{-}(\nu_{n})\tilde{z}^{*}_{-}(\nu_{n}))\Big]\nonumber \\
& = & \frac{2\pi}{M\beta}{\prod}_{n}\Big[(\nu_{n}^{2}+ \omega_{0}^{2} + \nu_{n}\tilde{\gamma}(\nu_{n}))^{2}+ \omega_{c}^{2}\nu_{n}^{2}\Big]^{-1}. \nonumber \\ \end{aligned}$$ In view of Eqs. (8) and (16) the Helmholtz Free energy $\cal{F}$ can be deduced from Eq. (19) as $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal{F}} & = & \frac{1}{\beta}\ln\Big(\frac{M\beta\omega_{0}^{4}}{2\pi}\Big) \nonumber \\
& & + \frac{2}{\beta}\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\ln\Big[(\nu_{n}^{2}+ \omega_{0}^{2} + \nu_{n}\tilde{\gamma}(\nu_{n}))^{2} + \omega_{c}^{2}\nu_{n}^{2}\Big], \nonumber \\ \end{aligned}$$ where the first term is independent of the magnetic field and owes its existence purely due to the Darwinian constraining potential. Equation (20) contains all the thermodynamic properties, the most important of which is the [*magnetization*]{} given by the negative derivative of ${\cal{F}}$ with respect to $B$ : $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal{M}} & = & -\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{\frac{4}{\beta B}\omega_{c}^{2}\nu_{n}^{2}}{[(\nu_{n}^{2}+ \omega_{0}^{2} + \nu_{n}\tilde{\gamma}(\nu_{n}))^{2} + \omega_{c}^{2}\nu_{n}^{2}]},\end{aligned}$$ Equation (21) identically matches with the asymptotic ($t\rightarrow \infty $ ) limit of the expression obtained by Li [*etal*]{} [@li] from a quantum Langevin equation formulation. Further, in the so-called ohmic dissipation model for which [@legget2] $$J(\omega) = M\gamma \omega,$$ the expression (21), upon using the identity: $$\coth(z) = \frac{1}{z} + \sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{2z}{(z^{2}+n^{2}\pi^{2})},$$ also yields the asymptotic result of I, for $\omega_{0}=0$ (cf. Eq. (19) of I). The ohmic case is relevant for electron-hole excitations in a Fermionic bath whereas the non-ohmic case applies to a phononic heatbath [@weiss].\
Equation (21) embodies several tantalizing results which deserve special comments: (1) The diamagnetization is one of the rare equilibrium properties which depends directly on the damping parameter $\gamma$. Seldom is dissipation discussed in text books within the realm of what we call equilibrium statistical mechanics, based on the Gibbs ensemble. The fact that $\gamma$ is a measure of dissipation has been amply demonstrated in I, wherein we had shown how by increasing $\gamma$, ${\cal{M}}$ changes from the Landau to the Bohr-Van Leeuwen expressions — an example of coherence-to-decoherence transition in an open quantum system [@sdg1]. (2) Diamagnetism as a material property is seen to be situated at the crossroads of thermodynamics and transport phenomena. The thermodynamic nature of the property is rooted on its being able to be calculated from the free energy, as shown here. On the other hand, diamagnetism, like the Drude conductivity [@ashcroft], is also based on transport mechanism in that it is related to the expectation value of the operator $(\vec{r} \times \vec{v})$ (see I). Because the velocity $\vec{v}$ appears explicitly, dissipative diamagnetism naturally connects to the fundamental frictional material property, viz. resistance, in view of the fact that $\gamma ^{-1}$ is related to the Drude relaxation time [@sdg2]. Again we are not aware of any other phenomenon that lies at the juxtaposition of thermodynamics, which is derived from a partition function and transport, that is usually treated in kinetic theory. (3) Normally, in statistical mechanics, a thermodynamic limit is taken as a result of which surface contributions to bulk become irrelevant. However, for diamagnetism the surface enters crucially, as argued above; even though, there are fewer surface electrons than in the bulk, their contribution to the operator $\vec{r}$ in $(\vec{r} \times \vec{v})$ is substantial. A remarkable feature of diamagnetism is the need to first calculate the magnetization in the thermodynamic limit and then switch the boundary off i.e. by setting $\omega_{0}=0$. One related issue is the environment induced dissipation which happens to be a ubiquitous attribute of a mesoscopic system. Additionally, because for a mesoscopic system surface effects are non-negligible, the present study has a bearing on our understanding of mesoscopic structures. While points (1), (2) and (3) connote to thermal equilibrium we want to now make a few remarks on the significance of our results for the approach-to-equilibrium, in the present context: (4) usually this question is discussed in a system-plus-bath approach, within a master equation for the density operator. The subject of quantum optics is replete with such approaches wherein the interaction between the system and the bath is assumed weak and is consequently treated in the socalled Born-Markov approximation [@agarwal]. The result is, although the approach to equilibrium does depend on relaxation parameters such as damping the equilibrium results themselves are independent of such parameters. Thus the density operator approaches a Boltzmann distribution characterized by the Hamiltonian for the system alone. In contrast, the presently derived dissipative diamagnetization, which can also be computed from the nonequilibrium method of I, does depend explicitly on damping, as has been also emphasized under point (1) above. The reason is, like in the much studied problem of quantum dissipation of a harmonic oscillator [@grabert], the system-bath coupling is so strong that it needs an exact treatment. Thus the degrees of freedom of the entire many body system are inexorably entangled with each other and therefore, it is no longer meaningful to separate what is a system from what is a bath. (5) Finally, a related point to (4) is in connection with the essential quantum nature of diamagnetism. As has been argued by Jayannavar and Kumar [@kumar], not only is there no classical diamagnetism — due to the Bohr-Van Leeuwen theorem — there is no dissipative classical diamagnetism either. Thus, the nonequilibrium, classical diamagnetization relaxes to [*zero*]{}, a damping-independent result. The same is true for the classical damped harmonic oscillator. In that case the time-dependent probability distribution for the underlying Ornstein-Uhlenbeck-process [@oz] relaxes to the equilibrium Boltzmann distribution, free of damping, even though the system-bath coupling is treated exactly through the classical Langevin equations [@zwanzig]. Therefore, we emphasize once again that the appearance of damping terms in equilibrium answers, as discussed under points (4) and (1), is an intrinsically non-classical aspect.
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
===============
We thank Sansaptak Dasgupta and Prosenjit Dutta for discussion, and B. M. Deb, B. Dutta Roy and J. Garcia-Palazios for their critical reading of the manuscript.\
[99]{} L. P. Kadanoff, [*Statistical Physics - Statics, Dynamics and Renormalization*]{} (World Scientific, Singapore, 2000) R. F$\ddot{\rm u}$rth, [*Investigation on the Brownian Motion*]{} (Methnen, London, 1926). L. Landau, Z. Phys. [*64*]{}, 629 (1930). J. H. Van Vleck, [*The Theory of Electric and Magnetic Susceptibilities*]{} (Oxford University Press, London, 1932). N. Bohr, Dissertation, Copenhegen, 1911; J. H. Van Leeuwen, J. Phys. (Paris) [*2*]{}, 361 (1921). R. Peierls, [*Surprises in Theoretical Physics*]{} (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1979). S. Datta, [*Electronic Transport in Mesoscopic Systems*]{} (Cambridge University Press, 1995). S. Dattagupta and J. Singh, Physical Review Letters [*79*]{}, 961 (1997); henceforth referred to as I. P. Mohanty, E. M. Q. Jariwala, and R. A. Webb, Phys. Rev. Lett. [*78*]{}, 3366(1997); P. Mohanty and R. A. Webb, Phys. Rev.B [*55*]{}, R13452 (1997). Y. Imry, [*Introduction to Mesoscopic Physics*]{} (Oxford University Press, 1977). G. W. Ford, M. Kac, and P. Mazur, J.Math.Phys. (N.Y.) [*6*]{}, 504 (1965); G. W. Ford, J. T. Lewis, and R. F. O’Connell, Phys. Rev. A, [*37*]{}, 4419 (1988). R. P. Feynman and F. L. Vernon, Ann. Phys. (N. Y.) [*24*]{}, 118 (1963). C. G. Darwin, Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. [*27*]{}, 86 (1930). A. O. Caldeira, A. J. Leggett: Phys. Rev. Lett. [*46*]{}, 211 (1981). A. O. Caldeira, A. J. Leggett: Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) [*149*]{}, 374 (1983) T. M. Hong, J. M. Wheatley: Phys. Rev. B [*43*]{}, 5762(1991); [*42*]{}, 6492 (1990). R. P. Feynman: Rev. Mod. Phys. [*20*]{}, 367 (1948). R. P. Feynman, A. R. Hibbs; [*Quantum Mechanics and Path Integrals*]{} (Mcgraw-Hill,1965). H. Kleinert: [*Path Integrals in Quantum Mechanics, Statistics , Polymer Physics and Financial Markets*]{} (World Scientific 2004). U. Weiss: [*Quantum Dissipative Systems*]{} (World Scientific 1999). T. Dittrich, P. H$\ddot{\rm a}$nggi, G. -L. Ingold, B. Kramer, G. Sch$\ddot{\rm o}$n, W. Zwerger [*Quantum Transport and Dissipation*]{}, (WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH,1998). X. L. Li, G. W. Ford and R. F. O’Connell, Phys. Rev. E [*53*]{}, 3359 (1996). S. Dattagupta, S. Puri; [*Dissipative Effects in Condensed Matter Physics*]{} (Springer Verlag, Heidelberg, 2004). See, for instance, N. Ashcroft, D. Mermin; [*Solid State Physics*]{} (Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1976). S. Dattagupta, A. Jayannavar, N. Kumar; Current Science [*80*]{}, 861 (2001). See, for instance, G. S. Agarwal, in [*Quantum Optics, vol. 70 of Springer- Tracts in Modern Physics*]{}, edited by G. Hohler (Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1974). H. Grabert, P. Schramm, G. Ingold; Phys. Rep. [*168*]{}, 115 (1988). A. M. Jayannavar, N. Kumar; J. Phys. A [*14*]{}, 1399 (1981). See, for instance, S. Dattagupta, [*Relaxation Phenomena in Condensed Matter Physics*]{} (Academic Press, Orlando, 1987). R. Zwanzig, J. Stat Phys. [*9*]{}, 215 (1973).
|
---
bibliography:
- 'bmn.bib'
nocite: '\nocite{}'
---
\
[Emilian Dudas$^{1,2,3}$ , Chloe Papineau$^{3,2}$ and Stefan Pokorski $^4$ ]{}\
$^1$ CERN Theory Division, CH-1211, Geneva 23, Switzerland\
$^2$ CPhT, Ecole Polytechnique 91128 Palaiseau Cedex, France\
$^3$ Laboratoire de Physique Théorique, Université Paris-Sud, F-91405 Orsay, France\
$^4$ Institute of Theoretical Physics, Univ. of Warsaw, 00-681 Warsaw, Poland\
Introduction and Conclusions
============================
Chiral models of dynamical supersymmetry breaking with F-terms were constructed long time ago [@ads]. Explicit models with supersymmetry breaking ground state are generically relatively involved. More recently, Intriligator, Seiberg and Shih (ISS) proposed a simple, vector-like model with long-lived, metastable supersymmetry breaking vacua [@iss], whereas the ground state is supersymmetric[^1]. On the other hand, in the last couple of years convincing models of moduli stabilization in string theory were proposed, the propotype being the KKLT scenario [@kklt], based on the orientifolds of IIB string theory flux compactifications [@gkp]. One of the main problems of the KKLT scenario is the uplift of the vacuum energy to zero or positive values. The original proposal of using antibranes relies essentially on nonlinearly realized supersymmetry, whereas the latter attempts [@Dudas:2005vv],[@dterms] to uplift vacuum energy by D-terms, based on the suggestion in [@Burgess:2003ic], lead generically to very heavy (close to the Planck mass) gravitino mass[^2].
Alternative uplifting using F-terms were already studied in [@silverstein; @scrucca; @lnr]. As already stressed in [@scrucca], [@lnr] and worked out in detail in [@lnr], a generic F-type supersymmetry breaking with a supersymmetry breaking scale $ TeV \ll \Lambda_{SUSY} \ll M_P$ can naturally produce the appropriate , intermediate energy scale, for an uplift with a gravitino mass in the TeV range. Dynamical supersymmetry breaking is certainly the best candidate to fulfill this criterion. Metastable vacua have by definition a positive contribution to the vacuum energy which could clearly realize the uplifting required in the KKLT scenario. As we will see in this letter, dynamical supersymmetry breaking in metastable vacua of the ISS type does achieve the goal of uplifting the KKLT vacuum energy to zero, while keeping a TeV scale gravitino mass and therefore leading to low energy supersymmetry. We would like to emphasize, however, that the main ingredient in realizing the uplifting is not the metastable nature of the ISS model. Indeed, as we will briefly mention, other more traditional models [@it] of dynamical supersymmetry breaking realize the uplifting in a qualitatively similar way. We argue by explicit examples in both cases that there are generically supersymmetric AdS minima generated by the supergravity interactions, with however Planckian vev’s for some fields and therefore not fully trustable in the effective supergravity description. Even by considering seriously these AdS minima, we argue that tunneling from the Minkowski metastable vacuum to the AdS supersymmetric one can be very suppressed.
It would very interesting to couple the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model to our present ISSKKLT setup, to work out the low-energy phenomenology of the model and to compare it to the existing works [@Choi:2004sx] based on the original KKLT uplifting prescription relying on antibranes and nonlinearly realized supersymmetry.
The dynamically generated F-term uplifting method can also be combined with the moduli stabilization in type IIA strings [@IIA]. Indeed, D-term uplifing is not available in type IIA strings with moduli stabilization, because of the strong constraints coming from gauge invariance [@ibanez]. There are no such constraints in our present setup, theferore there should be no fundamental obstacles in uplifting vacuum energy by nonsupersymmetric metastable vacua in type IIA strings with all moduli stabilized .
The structure of this note is as follows. In Section 2 we combine the KKLT model of moduli stabilization in type IIB strings with the ISS model of metastable supersymmetry breaking vacuum. We show that in this case the uplifting of the vacuum energy is naturally compatible with a TeV gravitino mass. We discuss supergravity corrections to the globally supersymmetric vacuum, the possibility of a new supersymmetric minimum induced by SUGRA interactions, the effects of gauging the color symmetry in the ISS model and the lifetime of the metastable vacuum. In Section 3 we show that qualitatively similar results are obtained by replacing the ISS model with a more traditional model [@it] of dynamical supersymmetry breaking. In Section 4 we provide some general comments about the tree-level soft masses and under which conditions they could vanish. We then apply the general formulae for the specific case of the model defined in Section 2 and work out some tree-level soft terms, showing that generically tree-level soft masses are of the order of the gravitino mass, whereas gaugino masses can be suppressed in particular cases.
Metastable vacua and moduli stabilization
=========================================
The model is defined by $$\begin{aligned}
&& W \ = \ W_1 (T) \ + \ W_2 (\chi^i) \ , \nonumber \\
&& K \ = \ - 3 \ \ln (T + T^{\dagger}) \ + \ |\varphi|^2 \ + \ |{\tilde \varphi}|^2 \ + \ |\Phi|^2 \ .
\label{iss1}\end{aligned}$$ In (\[iss1\]) $\chi^i$ denotes collectively the fields $\varphi_i^a$, ${\tilde \varphi}_a^{\bar j}$, $\Phi_{\bar j}^i$ of the ISS model, where $i,{\bar j} = 1 \cdots N_f$ are flavor indices and $a,b = 1 \cdots N$ are colour indices. Moreover, in (\[iss1\]) $$\begin{aligned}
&& W_1 (T) \ = \ W_0 \ + \ a \ e^{-b T} \ , \nonumber \\
&& W_2 (\chi^i) \ = \ h \ Tr \ {\tilde \varphi} \ \Phi \ \varphi \ - \ h \ \mu^2 \ Tr \Phi \ . \label{iss2}\end{aligned}$$ Notice that the model is a staightforward combination of the ISS model of metastable supersymmetry breaking vacua with the KKLT model of moduli stabilization. As explained in [@iss], the sector $\varphi_i^a$, ${\tilde \varphi}_a^{\bar j}$ has a perturbative description in the free magnetic range $N_f > 3 N$. The apropriate microscopic theory is an orientifold $IIB / \Omega'$ , with the orientifold operation $\Omega' = \Omega (-1)^{F_L} I_6$, where $(-1)^{F_L}$ is the left spacetime fermion number and $I_6$ is the parity in the six internal coordinates. The theory contains D3 (O3) branes (orientifold planes) asked by the orientifold operation, with the D3 branes placed at singular points of the compact space in order to reduce supersymmetry to ${\cal N}=1$. Typically there are also D7 (O7) branes (orientifold planes) if other orbifold operations are present. The constant $W_0$ is generated by 3-form closed string fluxes, as in [@gkp], whereas the nonperturbative $T$-dependent superpotential could come from gaugino condensation on D7 branes [@kklt] or D3 brane instantons. The gauge sector responsible for the nonperturbative ISS dynamics has a natural embedding on a stack of $N$ D3 “color” branes, with a dynamical scale depending on the dilaton field $S$, which was already stabilized by three-form fluxes. The mesonic fields $\Phi$ are naturally interpreted as positions of a stack of $N_f$ D7 “flavor branes” . This could also guarantees that their Kahler metric is independent at lowest order on the volume Kahler modulus $T$, as already assumed in (\[iss1\]). If the mesons would have entered into the no-scale structure of the T-modulus in (\[iss2\]), as explained in [@scrucca] the vacuum of the theory would have a marginally unstable direction. The quarks $\varphi$, ${\tilde \varphi}$ should come from open string in the D3-D7 sector. We do not attempt here a complete string construction underlying our effective theory, for recent progress see [@iss2]. We point out nonetheless that global string constructions with finite internal space volume are needed in order to achieve this goal.
As transparent in (\[iss1\]), the KKLT and the ISS sectors are only coupled through gravitational interactions. In particular, as the ISS gauge group comes from D3 branes, the dynamical scale in the electric theory and therefore also the mass parameter $\mu$ in the magnetic theory superpotential (\[iss2\]) depend on the dilaton $S$, which we assume is already stabilized by NS-NS and RR three-form fluxes. We believe this decoupling is instrumental in getting the uplift of the vacuum energy. Another reason for forbidding a coupling to the $T$ modulus of the dynamical supersymmetry breaking sector in the global supersymmetric limit is that it is unclear how to formulate the nonabelian Seiberg duality for field-dependent couplings.
At the global supersymmetry level and before gauging the color symmetry, the ISS model has a global symmetry $G = SU(N) \times
SU(N_f) \times SU(N_f) \times U(1)_B \times U(1)' \times U(1)_R$, broken explicitly to $ SU(N) \times SU(N_f) \times U(1)_B \times
U(1)_R$ by the mass parameter $\mu$. In the supergravity embedding (\[iss2\]), the R-symmetry $U(1)_R$ is explicitly broken. To start with, we consider the ungauged theory, in which the $SU(N)$ is part of the global symmetry group. At the global supersymmetry level, the metastable ISS vacuum is $$\Phi_0 \ = \ 0 \quad , \quad \varphi_0 \ = \ {\tilde \varphi}_0^T \ =
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\mu I_N \\
0
\end{array}
\right)
\ , \label{iss3}$$ where $I_N$ is the $N \times N$ identity matrix and $\mu \ll
\Lambda_m$, where $\Lambda_m \le M_P$ denotes the mass scale associated with the Landau pole for the gauge coupling in the magnetic theory. The first question to address is the vacuum structure of the model. In order to answer this question, we start from the supergravity scalar potential $$V \ = \ e^{K} \left[ (K^{-1})^{i {\bar j}} D_i W D_{\bar j} {\bar W} \ - \ 3 |W|^2 \right] \ + \
{1 \over 2} \ (Re f_a) \ D_a^2 \ , \label{vsugra}$$ where $Re f_a = 1/g_a^2$ define the gauge couplings . By using[^3] (\[iss1\])-(\[iss2\]), we find $$V \ = \ {e^{{\bar \chi}_{\bar i} \chi^i} \over (T + {\bar T})^3} \
\{ {(T + {\bar T})^2 \over 3} |\partial_T W - {3 \over T + {\bar T}} W |^2 +
\sum_i | \partial_i W \ + \ {\bar \chi }_{\bar i} W |^2 \ - \ 3 |W|^2 \} \ . \label{iss4}$$
Since $\mu \ll M_P, $ the vev’s in the ISS model are well below the Planck scale. Then an illuminating way of rewriting the scalar potential (\[iss4\]) is to expand it in powers of the fields $\chi^i/M_P$, in which case it reads[^4] $$\begin{aligned}
&& V \ = \ {1 \over (T + {\bar T})^3} \ V_{ISS} (\chi^i, {\bar \chi}_{\bar i}) \ + \ V_{KKLT} (T,{\bar T}) \ + \
{ {\bar \chi}_{\bar i} \chi^i \over M_P^2} \ V_1 (T,{\bar T}) \ \nonumber \\
&& + \ {1 \over M_P^3} \ \left[ \ W_2 (\chi^i) \ V_2 (T,{\bar T}) + \chi^i \partial_i W_2 \ V_3 (T,{\bar T}) \ +
\ h.c. \right] \ + \ \cdots \ , \label{iss5}\end{aligned}$$ where by comparing (\[iss5\]) with (\[iss4\]) we can check that $V_1 \sim m_{3/2}^2 M_P^2$, $V_2, V_3 \sim m_{3/2} M_P^3$, where as usual $m_{3/2}^2 = |W^2| \exp (K)$. Notice that the contribution to the vacuum energy from the ISS sector, in the global limit, is $$\langle V_{ISS} \rangle \ = \ (N_f-N) \ h^2 \ \mu^4 \ . \label{iss05}$$ Since we are interested in small (TeV scale) gravitino mass, it is clear that the first two terms in the rhs of (\[iss5\]), $V_{ISS}$ and $V_{KKLT}$ are the leading terms. Consequently, there should be a vacuum very close to a uplift KKLT vacuum $\langle T \rangle = T_0$ and the ISS vacuum $\langle \chi^i \rangle = \chi^i_0 $. The KKLT uplift vacuum at the zeroth order $T_0$ is defined as the minimum of the zeroth order potential $\partial_{T_0} V_0 =0 $, obtained by inserting the ISS vacuum (\[iss3\]) into the supergravity scalar potential $$V_0 \ = \ {1 \over (T + {\bar T})^3} \ \left[ {(T+{\bar T})^2 \over 3} |D_T W_1|^2 - 3 |W_1|^2 + h^2 (N_f-N) \mu^4 \right] \
\ . \label{iss06}$$ In the limit $b T \gg 1$ and for zero cosmological constant, a good approximation for $T_0$, considered to be real in what follows, is provided by $$W_0 \ + \ {a b (T_0+{\bar T}_0) \over 3} \ e^{ - b T_0} \ = \ 0 . \label{iss07}$$ Notice that in this case $T$ does contribute to supersymmetry breaking[^5] $$F^T \ \equiv \ e^{K \over 2} \ K^{T {\bar T}} \ \overline{D_T W} \ \simeq \
\ {a \over (T_0 + {\bar T}_0)^{1 /2}} \ e^{-b T_0} \
, \label{iss08}$$ but by an amount supressed by a factor of $1/ b (T_0 + {\bar T}_0)$ compared to the naive expectation.
The cosmological constant at the lowest order is given by $$\Lambda \ = \ V_{KKLT} (T_0, {\bar T}_0) \ + \ {(N_f-N) h^2 \mu^4 \over (T_0 + {\bar T}_0)^3} \ , \label{iss7}$$ which shows that the ISS sector plays the role of un uplifting sector of the KKLT model. In the zeroth order approximation and in the large volume limit $b (T_0 + {\bar T}_0) \gg 1 $, we find that the condition of zero cosmological constant $\Lambda = 0$ implies roughly $$3 \ |W_0|^2 \ \sim \ h^2 \ (N_f-N) \ \mu^4 \ . \label{iss8}$$ If we want to have a gravitino mass $m_{3/2} = \sim
W_0 / (T_0 + {\bar T}_0)^{3/2}$ in the TeV range, we need small values of $\mu \sim 10^{-6} - 10^{-7}$. Since $\mu$ in the model of [@iss] has a dynamical origin, this is natural. Moreover, the metastable vacuum of [@iss] has a significantly large lifetime exactly in this limit, more precisely when $\epsilon \equiv (\mu /
\Lambda_m) \ll 1$. Therefore, a light (TeV range) gravitino mass is natural in our model and compatible with the uplift of the cosmological constant. We believe that this fact is an improvement over the D-term uplift models suggested in [@Burgess:2003ic] and worked out in [@dterms].
Notice that supergravity corrections give tree-level masses to the pseudo-moduli fields of the ISS model. As explained in more general terms in [@iss], these corrections are subleading with respect to masses arising from the one-loop Coleman-Weinberg effective potential in the global supersymmetric limit. This can be explicitly checked starting from the supergravity scalar potential (\[iss4\]) and expanding in small fluctuations around the vacuum (\[iss3\]) to the quadratic order.
The metastable vacuum and supergravity corrections
--------------------------------------------------
By coupling the T field to the ISS dynamical supersymmetry breaking system, we expect small deviations from the lowest order vacuum (\[iss3\]), (\[iss07\]). We expand $$\chi^i \ = \ \chi^i_0 +\delta \chi^i \quad , \quad T \ = \ T_0 \ + \ \delta T \ , \label{iss6}$$ where $\chi_0^i$ are provided by (\[iss3\]), with $\delta \varphi \ll \varphi_0$ ( $ \delta {\tilde \varphi} \ll {\tilde \varphi}_0$) and $\delta T \ll T_0$. We now turn to the SUGRA corrections to the ISS metastable vacuum (\[iss6\]), by linearizing around the KKLT-ISS vacuum the field eqs, $$\partial_{\varphi} V \ = \ \partial_{\tilde \varphi} V \ = \ \partial_{\Phi} V \ = \ \partial_T V \ = \ 0 \ , \label{corr1}$$ This can be done by starting from the expansion in the fields $\chi$ in (\[iss5\]), where $$\begin{aligned}
&& V_1 \ = \ V_{KKLT} \ + \ { |W|^2 \over (T + {\bar T})^3} \ , \label{corr2} \\
&& V_2 \ = \ -
{ 1 \over (T + {\bar T})^3} \left[ (T + {\bar T}) \ \overline{D_T \ W} \ - \ 3 \ \overline{W_1} \right] \quad , \quad
V_3 \ = \ { {\overline{W_1} \over (T + {\bar T})^3}} \ . \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ Notice that in the zeroth order vacuum $V_1 \sim m_{3/2}^2 M_P^2$, $V_2,V_3 \sim m_{3/2} M_P^3 $, as well as $\partial_T V_1 \sim m_{3/2}^2 M_P^2$ and $\partial_T V_2, \partial_T V_3 \sim m_{3/2} M_P^3 $. In order for the linearization to be well-defined, we need to include the Coleman-Weinberg one-loop quantum corrections to the scalar potential discussed in [@iss]. The reason is that at tree-level and in our zeroth order approximation, there are zero mass particles which, in addition to the Goldstone bosons of the broken symmetries, contain also pseudo-moduli which get their masses at one-loop. After including these corrections, we find at the leading order in the variations $\delta \chi^i, \delta T$ and for zero cosmological constant, that $$\delta \chi^i \ \leq \ O(m_{3/2}) \qquad , \qquad \delta T \ \leq O({m_{3/2} \over M_P}) \ . \label{corr3}$$ Since in our framework $m_{3/2} \ll \mu$, the condition $\delta \varphi \ll \varphi_0 $ is largely satisfied, showing that the expansion (\[iss6\]) is an excellent approximation. The precise values of the supergravity corrections (\[corr3\]) are not important for what follows. Notice that the small values for $\delta \varphi$, $\delta \Phi$ in (\[corr3\]) are in agreement with the arguments given in [@iss] stating that high energy microscopic effects in the magnetic theory should not affect significantly the metastable vacuum.
The SUGRA induced magnetic supersymmetric minimum
-------------------------------------------------
In the ISS model and in the case of ungauged $SU(N)$ symmetry, the ISS vacuum (\[iss3\]) is actually the true ground state. What happens in the supergravity embedding we are proposing here ? We will show that there is a new, AdS supersymmetric ground state generated by the SUGRA interactions. To find it, we search solutions of the type $$\begin{aligned}
&& \varphi \ \ = \ \ \left(
\begin{array}{c}
\varphi_1 \\
0
\end{array}
\right) \quad , \quad
{\tilde \varphi}^T \ \ = \ \ \left(
\begin{array}{c}
{\tilde \varphi}_1 \\
0
\end{array}
\right) \ ,
\nonumber \\
&& \Phi \ = \
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\Phi_1 & 0
\\
0 & \Phi_2
\end{array}
\right) \ , \label{susy1}\end{aligned}$$
of the SUSY preserving equations $$\begin{aligned}
&& D_{\varphi} W \ = \ 0 \quad \rightarrow \quad h \ {\tilde \varphi}_1 \Phi_1 + \overline{\varphi}_1 \ W \ = \ 0 \ ,
\label{susy2} \\
&& D_{\tilde \varphi} W \ = \ 0 \quad \rightarrow \quad
h \ \Phi_1 {\varphi}_1 + \overline{\tilde \varphi}_1 \ W \ = \ 0 \ , \nonumber \\
&& D_{\Phi} W \ = \ 0 \quad \rightarrow \quad h \left( {\tilde \varphi}_1^i \varphi_{1,j} - \mu^2 \delta_j^i \right) \ +
\ ({\bar \Phi}_1)_j^i \ W \ = \
0 \ , \ i,j \ = \ 1 \cdots N \nonumber \\
&& D_{\Phi} W \ = \ 0 \quad \rightarrow \quad - h \ \mu^2 \delta_m^n \ + \ ({\bar \Phi}_2)_m^n \ W \ = \ 0 \ , \ m,n \ =
\ N+1 \cdots N_f \ , \nonumber \\
&& D_T \ W \ = \ 0 \quad \rightarrow \quad a \ b \ e^{-b T_m} \ + \ {3 \over T_m + {\bar T}_m} \ W \ = \ 0 . \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The eqs. (\[susy2\]) have the following solution : $$\begin{aligned}
&& \varphi_1 \ = \ \mu_1 \ I_N \quad , \quad {\tilde \varphi}_1 \ = \ \mu_2 \ I_N \quad ,
\quad {\rm with} \ \ |\mu_1| \ = \ |\mu_2| \ , \nonumber \\
&& \Phi_1 \ = \ (\mu_1 \mu_2 - \mu^2)^{1 \over 2} \ I_N \quad , \quad \Phi_2 \ = \ - \ {\mu^2 \over (\mu_1 \mu_2 - \mu^2)^{1 \over 2}} \
I_{N_f-N} \ , \nonumber \\
&& a \ b \ e^{- b T_m} \ - \ {3 h \over T_m + {\bar T}_m} \ (\mu_1 \mu_2 - \mu^2)^{1 \over 2} \ = \ 0 \ , \nonumber \\
&& h^2 \ (\mu_1 \mu_2 \ - \ \mu^2) \ - \ |W|^2 \ = \ 0 \ . \label{susy3}\end{aligned}$$ Since cosmological constant cancellation asks for $m_{3/2} \sim
\langle W \rangle \sim h \mu^2$, where $m_{3/2}$ is the gravitino mass in the ISS-KKLT vacuum, for $\mu_i \sim \mu$ eq. (\[susy3\]) implies in particular $\Phi_2 \sim M_P$, the supersymmetric minimum (\[susy3\]) depends on the UV properties of the model and is not fully reliable in our effective field theory analysis. For $\mu_1 \mu_2 \gg \mu^2$, all vev’s are well below $M_P$, $\langle W \rangle \gg m_{3/2} M_P^2$ and the supersymmetric vacuum (\[susy3\]) would be within the validity of the effective supergravity. The second possibility is however incompatible with the condition (\[iss8\]) and for a TeV gravitino mass. Therefore we recover the conclusion that $\Phi_2 \sim M_P$.
Notice that the supersymmetric vacuum (\[susy3\]) survives the gauging of the $SU(N)$ symmetry. Indeed, the $SU(N)$ D-flatness conditions are satisfied, since $|\varphi_1|^2 = |\varphi_2|^2 $ and $ [\Phi , \Phi] = 0 $ in (\[susy3\]).
Gauging the model : infrared description
----------------------------------------
In the ISS model, the $SU(N)$ symmetry is gauged and corresponds to the gauge group of the magnetic theory. In the electric description, the ISS model is the supersymmetric QCD with $N_c$ colors and $ N_c < N_f < 3N_c /2$ quark flavors $Q. {\tilde Q}$, such that in the magnetic description with the gauge group $SU(N_f-N_c)$, the number of flavors is large $N_f > 3 N$, where the magnetic theory is in the infrared-free phase. In this case the perturbative magnetic description, around the origin in field space, is reliable. The electric theory has a dynamical scale $\Lambda$ and a mass term for the quarks $W = m_i^{\bar j} Q^i {\tilde Q}_{\bar j}$. There are $N_c$ vacua described by $$M_{\bar j}^i \ = \ ({1 \over m})_{\bar j}^i \ (det m)^{1 \over N_c} \ \Lambda^{3N_c-N_f \over N_c} \ . \label{gauge01}$$ The perturbative treatment in the magnetic description translates into the constraint $m_a \ll \Lambda $, where $a$ denotes here the number of light mass eigenvalues, which has to be equal or larger to $N_f+1$ in order for the metastable vacua to exist. One of the open questions for the ISS model is a dynamical explanation for the constraint $m_a \ll \Lambda $. We believe that a simple possibility is the following. At high energy there is an additional abelian “ anomalous ” symmetry $U(1)_X$, with mixed anomalies $U(1)_X SU(N_c)^2$ cancelled by the Green-Schwarz mechanism involving an axionic field $a_X$. This will render the gauge vector $V_X$ massive and stabilize the complex modulus field containing the axion $a_x$ . There will be an induced Fayet-Iliopoulos term, which in explicit string models is always cancelled by the vev of a scalar field $\langle N \rangle \ll M_P$. Mixed anomalies mean that the sum of charges quark charges $X_Q + X_{\bar Q}$ is not zero and therefore the mass operator $m_i^{\bar j} Q^i {\tilde Q}_{\bar j}$ is not gauge invariant. In generic models, the charge $X_N$ is oppposite compared to $X_Q + X_{\bar Q}$. We normalize $X_N=-1$ in what follows. Then the superpotential term $y_i^{\bar j} (N/M_P)^{X_Q + X_{\bar Q}} Q^i {\tilde Q}_{\bar j}$ is perturbatively allowed. Supersymmetry could be broken in the process [@bd], but it can also stay unbroken. In this last case, at energy scales well below the mass of the gauge boson $A_X$, the net effect of all this is to generate an effective mass term for the quarks of the electric theory $m \sim (\langle N \rangle / M_P)^{X_Q + X_{\bar Q}} $. For large enough quark charges and/or small enough vev $\langle N \rangle$, the induced mass $m$ can be very small. Another generical way of getting small masses was proposed recently in [@dfs].
Denoting by $\Lambda_m$ the Landau pole of the magnetic theory, according to ISS for arbitrary vev’s of $\Phi$ the quark flavors become massive and can be integrated out. By doing this and by coupling the resulting low-energy system to the KKLT model, we arrive at a lagrangian described by $$\begin{aligned}
&& W \ = \ W_0 \ + \ a \ e^{-b T} \ + \ N \ \left( {h^{N_f} {det \Phi} \over \Lambda_m^{N_f - 3 N}} \right)^{1/N}
\ - \ h \ \mu^2 \ Tr \Phi \ , \nonumber \\
&& K \ = \ - 3 \ \ln ( T + {\bar T}) \ + \ {\bar \Phi} \Phi \ . \label{gauge1}\end{aligned}$$ Similarly to the global supersymmetry analysis of ISS [@iss], this action has $N_f-N$ supersymmetric vacua, which in the global limit are given by $$\langle h \Phi \rangle \ = \ \Lambda_m \epsilon^{2 N / (N_f-N)} \ I_{N_f} =
\ \mu \ {1 \over \epsilon^{(N_f-3 N)/(N_f-N)}} \ I_{N_f} \ , \label{gauge2}$$ where $\epsilon \equiv \mu / \Lambda_m$. The vacuum in the T-direction is simpler to describe by replacing the vev’s (\[gauge2\]) in the superpotential (\[gauge1\]). By doing this, we get an effective superpotential $$W_{\rm eff} \ = \ W_0 \ - \ {(N_f-N) \mu^3 \over \epsilon^{(N_f-3N)/(N_f-N)}} \ + \ a \ e^{-b T} \ .
\label{gauge3}$$ Since $W_0 < 0$ in the KKLT model, the effect of the supersymmetric $\Phi$ vev’s is to increase the absolute value of the (negative) constant in the superpotential. The approximate values of the minimum for $T$ and the corresponding negative cosmological constant are given approximately by $$\begin{aligned}
&& a \ b \ e^{-b T_s} \ + \ {3 \over T_s + {\bar T}_s} \left( W_0 \ -{(N_f-N) \mu^3 \over \epsilon^{(N_f-3N)/(N_f-N)}}
\ \right) \ \simeq \ 0 \ , \nonumber \\
&& V_0 \ \simeq \ - { 3 \over (T_s + {\bar T}_s)^3} | W_0 \ -{(N_f-N) \mu^3 \over \epsilon^{(N_f-3N)/(N_f-N)}} |^2
\ . \label{gauge4}\end{aligned}$$ The supersymmetric ISS vacuum is therefore AdS . Notice that for $W_0 \gg \mu^3 / \epsilon^{(N_f-3 N)/(N_f-N)}$, we get $T_s \sim
T_0$, with $T_0$ defined in (\[iss07\]), since in this case $W \simeq W_0$. If $W_0 \ll \mu^3 / \epsilon^{(N_f-3 N)/(N_f-N)}$, then $T_s < T_0$.
Lifetime of the metastable vacuum
---------------------------------
The model we discussed in this paper has one metastable vacuum and two type of AdS supersymmetric minima. The metastable vacuum will tunnel to the supersymmetric AdS minimum (\[gauge2\])-(\[gauge4\]). The purpose of this section is to provide a qualitative estimate of the lifetime of the metastable minimum, following [@coleman],[@duncan]. The bounce action is expected to come from the path in field space of minimum potential barrier between the metastable supersymmetry breaking vacuum and the supersymmetric vacua. Along this path, the bounce action cannot be computed analytically. For a triangular idealized approximation [@duncan], the bounce action $S_b$ is qualitatively $$S_b \ \sim \ {(\Delta \chi)^4 \over \Delta V} \ , \label{tunneling1}$$ where $\Delta V$ is the (minimum) barrier along the bounce and $\Delta \chi$ is the variation of the relevant field. For the tunneling between the metastable ISS vacuum (\[iss3\]) and the supersymmetric one (\[gauge2\]) after gauging $SU(N)$, there are two cases. If $\mu \ll \epsilon^{(N_f-3 N)/(N_f-N)} M_P$, we get $$h \ \Delta \Phi \ \simeq \ \mu \ {1 \over \epsilon^{(N_f-3 N)/(N_f-N)}} \quad , \quad \Delta V \ \sim \
{ 3 \over (T_s + {\bar T}_s)^3} \ |W_0|^2 \ . \label{tunneling2}$$ Then, by using the condition (\[iss8\]) of the vanishing of the vacuum energy in the metastable vacuum , we get $$S_b \ \sim \ { (T_s + {\bar T}_s)^3 \over \epsilon^{4 (N_f-3 N)/(N_f-N)}} \ \gg 1 \ , \label{tunneling3}$$ which increases the lifetime of the metastable vacuum compared to the similar ISS analysis. The reason is that the energy difference between the metastable and the AdS supersymmetric minimum is decreased by the factor $1 / (T_s
+ {\bar T}_s)^3 $, resulting in an increase in the bounce action $S_b$. In the case where $\mu \gg \epsilon^{(N_f-3 N)/(N_f-N)} M_P$, the vacuum energy of the supersymmetric vacuum (\[gauge4\]) and consequently $\Delta V$ change. The bounce action in this case is $$S_b \ \sim \ {M_P^2 \over \mu^2} { (T_s + {\bar T}_s)^3 \over \epsilon^{2 (N_f-3 N)/(N_f-N)}} \ \gg 1 \ . \label{tunneling4}$$ The metastable minimum could also tunnel to the supersymmetric minimum (\[susy3\]). Even by taking seriously the effective theory analysis in this case, we notice that the AdS supersymmetric minimum (\[susy3\]) is far away in the $\Phi$ field space from the ISS-KKLT metastable vacuum (\[iss3\]), (\[iss07\]). The tunneling probability to go to the AdS vacuum (\[susy3\]) is highly suppressed and irrelevant for all practical purposes.
Uplifting with supersymmetry breaking on the quantum moduli space
=================================================================
As mentioned in the introduction, the important ingredient from the F-term dynamical supersymmetry breaking sector is the intermediate scale for the resulting (positive) contribution to the vacuum energy and not the metastable nature of the vacuum. We discuss now a more conventional non-perturbative hidden sector which, in the global supersymmetry limit, has a non-supersymmetric ground state [@it]. Since most of the analysis parallels that already done for the ISS model, our discussion will be very brief. We consider a SQCD model with $N_c=N_f=2$ colors and flavors. The effective action which puts together the KKLT moduli stabilization sector and the supersymmetry breaking sector is $$\begin{aligned}
&& W \ = \ W_0 \ + \ a \ e^{-b T} \ + \ \lambda S^{ij} M_{ij} \ + \ X \ (Pf M - \Lambda_2^4) \ , \nonumber \\
&& K \ = \ - 3 \ \ln (T + {\bar T}) \ + \ Tr ( {1 \over \Lambda_2^2} \ |M|^2 \ + \ |S|^2) \ , \label{it1}\end{aligned}$$ where $Pf M \ = \ \epsilon^{ijkl} M_{ij} M_{kl}$, $\Lambda_2$ is the dynamical scale of the theory, $M_{ij} = Q_i^a Q_j^a$ are the mesons builded up from the quarks $Q_i^a$ with color indices $a=1,2$ and flavor indices $i,j=1,2,3,4$, whereas $S^{ij}$ are gauge singlets. Both fields are antisymmetric in the flavor indices. In (\[it1\]), $X$ is a lagrange multiplier which enforces the eq. describing the quantum deformed moduli space $Pf M = \Lambda_2^4$, whereas the factor of $(1 / \Lambda_2^2)$ in the Kahler potential of the mesons is present since mesons have mass dimension two and have a dynamical origin. The supergravity scalar potential resulting from (\[it1\]) is $$\begin{aligned}
&& V \ = \ { e^{ Tr ( (|M|^2 / \Lambda_2^2) + \ |S|^2) } \over (T + {\bar T})^3} \
\{ {(T + {\bar T})^2 \over 3} |\partial_T W - {3 \over T + {\bar T}} W |^2 \ + \ \sum_{ij} |\lambda M_{ij} + {\bar S}_{ij} W|^2 \nonumber \\
&&
+ \ \sum_{ij} | \lambda S^{ij} + 2 X \epsilon^{ijkl} M_{kl} + {{\bar M}^{ij} \over \Lambda_2^2} W |^2 \ +
\ |Pf M - \Lambda_2^4|^2 \ - \ \ 3 |W|^2 \} \ . \label{it2}\end{aligned}$$ In the global limit, the strongly coupled sector break supersymmetry, since there is no solution to the supersymmetry eqs. $F^X = F^S=0$. As explained in [@it], the strongly coupled sector produces a contribution to the vacuum energy of the order $$V_0 \ \sim \ \lambda^2 \Lambda_2^4 \ . \ \label{it3}$$ Even if at the global supersymmetric level, the ground state breaks supersymmetry, similarly to the ISS model discussed in section 2.2, at the supergravity level we do find a supersymmetric AdS minimum. Indeed, by inserting the maximally, $SO(5)$ symmetric ansatz $$\langle M \rangle \ = \
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
i \sigma_2 & 0
\\
0 & i \sigma_2
\end{array}
\right) \ \Lambda_2^2 , \qquad , \qquad
\langle S \rangle \ = \ c \
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
i \sigma_2 & 0
\\
0 & i \sigma_2
\end{array}
\right) \ \Lambda_2^2 \ ,
\label{it4}$$ into the supersymmetry conditions $D_S W = D_M W = D_X W = D_T W =0$, we find $$\begin{aligned}
&& \lambda \ + \ c \ W \ = \ 0 \qquad , \qquad \lambda \ c \ + \ 2 \ X \ + \ {W \over \Lambda_2^2} \ = \ 0 \ , \nonumber \\
&& a \ b \ e^{-b T_0} \ + \ {3 \over T_0 + {\bar T}_0} \ \left( W_0 \ + \ a \ e^{-b T_0} \ + \ 4 \ \lambda \ c \ \Lambda_2^4 \right) \ = 0 \ . \label{it5} \end{aligned}$$ If these conditions have a solution, the original supersymmetry breaking ground state becomes metastable. The condition for the uplifting of the vacuum energy in the metastable vacuum requires then $W_0 \sim \lambda \Lambda_2^2$. The last eq. in (\[it5\]) leads then, for $b T_0 \gg 1$, to $W \sim W_0$ in a first approximation, whereas $T_0$ is given again by (\[iss07\]). TeV values for the gravitino mass asks therefore for $\Lambda_2^2 \sim
m_{3/2} M_P \sim (10^{11} \ GeV)^2$. Combining the first two eqs. in (\[it5\]), we then find $c \sim - \lambda / W_0$ and therefore $\langle S \rangle \sim M_P$. We find therefore, analogously to section 2.2, Planckian values for the supersymmetric AdS vacuum, which signifies that the supersymmetry preserving vacuum is actually beyond the regime of validity of the effective lagrangian description. In contrast to section 2.2, however, the AdS vacuum energy itself is Planckian here $V_{AdS} \sim \lambda^2 M_P^4$.
By taking seriously this supersymmetric solution, the tunneling from the non-supersymmetric metastable vacuum proceed in the S-field direction in the field space. Since $\Delta S \sim M_P $, whereas $\Delta V = |V_{AdS}| \sim \lambda^2 M_P^4$, we find for the bounce action $S_b \sim (1 / \lambda^2 )$. The tunneling probability $\exp(-S_b) $ is therefore suppressed only in the $\lambda \ll 1$ limit. This condition is the analog of the condition $m \ll \Lambda$ in the electric version of the ISS model , i.e. the quarks must have masses much smaller than the dynamical scale of the electric theory.
Soft terms and mass scales
===========================
General tree-level formulae
----------------------------
The relevant couplings for our present discussion are the following terms in the Kahler potential and the superpotential arising in the perturbative expansion in the matter fields $M^I$ $$\begin{aligned}
&& K \ \rightarrow \ K \ + \ \left[ (T + {\bar T})^{n_I} \ Z_{I {\bar J}} + \cdots \right] \ \ M^I {\bar M}^{\bar J} \ + \
\cdots \ \equiv K + K_{I {\bar J}} M^I {\bar M}^{\bar J} \ , \nonumber \\
&& W \ \rightarrow \ W \ + \ {1 \over 6} \ W_{IJK} \ M^I \ M^J \ M^K
\ , \label{general01}\end{aligned}$$ where $\cdots$ denote couplings to other (hidden-sector, messengers in gauge mediation models, etc) fields. In a manifestly supersymmetric approach, with both F and D-term contributions, the condition of zero cosmological constant is $$K_{\alpha \bar \beta} F^{\alpha} F^{\bar \beta} \ + \sum_a (g_a^2 / 2) D_a^2 \ = \ 3 m_{3/2}^2 M_P^2 \ , \label{soft8}$$ where $\alpha, {\bar \beta}$ refers to fields contributing to supersymmetry breaking and $a$ is an index for anomalous $U(1)$ gauge factors. Then the most general formulae for soft terms of matter fields[^6] $M^I$ ($F^I=0$), are given by [@Dudas:2005vv] (see also [@kawamura] for the heterotic strings case) $$\begin{aligned}
&& m^2_{I {\bar J}} \ = \ m_{3/2}^2 \ K_{I {\bar J}} \ - \ F^{\alpha}
\
F^{\bar \beta} R_{{\alpha} {\bar \beta} I {\bar J}} \ - \ \sum_a g_a^2 D_a ( {1 \over 2} K_{I {\bar J}}
- \partial_I {\partial_{\bar J}} ) D_a \ , \nonumber \\
&& A_{IJK} = m_{3/2}^2
\left( 3 \nabla_I \nabla_J G_K + G^{\alpha} \nabla_I \nabla_J
\nabla_K G_{\alpha} \right)
- g_a^2 D_a ( {D_a \over 2} \nabla_i \nabla_j G_k - \nabla_i
\nabla_j \nabla_k D_a) \ , \nonumber \\
&& M_{1/2}^a \ = \ {1 \over 2} (Re f_a)^{-1} \ m_{3/2} \ G^{\alpha} \
\partial_{\alpha} f_a \ , \label{soft9}\end{aligned}$$ where $G = K + \ln |W|^2$, $G_{\alpha} = \partial_{\alpha} G$, $\nabla_I G_J \ = \ G_{IJ} - \Gamma_{IJ}^K G_K$, etc., where $R_{{\alpha} {\bar \beta} I {\bar J}} \ =
\ \partial_{\alpha} \partial_{\bar \beta} \ K_{I {\bar J}} \ - \
\Gamma_{\alpha I}^M \ K_{M {\bar N}} \Gamma_{{\bar \beta} {\bar
J}}^{\bar N}$ is the Riemann tensor of the Kahler manifold and $\Gamma_{\alpha I}^M \ = \ K^{M {\bar N}} \partial_{\alpha} K_{{\bar
N} I}$ are the Christoffel symbols. Moreover, $$D_a \ = \ X_I^a M^I \partial_I K \ - \ {\eta_a^{\alpha} \over 2} \partial_{\alpha} K \ . \label{soft10}$$ In (\[soft10\]), $X_I^a$ denote $U(1)_a$ charges of charged fields $M^I$ and $\eta_a^{\alpha}$ are defined by the nonlinear gauge transformations of the moduli fields under (super)gauge fields transformations $$V_a \ \rightarrow V_a \ + \ \Lambda_a \ + \ {\bar \Lambda}_a \quad , \quad
T_{\alpha} \ \rightarrow \ T_{\alpha} \ + \ \eta_a^{\alpha} \Lambda_a \ . \label{soft11}$$ By using (\[soft10\]), we can also write the scalar masses in (\[soft9\]) as $$m^2_{I {\bar J}} \ = \ m_{3/2}^2 \ K_{I {\bar J}} - F^{\alpha} \
F^{\bar \beta} \ R_{{\alpha} {\bar \beta} I {\bar J}} \ - \ \sum_a g_a^2 D_a ( {1 \over 2} D_a
- X_I^a - v_{l} X_{ l}^a \partial_{ l} \ + \ {\eta_a^{\alpha} \over 2} \partial_{\alpha} )
\ K_{I {\bar J}} \ , \label{soft12}$$ where $v_{ l}$ are vev’s of charged scalar fields $z^l$ of charge $X_l^a$. An interesting question is : In which simple cases the tree-level contributions of order $m_{3/2}$ in (\[soft12\]) do cancel each other ? This question is particularly relevant in order to identify (classes of) models in which loop contributions and in particular the anomaly-mediated contributions [@anomaly] are important.
From a 4d point of view, we are aware of three simple cases :
i\) the well-known case of no-scale models [@noscale] , with $K_{T {\bar T}} |F^T|^2 = 3 m_{3/2}^2 M_P^2$, $D_a=0$, with matter fields having modular weights $n_I = - 1$ in (\[general01\]), when $|F^T|^2 R_{T {\bar T} I {\bar J}} =
m_{3/2}^2 K_{I {\bar J}}$ . This generalizes easily to the case of several Kahler moduli $T_{\alpha}$. Starting from the effective lagrangian $$K \ = \ - \sum_{\alpha} p_{\alpha} \ln (T_{\alpha} + {\bar T}_{\alpha}) \ + \ \prod_{\alpha} (T_{\alpha} + {\bar T}_{\alpha})^{n_I^{\alpha}} |M^I|^2
\ + \cdots \ , \label{general1}$$ the no-scale structure is defined by the condition that the superpotential $W $ is [*independent* ]{} of $ T_{\alpha}$ and the (semi)positivity of the scalar potential. Zero cosmological constant then implies $$K^{\alpha} K_{\alpha} \equiv K_{\alpha \bar \beta} K^{\alpha} K^{\bar \beta} \ = \ 3 \quad \rightarrow \quad \sum_{\alpha} p_{\alpha} \ = \ 3 \ . \label{general2}$$ The condition of having tree-level zero soft scalar masses and A-terms for matter fields $M^I$ is then $$\sum_{\alpha} n_I^{\alpha} \ = \ -1 \ . \label{general3}$$
ii\) When the following conditions are simultaneously satisfied :\
- D-term contributions are much larger[^7] than the F-terms and cancel the cosmological constant $\sum_a (g_a^2/2) D_a^2 \simeq
3 m_{3/2}^2$.\
- there are no (large) vev’s of charged scalar fields $v_{l} = 0$.\
- the matter fields are neutral under the $U(1)$’s symmetries and come from the D3 brane sector (or, more generally $n_I = - 1$) .
Indeed, in this case by using the Kahler potential $$K \ = \ - 3 \ \ln (T + {\bar T}) \ + \ (T + {\bar T})^{-1} \ |M^I|^2 \ + \ \cdots \ , \label{general4}$$ then it can be easily checked that the D-term contributions precisely cancel the other terms in the soft terms in (\[soft9\]). The generalization of this D-dominated supersymmetry breaking case to the case of several moduli $T_{\alpha}$ is more involved and will not be discussed here.
iii\) A simple way to obtain tree-level zero soft masses is by geometric sequestering [@anomaly], i.e separating in the internal space the source of supersymmetry breaking from the matter fields. From a 4d viewpoint, the vanishing of the tree-level soft terms appear as non-trivial cancellations in the general formula (\[soft9\]). However this cancellation is protected from quantum corrections by the geometric separation of the source of supersymmetry breaking. A typical example, obtained by assuming that moduli fields (in particular the modulus $T$) were stabilized in a supersymmetric way, is that of a matter field $M$ and a hidden sector field $\phi_h$, which is the only source of supersymmetry breaking and of cancellation of the cosmological constant $G_h G^h =3$. The 4d supergravity action is $$\begin{aligned}
&& K \ = \ - 3 \ln \ ( 1 \ - \ {|M|^2 \over 3} \ - \ {|\phi_h|^2 \over 3} ) \ , \ \nonumber \\
&& W \ = \ W_v (M) \ + \ W_h (\phi_h) \ . \label{general6} \end{aligned}$$
It is also possible that a matter-like field $C$ with couplings to the observable matter saturates the vacuum energy $ K_{C {\bar C}} |F^C|^2 = 3 m_{3/2}^2 M_P^2$ and by fine-tuning provides the cancellation of the tree-level soft scalar mass, see e.g. [@lnr]. When neither of these cases occur, other manifestly supersymmetric uplifting mechanism are expected to lead to soft scalar masses of the order of the gravitino mass $m_{I {\bar J}}^2 \sim m_{3/2}^2$.
Soft terms with dynamical F-term uplifting
------------------------------------------
A particularly important question is the magnitude of the soft terms in the visible sector in the present setup. In order to answer this question, we first estimate the contribution to supersymmetry breaking from the various fields. By using the results of section 2, we find in the leading order $$\begin{aligned}
&& \overline{F^{\varphi}} \ \equiv \ e^{K / 2} \ K^{\varphi {\bar
\varphi}} D_{\varphi} \ W \ \simeq \ e^{K / 2} \ K^{\varphi {\bar
\varphi}} \ ( {\bar \varphi}_0 W \ + \ \delta \Phi \
\partial_{\Phi}
\partial_{\varphi} W_2 ) \ \simeq \ 0 \ , \nonumber \\
&& \overline{F^{\tilde \varphi}} \ \simeq \ 0 \quad , \quad
\overline{F^{\Phi}} \ = \ e^{K / 2} \
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 0
\\
0 & \ - h
\mu^2 I_{N_f-N}
\end{array}
\right) \ , \nonumber \\
&& F^T \ \simeq \ \ {a \over (T_0 + {\bar T}_0)^{1 /2}} \ e^{-b T_0} \
\simeq \ \ - \ {3 \over b} \ m_{3/2} \ . \label{soft1}\end{aligned}$$ Notice that the main contribution to supersymmetry breaking comes from the magnetic mesonic fields $\Phi$, which are the main responsible for the uplift of the vacuum energy $$Tr (|F^{\Phi}|^2) \ \simeq \ 3 \ m_{3/2}^2 \ . \label{soft2}$$ The transmission of supersymmetry breaking in the observable sector depends on the couplings of the observable fields $M^I$ to the SUSY breaking fields $\Phi$, $T$. The relevant couplings for our present discussion are the following terms in the Kahler metric of the matter fields $M^I$ $$K_{I {\bar J}} \ = \ \ (T + {\bar T})^{n_I} \ Z_{I {\bar
J}} + Tr (|\Phi|^2) \ Z'_{I {\bar J}} \ \ , \label{soft3}$$ where the form of the $\Phi$ coupling in the Kahler metric in (\[soft3\]) is dictated by the diagonal $SU(N_f)$ flavor symmetry left unbroken by the mass parameter $\mu$ in the ISS lagrangian. The Yukawa couplings $W_{IJK} $ could also depend on $T$ and $\Phi$.
Then from (\[soft9\]) with no D-term contributions $D_a=0$, we find that the $F^T$ contribution is subleading by a factor $1 / b^2 (T + {\bar T})^2$ with respect to the other contributions. This has the nice feature that the flavor-dependent $F^T$ contribution to scalar soft masses are subleading. The result for the (canonically normalized scalars) soft masses, at the leading order, is then given by $$\begin{aligned}
&& m^2_{I {\bar J}} \ = \ m_{3/2}^2 \ \delta_{I {\bar J}} \ + \ { h^2 (N_f-N) \
\mu^4 \over (T + {\bar T})^3} \ (K^{-1} Z')_{I {\bar J}} \ \
\nonumber \\
&& \simeq \ m_{3/2}^2 \left( \ \delta_{I {\bar J}} \ + \ 3
\ (K^{-1} Z')_{I {\bar J}} \ \right) \ . \label{soft5}\end{aligned}$$ If the coupling to the mesonic fields $\Phi$ is small, i.e the coefficients $Z'_{I {\bar J}}$ are suppressed, soft scalar masses in the observable (MSSM) sector are universal and are similar with the ones obtained in the “ dilaton-dominated” scenario in the past. It would be very interesting to find physical reasons of why $Z'_{I {\bar J}}$ are small. The geometrical sequestering cannot be invoked in this case since the matter fields $M$ and the mesons $\Phi$ do not fit into the structure (\[general6\]). If the coeff. $Z'_{I {\bar J}}$ are of order one, the two terms in (\[soft5\]) are of the same order and the flavor problem of gravity mediation is back.
A similar conclusion holds for the other possible source of flavor violation, the A-terms. If the couplings of the mesons to the matter fields are small, we get in the leading order, for the canonically normalized scalars $$A_{IJL} \ \simeq \ 3 \ m_{3/2} \ w_{IJL} \ , \label{soft06}$$ where $w_{IJL}$ are the low-energy Yukawa couplings for the matter fields, related to the corresponding SUGRA couplings $W_{IJL} = \nabla_I \nabla_J \nabla_L \ W$ by $$w_{IJL} = e^{K/2} \ (K^{-1/2})_I^{I'} (K^{-1/2})_J^{J'} (K^{-1/2})_L^{L'} \ W_{I'J'L'} \ . \label{soft010}$$ Since A-terms are proportional to the Yukawa couplings, there are no flavor violations in this case.
Gaugino masses in the observable sector are determined by the gauge kinetic functions which in our case have generically the form $$f_a \ = \ f_a^{(0)} \ + \ \alpha_a T \ + \ \beta_a \ (Tr \Phi) \ ,
\label{soft6}$$ where $f_a^{(0)}$ are provided by other moduli fields, stabilized in a supersymmetric manner. The form of coupling to the mesons in (\[soft6\]) is fixed by the diagonal $SU(N_f)$ flavor symmetry left unbroken by the mass parameter $\mu$, whereas $\alpha_a$ are numbers of order one[^8]. The gaugino masses $$M_a \ = \alpha_a F^T \ + \ \beta_a \ (Tr F^\Phi) \ \label{soft7}$$ are of the order of the gravitino mass if $\beta_a$ are of order one, whereas they are supressed by the factor $1/ b (T + {\bar T})$ if $\beta_a$ are small. In this second case, the anomaly-mediated contributions [@anomaly; @rattazzi] are comparable to the tree-level ones. To conclude, we do not find a suppression of all of the soft terms in the observable sector with respect to the gravitino mass. This is in agreement with the results of ref. [@lnr]. Therefore our results point towards a gravity-mediation type of supersymmetry breaking in the hidden sector, which in the case of small couplings of matter to hiden sector mesons are very similar to the dilaton-domination scenario and are therefore flavor blind at tree-level [^9]
We would like to briefly compare these results to the ones obtained in [@Choi:2004sx] by using the original KKLT uplifting mechanism with D${\bar 3}$ antibranes[^10]. By using a nonlinear supergravity approach, [@Choi:2004sx] found a (moderate) hierarchy $m_{3/2} \sim 4 \pi^2 m_{soft}$. Let us try to understand better the difference with our results. As we discussed in the previous section, there are three ways of supressing the tree-level soft masses for matter fields. The first is no-scale type models. The KKLT-type models are not of this type, since $F^T$ contribution is small. The second case is the dominant D-term breaking. This is probably the manifestly supersymmetric case which should correspond in the low energy limit to the analysis done in [@Choi:2004sx]. Knowing that pure D-term supersymmetry breaking does not exist, it could be difficult to realize a model along these lines. It is however very interesting to investigate this possibility in more detail.
We believe that a more detailed phenomenological analysis of the possible manifestly supersymmetric uplifting mechanisms deserves further investigation.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
[ We would like to thank Z. Chacko, Z. Lalak, Y. Mambrini, A. Romagnoni, C. Scrucca and R. Sundrum for useful discussions. E.D thanks KITP of Santa Barbara and S.P. thanks the CERN theory group , respectively, for hospitality during the completion of this work. Work partially supported by the CNRS PICS \# 2530 and 3059, RTN contracts MRTN-CT-2004-005104 and MRTN-CT-2004-503369, the European Union Excellence Grant, MEXT-CT-2003-509661, by the Polish grant MEiN 1 P03B 099 29, the EC contract MTKD-CT-2005-029466 and by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. PHY99-07949. ]{}
[99]{}
I. Affleck, M. Dine and N. Seiberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**52**]{} (1984) 1677 and Nucl. Phys. B [**241**]{} (1984) 493. K. Intriligator, N. Seiberg and D. Shih, JHEP [**0604**]{} (2006) 021 \[arXiv:hep-th/0602239\]. S. Franco and A. M. Uranga, JHEP [**0606**]{} (2006) 031 \[arXiv:hep-th/0604136\]; H. Ooguri and Y. Ookouchi, arXiv:hep-th/0606061 and arXiv:hep-th/0607183 ; V. Braun, E. I. Buchbinder and B. A. Ovrut, Phys. Lett. B [**639**]{} (2006) 566 \[arXiv:hep-th/0606166\] and arXiv:hep-th/0606241; S. Ray, arXiv:hep-th/0607172; S. Franco, I. Garcia-Etxebarria and A. M. Uranga, arXiv:hep-th/0607218; S. Forste, arXiv:hep-th/0608036; A. Amariti, L. Girardello and A. Mariotti, arXiv:hep-th/0608063; I. Bena, E. Gorbatov, S. Hellerman, N. Seiberg and D. Shih, arXiv:hep-th/0608157; C. Ahn, arXiv:hep-th/0608160 and arXiv:hep-th/0610025; M. Eto, K. Hashimoto and S. Terashima, arXiv:hep-th/0610042; R. Argurio, M. Bertolini, S. Franco and S. Kachru, arXiv:hep-th/0610212; M. Aganagic, C. Beem, J. Seo and C. Vafa, arXiv:hep-th/0610249. S. Dimopoulos, G. R. Dvali, R. Rattazzi and G. F. Giudice, Nucl. Phys. B [**510**]{} (1998) 12 \[arXiv:hep-ph/9705307\]. S. Kachru, R. Kallosh, A. Linde and S. P. Trivedi, Phys. Rev. D [**68**]{} (2003) 046005 \[arXiv:hep-th/0301240\]. S. B. Giddings, S. Kachru and J. Polchinski, Phys. Rev. D [**66**]{} (2002) 106006 \[arXiv:hep-th/0105097\].
E. Dudas and S. K. Vempati, Nucl. Phys. B [**727**]{} (2005) 139 \[arXiv:hep-th/0506172\].
H. Jockers and J. Louis, Nucl. Phys. B [**718**]{} (2005) 203 \[arXiv:hep-th/0502059\]; G. Villadoro and F. Zwirner, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**95**]{} (2005) 231602 \[arXiv:hep-th/0508167\]; A. Achucarro, B. de Carlos, J. A. Casas and L. Doplicher, arXiv:hep-th/0601190; K. Choi and K. S. Jeong, arXiv:hep-th/0605108; E. Dudas and Y. Mambrini, arXiv:hep-th/0607077; M. Haack, D. Krefl, D. Lust, A. Van Proeyen and M. Zagermann, arXiv:hep-th/0609211.
C. P. Burgess, R. Kallosh and F. Quevedo, JHEP [**0310**]{} (2003) 056 \[arXiv:hep-th/0309187\].
A. Saltman and E. Silverstein, JHEP [**0411**]{} (2004) 066 \[arXiv:hep-th/0402135\].
M. Gomez-Reino and C. A. Scrucca, JHEP [**0605**]{} (2006) 015 \[arXiv:hep-th/0602246\] and arXiv:hep-th/0606273. O. Lebedev, H. P. Nilles and M. Ratz, Phys. Lett. B [**636**]{} (2006) 126 \[arXiv:hep-th/0603047\].
K. A. Intriligator and S. D. Thomas, Nucl. Phys. B [**473**]{} (1996) 121 \[arXiv:hep-th/9603158\]; K. I. Izawa and T. Yanagida, Prog. Theor. Phys. [**95**]{} (1996) 829 \[arXiv:hep-th/9602180\].
K. Choi, A. Falkowski, H. P. Nilles, M. Olechowski and S. Pokorski, JHEP [**0411**]{} (2004) 076 \[arXiv:hep-th/0411066\]; K. Choi, A. Falkowski, H. P. Nilles and M. Olechowski, Nucl. Phys. B [**718**]{} (2005) 113 \[arXiv:hep-th/0503216\]; M. Endo, M. Yamaguchi and K. Yoshioka, Phys. Rev. D [**72**]{} (2005) 015004 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0504036\]; A. Falkowski, O. Lebedev and Y. Mambrini, JHEP [**0511**]{} (2005) 034 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0507110\]; K. Choi, K. S. Jeong, T. Kobayashi and K. i. Okumura, Phys. Lett. B [**633**]{} (2006) 355 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0508029\].
J. P. Derendinger, C. Kounnas, P. M. Petropoulos and F. Zwirner, Nucl. Phys. B [**715**]{} (2005) 211 \[arXiv:hep-th/0411276\]; O. DeWolfe, A. Giryavets, S. Kachru and W. Taylor, JHEP [**0507**]{} (2005) 066 \[arXiv:hep-th/0505160\].
P. G. Camara, A. Font and L. E. Ibanez, JHEP [**0509**]{} (2005) 013 \[arXiv:hep-th/0506066\]; G. Villadoro and F. Zwirner, JHEP [**0603**]{} (2006) 087 \[arXiv:hep-th/0602120\]. S. R. Coleman, Phys. Rev. D [**15**]{} (1977) 2929 \[Erratum-ibid. D [**16**]{} (1977) 1248\]; S. R. Coleman and F. De Luccia, Phys. Rev. D [**21**]{} (1980) 3305. M. J. Duncan and L. G. Jensen, Phys. Lett. B [**291**]{} (1992) 109. S. K. Soni and H. A. Weldon, Phys. Lett. B [**126**]{} (1983) 215; V. S. Kaplunovsky and J. Louis, Phys. Lett. B [**306**]{} (1993) 269 \[arXiv:hep-th/9303040\]; A. Brignole, L. E. Ibanez and C. Munoz, Nucl. Phys. B [**422**]{} (1994) 125 \[Erratum-ibid. B [**436**]{} (1995) 747\] \[arXiv:hep-ph/9308271\]. P. Binetruy and E. Dudas, Phys. Lett. B [**389**]{} (1996) 503 \[arXiv:hep-th/9607172\]; N. Arkani-Hamed, M. Dine and S. P. Martin, Phys. Lett. B [**431**]{} (1998) 329 \[arXiv:hep-ph/9803432\]. M. Dine, J. L. Feng and E. Silverstein, arXiv:hep-th/0608159. Y. Kawamura, Phys. Lett. B [**446**]{} (1999) 228 \[arXiv:hep-ph/9811312\]. E. Cremmer, S. Ferrara, C. Kounnas and D. V. Nanopoulos, Phys. Lett. B [**133**]{} (1983) 61; J. R. Ellis, C. Kounnas and D. V. Nanopoulos, Nucl. Phys. B [**247**]{} (1984) 373. L. Randall and R. Sundrum, Nucl. Phys. B [**557**]{} (1999) 79 \[arXiv:hep-th/9810155\].
G. F. Giudice, M. A. Luty, H. Murayama and R. Rattazzi, JHEP [**9812**]{} (1998) 027 \[arXiv:hep-ph/9810442\]. M. A. Luty and R. Sundrum, Phys. Rev. D [**62**]{} (2000) 035008 \[arXiv:hep-th/9910202\]. J. P. Conlon, S. S. Abdussalam, F. Quevedo and K. Suruliz, arXiv:hep-th/0610129.
[^1]: See [@iss2] for various extensions and string embedding of the ISS proposal and [@ddgr] for an earlier proposal.
[^2]: It would be very interesting to find explicit counter-examples to this claim.
[^3]: The gauge D-term contributions do not exist in the un-gauged case we are discussing in this section and will play essentially no role in the following sections.
[^4]: In most of the formulae of this letter, $M_P=1$. In some formulae, however, we keep explicitly $M_P$.
[^5]: Notice that the leading order expression for $W_0$ in (\[iss07\]) is not enough for computing $F^T$, since the subleading terms neglected in (\[iss07\]) are needed as well. $F^T$ can be computed directly, however, by keeping the leading terms in the eq. $\partial_T V =0$.
[^6]: We don’t write the analytic bilinear soft terms, since their discussion depends on the origin of the corresponding ($\mu$-like) term in the superpotential.
[^7]: We should keep in mind, however, that in supergravity with $\langle W \rangle \not=0$, there is no pure D-breaking. This case assumes therefore $D_a \gg F^{\alpha}$, but F-terms have to exist.
[^8]: In a type IIB orientifold embedding, this happens if the observable sector lives on D7 branes.
[^9]: For other ways of getting flavor universality in compactifications with stabilized moduli, see e.g. [@quevedo].
[^10]: See also [@luty] for a model with a phenomenology similar to the one in [@Choi:2004sx].
|
---
abstract: 'Let $G = (G,+)$ be a compact connected abelian group, and let $\mu_G$ denote its probability Haar measure. A theorem of Kneser (generalising previous results of Macbeath, Raikov, and Shields) establishes the bound $$\mu_G(A + B) \geq \min( \mu_G(A)+\mu_G(B), 1 )$$ whenever $A,B$ are compact subsets of $G$, and $A+B \coloneqq \{ a+b: a \in A, b \in B \}$ denotes the sumset of $A$ and $B$. Clearly one has equality when $\mu_G(A)+\mu_G(B) \geq 1$. Another way in which equality can be obtained is when $A = \phi^{-1}(I), B = \phi^{-1}(J)$ for some continuous surjective homomorphism $\phi: G \to {\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}$ and compact arcs $I,J \subset {\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}$. We establish an inverse theorem that asserts, roughly speaking, that when equality in the above bound is almost attained, then $A,B$ are close to one of the above examples. We also give a more “robust” form of this theorem in which the sumset $A+B$ is replaced by the partial sumset $A +_{\varepsilon}B \coloneqq \{ 1_A * 1_B \geq {\varepsilon}\}$ for some small ${\varepsilon}>0$. In a subsequent paper with Joni Teräväinen, we will apply this latter inverse theorem to establish that certain patterns in multiplicative functions occur with positive density.'
address: |
Department of Mathematics, UCLA\
405 Hilgard Ave\
Los Angeles CA 90095\
USA
author:
- Terence Tao
title: An inverse theorem for an inequality of Kneser
---
Introduction
============
Throughout this paper, we use $\mu_G$ to denote the Haar probability measure on any compact abelian group $G = (G,+)$; thus for instance $\mu_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}}$ is Lebesgue measure on the unit circle ${\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}$. In [@kneser], Kneser established[^1] the inequality $$\label{kemp}
\mu_G(A + B) \geq \min( \mu_G(A)+\mu_G(B), 1 )$$ whenever $A,B$ are non-empty compact subsets of a compact connected abelian group $G$, and $A+B \coloneqq \{ a+b: a \in A, b \in B \}$ denotes the sumset of $A$ and $B$. A subsequent result of Kemperman [@kemperman] extended this inequality to compact connected nonabelian groups also, but we restrict attention here to the abelian case. Prior to Macbeath’s result, the case of a circle $G = {\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}$ was obtained by Raikov [@raikov] (and can also be derived by a limiting argument from the Cauchy-Davenport inequality), the case of a torus $G = ({\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}})^d$ was obtained by Macbeath [@macbeath], and the case of second countable connected compact groups by Shields [@shields]. The fact that $G$ is connected is crucial, since otherwise $G$ could contain open subgroups of measure strictly between $0$ and $1$, which would of course yield a counterexample to .
In a blog post [@blog] of the author, it was observed that one could use an argument of Ruzsa [@ruzsa] to obtain the following stronger bound (cf. Pollard’s bound [@pollard] for cyclic groups):
\[ruzsa-thm\] Let $A,B$ be measurable subsets of a compact connected abelian group $G$. Then $$\int_G \min( 1_A * 1_B, t )\ d\mu_G \geq t \min( \mu_G(A) + \mu_G(B) -t, 1 )$$ for any $0 \leq t \leq \min(\mu_G(A), \mu_G(B))$, where $$1_A * 1_B(x) \coloneqq \int_G 1_A(y) 1_B(x-y)\ d\mu_G(y)$$ is the convolution of $1_A$ and $1_B$, and $1_A$ denotes the indicator function of $A$.
For the convenience of the reader, we give the proof of this theorem in Section \[ruz\]. To see why this result implies , we observe the following corollary of Theorem \[ruzsa-thm\]. Given two measurable subsets $A,B$ of $G$ and a parameter ${\varepsilon}>0$, we define the partial sumset $A +_{\varepsilon}B$ by the formula $$A +_{\varepsilon}B := \{ x \in G: 1_A * 1_B(x) \geq {\varepsilon}\}.$$ This is a compact subset of $A+B$.
\[kemp-cor\] Let $G, A, B$ be as in Theorem \[ruzsa-thm\]. Then for any $0 < {\varepsilon}< \min(\mu_G(A),\mu_G(B))^2$, we have $$\mu_G(A +_{\varepsilon}B) \geq \min( \mu_G(A) + \mu_G(B), 1 ) - 2 \sqrt{{\varepsilon}}$$
One can improve the error term $2\sqrt{{\varepsilon}}$ slightly, but we will not need to do so here.
From the pointwise bound $$\min( 1_A * 1_B, \sqrt{{\varepsilon}} ) \leq {\varepsilon}+ \sqrt{{\varepsilon}} 1_{A +_{\varepsilon}B}$$ one has $$\int_G \min( 1_A * 1_B, \sqrt{{\varepsilon}} )\ d\mu_G \leq {\varepsilon}+ \sqrt{{\varepsilon}} \mu_G( A +_{\varepsilon}B)$$ and hence by Theorem \[ruzsa-thm\], we have $$\mu_G(A +_{\varepsilon}B) \geq \min( \mu_G(A) + \mu_G(B) - \sqrt{{\varepsilon}}, 1 ) - \sqrt{{\varepsilon}},$$ giving the claim.
Since the set $A +_{\varepsilon}B$ is contained in $A+B$, the claim follows from this corollary (in the case $\mu_G(A), \mu_G(B) > 0$) by sending ${\varepsilon}$ to $0$, noting that is trivial when $\mu_G(A)=0$ or $\mu_G(B)=0$.
There are several cases in which the estimate is sharp. Firstly, one has the trivial cases in which $A$ or $B$ is a point; there are some further examples of this type where (say) $A$ is a coset of a measure zero subgroup of $G$, and $B$ is a union of cosets of that group. Secondly, if one has $\mu_G(A) + \mu_G(B) \geq 1$, then the compact sets $A$ and $x-B$ cannot be disjoint (as this would disconnect $G$, since the complement of $A \cup (x-B)$ would be an open null set and hence empty); hence $A+B=G$ and holds with equality. Define a *Bohr set* to be a subset of $G$ of the form $\phi^{-1}(I)$, where $\phi: G \to {\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}$ is a continuous surjective homomorphism and $I$ is a compact arc in ${\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}$ (i.e., a set of the form $I = [a,b] \text{ mod } {\mathbb{Z}}$ for some $a < b$, where $x \mapsto x \text{ mod } {\mathbb{Z}}$ is the projection from ${\mathbb{R}}$ to ${\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}$), and say that two Bohr sets $\phi^{-1}(I), \psi^{-1}(J)$ are *parallel* if $\phi=\psi$. If $A = \phi^{-1}(I)$ and $B = \phi^{-1}(J)$ are two parallel Bohr sets, then $A+B = \phi^{-1}(I+J)$ is also a Bohr set, and (by the uniqueness of Haar measure) the Haar measure of $A,B,A+B$ is equal to the measures of $I,J,I+J$ respectively on the unit circle. One can then easily verify that holds with equality in these cases.
The main result of this paper is an inverse theorem that asserts, roughly speaking, that the above examples are essentially the only situations in which equality can occur. More precisely, we have
\[inv-1\] Let ${\varepsilon}>0$, and suppose that $\delta>0$ is sufficiently small depending on ${\varepsilon}$. Then, for any compact subsets $A,B$ of a compact connected abelian group $G = (G,+)$ with $$\mu_G(A), \mu_G(B), 1 - \mu_G(A) - \mu_G(B) \geq {\varepsilon}$$ and $$\mu_G(A+B) \leq \mu_G(A) + \mu_G(B) + \delta,$$ there exist parallel Bohr sets $\phi^{-1}(I), \phi^{-1}(J)$ such that $$\mu_G( A \Delta \phi^{-1}(I) ), \mu_G( B \Delta \phi^{-1}(J) ) \leq {\varepsilon},$$ where $A \Delta B$ denotes the symmetric difference of $A$ and $B$.
In the case $G = {\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}$, this result was recently obtained in [@candela Theorem 1.5] (with a quite sharp dependence between ${\varepsilon}$ and $\delta$), by a different method; see also the earlier work [@mfy], [@fjm]. In the case of a torus $G = ({\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}})^d$, when the measures of $A$ and $B$ are small and comparable to each other, this theorem was obtained (again with a sharp dependence between ${\varepsilon}$ and $\delta$) in [@bilu Theorem 1.4].
As a consequence of the above theorem, we can reprove a theorem of Kneser [@kneser Satz 2] classifying when equality holds in :
\[cor\] Let let $A,B$ be non-empty compact subsets of a compact connected abelian group $G$ such that equality holds in . Then at least one of the following statements hold:
- $\mu_G(A)=0$ or $\mu_G(B) = 0$.
- $A,B$ are parallel Bohr sets.
- $\mu_G(A) + \mu_G(B) \geq 1$.
We prove this corollary in Section \[cor-sec\].
Much as can be deduced from Corollary \[kemp-cor\], Theorem \[inv-1\] will be deduced from the following variant:
\[inv-2\] Let ${\varepsilon}>0$, and suppose that $\delta>0$ is sufficiently small depending on ${\varepsilon}$. Then, for any measurable subsets $A,B$ of a compact connected abelian group $G$ with $$\mu_G(A), \mu_G(B), 1 - \mu_G(A) - \mu_G(B) \geq {\varepsilon}$$ and $$\mu_G(A +_\delta B) \leq \mu_G(A) + \mu_G(B) + \delta,$$ there exist parallel Bohr sets $\phi^{-1}(I), \phi^{-1}(J)$ such that $$\mu_G( A \Delta \phi^{-1}(I) ), \mu_G( B \Delta \phi^{-1}(J) ) \leq {\varepsilon}.$$
Since $A +_\delta B$ is clearly contained in $A+B$, it is immediate that Theorem \[inv-2\] implies Theorem \[inv-1\].
The proof of Theorem \[inv-2\] can be outlined as follows. To simplify this outline, let us ignore all the ${\varepsilon}$ and $\delta$ errors, in particular pretending that the partial sumset $A +_\delta B$ is the same as the full sumset $A+B$. Let us informally call a pair $(A,B)$ a “critical pair” if the conditions of Theorem \[inv-2\] are obeyed. By using “submodularity inequalities” such as $$\mu_G( (A_1 \cup A_2) + B) + \mu_G( (A_1 \cap A_2) + B) \leq \mu_G(A_1+B) + \mu_G(A_2+B),$$ valid for any compact $A_1,A_2,B \subset G$, (which follow from the identity $(A_1 \cup A_2)+B = (A_1+B) \cup (A_2+B)$ and the inclusion $(A_1 \cap A_2)+B \subset (A_1+B) \cap (A_2+B)$ respectively), one can obtain a number of closure properties regarding critical pairs, for instance establishing that if $(A_1,B)$ and $(A_2,B)$ are critical pairs then $(A_1 \cup A_2,B)$ and $(A_1 \cap A_2,B)$ are also, provided that $A_1 \cap A_2$ is non-empty and $A_1 \cup A_2$ is not too large. Similarly, using the associativity $(A+B)+C = A+(B+C)$ of the sum set operation, one can show that if $(A,B)$ and $(A+B,C)$ are critical pairs, then so are $(B,C)$ and $(A,B+C)$. Using such closure properties repeatedly in combination with the translation invariance of the critical pair concept, we can start with a critical pair $(A,B)$ and generate a small (but non-trivial) auxiliary set $C$ such that $(A,C)$ and $(C,C)$ are critical pairs; furthermore, we can also arrange matters so that $(C,kC)$ is a critical pair for all bounded $k$ (e.g. all $1 \leq k \leq 10^4$), where $kC = C + \dots + C$ is the $k$-fold iterated sumset of $C$. This implies in particular that $C$ has linear growth in the sense that $\mu_G(kC) \approx k\mu_G(C)$ for all bounded $k$, which by existing tools in inverse sumset theory (in particular using arguments of Schoen [@schoen] and Green-Ruzsa [@rect], [@green]) can be used to show that $C$ is very close to a Bohr set. As $(A,C)$ is a critical pair, some elementary analysis can then be deployed to show that $A$ is very close to a Bohr set parallel to $C$, and then as $(A,B)$ is also critical, $B$ is also very close to a Bohr set parallel to $A$, giving the claim.
In order to make notions such as “critical pair” rigorous, it will be convenient to use the language of “cheap nonstandard analysis” [@cheap], working with a sequence $(A,B) = (A_n,B_n)$ of pairs in a sequence $G = G_n$ of groups, rather than with a single pair in a single group, so that asymptotic notation such as $o(1)$ can be usefully deployed. It should however be possible to reformulate the arguments below without this language, at the cost of having to pay significantly more attention to various ${\varepsilon}$ and $\delta$ type parameters.
In a subsequent paper with Joni Teräväinen, we will combine this theorem with the structural theory of correlations of bounded multiplicative functions (as developed recently in [@jt]) to obtain new results about the distribution of sign patterns $(f_1(n+1), f_2(n+2),\dots, f_k(n+k))$ of various bounded multiplicative functions $f_1,\dots,f_k$ such as the Liouville function $\lambda(n)$, as well as generalisations such as $e^{2\pi i \Omega(n)/m}$ for a fixed natural number $m$, where $\Omega(n)$ denotes the number of prime factors of $n$ (counting multiplicity).
Results analogous to Theorem \[inv-1\] are known when the connected group $G$ is replaced by the discrete group ${\mathbb{Z}}/p{\mathbb{Z}}$: see [@freiman], [@rodseth], [@serra], [@rect], [@blr], [@g], as well as some further discussion in [@hgz]. In the recent paper [@candela], these results (particularly those in [@g]) are used to establish the $G={\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}$ case of Theorem \[inv-1\]. On the integers ${\mathbb{Z}}$, a version of Theorem \[inv-2\] when $A, B \subset {\mathbb{Z}}$ have the same cardinality was obtained very recently in [@shao Corollary 5.2].
Acknowledgments
---------------
The author was supported by a Simons Investigator grant, the James and Carol Collins Chair, the Mathematical Analysis & Application Research Fund Endowment, and by NSF grant DMS-1266164. The author is indebted to Joni Teräväinen for key discussions that led to the author pursuing this question, and for helpful comments and corrections, and to Ben Green for some references. The author also thanks John Griesmer and the anonymous referees for further corrections and suggestions.
Proof of Theorem \[ruzsa-thm\] {#ruz}
==============================
We now prove Theorem \[ruzsa-thm\]. By inner regularity of Haar measure and a limiting argument we may assume $A,B$ are compact. In the case $$\mu_G(A) + \mu_G(B) - t \geq 1,$$ we see that the set $A \cap (x-B) = \{ y \in A: x-y \in B \}$ has measure at least $\mu_G(A)+\mu_G(B)-1 \geq t$ for every $x \in G$, and hence $1_A * 1_B(x) \geq t$ for all $x \in G$, giving the claim in this case. Thus we may assume that $\mu_G(A)+\mu_G(B)-t < 1$. We may also assume that $G$ is non-trivial, which (by the connectedness of $G$) implies that there exist measurable subsets of $G$ of arbitrary measure between $0$ and $1$.
Fix $G$, let $B$ be a compact subset of $G$, and let $0 \leq t \leq \mu_G(B)$ be a real number. For any compact $A \subset G$, define the quantity $$c(A) \coloneqq \int_G \min(1_A * 1_B, t)\ d\mu_G - t (\mu_G(A) + \mu_G(B) -t),$$ and then for every $a \in [0,1]$, let $f(a)$ denote the infimum of $c(A)$ over all $A$ with $\mu_G(A)=a$. Our task is to show that $f$ is non-negative on the interval $[t, 1-\mu_G(B)+t]$.
If $\mu_G(A) = 1-\mu_G(B)+t$, then by the previous discussion we have $1_A * 1_B(x) \geq t$ for all $x \in G$, and hence $c(A)=0$; hence $f(1-\mu_G(B)+t)=0$. At the other extreme, if $\mu_G(A) = t$, then $1_A * 1_B(x) \leq t$ for all $x \in G$, and hence from Fubini’s theorem we again have $c(A) = 0$.
Observe that if one modifies $A$ by a set of measure at most $\delta$, then $c(A)$ varies by $O(\delta)$. From this we conclude that $f$ is Lipschitz continuous. Thus, if we assume for contradiction that $f$ is not always non-negative; then there must exist a point $a$ in the interior of $[t, 1-\mu_G(B)+t]$ where $f$ attains a global negative minimum and is not locally constant in a neighbourhood of $a$. In particular, there exist arbitrarily small ${\varepsilon}$ such that $$\label{fae}
f(a) < \frac{f(a-{\varepsilon}) + f(a+{\varepsilon})}{2}.$$
On the other hand, we observe the crucial submodularity property $$\label{submod}
c(A_1) + c(A_2) \geq c(A_1 \cap A_2)+ c(A_1 \cup A_2)$$ for all measurable sets $A_1,A_2 \subset G$. To see this, we begin with the inclusion-exclusion identity $$1_{A_1} + 1_{A_2} = 1_{A_1 \cap A_2} + 1_{A_1 \cup A_2}$$ which implies that $$1_{A_1} * 1_B + 1_{A_2} * 1_B = 1_{A_1 \cap A_2} * 1_B + 1_{A_1 \cup A_2} * 1_B.$$ Observe that for each $x \in G$, we have the pointwise inequalities $$1_{A_1 \cap A_2} * 1_B(x) \leq 1_{A_1} * 1_B(x), 1_{A_2} * 1_B(x) \leq 1_{A_1 \cup A_2} * 1_B(x);$$ by the concavity of the map $x \mapsto \min(x,t)$ we therefore have the pointwise bound $$\label{a12b}
\min( 1_{A_1} * 1_B , t ) + \min( 1_{A_2} * 1_B, t) \geq \min( 1_{A_1 \cap A_2} * 1_B, t) + \min( 1_{A_1 \cup A_2} * 1_B, t).$$ Integrating over $G$ and using the inclusion-exclusion formula $\mu_G(A_1) + \mu_G(A_2) = \mu_G(A_1 \cap A_2) + \mu_G(A_1 \cup A_2)$, we obtain as desired.
Let $A$ be such that $\mu_G(A)=a$, and let ${\varepsilon}>0$ be a small quantity such that holds. Now we observe the following application of connectedness:
\[cont\] Let $A$ be a measurable subset of $G$, and let $t$ be any real number with $\mu_G(A)^2 \leq t \leq \mu_G(A)$. Then there exists $x \in G$ such that $\mu_G(A \cap (x+A)) = t$.
The function $x \mapsto 1_A * 1_{-A}(x) = \mu_G( A \cap (x+A))$, being a convolution of $L^2$ functions, is a continuous function of $x$ that equals $\mu_G(A)$ when $x=0$, and has a mean value of $\mu_G(A)^2$ on $G$ by Fubini’s theorem. The claim then follows from the intermediate value theorem and the connectedness of $G$.
By Lemma \[cont\], there exists $x \in G$ such that $\mu_G( A \cap (x+A) ) = a - {\varepsilon}$, and hence by inclusion-exclusion $\mu_G(A \cup (x+A) ) = a+{\varepsilon}$. From with $A_1,A_2$ replaced by $A, x+A$ we have $$c( A) + c(x+A) \geq c(A \cap (x+A)) + c(A \cup (x+A)) \geq f(a-{\varepsilon}) + f(a+{\varepsilon}).$$ By translation invariance we have $c(x+A) = c(A)$, hence $$2c(A) \geq f(a-{\varepsilon}) + f(a+{\varepsilon}).$$ Taking infima over all $A$ with $\mu_G(A) = a$, we contradict , and the claim follows.
With some minor notational modifications, this argument also works for nonabelian compact connected groups; see [@blog].
Proof of Corollary \[cor\] {#cor-sec}
==========================
We now prove Corollary \[cor\]. Suppose that $A,B$ are compact subsets of a compact connected abelian group $G$ are such that equality holds in . We may assume that $\mu_G(A), \mu_G(B), 1 - \mu_G(A)-\mu_G(B) > 0$, since we are done otherwise. Applying Theorem \[inv-1\], we conclude that there exist sequences $\phi_n^{-1}(I_n), \phi_n^{-1}(J_n)$ of parallel Bohr sets such that $$\mu_G( A \Delta \phi^{-1}_n(I_n) ), \mu_G( B \Delta \phi^{-1}_n(J_n) ) = o(1),$$ where in this section we use $o(1)$ to denote a quantity that goes to zero as $n \to \infty$. In particular, the arcs $I_n,J_n$ in the circle ${\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}$ have measure $$\mu_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}}(I_n) = \mu_G(A) + o(1), \mu_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}}(J_n) = \mu_G(B) + o(1).$$ Taking Fourier coefficients, we see that $$\begin{aligned}
\left| \int_G 1_A(x) e^{2\pi i \phi_n(x)}\ d\mu_G(x) \right| &= \left|\int_{I_n} e^{2\pi i \alpha}\ d\mu_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}}(\alpha)\right| + o(1) \\
&= \frac{1}{\pi} \sin(\pi \mu_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}}(I_n)) + o(1) \\
&= \frac{1}{\pi} \sin(\pi \mu_G(A)) + o(1).\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, from Plancherel’s theorem we have $$\sum_{\phi \in \hat G} \left| \int_G 1_A(x) e^{2\pi i \phi(x)}\ d\mu_G(x) \right|^2 = \mu_G(A)$$ where the Pontryagin dual group $\hat G$ consists of all continuous homomorphisms $\phi$ from $G$ to ${\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}$. Thus, for $n$ large enough, there are only boundedly many possible choices for $\phi_n$, and by passing to a subsequence if necessary we may assume that $\phi_n = \phi$ does not depend on $n$. For $n,n' \to \infty$, we now have $$\mu_G( A \Delta \phi^{-1}(I_n) ), \mu_G( A \Delta \phi^{-1}(I_{n'}) ) \to 0,$$ and hence by the triangle inequality $$\mu_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}}( I_n \Delta I_{n'} ) = \mu_G( \phi^{-1}(I_n) \Delta \phi^{-1}(I_{n'}) ) \to 0$$ as $n,n' \to \infty$. By the Bolzano-Weierstrass theorem, we may thus find a compact arc $I$ independent of $n$ such that $$\mu_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}}( I_n \Delta I) \to 0$$ as $n \to \infty$, which implies that $$\mu_G( \phi^{-1}(I_n) \Delta \phi^{-1}(I) ) \to 0$$ as $n \to \infty$. Hence by the triangle inequality, $A$ and $\phi^{-1}(I)$ must agree $\mu_G$-almost everywhere; as $A$ is compact, it cannot omit any interior point of $\phi^{-1}(I)$ (as this would also exclude a set of positive $\mu_G$ measure from $A$, and hence $A$ must therefore consist of the union of $\phi^{-1}(I)$ and a $\mu_G$-null set $E$. Similarly, there is a compact arc $J$ such that $B$ consists of the union of $\phi^{-1}(J)$ and a $\mu_G$-null set $F$. Thus $A+B$ contains $\phi^{-1}(I+J)$, which has measure $$\mu_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}}(I+J) = \mu_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}}(I)+\mu_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}}(J) = \mu_G(\phi^{-1}(I)) + \mu_G(\phi^{-1}(J)) = \mu_G(A) + \mu_G(B);$$ since holds, we conclude that $A+B$ is in fact equal to the union of $\phi^{-1}(I+J)$ and a $\mu_G$-null set. Thus for every $a \in A$, the set $a + \phi^{-1}(J)$ lies in the union of $\phi^{-1}(I+J)$ and a $\mu_G$-null set, which forces $a$ to lie in $\phi^{-1}(I)$; thus $A = \phi^{-1}(I)$, and similarly $B = \phi^{-1}(J)$, giving the claim.
Proof of Theorem \[inv-2\] {#cheap}
==========================
We now prove Theorem \[inv-2\]. It will be convenient to reformulate the result in terms of a “cheap” form of nonstandard analysis (as used in [@cheap]), involving sequences of potential counterexamples. The full machinery of nonstandard analysis, such as ultraproducts and the construction of Loeb measure, will not be needed for this reformulation; one could certainly insert such machinery into the arguments below, but they do not appear to dramatically simplify the proofs.
We will need a natural number parameter $n$. In the sequel, all mathematical objects will be permitted to depend on this parameter (and can thus be viewed as a sequence of objects), unless explicitly declared to be “fixed”. Usually we will suppress the dependence on $n$. For instance, a sequence $G_n$ of compact abelian groups will be abbreviated as $G = G_n$. A real number $x = x_n$ depending on $n$ is said to be *infinitesimal* if one has $\lim_{n \to \infty} x_n = 0$, in which case we write $x = o(1)$. If $x = x_n$, $y = y_n$ are real numbers such that $|x_n| \leq Cy_n$ for all sufficiently large $n$ and some fixed $C>0$, we write $x \ll y$, $y \gg x$, or $x = O(y)$. Two measurable subsets $A = A_n$, $B = B_n$ of a compact abelian group $G = G_n$ are said to be *asymptotically equivalent* if one has $\mu_G( A \Delta B ) = o(1)$. This is clearly an equivalence relation.
Theorem \[inv-2\] can now be deduced from the following variant:
\[inv-3\] Let $A = A_n, B = B_n$ be measurable subsets of a sequence $G = G_n$ of compact connected abelian groups with $$\label{muab}
\mu_G(A), \mu_G(B), 1 - \mu_G(A) - \mu_G(B) \gg 1$$ and $$\label{muab-2}
\mu_G(A +_\delta B) \leq \mu_G(A) + \mu_G(B) + o(1)$$ for some infinitesimal $\delta > 0$. Then there exist parallel Bohr sets $\phi^{-1}(I) = \phi_n^{-1}(I_n)$ and $\phi^{-1}(J) = \phi_n^{-1}(J_n)$ in $G = G_n$ such that $A$ and $B$ are asymptotically equivalent to $\phi^{-1}(I), \phi^{-1}(J)$ respectively.
Let us assume Theorem \[inv-3\] for now and see how it implies Theorem \[inv-2\] (and hence also Theorem \[inv-1\]). Suppose for contradiction that Theorem \[inv-2\] fails. Carefully negating the quantifiers, and applying the axiom of choice, we conclude that there exists an ${\varepsilon}>0$, such that for every natural number $n$ there are measurable subsets $A = A_n, B = B_n$ of a compact connected abelian group $G = G_n$ such that for every $n$ one has $$\mu_G(A), \mu_G(B), 1 - \mu_G(A) - \mu_G(B) \geq {\varepsilon}$$ and $$\mu_G(A +_{1/n} B) \leq \mu_G(A) + \mu_G(B) + \frac{1}{n},$$ but such that for each $n$, there do *not* exist parallel Bohr sets $\phi_n^{-1}(I_n), \phi_n^{-1}(J_n)$ such that $$\mu_G( A_n \Delta \phi_n^{-1}(I_n) ), \mu_G( B_n \Delta \phi^{-1}(J_n) ) \leq {\varepsilon}.$$ By applying Theorem \[inv-3\] with the infinitesimal $\delta = \delta_n \coloneqq \frac{1}{n}$, we know that $A,B$ are asymptotically equivalent respectively to parallel Bohr sets $\phi^{-1}(I), \phi^{-1}(J)$. But by taking $n$ large enough, this contradicts the previous statement.
It remains to prove Theorem \[inv-3\]. One of the main reasons of passing to this formulation is that it allows for[^2] the following convenient definition. In the sequel $G = G_n$ is understood to be a sequence of compact connected abelian groups with probability Haar measure $\mu = \mu_n$. A pair $(A,B)$ of measurable subsets of $G$ is said to be a *critical pair*[^3] if one has the properties , for some infinitesimal $\delta>0$. Our goal is thus to prove that every critical pair is equivalent to a pair of parallel Bohr sets.
It turns out that the space of critical pairs is closed under a number of operations. Clearly it is symmetric: $(A,B)$ is a critical pair if and only if $(B,A)$ is. It is also obvious that if $(A,B)$ is a critical pair, then so is $(A+x,B+y)$ for any $x,y \in G$, where $A+x \coloneqq \{ a +x: a \in A \}$ denotes the translate of $A$ by $x$. Next, we observe that it is insensitive to asymptotic equivalence:
\[crit-equiv\] Suppose that $(A,B)$ is a critical pair, and that $A'$ is asymptotically equivalent to $A$. Then $(A',B)$ is also a critical pair.
Of course by symmetry, the same statement holds if we replace $B$ by an asymptotically equivalent $B'$. Thus one only needs to know $A,B$ up to asymptotic equivalence to determine if $(A,B)$ form a critical pair.
By hypothesis, there exists an infinitesimal ${\varepsilon}>0$ such that $$\mu_G(A' \Delta A) \leq {\varepsilon},$$ which implies the pointwise bound $$| 1_{A'} * 1_B - 1_A * 1_B | \leq {\varepsilon}$$ and hence we have the inclusion $$A' +_{\delta+{\varepsilon}} B \subset A +_\delta B$$ for any $\delta>0$. On the other hand, as $(A,B)$ is a critical pair, there exists an infinitesimal $\delta>0$ such that $$\mu_G(A +_\delta B) \leq \mu_G(A) + \mu_G(B) + o(1),$$ and hence $$\mu_G(A' +_{\delta+{\varepsilon}} B) \leq \mu_G(A') + \mu_G(B) + o(1).$$ From this we easily verify that $(A',B)$ is a critical pair as claimed.
We can now simplify the problem by observing that if one element $(A,B)$ of a critical pair is already asymptotically equivalent to a Bohr set, then so is the other:
\[p1\] Let $(A,B)$ be a critical pair, and suppose that $B$ is asymptotically equivalent to a Bohr set $\phi^{-1}(J)$. Then $A$ is asymptotically equivalent to a parallel Bohr set $\phi^{-1}(I)$.
By Lemma \[crit-equiv\], we may assume without loss of generality that $B = \phi^{-1}(J)$; also, by translation invariance we may assume that $J = [0,t] \text{ mod } {\mathbb{Z}}$ for some $t$ with $$\label{muat}
\mu_G(A), t, 1 - \mu_G(A) - t \gg 1.$$ As $(A,B)$ is a critical pair, there exists an infinitesimal $\delta>0$ such that the set $C \coloneqq A +_\delta B$ has measure $$\mu_G(C) = \mu_G(A) + \mu_G(B) + o(1) = \mu_G(A) + t + o(1).$$
The set $B$ is invariant with respect to translations in the kernel of $\phi$, so $C$ is similarly invariant, thus $C = \phi^{-1}(E)$ for some measurable subset $E$ of ${\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}$ with $$\label{met}
\mu_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}}(E) = \mu_G(C) = \mu_G(A) + t + o(1).$$
The pullback map $\phi^*: g \mapsto g \circ \phi$ is an isometry from $L^2({\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}, \mu_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}})$ to $L^2(G, \mu_G)$. Taking adjoints, we obtain a pushforward map $\phi_*: L^2( G, \mu_G ) \mapsto L^2({\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}, \mu_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}})$ such that $$\int_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}} \phi_*(f)(\alpha) g(\alpha)\ d\mu_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}}(\alpha) = \int_G f(x) g(\phi(x))\ d\mu_G(x)$$ for all $f \in L^2(G,\mu_G)$ and $g \in L^2({\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}, \mu_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}})$. It is easy to see that the map $\phi_*$ is monotone with $\phi_*(1)=1$ (up to almost everywhere equivalence). If we write $f_A \coloneqq \phi_* 1_A$ for the pushforward of $1_A$, then $f_A$ takes values in $[0,1]$ (after modifying on a set of measure zero if necessary), and we have $$\label{rza}
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}} f_A\ d\mu_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}} = \int_G 1_A\ d\mu_G = \mu_G(A).$$ Also, since $1_A * 1_B = 1_A * 1_{\phi^{-1}(J)}$ is bounded by $o(1)$ outside of $C = \phi^{-1}(E)$, we see that $f_A * 1_J$ is bounded almost everywhere by $o(1)$ outside of $E$, thus $$\label{rze}
\int_{({\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}) \backslash E} f_A * 1_{[0,t] \text{ mod } {\mathbb{Z}}}\ d\mu_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}} = o(1).$$ Let $\lambda > 0$ be any fixed parameter, and let $F_\lambda \subset {\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}$ denote the set $F_\lambda \coloneqq \{ f_A \geq \lambda \}$, then we have $$\int_{({\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}) \backslash E} 1_{F_\lambda} * 1_{[0,t] \text{ mod } {\mathbb{Z}}}\ d\mu_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}} = o(1).$$ From Markov’s inequality, we conclude that for any fixed ${\varepsilon}>0$, all but $o(1)$ in measure of the set $F_\lambda +_{\varepsilon}J$ is contained in $E$, thus $$\mu_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}}( F_\lambda +_{\varepsilon}J ) \leq \mu_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}}(E) + o(1) = \mu_G(A) + t + o(1).$$ On the other hand, from Corollary \[kemp-cor\] we have $$\mu_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}}( F_\lambda +_{\varepsilon}J ) \geq \min( \mu_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}}(F_\lambda) + t, 1 ) - 2 \sqrt{{\varepsilon}};$$ combining the two bounds and sending ${\varepsilon}$ to zero, we conclude using that $$\mu_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}}(F_\lambda) \leq \mu_G(A) + o(1).$$ for any fixed $\lambda>0$. Sending $\lambda$ sufficiently slowly to zero as $n \to \infty$, we conclude on diagonalising that $$\mu_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}}( F_\kappa ) \leq \mu_G(A) + o(1)$$ for some infinitesimal $\kappa>0$. Combining this with and the pointwise bound $f_A \leq 1_{F_\kappa} + o(1)$, we conclude that $$\mu_G(A) = \int_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}} f_A\ d\mu_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}} \leq \int_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}} 1_{F_\kappa}\ d\mu_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}} + o(1) \leq \mu_G(A) + o(1)$$ which implies in particular that $$\label{mfk}
\mu_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}}(F_\kappa) = \mu_G(A) + o(1)$$ and $$\label{rzf}
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}} |1_{F_\kappa} - f_A|\ d\mu_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}} = o(1).$$ Pulling back to $G$, this implies that $$\int_{G} |1_{\phi^{-1}(F_\kappa)} - 1_A|\ d\mu_G = o(1),$$ thus $A$ is asymptotically equivalent to $\phi^{-1}(F_\kappa)$. Thus to establish the proposition, it suffices to show that $F_\kappa$ is asymptotically equivalent to an arc.
From , we have $$\label{rzg}
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}\backslash E} 1_{F_\kappa} * 1_{[0,t]\text{ mod }{\mathbb{Z}}}\ d\mu_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}} = o(1).$$ This bound can be used to show that partial sumsets of $F_\kappa$ and $[0,t] \text{ mod } {\mathbb{Z}}$ are mostly contained in $E$. However, it does not control the full sumset of these two sets. To get around this difficulty, we “smooth” $F_\kappa$ somewhat by replacing it with a modified set $H_\sigma$. More precisely, let $0 < \sigma < t$ be a small fixed quantity, and let $H_\sigma \subset {\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}$ be the set $H_\sigma \coloneqq F_\kappa +_{\sigma^2} ([0,\sigma] \text{ mod }{\mathbb{Z}})$. Observe that if $x \in H_\sigma$, then one has the pointwise lower bound $1_{F_\kappa} * 1_{[0,t]\text{ mod }{\mathbb{Z}}} \geq \sigma^2$ on the arc $x + ([0, t-\sigma] \text{ mod } {\mathbb{Z}})$; thus $$1_{F_\kappa} * 1_{[0,t]\text{ mod }{\mathbb{Z}}} \geq \sigma^2 1_{H_\sigma + [0, t-\sigma] \text{ mod } {\mathbb{Z}}}.$$ From this, and Markov’s inequality we conclude that all but $o(1)$ in measure of $H_\sigma + ([0, t-\sigma] \text{ mod } {\mathbb{Z}})$ lies in $E$. By , we conclude that $$\mu_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}}( H_\sigma + ([0, t-\sigma] \text{ mod } {\mathbb{Z}})) \leq \mu_G(A) + t + o(1).$$ On the other hand, from Corollary \[kemp-cor\] and , one has $$\mu_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}}(H_\sigma) \geq \min( \mu_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}}(F_\kappa) + t - \sigma, 1 ) - 2 \sigma \geq \mu_G(A) - 3 \sigma + o(1).$$ The situation here is reminiscent of that for which the inverse theorem for the Brunn-Minkowski inequality (see [@figalli], [@christ], [@christ2]), can be applied, but we are on the circle ${\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}$ instead of the line ${\mathbb{R}}$. However, as one of the sets involved is an arc, we can use the following elementary argument. As $H_\sigma$ is measurable, it is asymptotically equivalent to some finite union $K$ of arcs. For each $0 \leq s \leq t-\sigma$, the set $K_s \coloneqq K + ([0,s] \text{ mod } {\mathbb{Z}})$ is also a finite union of arcs, with $$\mu_G(A) - 3\sigma + o(1) \leq \mu_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}}(K_0) \leq \mu_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}}(K_{t-\sigma}) \leq \mu_G(A) + t + o(1).$$ It is easy to see that the function $s \mapsto \mu_G(K_s)$ is continuous and piecewise linear, with all slopes being positive integers. From the fundamental theorem of calculus, we thus see that the slope must in fact equal $1$ for all $s$ in $[0,t-\sigma]$ outside of a set of measure at most $4\sigma+o(1)$. The slope can only equal one when $K_s$ is an arc, thus $K_s$ must be an arc for some $s \leq 4\sigma+o(1)$. From the fundamental theorem of calculus again, we have $$\mu_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}}(K_s) \leq \mu_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}}(K_{t-\sigma}) - (t-\sigma-s) \leq \mu_G(A) + 5\sigma+o(1)$$ and thus $K = K_0$ differs by at most $O(\sigma)+o(1)$ in measure from an arc of length $\mu_G(A) + O(\sigma) + o(1)$, where we adopt the convention that implied constants in asymptotic notation are independent of $\sigma$. This implies that $H_\sigma$ differs by $O(\sigma)+o(1)$ in measure from an arc $I$ of length $\mu_G(A) + O(\sigma) + o(1)$. Since $1_{F_\kappa} * 1_{[0,\sigma] \text{ mod }{\mathbb{Z}}}$ is bounded pointwise by $\sigma$, and by $\sigma^2$ outside of $H_\sigma$, we conclude that $$\int_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}\backslash I} 1_{F_\kappa} * 1_{[0,\sigma] \text{ mod }{\mathbb{Z}}}\ d\mu_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}} \ll \sigma^2 + o(1)$$ which by Fubini’s theorem implies that $F_\kappa$ has at most $O(\sigma) + o(1)$ in measure outside of the arc $I - [0,\sigma]$, which has measure $\mu_G(A) + O(\sigma) + o(1)$. From we conclude that $F_\kappa$ differs from an arc of measure $\mu_G(A)$ by at most $O(\sigma)+o(1)$ in measure. Sending $\sigma$ to zero sufficiently slowly as $n \to \infty$, we obtain the claim.
If $(A,B)$ is a critical pair, define an *almost sumset* $A +_{o(1)} B$ of the pair to be any set of the form $A +_\delta B$, where $\delta>0$ is an infinitesimal obeying . Clearly at least one almost sumset exists. The almost sumset is not unique; however, if $\delta >\delta' > 0$ are two infinitesimals obeying , then we certainly have $$A +_\delta B \supset A +_{\delta'} B$$ and hence from Corollary \[kemp-cor\] $$\mu_G(A) + \mu_G(B) + o(1) \geq \mu_G( A +_\delta B ) \geq \mu_G( A +_{\delta'} B ) \geq \mu_G(A) + \mu_G(B) - o(1)$$ and hence $A +_\delta B$ and $A +_{\delta'} B$ are asymptotically equivalent. Thus, the almost sumset $A +_{o(1)} B$ is well defined up to asymptotic equivalence. As a first approximation, the reader may think of $A +_{o(1)} B$ as being the full sumset $A+B$; however, we do not use the latter set for technical reasons (it is not stable with respect to asymptotic equivalence).
We now observe the following submodularity property, related to :
\[submod-lemma\] Suppose that $(A,B_1), (A,B_2)$ are critical pairs with $$\mu_G(B_1 \cap B_2), 1 - \mu_G(A) - \mu_G(B_1 \cup B_2) \gg 1.$$ Then $(A, B_1 \cap B_2)$ and $(A, B_1 \cup B_2)$ are also critical pairs.
The reader may wish to check that the lemma is true in the case when $A,B_1,B_2$ are parallel Bohr sets. Of course, once Theorem \[inv-3\] is proven we know that this is essentially the only case in which the hypotheses of the lemma apply, but we cannot use this fact directly as this would be circular.
The properties for $(A, B_1 \cap B_2)$ and $(A, B_1 \cup B_2)$ are clear from construction, so it suffices to show that also holds for these pairs.
By hypothesis, we can find an infinitesimal $\delta>0$ such that $$\mu_G( A +_\delta B_1 ) \leq \mu_G(A) + \mu_G(B_1) + o(1)$$ and $$\mu_G( A +_\delta B_2 ) \leq \mu_G(A) + \mu_G(B_2) + o(1)$$ (note that we can use the same $\delta$ for both critical pairs $(A,B_1), (A,B_2)$ by increasing one of the $\delta$’s as necessary). In particular, from the pointwise bound $$\min( 1_A * 1_{B_1}, \sqrt{\delta} ) \leq \sqrt{\delta} 1_{A +_\delta B_1} + \delta$$ one has $$\int_G \min( 1_A * 1_{B_1}, \sqrt{\delta} )\ d\mu_G \leq \sqrt{\delta}( \mu_G(A) + \mu_G(B_1) + o(1) ) + \delta = \sqrt{\delta}( \mu_G(A) + \mu_G(B_1) + o(1) )$$ and similarly $$\int_G \min( 1_A * 1_{B_2}, \sqrt{\delta} )\ d\mu_G \leq \sqrt{\delta}( \mu_G(A) + \mu_G(B_2) + o(1) ).$$ Summing and applying (with the obvious relabeling) together with the inclusion-exclusion identity $\mu_G(B_1)+\mu_G(B_2) = \mu_G(B_1 \cap B_2) + \mu_G(B_1 \cup B_2)$, we conclude that $$\begin{aligned}
& \int_G \min( 1_A * 1_{B_1 \cap B_2}, \sqrt{\delta} )\ d\mu_G + \int_G \min( 1_A * 1_{B_1 \cup B_2}, \sqrt{\delta} )\ d\mu_G \\
&\quad \leq \sqrt{\delta}( \mu_G(A) + \mu_G(B_1 \cap B_2) + \mu_G(A) + \mu_G(B_1 \cup B_2) + o(1) ).\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, from Theorem \[ruzsa-thm\] we have $$\int_G \min( 1_A * 1_{B_1 \cap B_2}, \sqrt{\delta} )\ d\mu_G \geq \sqrt{\delta}( \mu_G(A) + \mu_G(B_1 \cap B_2) - o(1))$$ and similarly $$\int_G \min( 1_A * 1_{B_1 \cup B_2}, \sqrt{\delta} )\ d\mu_G \geq \sqrt{\delta}( \mu_G(A) + \mu_G(B_1 \cup B_2) - o(1))$$ Thus we in fact have $$\int_G \min( 1_A * 1_{B_1 \cap B_2}, \sqrt{\delta} )\ d\mu_G = \sqrt{\delta}( \mu_G(A) + \mu_G(B_1 \cap B_2) + o(1))$$ and $$\int_G \min( 1_A * 1_{B_1 \cup B_2}, \sqrt{\delta} )\ d\mu_G = \sqrt{\delta}( \mu_G(A) + \mu_G(B_1 \cup B_2) + o(1))$$ In particular, we have $$\mu_G(A +_{\sqrt{\delta}} (B_1 \cap B_2)) \leq \mu_G(A) + \mu_G(B_1 \cap B_2) + o(1)$$ and $$\mu_G(A +_{\sqrt{\delta}} (B_1 \cup B_2)) \leq \mu_G(A) + \mu_G(B_1 \cup B_2) + o(1)$$ We thus obtain for $(A,B_1 \cap B_2)$ and $(A,B_1 \cup B_2)$ as desired (with $\delta$ replaced by $\sqrt{\delta}$).
We can iterate this lemma to obtain
\[iter\] Let $(A,B)$ be a critical pair, and let $\delta>0$ be fixed. Then there exists a measurable set $C$ with $\mu_G(C) \leq \delta$ such that $(A,C)$ is a critical pair.
By hypothesis, there exists a fixed $c>0$ such that $$\mu_G(A), \mu_G(B), 1 - \mu_G(A) - \mu_G(B) \geq c$$ for $n$ large enough. For the given $A,B$ and any fixed $\delta>0$, let $P(\delta)$ denote the assertion that there exists $C$ with $\mu_G(C) \leq \min(\mu_G(B),\delta)$ such that $(A,C)$ is a critical pair. Clearly $P(\delta)$ holds for any $\delta \geq 1-c$, as one can simply take $C = B$. Now suppose that $P(\delta)$ holds for some $\delta \leq 1-c$, thus there exists $C$ with $\mu_G(C) \leq \delta$ and $(A,C)$ a critical pair. By Lemma \[cont\], one can find $x \in G$ such that $\mu_G( C \cap (x+C) ) = \max( \mu_G(C)^2, \mu_G(C) - c/2 )$. Observe that $$1 - \mu_G(A) - \mu_G(C \cup (x+C)) \geq 1 - \mu_G(A) - \mu_G(C) - c/2 \geq 1 - \mu_G(A) - \mu_G(B) - c/2 \geq c/2.$$ As $(A,C)$ and $(A,x+C)$ are both critical pairs, we conclude from Lemma \[submod-lemma\] that $(A, C \cap (x+C))$ is also a critical pair. Thus $P(\delta')$ holds for all $\delta' \geq \max(\delta^2, \delta-c/2)$. Iterating this, we conclude that $P(\delta)$ holds for all fixed $\delta>0$, giving the claim.
As a consequence of this corollary and Proposition \[p1\], we may now reduce Theorem \[inv-3\] to the following variant:
\[inv-4\] Let $K$ be a sufficiently large absolute constant. Suppose that $(A,C)$ is a critical pair such that $$\label{mu}
\mu_G(A) + K \mu_G(C) < 1$$ and $$\label{mu2}
\mu_G(A) \geq K \mu_G(C).$$ Then $C$ is asymptotically equivalent to a Bohr set.
One can in fact take $K=10^4$ in our arguments, but the exact value of $K$ will not be of importance to us.
We now claim that Theorem \[inv-3\] follows from Theorem \[inv-4\]. Indeed, if $(A,B)$ is a critical pair and $K$ is as as in Theorem \[inv-4\], then by applying Corollary \[iter\] with a sufficiently small $\delta$ we may find a critical pair $(A,C)$ obeying , . By Theorem \[inv-4\], $C$ is asymptotically equivalent to a Bohr set, which by Proposition \[p1\] implies that $A$ is asymptotically equivalent to a parallel Bohr set. But by a second application of Proposition \[p1\], we conclude that $B$ is also asymptotically equivalent to a parallel Bohr set, and Theorem \[inv-3\] follows.
It remains to establish Theorem \[inv-4\]. To do this, we first iterate Lemma \[submod-lemma\] in a different fashion to obtain
\[muto\] Suppose that $(A,B_1), (A,B_2)$ are critical pairs with $$\label{mut}
\mu_G(A) - \mu_G(B_1), 1 - \mu_G(A) - \mu_G(B_1) - \mu_G(B_2) \gg 1.$$ Then $(B_1,B_2)$, $(A +_{o(1)} B_1, B_2)$, and $(A, B_1 +_{o(1)} B_2)$ are critical pairs.
Recall that $A +_{o(1)} B_1$ and $B_1 +_{o(1)} B_2$ are only defined up to asymptotic equivalence (with the latter only existing because $(B_1,B_2)$ is a critical pair), but this is of no concern here thanks to Lemma \[crit-equiv\]. As before, the reader may verify that this claim is easily checked in the case that $A,B_1,B_2$ are parallel Bohr sets.
By definition, we can write $A +_{o(1)} B_1$ as $A +_\delta B_1$ for some infinitesimal $\delta>0$ with $$\label{mad}
\mu_G( A +_\delta B_1 ) = \mu_G(A) + \mu_G(B_1) + o(1).$$ Now let $m$ be a fixed large natural number, thus $\delta = \delta_n \leq 1/m$ for $n$ large enough. From Corollary \[kemp-cor\] one has $$\mu_G(A) + \mu_G(B_1) + o(1) \geq \mu_G( A +_\delta B_1 ) \geq \mu_G( A +_{1/m} B_1 ) \geq \mu_G(A) + \mu_G(B_1) - O(1/\sqrt{m}),$$ where we adopt the convention in this proof that implied constants in the $O()$ and $\ll$ asymptotic notation are independent of $m$. Hence we have $$\label{aim-o}
\mu_G( (A +_\delta B_1) \backslash (A +_{1/m} B_1) ) \ll 1/\sqrt{m}$$ for $n$ large enough.
Next, we claim there exists a finite set $X_m \subset B_1$ of cardinality at most $m^2$, such that $$\label{aim}
\mu_G( (A + X_m) \Delta (A +_\delta B_1) ) \ll 1/\sqrt{m}$$ for all sufficiently large $n$. To establish this claim we use the probabilistic method. Let $x_1,\dots,x_{m^2}$ be chosen independently and uniformly from $B_1$ (using the probability measure $\frac{1}{\mu_G(B_1)} \mu\downharpoonright_{B_1}$ formed by restricting $\frac{1}{\mu_G(B_1)} \mu$ to $B_1$). Form the random set $X_m \coloneqq \{x_1,\dots,x_{m^2}\}$. For any $x \in G$, we see that $x \in A+X_m$ precisely when at least one of $x_1,\dots,x_{m^2}$ lie in $x-A$. By construction, this occurs with probability $$1 - (1-\mu_G( (x-A) \cap B_1 ) / \mu_G(B_1))^{m^2} = 1 - (1-1_A * 1_{B_1}(x) / \mu_G(B_1))^{m^2}.$$ In particular, if $x \in A +_{1/m} B_1$, then $x \in A+X_m$ with probability at least $1 - (1-1/m)^{m^2} = 1 - O( \exp(-m) )$, while if $x \not \in A +_{\delta} B_1$, then $x \in A+X_m$ with probability $o(1)$. By linearity of expectation (or Fubini’s theorem), we conclude that the expected measure of $(A +_{1/m} B_1) \backslash (A+X)$ is $O(\exp(-m))$, while the expected measure of $(A+X_m) \backslash (A +_{\delta} B_1)$ is $o(1)$. By Markov’s inequality, we conclude that there exists a deterministic choice of $X_m$ such that $$\mu_G((A +_{1/m} B_1) \backslash (A+X_m)) \ll \exp(-m)$$ and $$\mu_G((A+X_m) \backslash (A +_{\delta} B_1)) \ll o(1)$$ and the claim follows from .
From , we see in particular that $$\mu_G( A + X_m ) \leq \mu_G(A) + \mu_G(B_1) + O(1/\sqrt{m})$$ for $n$ large enough, and hence by we have $$2\mu_G(A) - \mu_G(A + X_m) \gg 1$$ for $n$ large enough. In particular, we see that for any $x,x' \in X_m$, we have $$\mu_G( (A+x) \cap (A+x') ) \gg 1.$$ A similar argument also gives $$1 - \mu_G(A+X_m) - \mu_G(B_2) \gg 1.$$
By translation invariance, $(A+x, B_2)$ is a critical pair for each $x \in X_m$. Applying Lemma \[submod-lemma\] at most $m^2$ times and using the above estimates to verify the hypotheses of that lemma, we conclude that $(A+X_m, B_2)$ is also a critical pair.
The set $A+X_m$ is not quite asymptotically equivalent to $A +_\delta B_1$; but by and a diagonalisation argument we see that $A + X_{m_n}$ is asymptotically equivalent to $A +_\delta B_1$ if $m_n$ goes to infinity sufficiently slowly as $n \to \infty$. As each $(A + X_m, B_2)$ is a critical pair, $(A + X_{m_n}, B_2)$ will also be a critical pair for $m_n$ going to infinity sufficiently slowly. Applying Lemma \[crit-equiv\], we conclude that $(A +_\delta B_1, B_2)$ is a critical pair, giving the second of the three claims of the proposition.
Write $C \coloneqq A +_\delta B_1$, thus (as $(A,B_1)$ is a critical pair) $$\label{cb1}
\mu_G(C) = \mu_G(A) + \mu_G(B_1) + o(1).$$ As $(C,B_2)$ is a critical pair, there exists an infinitesimal $\delta'>0$ such that $$\label{cb2}
\mu_G( C +_{\delta'} B_2 ) \leq \mu_G(C) + \mu_G(B_2) + o(1).$$ Set $$\sigma \coloneqq (\delta + \delta')^{1/3},$$ thus $\sigma>0$ is infinitesimal, and write $D \coloneqq B_1 +_\sigma B_2$. We now consider the expression $$\label{1bd}
\int_{G \backslash (C +_{\delta'} B_2)} 1_A * 1_D\ d\mu_G.$$ By definition of $D$, we have the pointwise estimate $$1_D \leq \frac{1}{\sigma} 1_{B_1} * 1_{B_2}$$ and hence we can bound by $$\frac{1}{\sigma} \int_{G \backslash (C +_{\delta'} B_2)} 1_A * 1_{B_1} * 1_{B_2}\ d\mu_G$$ (here we implicitly use the fact that convolution is associative). On the other hand, by definition of $C$ we have the pointwise estimate $$1_A * 1_{B_1} \leq \delta + 1_C$$ and hence we can bound by $$\frac{\delta}{\sigma} + \frac{1}{\sigma} \int_{G \backslash (C +_{\delta'} B_2)} 1_C * 1_{B_2}\ d\mu_G.$$ Since $1_C * 1_{B_2}$ is bounded by $\delta'$ outside of $C +_{\delta'} B_2$, we conclude that $$\int_{G \backslash (C +_{\delta'} B_2)} 1_A * 1_D\ d\mu_G \leq \frac{\delta + \delta'}{\sigma} = \sigma^2.$$ By Markov’s inequality, we conclude that $$\mu_G( (A +_\sigma D) \backslash (C +_{\delta'} B_2) ) \leq \sigma = o(1)$$ and hence by , one has $$\mu_G( A +_\sigma D ) \leq \mu_G(A) + \mu_G(B_1) + \mu_G(B_2) + o(1).$$ On the other hand, from two applications of Corollary \[kemp-cor\] (and ) one has $$\mu_G(D) \geq \mu_G(B_1) + \mu_G(B_2) - o(1)$$ and $$\mu_G(A +_\sigma D ) \geq \min( \mu_G(A) + \mu_G(D), 1 ) - o(1).$$ By , these bounds can only be consistent if $$\mu_G(D) = \mu_G(B_1) + \mu_G(B_2) + o(1)$$ and $$\mu_G(A +_\sigma D) = \mu_G(A) + \mu_G(D) + o(1)$$ so that $(B_1,B_2)$ and $(A,D)$ are both critical pairs, giving the final two claims of the proposition.
It is important in the above argument that we work with the almost sumset $A +_{o(1)} B_1$ rather than $A + B_1$, as we do not know how to approximate the latter set by sumsets $A+X$ of $A$ with a finite set $X$. As a consequence, even if one is only interested in Theorem \[inv-1\], the proof methods of this paper only seem to work if one first proves the stronger claim in Theorem \[inv-2\].
Now we can finish the proof of Theorem \[inv-4\]. Let $K$ and $(A,C)$ be as in the statement of that theorem. From , , Proposition \[muto\], we see that $(C,C)$ is a critical pair, and there exists a set $C_2 = C +_{o(1)} C$ of measure $\mu_G(C_2) = 2\mu_G(C)+o(1)$ such that $(A,C_2)$ is a critical pair. By further iteration of Proposition \[muto\] using , , we in fact can find a set $C_k$ of measure $$\label{muck}
\mu_G(C_k) = k \mu_G(C) + o(1)$$ for each even number $k=2,4,\dots,K-2$ such that $(A,C_k)$ is a critical pair, and for each even $k=2,\dots,K-4$, $(C_2,C_k)$ is a critical pair with $$\label{ck2}
C_{k+2} = C_2 +_{o(1)} C_{k}.$$
We now use the linear growth to approximate $C$ by a Bohr set, using an argument of Schoen [@schoen] (later employed by Green and Ruzsa [@rect], [@green]) to locate the relevant character $\phi$. The character $\chi$ that this argument produces may not necessarily be the one used to construct the Bohr set, but it turns out that it is closely related to that character (one may have to divide the initial character by a bounded natural number).
From we see that $1_{C_2} * 1_{C_k}$ is bounded pointwise by $1_{C_{k+2}} + o(1)$ for every even $k=2,\dots,K-4$. By induction we then see that for every $k=1,\dots,\frac{K}{2}-2$, the $k$-fold convolution $$1_{C_2}^{*k} = 1_{C_2} * \dots * 1_{C_2}$$ is bounded pointwise by $1_{C_{2k}} + o(1)$. In particular, by Fubini’s theorem we have $$\int_{C_{2k}} 1_{C_2}^{*k}\ d\mu_G \geq \mu_G(C_2)^k - o(1);$$ from and Cauchy-Schwarz, we conclude that $$\int_G (1_{C_2}^{*k})^2\ d\mu_G \geq \frac{1}{2k} \mu_G(C_2)^{2k-1} - o(1).$$ On the other hand, by Plancherel’s theorem we may write $$\int_G (1_{C_2}^{*k})^2\ d\mu_G = \sum_{\phi \in \hat G} |\hat 1_{C_2}(\phi)|^{2k}$$ where (as in Section \[cor-sec\]) the Pontryagin dual $\hat G$ is the collection of all continuous homomorphisms (characters) $\phi: G \to {\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}$, and $\hat 1_{C_2}(\phi)$ are the Fourier coefficients $$\hat 1_{C_2}(\phi) \coloneqq \int_G 1_{C_2}(x) e^{-2\pi i \phi(x)}\ d\mu_G(x).$$ The contribution of the trivial homomorphism $0$ to the above sum is $\mu_G(C_2)^{2k}$, which will be smaller than half the main term if $k \leq K/8$, thanks to . We conclude that $$\sum_{\phi \in \hat G: \phi \neq 0} |\hat 1_{C_2}(\phi)|^{2k} \geq \frac{1}{4k} \mu_G(C_2)^{2k-1} - o(1)$$ for $k \leq K/8$ and $n$ large enough. On the other hand, from Plancherel’s theorem we have $$\sum_{\phi \in \hat G} |\hat 1_{C_2}(\phi)|^{2} = \mu_G(C_2).$$ We conclude that there exists a non-zero continuous homomorphism $\phi: G \to {\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}$ such that $$|\hat 1_{C_2}(\phi)| \geq \frac{1}{(4k)^{\frac{1}{2k-2}}} \mu_G(C_2) - o(1).$$ Applying this with $k=\left \lfloor \frac{K}{8} \right \rfloor$, we conclude in particular that $$\label{hac}
|\hat 1_{C_2}(\phi)| \geq \left(1 - O\left(\frac{\log K}{K}\right)\right) \mu_G(C_2) - o(1),$$ where we adopt the convention that implied constants in the $O()$ notation are independent of $K$. The image $\phi(G)$ of $G$ is a non-trivial connected subgroup of ${\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}$, and thus must be all of ${\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}$; thus $\phi$ is surjective.
\[remo\] A good example to keep in mind here is if $G = {\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}$, $\phi:{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}\to {\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}$ is a character $\phi(x) \coloneqq mx$ for some natural number $m \ll 1$, $C = [0,c] \text{ mod } {\mathbb{Z}}$, and $C_k = [0, kc] \text{ mod } {\mathbb{Z}}$ for $k=1,\dots,K$ and some small $c\gg 1$ (in particular $c < \frac{1}{10Km}$, say). In this case we of course have $\mu_G(C) = c$. Note that while $C$ is a Bohr set, the relevant character here is not $\phi$, but rather the quotient $\frac{1}{m} \phi: x \mapsto x$ of $\phi$ by $m$. As such, we will need to perform such a quotienting step later in the argument.
Since $C_2 = C +_{o(1)} C$, we have $$\int_{G \backslash C_2} 1_C * 1_C\ d\mu_G = o(1).$$ By Fubini’s theorem, the left-hand side may be rewritten as $$\int_C \mu_G( (x+C) \backslash C_2)\ d\mu_G(x)$$ and hence by Markov’s inequality, there exists a subset $C'$ of $C$ asymptotically equivalent to $C$ such that $$\label{mucc}
\mu_G( (x+C) \backslash C_2) = o(1)$$ for all $x \in C'$.
From , there exists $\theta \in {\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}$ such that $$\mathrm{Re} e^{2\pi i\theta} \hat 1_{C_2}(\phi) \geq \left(1 - O\left(\frac{\log K}{K}\right)\right) \mu_G(C_2) - o(1)$$ which we rearrange as $$\int_{C_2} \left(1 - \cos(2\pi (\theta - \phi(y)))\right)\ d\mu_G(y) \ll \frac{\log K}{K} \mu_G(C_2) + o(1).$$ From and , we conclude in particular that for every $x \in C'$, one has $$\int_{x+C} \left(1 - \cos(2\pi (\theta - \phi(y)))\right)\ d\mu_G(y) \ll \frac{\log K}{K} \mu_G(C) + o(1)$$ and hence by change of variables $$\int_{C} \left(1 - \cos(2\pi (\theta - \phi(x) - \phi(y)))\right)\ d\mu_G(y) \ll \frac{\log K}{K} \mu_G(C) + o(1),$$ which by Cauchy-Schwarz implies that $$\int_{C} \left(1 - \cos(2\pi (\theta - \phi(x) - \phi(y)))\right)^{1/2}\ d\mu_G(y) \leq \left(\frac{\log K}{K}\right)^{1/2} \mu_G(C) + o(1);$$ noting the trigonometric identity $$|1 - e^{i \alpha}| = \sqrt{2(1-\cos(\alpha))}$$ we conclude that $$\int_{C} \left|1 - e^{2\pi i(\theta - \phi(x) - \phi(y))}\right|\ d\mu_G(y) \ll \left(\frac{\log K}{K}\right)^{1/2} \mu_G(C) + o(1).$$ From the triangle inequality, we conclude that for any $x,x' \in C$, one has $$\int_{C} \left|e^{2\pi i(\theta - \phi(x') - \phi(y))} - e^{2\pi i(\theta - \phi(x) - \phi(y))}\right|\ d\mu_G(y) \ll \left(\frac{\log K}{K}\right)^{1/2} \mu_G(C) + o(1).$$ But the left-hand side simplifies to $2\mu_G(C) |\sin(\pi(\phi(x) - \phi(x')))|$, thus $$|\sin(\pi(\phi(x) - \phi(x')))| \ll \left(\frac{\log K}{K}\right)^{1/2} + o(1)$$ for all $x,x' \in C'$. Thus, if $\| \alpha \|_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}}$ denotes the distance of $\alpha$ to the nearest integer, with the associated metric $d_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}}(\alpha,\beta) \coloneqq \| \alpha - \beta \|_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}}$ on ${\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}$, then $\phi(C')$ has diameter $O( (\log K/K)^{1/2} )$ with respect to this metric. For $K$ large enough (in fact one can check that $K = 10^4$ would suffice), we conclude that there exists $\alpha_0 \in {\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}$ such that $$\| \phi(x) - \alpha_0 \|_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}} < \frac{1}{10}$$ for all $x \in C'$.
Note that we have the freedom to translate $C$ (and $C'$) by an arbitrary shift $x$ in $G$ (shifting $C_{2k}$ by $2kx$ accordingly) without affecting any of the above properties. From this and the surjectivity of $\phi$, we may assume without loss of generality that $\alpha_0=0$, thus $$\label{st}
\| \phi(x) \|_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}} < \frac{1}{10}$$ for all $x \in C'$.
Recall the pushforward map $\phi_*: L^2( G ) \mapsto L^2({\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}})$ from the proof of Proposition \[p1\]. If we write $$f_{C'} \coloneqq \phi_*( 1_{C'} )$$ and $$f_{C_2} \coloneqq \phi_*( 1_{C_2} )$$ then $f_{C'}, f_{C_2}$ are (up to almost everywhere equivalence) functions on ${\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}$ taking values in $[0,1]$, with $$\label{rz}
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}} f_{C'}\ d\mu_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}} = \mu_G(C) + o(1)$$ and similarly $$\label{rz2}
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}} f_{C_2}\ d\mu_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}} = \mu_G(C_2) = 2 \mu_G(C) + o(1).$$ From one has that $f_{C'}$ is supported in the arc $[-\frac{1}{10},\frac{1}{10}] \text{ mod } {\mathbb{Z}}$. Let $\tau \coloneqq \|f_{C'}\|_\infty$ denote the essential supremum of $f_{C'}$; since $\mu_G(C) \gg 1$, we have $1 \ll \tau \leq 1$.
Continuing the example in Remark \[remo\], taking $C' = C$, we would have $f_{C'} = \frac{1}{m} 1_{[0,mc] \text{ mod } {\mathbb{Z}}}$ and $f_{2C} = \frac{1}{m} 1_{[0,2mc] \text{ mod } {\mathbb{Z}}}$.
If $x \in C'$, then by $1_{x+C}$, and hence $1_{x+C'}$, is bounded by $1_{C_2}$ plus a function of $L^1(G,\mu_G)$ norm $o(1)$. Applying $\phi_*$, we conclude that the translate $f_{C'}(\cdot-\phi(x))$ is bounded by $f_{2C} \coloneqq \phi_*(1_{2C})$ plus a function of $L^1({\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}},\mu_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}})$ norm $o(1)$. Applying Markov’s inequality, we conclude that for any $t \gg 1$, the set $\phi(x) + \{ f_{C'} \geq t \}$ is contained in the union of $\{ f_{2C} \geq t-o(1) \}$ and a set of measure $o(1)$. Thus $$\int_{f_{2C} \leq t - o(1)} 1_{\{ f_{C'} \geq t \}}( \alpha - \phi(x) )\ d\mu_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}}(\alpha) = o(1)$$ for all $x \in C'$. Integrating over $x$, we conclude that $$\int_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}} \int_{f_{2C} \leq t - o(1)} 1_{\{ f_{C'} \geq t \}}( \alpha - \beta )\ d\mu_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}}(\alpha) f_{C'}(\beta)\ d\mu_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}}(\beta) = o(1)$$ or equivalently that $$\int_{f_{2C} \leq t - o(1)} 1_{\{ f_{C'} \geq t \}} * f_{C'}\ d\mu_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}} = o(1).$$ In particular, for any fixed $s>0$, one has $$\label{op}
\int_{f_{2C} \leq t - o(1)} 1_{\{ f_{C'} \geq t \}} * 1_{\{ f_{C'} \geq s \}}\ d\mu_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}} = o(1).$$ Comparing this with Corollary \[kemp-cor\], and recalling that $\{ f_{C'} \geq s \}$ and $\{ f_{C'} \geq t \}$ are both contained in $[-\frac{1}{10},\frac{1}{10}] \text{ mod } {\mathbb{Z}}$ and thus have measure at most $1/5$, we conclude that $$\mu_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}}( \{ f_{2C} \geq t-o(1) \} ) \geq \mu_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}}( \{ f_{C'} \geq t \} ) + \mu_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}}( \{f_{C'} \geq s \} ) - o(1)$$ whenever $t,s < \tau$ (so that the sets on the right-hand side are non-empty[^4]). Integrating over $t$, we conclude that $$\int_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}} f_{2C}\ d\mu_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}} \geq \int_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}} f_{C'}\ d\mu_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}} + \tau \mu_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}}( \{f_{C'} \geq s \} ) - o(1)$$ for any $1 \ll s < \tau$, and hence by , we conclude that $$\tau \mu_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}}( \{f_{C'} \geq s \} ) \leq \mu_G(C) + o(1)$$ for every fixed $0 < s \ll \tau$. Diagonalising, we conclude that there exists an infinitesimal ${\varepsilon}>0$ such that $$\tau \mu_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}}( \{f_{C'} \geq {\varepsilon}\} ) \leq \mu_G(C) + o(1).$$ Write $$\label{sfc-0}
S \coloneqq \{ f_{C'} \geq {\varepsilon}\}.$$ Then from we have $$\mu_G(C) + o(1) = \int_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}} f_{C'}\ d\mu_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}} \leq \int_S f_{C'}\ d\mu_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}} + o(1) \leq \tau \mu_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}}(S) + o(1) \leq \mu_G(C) + o(1)$$ and thus $$\int_S f_{C'}\ d\mu_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}} = \tau \mu_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}}(S) + o(1) = \mu_G(C) + o(1)$$ so in particular $$\label{Smes}
\mu_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}}(S) = \tau^{-1} \mu_G(C) + o(1)$$ and $$\label{sfc}
\int_S (\tau-f_{C'})\ d\mu_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}} = o(1).$$ Hence by Markov’s inequality, one has $$\mu_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}}( \{ f_{C'} \geq t \} ) = \mu_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}}(S) + o(1)$$ whenever $t, \tau-t \gg 1$. Using , we conclude that $$\int_{f_{2C} \leq t} 1_S * 1_S\ d\mu_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}} = o(1)$$ whenever $t, \tau-t \gg 1$, and hence by diagonalising there exists an infinitesimal ${\varepsilon}' > 0$ such that $$\int_{f_{2C} \leq \tau-{\varepsilon}'} 1_S * 1_S\ d\mu_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}} = o(1).$$ Let $S_2 \coloneqq \{ f_{2C} > \tau-{\varepsilon}'\} \cap ([-\frac{1}{5},\frac{1}{5}] \text{ mod } {\mathbb{Z}})$, then since $1_S * 1_S$ is supported in $[-\frac{1}{5},\frac{1}{5}] \text{ mod } {\mathbb{Z}}$, one has $$\label{rss}
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}\backslash S_2} 1_S * 1_S\ d\mu_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}}= o(1),$$ while from , , and Markov’s inequality one has $$\mu_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}}(S_2) \leq \tau^{-1} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}} f_{C_2}\ d\mu_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}} + o(1) \leq 2 \mu_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}}(S) + o(1).$$ Our strategy is to first work on the structure of $f_{C'}$ and $f_{C_2}$ (in particular, to show that these functions are basically indicator functions of arcs multiplied by $\tau$), and then return to the structural classification of $C'$ once this is done.
\[remo-2\] Again continuing Remark \[remo\], we would essentially have $\tau = m^{-1}$, $S = [0,mc] \text{ mod } 1$, and $S_2 = [0,2mc] \text{ mod } 1$.
If we let $\tilde S \subset [-\frac{1}{10},\frac{1}{10}]$ and $\tilde S_2 \subset [-\frac{1}{5},\frac{1}{5}]$ be the lifts of $S, S_2$ respectively from ${\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}$ to ${\mathbb{R}}$, then we have $$\label{roll}
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}\backslash \tilde S_2} 1_{\tilde S} * 1_{\tilde S}\ dm = o(1)$$ and $$\label{mt2}
m(\tilde S_2) \leq 2 m(\tilde S) + o(1),$$ where $m$ denotes Lebesgue measure on ${\mathbb{R}}$. Also $m(\tilde S) = \mu_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}}(S) = \tau^{-1} \mu_G(C) + o(1) \gg 1$. This type of situation (a near-saturation of the Riesz-Sobolev inequality) was studied by Christ [@christ], [@christ2]. We were not able to directly apply the results from those papers, as this is an endpoint case (the parameter $\eta$ in those papers would be set to $o(1)$ here). However, we can use the following variant of the arguments in those papers. The left-hand side of can be rearranged as $$\int_{\tilde S} m( (x + \tilde S) \backslash \tilde S_2 )\ dm(x)$$ so by Markov’s inequality, one can find a subset $\tilde S'$ of $\tilde S$ with $m(\tilde S') = m(\tilde S) - o(1)$ such that $$\label{aod}
m( (x + \tilde S) \backslash \tilde S_2 ) = o(1)$$ for all $x \in \tilde S'$. By inner regularity we may also take $\tilde S'$ to be compact.
Let $0 < \sigma \leq 1/4$ be a small fixed parameter. As the primitive $x \mapsto \int_{-\infty}^x 1_{\tilde S'}\ dm$ is continuous and non-decreasing, and constant outside of $\tilde S'$, we can find real numbers $-\frac{1}{10} \leq a < b \leq \frac{1}{10}$ in $\tilde S'$ such that $$m( (-\infty,a) \cap \tilde S' ) = m( (b, +\infty) \cap \tilde S' ) = \sigma m(\tilde S).$$ Thus, if one defines $\tilde S_* := [a,b] \cap \tilde S$, then $$m(\tilde S_*) = (1-2\sigma) m(\tilde S) + o(1)$$ which in particular forces $b-a \gg 1$, where we adopt the convention that implied constants in the asymptotic notation are independent of $\sigma$. From we have $$m( (a + \tilde S_*) \backslash \tilde S_2 ), m( (b + \tilde S_*) \backslash \tilde S_2 ) = o(1)$$ and hence all but $o(1)$ in measure of the set $\{a,b\} + \tilde S_*$ is contained in $\tilde S_2$. But the sets $a + \tilde S_*$ and $b + \tilde S_*$ are essentially disjoint, thus $\{a,b\} + \tilde S_*$ has measure $(2-4\sigma) m(\tilde S) + o(1)$. From we conclude that all but $4 \sigma m(\tilde S) + o(1)$ in measure of $\tilde S_2$ is contained in $\{a,b\} + \tilde S_*$. Since $1_{\tilde S} * 1_{\tilde S}$ is bounded pointwise by $m(\tilde S)$, we conclude from that $$\int_{{\mathbb{R}}\backslash (\{a,b\} + \tilde S_*)} 1_{\tilde S} * 1_{\tilde S} \leq 4 \sigma m(\tilde S)^2 + o(1)$$ and in particular $$\int_{{\mathbb{R}}\backslash (\{a,b\} + \tilde S_*)} 1_{\tilde S_*} * 1_{\tilde S_*} \ll \sigma m(\tilde S_*)^2 + o(1).$$ We now project ${\mathbb{R}}$ to the circle $T \coloneqq {\mathbb{R}}/ (b-a) {\mathbb{Z}}$, and let $S_*$ be the projection of $\tilde S_* \subset [a,b]$ to that circle. Then $\mu_{T}(S_*) = \frac{1}{b-a} m(\tilde S_*)$, while $1_{\tilde S_*} * 1_{\tilde S_*}$ is supported on $[2a,2b] = \{a,b\} + [a,b]$. As $[a,b]$ is essentially a fundamental domain for $T$, we conclude that $$\int_{T \backslash S_*} 1_{S_*} * 1_{S_*}\ d\mu_{T} \ll \sigma \mu_{T}(S_*)^2 + o(1)$$ (note that the normalising factors of $\frac{1}{b-a}$ on both sides cancel each other out). Since $$\int_{S_*} \min( 1_{S_*} * 1_{S_*}, \sqrt{\sigma} \mu_{T}(S_*) ) \ d\mu_{T} \leq \sqrt{\sigma} \mu_{T}(S_*)^2,$$ we conclude that $$\int_{T} \min( 1_{S_*} * 1_{S_*}, \sqrt{\sigma} \mu_{T}(S_*) ) \ d\mu_{T} \leq (\sqrt{\sigma} + O(\sigma) ) \mu_{T}(S_*)^2 + o(1).$$ On the other hand, from Theorem \[ruzsa-thm\] one has $$\int_{T} \min( 1_{S_*} * 1_{S_*}, \sqrt{\sigma} \mu_{T}(S_*) ) \ d\mu_{T} \geq
\sqrt{\sigma} \mu_{T}(S_*) \min( 2 \mu_{T}(S_*) - \sqrt{\sigma}, 1 )$$ and hence $$\min( 2 \mu_{T}(S_*) - \sqrt{\sigma}, 1 ) \leq \mu_{T}(S_*) + O(\sqrt{\sigma} ) + o(1).$$ Since $\mu_{T}(S_*) \gg 1$, we conclude on taking $\sigma$ small enough that $$\mu_{T}(S_*) \geq 1 - O(\sqrt{\sigma}) - o(1)$$ and thus $\tilde S_*$ occupies all but $O(\sqrt{\sigma}) + o(1)$ of the interval $[a,b]$ in measure. Since $\tilde S_*$ occupies all but $O(\sigma) + o(1)$ in measure of $\tilde S$, we conclude that $$m( \tilde S \Delta [a,b] ) \ll \sqrt{\sigma} + o(1)$$ and hence $$\mu_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}}( S \Delta ([a,b] \text{ mod } {\mathbb{Z}}) ) \ll \sqrt{\sigma} + o(1).$$ By sending $\sigma$ sufficiently slowly to zero, rather than being fixed, we have thus located a compact arc $I = [a,b] \text{ mod } {\mathbb{Z}}$ with $-\frac{1}{10} \leq a < b \leq \frac{1}{10}$ such that $$\mu_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}}(S \Delta I ) = o(1).$$ From , one has $$\int_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}} |f_{C'} - \tau 1_S|\ d\mu_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}} = o(1)$$ and hence by the triangle inequality $$\label{fci}
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}} |f_{C'} - \tau 1_{I}|\ d\mu_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}} = o(1).$$ From we now have $$\label{mugc-new}
\mu_G(C) = \tau (b-a) + o(1)$$ so in particular $b-a \gg 1$. Also, from we now see that $$\mu_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}}(S_2 \Delta I ) = o(1),$$ where $2I \coloneqq [2a, 2b] \text{ mod } {\mathbb{Z}}$, and hence by and the definition of $S_2$ we have $$\label{fci-2}
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}} |f_{C_2} - \tau 1_{2I}|\ d\mu_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}} = o(1).$$ To summarise so far, we have obtained a satisfactory description of the functions $f_{C'}, f_{C_2}$, namely that they are equal to $\tau 1_I$ and $\tau 1_{2I}$ respectively up to negligible errors. If $\tau=1$ we would now be quickly done, as we could then show that $C'$ is asymptotically equivalent to the Bohr set $\phi^{-1}(I)$, which would then imply the same statement for $C$, as required for Theorem \[inv-4\]. Unfortunately, as Remark \[remo-2\] shows, $\tau$ can be less than $1$, and we will need to “quotient” the character $\phi$ by a natural number $m$ (which will turn out to be very close to $\tau^{-1}$) to deal with this issue.
We turn to the details. Let $C'' \coloneqq C' \cap \phi^{-1}(I)$. From we have $$\mu_G(C' \backslash C'') = \int_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}\backslash I} f_{C'}\ d\mu_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}} = o(1)$$ and so $C''$ is asymptotically equivalent to $C'$ and hence to $C$. As $C''$ is contained in $\phi^{-1}(I)$, the difference set $C''-C''$ is contained in $\phi^{-1}(I-I) = \{ x \in G: \| \phi(x) \|_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}} \leq b-a\}$. Crucially, we have the following lower bound:
\[lodo\] For every $x \in C'' - C''$, we have $$1_{C''} * 1_{-C''}(x) \geq \tau (b-a-\|\phi(x)\|_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}}) - o(1).$$
As discussed above, $x$ lies in $\phi^{-1}(I-I)$, so $\phi(x)$ lies in the interval $[a-b, b-a] \text{ mod } {\mathbb{Z}}$. As $1_{C''} * 1_{-C''}$ is an even function, we may assume without loss of generality that $\phi(x) = h \text{ mod } {\mathbb{Z}}$ for some $0 \leq h \leq b-a$. By construction, we have $x = y-z$ for some $y,z \in C''$, then $\phi(z) = s \hbox{ mod } {\mathbb{Z}}$ and $\phi(y) = s+h \hbox{ mod } z$ for some $a \leq s \leq b-h$. Since $y,z \in C'' \subset C'$, we see from that $$\mu_G( (y+C'') \backslash C_2 ), \mu_G( (z+C'') \backslash C_2 ) = o(1).$$ In particular, the sets $$y+(C'' \cap \phi^{-1}([a,b-h]\text{ mod } {\mathbb{Z}})), z + (C'' \cap \phi^{-1}([a+h,b] \text{ mod } {\mathbb{Z}}))$$ are both contained in the set $C_2 \cap \phi^{-1}([a+h+s,b+s]\text{ mod } {\mathbb{Z}})$, outside of a set of measure $o(1)$. But by , the set $y+(C'' \cap \phi^{-1}([a,b-h]\text{ mod } {\mathbb{Z}}))$ has measure $$\int_{[a,b-h]\text{ mod } {\mathbb{Z}}} f_{C'}\ d\mu_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}} = \tau(b-a-h) + o(1)$$ and similarly $z + (C'' \cap \phi^{-1}([a+h,b] \text{ mod } {\mathbb{Z}}))$ also has measure $b-a-h+o(1)$. By , the set $C_2 \cap \phi^{-1}([a+h+s,b+s]\text{ mod } {\mathbb{Z}})$ has measure $$\int_{[a+h+s, b+s]} f_{C_2}\ d\mu_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}} = \tau(b-a-h) + o(1).$$ By the inclusion-exclusion principle, we conclude that $$\mu_G( y+(C'' \cap \phi^{-1}([a,b-h]\text{ mod } {\mathbb{Z}})), z + (C'' \cap \phi^{-1}([a+h,b] \text{ mod } {\mathbb{Z}})) ) \geq \tau(b-a-h) - o(1).$$ Since the left-hand side is at least $1_{C''} * 1_{-C''}(y-z) = 1_{C''} * 1_{-C''}(x)$, the claim follows.
As a consequence, we can now obtain a local additive closure property for $C''-C''$:
\[raz\] There is a positive quantity $\kappa = o(1)$ with the property that whenever $x,y \in C'' - C''$ with $$\| \phi(x) \|_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}} + \| \phi(y) \|_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}} \leq b-a-\kappa$$ then $x+y \in C''-C''$.
Let $\kappa = o(1)$ be an infinitesimal to be chosen later. From the preceding lemma we have $$\mu_G(C'' \cap (x+C'')) = 1_{C''} * 1_{-C''}(x) \geq \tau (b-a-\|\phi(x)\|_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}}) - o(1)$$ and $$\mu_G((x+C'') \cap (x+y+C'')) = 1_{C''} * 1_{-C''}(y) \geq \tau (b-a-\|\phi(y)\|_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}}) - o(1)$$ while from we have $$\mu_G(C'') = \tau(b-a) + o(1).$$ From the triangle inequality, we conclude that $$\mu_G(C'' \cap (x+y+C'')) = \tau (b-a-\|\phi(x)\|_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}} - \| \phi(y) \|_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}}) - o(1).$$ For $\kappa$ going to zero sufficiently slowly, the right-hand side is positive, and hence $x+y \in C'' - C''$ as desired.
The kernel $\phi^{-1}(0)$ of $\phi$ is a compact subgroup of $G$. Set $H \coloneqq (C''-C'') \cap \phi^{-1}(0)$, then $H$ is compact and symmetric around the origin. By the above corollary, it is also closed under addition; thus $H$ is a compact subgroup of $\phi^{-1}(0)$. By a further application of the above corollary, we see that whenever $x \in C''-C''$ is such that $\|\phi(x)\|_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}} \leq b-a-\kappa$, then $$(C''-C'') \cap (x+\phi^{-1}(0)) = x + H.$$ By yet another application of this corollary, we see that the set $E \coloneqq \phi(C''-C'') \cap ([a-b+\kappa,b-a-\kappa] \text{ mod } {\mathbb{Z}})$ is locally closed under addition in the sense that $$(E + E) \cap ([a-b+\kappa,b-a-\kappa] \text{ mod } {\mathbb{Z}}) \subset E.$$ By we see that $E$ occupies all but $o(1)$ of the arc $[a-b+\kappa,b-a-\kappa] \text{ mod } {\mathbb{Z}}$; from the above inclusion and the pigeonhole principle we conclude that $E$ contains the interval $J \coloneqq [a-b+\kappa',b-a-\kappa'] \text{ mod } {\mathbb{Z}}$ for some infinitesimal $\kappa' > \kappa$. We thus see that we have a representation of the form $$(C''-C'') \cap \phi^{-1}(J) = \bigcup_{s \in J} \psi(s)$$ where for each $s \in J$, $\psi(s) \in G/H$ is a coset of $H$ that lies in the coset $\phi^{-1}(s)$ of $\phi^{-1}(0)$.
Since $(C''-C'') \cap \phi^{-1}(J)$ is a compact set of positive measure in $G$, $\psi(J)$ is a compact set of positive measure in the quotient group $G/H$, which is a compact connected group. The character $\phi: G \to {\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}$ descends to a character $\tilde \phi: G/H \to {\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}$. The translates $\psi(J) + h$ for $h \in \tilde \phi^{-1}(0)$ are all disjoint, and hence the kernel $\tilde \phi^{-1}(0)$ must be finite since $G/H$ has finite measure. If $m$ is the cardinality of this kernel, then $\tilde \phi$ is an $m$-fold cover of ${\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}$ by a compact connected group, and this cover is isomorphic to the cover of ${\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}$ by itself using the multiplication map $x \mapsto mx$. In other words, we have $\tilde \phi = m \tilde \phi'$ for some bijective character $\tilde \phi': G/H \to {\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}$, which can be lifted back to $\phi = m \phi'$ where $\phi'$ is the lift of $\tilde \phi'$.
Consider the function $g: J \to {\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}$ defined by $g(s) \coloneqq (\tilde \phi')^{-1}( \psi(s) )$. Since $\psi(J)$ is compact, $g$ is continuous; since $\psi(s)$ lies in $\phi^{-1}(s)$, we have $m g(s) = s$ for all $s \in J$. Also, $g(0)=0$. By monodromy, this implies that $$g(s \text{ mod } {\mathbb{Z}}) = \frac{s}{m} \text{ mod } {\mathbb{Z}}$$ for all $s \in [a-b+\kappa', b-a+\kappa']$. Since $$(C''-C'') \cap \phi^{-1}(J) = \bigcup_{s \in J} (\phi')^{-1}(g(s))$$ we conclude that $(C''-C'') \cap \phi^{-1}(J)$ is the Bohr set $$\label{ccp}
(C''-C'') \cap \phi^{-1}(J) = (\phi')^{-1} (m^{-1} J)$$ where $m^{-1} J \coloneqq [m^{-1}(a-b+\kappa'),m^{-1}(b-a-\kappa')] \text{ mod } {\mathbb{Z}}$.
Having controlled $C''-C''$, we now return to $C''$. We first need to relate $m$ with $\tau$. On the one hand, for any $x \in C''$, we have $$(C'' \cap \phi^{-1}( J + \phi(x) )) - x \subset (C''-C'') \cap \phi^{-1}(J \cap ([a,b] + \phi(x))).$$ From , the left-hand side has measure $\tau(b-a) + o(1)$ (we now allow the $o(1)$ terms to depend on $\kappa'$). From , the right-hand side has measure $m^{-1}(b-a)+o(1)$. We conclude that $$\tau \leq m^{-1} + o(1).$$ On the other hand, from Lemma \[lodo\] and we see that $$\int_G 1_{C''} * 1_{-C''}\ d\mu_G \geq \int_{(\phi')^{-1} (m^{-1} J)}\tau (b-a-\|\phi(x)\|_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}})\ d\mu_G(x) - o(1).$$ By , the left-hand side is $$\mu_G(C'')^2 = \tau^2 (b-a)^2 + o(1).$$ By change of variables, the right-hand side is equal to $$\int_{m^{-1} J} \tau(b-a-\|ms\|_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}})\ d\mu_{{\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}}(s) - o(1) = \tau m^{-1} (b-a)^2 - o(1)$$ and we conclude that $$\tau \geq m^{-1} + o(1).$$ Thus we have $\tau = m^{-1} + o(1)$; from we conclude that $$\label{muhaha}
\mu_G(C'') = m^{-1}(b-a) + o(1).$$ From , there exists $x \in C''$ such that $\phi(x) = a+o(1)$. Since $C''-x$ is contained in $(C''-C'') \cap [a-\phi(x),b-\phi(x)]$, it lies in $(C''-C'') \cap \phi^{-1}(J)$ outside of a set of measure $o(1)$. Applying and translating, we conclude that outside of a set of measure $o(1)$, $C''$ lies in $(\phi')^{-1}( m^{-1} J ) + x$; it also lies in $\phi^{-1}(I)$. Thus, outside of a set of measure $o(1)$, $C''$ lies in $(\phi')^{-1}(J')$, where $$J' := \{ s \in {\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}: s \in m^{-1} J + \phi'(x); ms \in I \}.$$ The set $\{ s \in {\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}: ms \in I \}$ is the union of $m$ equally spaced arcs of length $\frac{b-a}{m}$ each, while $m^{-1} J + \phi'(x)$ is an arc of length $2\frac{b-a}{m}$. Since $b-a \leq \frac{1}{5}$, we conclude that $J'$ is an arc of length at most $\frac{b-a}{m}$; in particular, $$\mu_G( (\phi')^{-1}(J') ) = m^{-1} (b-a).$$ Comparing this with we conclude that $C''$ is asymptotically equivalent to the Bohr set $(\phi')^{-1}(J')$, and hence $C$ is also, giving Theorem \[inv-4\] (and thus Theorems \[inv-3\], \[inv-2\], and \[inv-1\]).
Further remarks
===============
It is natural to ask whether Theorem \[inv-1\] or Theorem \[inv-2\] may be extended to more general groups. John Griesmer (personal communication) has proposed the following strong conjecture:
\[jg\] Let $G$ be a compact group (not necessarily abelian) with probability Haar measure $\mu_G$, let ${\varepsilon}> 0$, and let $\delta>0$ be sufficiently small depending on ${\varepsilon}$. Then for any compact subsets $A,B \subset G$ with $\mu_G(AB) \leq \mu_G(A)+\mu_G(B)+\delta$ and $\mu_G(A) + \mu_G(B) \leq 1-{\varepsilon}$, there exists compact subsets $A',B'$ of $G$ with $\mu_G(A \Delta A'), \mu_G(B \Delta B') \leq {\varepsilon}$ such that $\mu_G(A'B') \leq \mu_G(A') + \mu_G(B')$.
One could strengthen this conjecture even further by requiring that $\delta$ be independent of $G$. One can also consider non-compact groups $G$ (in which one would remove the hypothesis $\mu_G(A) + \mu_G(B) \leq 1-{\varepsilon}$), though for non-unimodular groups there may be additional technical difficulties arising from the distinction between left-invariant and right-invariant Haar measures. The case $A=B$ would be of particular interest, as it basically is concerned with classification of sets of doubling constant slightly larger than $2$.
Note that Theorem \[inv-1\] verifies Conjecture \[jg\] (with $\delta$ independent of $G$) under the additional hypotheses that $G$ is connected and abelian. The case $G = {\mathbb{Z}}/p{\mathbb{Z}}$ of a cyclic group of prime order also follows from [@g Theorem 21.8]. This conjecture would combine well with the extensive literature [@kemp2], [@kneser], [@g], [@gri], [@dev], [@bjork], [@bjork2], [@bjork3] on classifying pairs of sets $A',B'$ obeying the relation $\mu_G(A'B') \leq \mu_G(A') + \mu_G(B')$ for various types of groups $G$.
It may also be possible to obtain an inverse theorem for Theorem \[ruzsa-thm\], that is to say to obtain some approximate structural description of sets $A,B$ for which $$\int_G \min( 1_A * 1_B, t )\ d\mu_G \leq t \min( \mu_G(A) + \mu_G(B) -t, 1 ) + {\varepsilon}$$ for some $t>0$ and some small ${\varepsilon}>0$, assuming appropriate non-degeneracy conditions on $\mu_G(A), \mu_G(B), t$. We do not pursue this question here.
[99]{}
Y. Bilu, *The $(\alpha+2\beta)$-inequality on a torus*, J. Lond. Math. Soc. (2) **57** (1998), no. 3, 513–528.
Y. Bilu, V. F. Lev, I. Z. Ruzsa, *Rectification principles in additive number theory*, Discrete Comput. Geom. 19 (1998), 343–353.
M. Björklund, *Small product sets in compact groups*, Fundamenta Mathematicae **238** (2017), 1–27.
M. Björklund, A. Fish, *Product set phenomena for countable groups*, Adv. Math. **275** (2015), 47–113.
M. Björklund, A. Fish, Alexander, *Ergodic Kneser-type Theorems for amenable groups*, preprint. [arXiv:1607.02575]{}
P. Candela, A. de Roton, *On sets with small sumset in the circle*, preprint. [arXiv:1709.04501]{}
M. Christ, *An approximate inverse Riesz-Sobolev inequality*, preprint. [arXiv:1112.3715]{}
M. Christ, *Near equality in the Riesz-Sobolev inequality*, preprint. [arXiv:1309.5856]{}
M. DeVos, *The Structure of Critical Product Sets*, preprint. [arXiv:1301.0096]{}
A. Figalli, D. Jerison, *Quantitative stability for the Brunn-Minkowski inequality*, Adv. Math. **314** (2017), 1–47.
G. A. Freĭman, *The addition of finite sets. I*, Izv. Vysš. Učebn. Zaved. Matematika **6** (1959), 202–213.
G. A. Freĭman, A. A. Judin, D. A. Moskvin, *Inverse problems of additive number theory and local limit theorems for lattice random variables*, Number-theoretic studies in the Markov spectrum and in the structural theory of set addition (Russian), Kalinin. Gos. Univ., Moscow, 1973, 148–162.
B. Green, I. Z. Ruzsa, *Sets with small sumset and rectification*, Bull. London Math. Soc. **38** (2006), no. 1, 43–52.
B. Green, I. Z. Ruzsa, *Freiman’s theorem in an arbitrary abelian group*, J. Lond. Math. Soc. (2) **75** (2007), no. 1, 163–175.
J. T. Griesmer, *An inverse theorem: when the measure of the sumset is the sum of the measures in a locally compact abelian group*, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. **366** (2014), no. 4, 1797–1827.
D. Grynkiewicz, *Quasi-periodic decompositions and the Kemperman structure theorem*, European J. Combin. **26** (2005), no. 5, 559–575.
D. Grynkiewicz, *A step beyond Kemperman’s structure theorem*, Mathematika **55** (2009), no. 1–2, 67–114.
D. J. Grynkiewicz, Structural additive theory, Developments in Mathematics 30, Springer, Cham, 2013.
Y. O. Hamidoune, O. Serra, G. Zémor, *On the critical pair theory in ${\mathbb{Z}}/p{\mathbb{Z}}$*, Acta Arithmetica **121** (2006), no. 2, 99–115.
J. H. B. Kemperman, *On small sumsets in an abelian group*, Acta Math. **103** (1960), 63–88.
J. H. B. Kemperman, *On products of sets in a locally compact group*, Fund. Math. **56** (1964), 51–68.
M. Kneser, *Summenmengen in lokalkompakten abelschen Gruppen*, Math. Z. **66** (1956), 88–110.
A. M. Macbeath, *On measure of sum sets. II. The sum-theorem for the torus*, Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. **49** (1953), 40–43.
D. A. Moskvin, G. A. Freiman and A. A. Yudin, *Inverse problems of additive number theory and local limit theorems for lattice random variables*, Number-theoretic studies in the Markov spectrum and in the structural theory of set addition (Kalinin. Gos. Univ., Moscow, 1973) 148,–162.
J. M. Pollard, *A generalisation of the theorem of Cauchy and Davenport*, J. London Math. Soc. (2) **8** (1974), 460–462.
D. Raikov, *On the addition of point-sets in the sense of Schnirelmann*, Rec. Math. \[Mat. Sbornik\] N.S. **5**(47) (1939), 425–440.
. J. R[ø]{}dseth, *On Freiman’s $2.4$-Theorem*, Skr. K. Nor. Vidensk. Selsk. **4** (2006), 11–18.
I. Ruzsa, *A concavity property for the measure of product sets in groups*, Fund. Math. **140** (1992), no. 3, 247–254.
T. Schoen, *Multiple set addition in $\mathbb{Z}_p$*, Integers **3** (2003), A17, 6 pp.
O. Serra, G. Zémor, *Large sets with small doubling modulo $p$ are well covered by an arithmetic progression*, Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble) **59** (2009), no. 5, 2043–2060.
X. Shao, W. Xu, *A robust version of Freiman’s $3k-4$ Theorem and applications*, preprint. [arXiv:1711.11060]{}
A. Shields, *Sur la mesure d’une somme vectorielle*, Fund. Math. **42** (1955), 57–60.
T. Tao, *A variant of Kemperman’s theorem*, available at [terrytao.wordpress.com/2011/12/26]{}
T. Tao, *A cheap version of nonstandard analysis*, available at [terrytao.wordpress.com/2012/04/02]{}
T. Tao, J. Teräväinen, *The structure of logarithmically averaged correlations of multiplicative functions, with applications to the Chowla and Elliott conjectures*, preprint. [arXiv:1708.02610]{}
[^1]: In a previous version of this manuscript, this inequality was incorrectly attributed to Kemperman. We thank John Griesmer for pointing out this error.
[^2]: The price one pays for this is that it is difficult to directly extract from this argument an explicit dependence of $\delta$ on ${\varepsilon}$ in Theorem \[inv-2\]. However, this can be done (in principle, at least) by refraining from passing to the “cheap nonstandard” framework and instead working with a more quantitative, but significantly messier, notion of critical pair, in which one replaces all $o(1)$ errors by more explicit decay rates that may vary from line to line. We leave this task to the interested reader.
[^3]: A more accurate terminology would be “asymptotically critical pair”, but we use “critical pair” instead for brevity.
[^4]: A previous version of this paper neglected to address this rather important issue that Corollary \[kemp-cor\] breaks down when one of the sets involved is empty. We regret this oversight.ix
|
---
abstract: 'We study an asymptotic Dirichlet problem for Weyl structures on asymptotically hyperbolic manifolds. By the bulk-boundary correspondence, or more precisely by the Fefferman–Graham theorem on Poincaré metrics, this leads to a natural extension of the notion of Branson’s $Q$-curvature to Weyl structures on even-dimensional conformal manifolds.'
address:
- 'Graduate School of Mathematical Sciences, The University of Tokyo, 3-8-1 Komaba, Meguro, Tokyo 153-8914, Japan'
- 'Department of Economics, Mathematics and Statistics, Birkbeck, University of London, Malet Place, London WC1E 7HX, United Kingdom'
- 'Department of Mathematics, Tokyo Institute of Technology, 2-12-1 Ookayama, Meguro, Tokyo 152-8551, Japan'
author:
- Kengo Hirachi
- Christian Lübbe
- Yoshihiko Matsumoto
bibliography:
- 'myrefs.bib'
title: '$Q$-curvature of Weyl structures and Poincaré metrics'
---
Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
============
Let $\overline{X}=X\sqcup{\partial}X$ be a smooth compact manifold-with-boundary of dimension $n+1$, and $g$ a smooth conformally compact metric on $X$, i.e., a Riemannian metric for which $r^2g$ extends to a smooth metric $\overline{g}$ on $\overline{X}$, where $r\in C^\infty(\overline{X})$ is any boundary defining function. The metric $g$ is called *asymptotically hyperbolic* (abbreviated as AH) if it moreover satisfies ${\lvertdr\rvert}_{\overline{g}}=1$ on ${\partial}X$. Such a pair $(X,g)$ is a generalization of the ball model of the hyperbolic space $\mathbb{H}^{n+1}$. The *conformal infinity* of $(X,g)$ is the boundary $M={\partial}X$ equipped with the conformal class $\mathcal{C}$ determined by $\overline{g}|_{TM}$, which is independent of $r$.
In this article, we introduce the notion of the $Q$-curvature of Weyl structures on $(M,\mathcal{C})$ through studying a Dirichlet-type problem for Weyl structures on $(\overline{X},\overline{\mathcal{C}})$, where $\overline{\mathcal{C}}$ is the conformal class of $\overline{g}$. Our work is a generalization of Fefferman–Graham’s characterization [@Fefferman_Graham_02] of Branson’s $Q$-curvature [@Branson_95].
By definition, a *Weyl structure* (or a *Weyl connection*) $\nabla$ on $(M,\mathcal{C})$ is a torsion-free linear connection on $M$ that preserves the class $\mathcal{C}$. If we pick any representative metric $h\in\mathcal{C}$ as a “reference metric” and let $\nabla^h$ be the associated Levi-Civita connection, then a torsion-free linear connection $\nabla$ is a Weyl structure if and only if it satisfies $\nabla=\nabla^h+\beta$ for some (unique) 1-form $\beta\in\Omega^1(M)$, meaning $\nabla h=-2\beta\otimes h$, or equivalently $$\nabla_\xi\eta=\nabla^h_\xi\eta+\beta(\xi)\eta+\beta(\eta)\xi-h(\xi,\eta)\beta^\sharp,$$ where $\beta^\sharp$ is the metric dual of $\beta$. If $h'=e^{2\Upsilon}h\in\mathcal{C}$ is another representative, where $\Upsilon\in C^\infty(M)$, then the 1-form $\beta'$ satisfying $\nabla=\nabla^{h'}+\beta'$ is given by $\beta'=\beta-d\Upsilon$. Therefore, a Weyl structure $\nabla=\nabla^h+\beta$ is a Levi-Civita connection if and only if $\beta$ is exact, and is locally a Levi-Civita connection if and only if $\beta$ is closed. In the latter case, we also say that $\nabla$ itself is *closed*.
Suppose $(X,g)$ is given, and let $\overline{\nabla}$ be a Weyl structure on $(\overline{X},\overline{\mathcal{C}})$. As $\overline{\nabla}$ may not be a Levi-Civita connection, its curvature tensor does not necessarily satisfy the usual Riemannian symmetry properties. In particular, the Ricci tensor is not symmetric in general. We call the skew-symmetric part of $\operatorname{Ric}_{\overline{\nabla}}$ the *Faraday tensor* $F_{\overline{\nabla}}$. It is known that, if $\overline{g}\in\overline{\mathcal{C}}$ is any representative and $\overline{\nabla}=\nabla^{\overline{g}}+\overline{b}$, then $F_{\overline{\nabla}}$ equals a constant times $d\overline{b}$ (the constant being dependent on convention). Consequently, the Faraday tensor $F_{\overline{\nabla}}$ determines $\overline{\nabla}$ up to addition of a closed 1-form.
We consider the following curvature constraint, which is the Euler–Lagrange equation for the Lagrangian density ${\lvertF_{\overline{\nabla}}\rvert}_g^2$: $$\label{eq:divergence_free_Faraday}
d_g^*F_{\overline{\nabla}}=0.$$ We have a canonical reference metric for $\overline{\nabla}$ on $X$, which is the metric $g$. By putting $\overline{\nabla}=\nabla^g+b$, we can reformulate into an equation for a 1-form $b\in\Omega^1(X)$, which is known as the (massless) Proca equation: $$\label{eq:Proca}
d_g^*db=0.$$ Since $F_{\overline{\nabla}}$ is invariant under the change $\overline{\nabla}\rightsquigarrow\overline{\nabla}+\gamma$ for any closed 1-form $\gamma\in\Omega^1(\overline{X})$, so is equation . To break this gauge invariance as much as possible, we introduce the Feynman gauge condition: $$\label{eq:Feynman}
d_g^*b=0.$$ Then clearly, the solutions of the system of equations and have only the freedom of adding harmonic 1-forms.
The natural Dirichlet data for Weyl structures $\overline{\nabla}$ on $(\overline{X},\overline{\mathcal{C}})$ are given by those on $(M,\mathcal{C})$; note that the notion of the induced Weyl structure on $M$ by $\overline{\nabla}$ makes sense because $\overline{\mathcal{C}}$ determines the orthogonal decomposition $(T\overline{X})|_M=TM\oplus T^\perp M$. The Dirichlet problem for our system of equations can be solved as follows.
\[thm:existence\_extension\] Let $n$ be even and $n\ge 4$. Suppose that $g$ is an AH smooth conformally compact metric on $X$, and let $\nabla$ be a smooth Weyl structure on the conformal infinity $(M,\mathcal{C})$, where $M={\partial}X$. Then there exists a $C^{n-3}$ Weyl structure $\overline{\nabla}$ on $\overline{X}$ with induced Weyl structure $\nabla$ on $M$ satisfying and . It is unique up to addition of an $L^2$-harmonic 1-form on $X$.
It is known that any $L^2$-harmonic 1-form $\gamma\in\Omega^1(X)$ is smoothly extended to $\overline{X}$, which is a consequence of the fact that $\gamma$ admits a “polyhomogeneous expansion” and its logarithmic term coefficients all vanish since $\gamma|_{TM}=0$ (see Proposition \[prop:harmonic\_extension\_of\_1-forms\] and [@Aubry_Guillarmou_11]\*[Section 3.1.1]{}). Therefore, adding $L^2$-harmonic 1-forms does not break the $C^{n-3}$ boundary regularity of $\overline{\nabla}$.
We made an assumption on $n$ in the theorem above because this is the case of our main interest. However, the following theorem for $n\ge 3$ odd can be proved almost by the same argument. Again, $L^2$-harmonic 1-forms are smooth up to the boundary.
Let $n$ be odd and $n\ge 3$, and $(X,g)$, $\nabla$ as in Theorem \[thm:existence\_extension\]. Then there exists a smooth Weyl structure $\overline{\nabla}$ on $\overline{X}$ with induced Weyl structure $\nabla$ on $M$ satisfying and . It is unique up to addition of an $L^2$-harmonic 1-form on $X$.
We do not have similar results for $n=1$, $2$ because Mazzeo’s work [@Mazzeo_88], which gives the analytic basis to our argument, does not apply in these dimensions.
Now let $n$ be even and $n\ge 4$. We next focus on the obstruction to the smoothness of $\overline{\nabla}$ to get a quantity that is conformally invariantly assigned to $\nabla$, as Graham and Zworski [@Graham_Zworski_03] did for functions to characterize the GJMS operators [@Graham_Jenne_Mason_Sparling_92]. For our purpose, $g$ should be canonically determined to a sufficient order only by the conformal class $\mathcal{C}$. Hence we take the *Poincaré metric* of Fefferman–Graham [@Fefferman_Graham_85; @Fefferman_Graham_12], which satisfies $$\operatorname{Ric}_g=-ng+O(r^n)\qquad\text{and}\qquad \operatorname{tr}_g(\operatorname{Ric}_g+ng)=O(r^{n+2})\qquad\text{at ${\partial}X$}.$$ (The first condition means that ${\lvert\operatorname{Ric}(g)+ng\rvert}_g=O(r^n)$.) If $\mathcal{C}$ is given, then such a $g$ exists, and is unique up to an $O(r^n)$ error with $O(r^{n+2})$ trace and the action of diffeomorphisms of $\overline{X}$ that restricts to the identity on ${\partial}X$. Then the aforementioned obstruction is determined only by the pair $(\mathcal{C},\nabla)$. Furthermore, it turns out that it is naturally interpreted as a tractor on $M$. Let us set up the notation: $\mathcal{E}[w]$ is the density bundle of conformal weight $w$ over $M$, $\mathcal{S}$ is the standard conformal tractor bundle, $\mathcal{S}[w]=\mathcal{S}\otimes\mathcal{E}[w]$, and $\mathcal{S}^*[w]=\mathcal{S}^*\otimes\mathcal{E}[w]$. For the definition of these bundles, we refer to Bailey–Eastwood–Gover [@Bailey_Eastwood_Gover_94] or Eastwood’s expository article [@Eastwood_96]. By abuse of notation, the spaces of smooth sections of these bundles are denoted by the same symbols. Then we have the following.
\[thm:smoothness\_extension\] Let $g$ be the Poincaré metric on $X$, and $\nabla$ a smooth Weyl structure on $(M,\mathcal{C})$. Then there exists a density-weighted standard cotractor $\bm{Q}_\nabla\in\mathcal{S}^*[n+1]$ on $M$, which is locally determined by $(\mathcal{C},\nabla)$, such that any $C^{n-3}$ extension $\overline{\nabla}$ in Theorem \[thm:existence\_extension\] is smooth if and only if $\bm{Q}_\nabla$ vanishes.
Let $h\in\mathcal{C}$ and $\beta\in\Omega^1(M)$ be such that $\nabla=\nabla^h+\beta$. The choice of $h$ determines a direct sum decomposition $\mathcal{S}^*\cong\mathcal{E}[-1]\oplus\Omega^1[1]\oplus\mathcal{E}[1]$, where $\Omega^1[1]=\Omega^1(M)\otimes\mathcal{E}[1]$. Via this decomposition and the trivialization of the density bundles by $h$, the tractor $\bm{Q}_\nabla$ is given by $$\label{eq:Q-tractor}
\bm{Q}_\nabla\overset{h}{=}
(-1)^{n/2-1}2^{n-2}(n/2-1)!^2
\begin{pmatrix}
Q_01+G_1\beta & L_1\beta & 0
\end{pmatrix}.$$ Here we used the Branson–Gover operators [@Branson_Gover_05] $L_1\colon\Omega^1(M)\to\Omega^1(M)$, $G_1\colon\Omega^1(M)\to C^\infty(M)$ and $Q_0\colon C^\infty(M)\to C^\infty(M)$ (adopting the normalization of Aubry–Guillarmou [@Aubry_Guillarmou_11]). In particular, $$Q_01=\frac{(-1)^{n/2-1}}{2^{n-2}(n/2-1)!^2}Q_h,$$ where $Q_h$ is Branson’s $Q$-curvature of $h$. Since it is known that $L_1$ and $G_1$ annihilate closed forms (see [@Branson_Gover_05]), $\bm{Q}_\nabla$ is essentially Branson’s $Q$-curvature when $\nabla$ is a Levi-Civita connection. The authors propose to call $\bm{Q}_\nabla$ the *$Q$-curvature tractor* of the Weyl structure $\nabla$.
For given $\nabla$, we consider the natural pairing of $\bm{Q}_\nabla$ and another canonical tractor $\bm{W}_\nabla\in\mathcal{S}[-1]$ associated to $\nabla$. By using any metric $h\in\mathcal{C}$ and $\beta\in\Omega^1(M)$ for which $\nabla=\nabla^h+\beta$, we define $$\bm{W}_\nabla\overset{h}{=}\begin{pmatrix}
1 \\ -\beta^\sharp \\ \frac{1}{2}{\lvert\beta\rvert}^2
\end{pmatrix}.$$ Then the pairing $Q_\nabla=\braket{\bm{Q}_\nabla,\bm{W}_\nabla}\in\mathcal{E}[n]$ can be integrated. Since $$Q_\nabla/dV_h=Q_h+(-1)^{n/2-1}2^{n-2}(n/2-1)!^2(G_1\beta-\braket{L_1\beta,\beta}),$$ we may use the fact that $G_1\beta$ is the divergence of some 1-form to conclude that, for $M$ compact, $Q_\nabla$ integrates to the following global invariant of $(M,\mathcal{C},\nabla)$: $$\label{eq:integral}
\int_M Q_hdV_h+(-1)^{n/2}2^{n-2}(n/2-1)!^2\int_M \braket{L_1\beta,\beta}dV_h.$$ This can be seen as a functional in the space of Weyl structures on $(M,\mathcal{C})$. As the first term, the total $Q$-curvature, is an invariant of $\mathcal{C}$, the formula above makes us curious about the spectrum of $L_1$. There are explicit formulae for $n=4$ and $6$ [@Aubry_Guillarmou_11]\*[Section 8]{}: $$L_1=\frac{1}{2}d^*d\quad\text{($n=4$)},\qquad
L_1=-\frac{1}{16}d^*\left(\Delta_h-\operatorname{Ric}+\frac{2}{5}\operatorname{Scal}\right)d\quad\text{($n=6$)}.$$ Here $\operatorname{Ric}$ acts as an endomorphism. In four dimensions, this implies that the second term in is nonnegative and vanishes if and only if $\beta$, or equivalently $\nabla$, is closed. Hence the integral of $Q_\nabla$ minimizes at closed Weyl structures. The same is true in six dimensions under some assumption on the Ricci tensor. In general dimensions, a formula of $L_1$ can be obtained for an Einstein metric $h$ by using the idea in third author’s article [@Matsumoto_13]. If $\operatorname{Ric}_h=2\lambda(n-1)h$ so that the Schouten tensor is $P_h=\lambda h$, $$\label{eq:explicit_formula_for_conformally_Einstein}
L_1=\frac{(-1)^{n/2}}{2^{n-3}(n/2-1)!(n/2-2)!}d^*\left(\prod_{m=1}^{n/2-2}(\Delta_h-2m(m-n+3)\lambda)\right)d.$$ One may conclude by this that, if $\mathcal{C}$ contains an Einstein metric with positive scalar curvature, then the integral of $Q_\nabla$ minimizes exactly at Levi-Civita connections (note that Bochner’s Theorem assures the vanishing of $H^1(M)$).
Our theorems are applications of the previous results on the Dirichlet problems for functions and differential forms on AH manifolds. The analytic aspect is due to Mazzeo–Melrose [@Mazzeo_Melrose_87] and Mazzeo [@Mazzeo_88], while the asymptotic expansions were investigated thoroughly by Graham–Zworski [@Graham_Zworski_03] and Aubry–Guillarmou [@Aubry_Guillarmou_11]. A direct connection to Branson’s $Q$-curvature was found by Fefferman–Graham [@Fefferman_Graham_02]. In Section \[sec:functions\_and\_1-forms\], we recall their results that are necessary here. We prove our main theorems in Section \[sec:Weyl\_connection\], and the proof of is given in Section \[sec:conformally\_Einstein\]. (For our analysis of $\bm{Q}_\nabla$, formal asymptotic expansions suffice our needs and the deep results of [@Mazzeo_Melrose_87; @Mazzeo_88] are not really necessary. However we choose to use them for a clearer exposition.) We shall concentrate on the case where $n$ is even and leave the proof of Theorem 0.1$'$ to the interested reader.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
---------------
This work started during CL’s visit to the University of Tokyo in 2014 and the preparation of the manuscript was finished during YM’s visit to the École normale supérieure in Paris in 2014–15. They would like to acknowledge the kind hospitality of the both institutions. KH is partially supported by JSPS KAKENHI grant 60218790. CL is partially supported by JSPS Postdoctoral Fellowship for North American and European Researchers (Short-term) PE 13079. YM is partially supported by JSPS Postdoctoral Fellowship and KAKENHI grant 26-11754.
Preliminaries: Dirichlet problem for functions and 1-forms {#sec:functions_and_1-forms}
==========================================================
We always assume that $n$ is even and $n\ge 4$ in the sequel. Let $g$ be an AH smooth conformally compact metric on $X$. It is well known [@Graham_Lee_91]\*[Section 5]{} that a sufficiently small open neighborhood $\mathcal{U}$ of $M\subset\overline{X}$ can be identified with the product $M\times[0,\varepsilon)$ so that $$\label{eq:normalization}
g=\frac{dx^2+h_x}{x^2},$$ where $x$ is the coordinate on the second factor of $M\times[0,\varepsilon)$ and $h_x$ is a smooth 1-parameter family of Riemannian metrics on $M$. The metric $h=h_0$ is a representative of the conformal class $\mathcal{C}$. In fact, for any prescribed $h\in\mathcal{C}$, there is such an identification; moreover, $h$ determines the identification near ${\partial}X$. We call the expression the *normalization* of $g$, and $x$ the *normalizing boundary defining function* of $\overline{X}$, with respect to $h$.
We shall summarize fundamental results on the Dirichlet problems for functions and 1-forms. In the original papers, some of them are stated under (weak or genuine) Einstein conditions, but they are actually valid in the following general setting. Asymptotic expansions in the propositions below are given with respect to the identification $\mathcal{U}\cong M\times[0,\varepsilon)$ associated to some fixed $h$.
\[prop:harmonic\_extension\_of\_functions\] For any function $\varphi\in C^\infty(M)$, there exists a unique harmonic function $\overline{f}\in C^{n-1}(\overline{X})$ with boundary value $\varphi$. It has the following expansion at the boundary: $$\overline{f}=\varphi+\sum_{k=1}^{n-1}x^k\varphi_k+x^n\log x\cdot L_0\varphi+O(x^n),
\qquad\varphi_k\in C^\infty(M).$$ Here $L_0$ is a linear differential operator locally determined by $g$ and $h$, and $\overline{f}$ is smooth if $L_0\varphi$ vanishes. If $g$ is the Poincaré metric, $L_0$ is the GJMS operator of critical order up to normalization.
The solvability of the Dirichlet problem and the appearance of the first logarithmic term at the power $x^n$ are consequences of the fact that the characteristic exponents of the Laplacian on functions are $0$ and $n$: $\Delta_g$ on functions is expressed as $$\label{eq:Laplacian_on_functions}
\Delta_g=-(x\partial_x)^2+nx\partial_x+xR,$$ in which $R$ is a polynomial of vector fields that are tangent to ${\partial}X$.
A similar technique was used to obtain the following “direct” characterization of Branson’s $Q$-curvature in terms of the Poincaré metric.
\[prop:harmonic\_defining\_function\] For any representative metric $h\in\mathcal{C}$ and the associated normalizing boundary defining function $x$, there exists a unique function $\rho$ such that $u=\log\rho-\log x\in C^{n-1}(\overline{X})$, $\log\rho$ is harmonic, and $u|_{{\partial}X}=0$. It has the following expansion: $$\log\rho=\log x+\sum_{k=1}^{n-1}x^kr_k+x^n\log x\cdot s+O(x^n),
\qquad r_k,\ s\in C^\infty(M).$$ The function $u$ is smooth if $s$ vanishes. If $g$ is the Poincaré metric, then $$s=\frac{(-1)^{n/2-1}}{2^{n-1}(n/2)!(n/2-1)!}Q_h,$$ where $Q_h$ is Branson’s $Q$-curvature of $h$.
The corresponding problem for differential forms is studied in [@Mazzeo_88; @Aubry_Guillarmou_11]. Though differential forms of general degrees are considered in these works, we only use the 1-form case. For a later need, we state the result for general inhomogeneous equations, which also follows from their approach.
\[prop:harmonic\_extension\_of\_1-forms\] Let $\overline{a}\in\Omega^1(\overline{X})$ be a smooth 1-form on $\overline{X}$ such that $\overline{a}|_{TM}=0$. Then for any 1-form $\beta\in\Omega^1(M)$, there exists a solution $\overline{b}\in C^{n-3}(\overline{X},T^*\overline{X})$ to the equation $\Delta_g\overline{b}=\overline{a}$ satisfying $\overline{b}|_{TM}=\beta$, which is unique modulo $L^2$-harmonic 1-forms. It allows the expansion $$\overline{b}=\beta+\sum_{k=1}^{n-3}x^k\beta_k+x^{n-2}\log x\cdot \beta^{(1)}
+\left(\sum_{k=0}^{n-2}x^k\varphi_k+x^{n-1}\log x\cdot\varphi^{(1)}\right)dx+O^+(x^{n-2}),$$ where $\beta_k$, $\beta^{(1)}\in\Omega^1(M)$, $\varphi_k$, $\varphi^{(1)}\in C^\infty(M)$ and the remainder $O^+(x^{n-2})$ is an $O(x^{n-2})$ term that becomes $O(x^{n-1})$ when contracted with $\partial_x$. The solution $\overline{b}$ is smooth if $\beta^{(1)}$ and $\varphi^{(1)}$ both vanish.
If $\overline{a}=0$, then there are linear differential operators $L_1$ and $G_1$ locally determined by $g$ and $h$ for which $\beta^{(1)}=L_1\beta$, $\varphi^{(1)}=G_1\beta$. Moreover, if $g$ is the Poincaré metric, then $L_1$ and $G_1$ are the Branson–Gover operators up to normalization.
Proof of main theorems {#sec:Weyl_connection}
======================
Let $\nabla$ be a Weyl structure on $(M,\mathcal{C})$. As explained in Introduction, the construction of the extension $\overline{\nabla}$ in Theorem \[thm:existence\_extension\] boils down to a Dirichlet problem on 1-forms. However, in order to apply Proposition \[prop:harmonic\_extension\_of\_1-forms\] for this purpose, $g$ is not appropriate as a reference metric for $\overline{\nabla}$. Indeed, since $g$ diverges at ${\partial}X$, so does the 1-form $b$ satisfying $\overline{\nabla}=\nabla^g+b$.
A good choice of reference metric is $\overline{g}=\rho^2g$, where $\rho$ is the function given in Proposition \[prop:harmonic\_defining\_function\] for some $h\in\mathcal{C}$. Since $\rho$ is a (possibly non-smooth) defining function, $\overline{g}$ is a metric on $\overline{X}$ that represents $\overline{\mathcal{C}}$. If we take the 1-form $\overline{b}$ for which $\overline{\nabla}=\nabla^{\overline{g}}+\overline{b}$, then since $\overline{b}=b-d\log\rho$ and $\Delta_g\log\rho=0$, and are equivalent to $d_g^*d\overline{b}=0$ and $d_g^*\overline{b}=0$. Obviously, for this system to be satisfied, it is necessary that $$\Delta_g\overline{b}=0.$$ The converse holds actually. In fact, if $\Delta_g\overline{b}=0$ then $\Delta_g(d_g^*\overline{b})=0$ follows. By the conformal change law of the divergence (see Besse [@Besse_87]\*[1.159 Theorem]{}), $d_g^*\overline{b}=\rho^2d_{\overline{g}}^*\overline{b}+(n-1)\rho\braket{d\rho,\overline{b}}_{\overline{g}}$ is continuous up to the boundary and vanishes on ${\partial}X$, so the maximum principle implies that $d_g^*\overline{b}=0$. Hence we also have $d_g^*d\overline{b}=0$.
Take an arbitrary pair $(h,\beta)$ so that $\nabla=\nabla^h+\beta$. We define $\overline{g}=\rho^2g$, where $\rho$ is the function in Proposition \[prop:harmonic\_defining\_function\] associated to $h$. Then by Proposition \[prop:harmonic\_extension\_of\_1-forms\], there is a 1-form $\overline{b}\in C^{n-3}(\overline{X};T^*\overline{X})$ such that $\Delta_g\overline{b}=0$ and $\overline{b}|_{TM}=\beta$. We set $$\overline{\nabla}=\nabla^{\overline{g}}+\overline{b}.$$ Then and follow because $\Delta_g\overline{b}=0$ holds. Moreover, for any vector fields $\xi$, $\eta\in\mathfrak{X}(\overline{X})$ that are tangent to ${\partial}X$, the tangential component of $\overline{\nabla}_\xi\eta$ is $\nabla^h_\xi\eta+\beta(\eta)\xi+\beta(\xi)\eta-h(\xi,\eta)\beta^\sharp$, which is $\nabla_\xi\eta$. In this construction, there is an ambiguity in $\overline{b}$ that lies in the $L^2$-kernel of $\Delta_g$ on 1-forms. Since $\overline{b}|_{TM}=\beta$ is necessary in order that $\overline{\nabla}$ induces $\nabla$, there is no other ambiguities.
It is interesting to see directly that another choice $(h',\beta')$ would lead to the same Weyl structure $\overline{\nabla}$ (modulo, of course, $L^2$-harmonic 1-forms). If $\nabla=\nabla^h+\beta=\nabla^{h'}+\beta'$, then we can write $h'=e^{2\Upsilon}h$ and $\beta'=\beta-d\Upsilon$ by some $\Upsilon\in C^\infty(M)$. Let $\overline{\Upsilon}$ be the harmonic extension of $\Upsilon$, which uniquely exists by Proposition \[prop:harmonic\_extension\_of\_functions\]. Then the function $\rho'$ in Proposition \[prop:harmonic\_defining\_function\] associated to $h'$ is $\rho'=e^{\overline{\Upsilon}}\rho$, and hence $\smash{\overline{g}}'=\smash{\rho'}^2g=e^{2\overline{\Upsilon}}\overline{g}$. On the other hand, a solution to $\Delta_g\smash{\overline{b}}'=0$ and $\smash{\overline{b}}'|_{TM}=\beta'$ is given by $\smash{\overline{b}}'=\overline{b}-d\overline{\Upsilon}$. Therefore, $\nabla^{\smash{\overline{g}}'}+\smash{\overline{b}}'$ and $\nabla^{\overline{g}}+\overline{b}$ are the same.
Next we discuss the smoothness issue.
\[lem:smoothness\] Let $h\in\mathcal{C}$ and $\beta\in\Omega^1(M)$ be such that $\nabla=\nabla^h+\beta$. Then, the Weyl structure $\overline{\nabla}$ in Theorem \[thm:existence\_extension\] is smooth if and only if $$\label{eq:vanishing_first_log_terms}
L_1\beta=0\qquad\text{and}\qquad ns+G_1\beta=0,$$ where $s\in C^\infty(M)$ is given in Proposition \[prop:harmonic\_defining\_function\] and $L_1$, $G_1$ are as in Proposition \[prop:harmonic\_extension\_of\_1-forms\].
We take the normalization of the metric $g$ with respect to $h$, and take the 1-form $\tilde{b}$ so that $\overline{\nabla}=\nabla^{x^2g}+\tilde{b}$. Then, since $x^2g$ is smooth up to ${\partial}X$, $\overline{\nabla}$ is smooth if and only if $\tilde{b}$ is smooth. Using $\rho$ and $\overline{b}$ constructed in the proof of Theorem \[thm:existence\_extension\], $\tilde{b}$ is computed as follows: $$\begin{split}
\tilde{b}&=(d\log\rho+\overline{b})-d\log x\\
&=d\left(\sum_{k=1}^{n-1}x^kr_k+x^n\log x\cdot s\right)\\
&\phantom{\;=\;}
+\beta+\sum_{k=1}^{n-3}x^k\beta_k+x^{n-2}\log x\cdot L_1\beta
+\left(\sum_{k=0}^{n-2}x^k\varphi_k+x^{n-1}\log x\cdot G_1\beta\right)dx+O^+(x^{n-2})\\
&=\beta+\sum_{k=1}^{n-3}x^k(\beta_k+dr_k)+x^{n-2}\log x\cdot L_1\beta\\
&\phantom{\;=\;}
+\left(\sum_{k=0}^{n-2}x^k(\varphi_k+(k+1)r_{k+1})+x^{n-1}\log x\cdot(ns+G_1\beta)\right)dx
+O^+(x^{n-2}).
\end{split}$$ Therefore, is equivalent to that the first logarithmic terms of $\tilde{b}$ being zero; thus is necessary for the smoothness. Furthermore, since $\Delta_g\tilde{b}=-\Delta_gd\log x=-d\Delta_g\log x$ and $\Delta_g\log x\in xC^\infty(\overline{X})$ by an explicit computation, it follows that $(\Delta_g\tilde{b})|_{TM}=0$. Hence by Proposition \[prop:harmonic\_extension\_of\_1-forms\], is also sufficient.
Let us specialize to the case where $g$ is the Poincaré metric. Then, since $ns=Q_01$, is equivalent to $\bm{Q}_\nabla=0$ if $\bm{Q}_\nabla$ is defined by . What remains is to check the well-definedness of $\bm{Q}_\nabla$. It is by definition equivalent to that the conformal transformation law of $Q_01+G_1\beta$ is as follows: if $\Hat{h}=e^{2\Upsilon}h$, then $$\label{eq:transform_of_bottom_component}
\Hat{Q}_01+\Hat{G}_1\Hat{\beta}=e^{-n\Upsilon}(Q_01+G_1\beta-\braket{L_1\beta,d\Upsilon}).$$ To show this, we recall from [@Aubry_Guillarmou_11]\*[Corollary 4.14]{} that the transformation laws of $Q_01$ and $G_1$ are $\Hat{Q}_01=e^{-n\Upsilon}(Q_01+nL_0\Upsilon)$ and $\Hat{G}_1=e^{-n\Upsilon}(G_1-\iota_{\operatorname{grad}\Upsilon}L_1)$ (the first one is of course the well-known transformation law of the $Q$-curvature). We also note that $L_1$ vanishes on closed forms and $L_0=(1/n)G_1d$ (see [@Aubry_Guillarmou_11 Proposition 4.12]). So we obtain $$\begin{split}
\Hat{G}_1\Hat{\beta}
&=e^{-n\Upsilon}(G_1(\beta-d\Upsilon)-\braket{L_1(\beta-d\Upsilon),d\Upsilon})\\
&=e^{-n\Upsilon}(G_1\beta-G_1d\Upsilon-\braket{L_1\beta,d\Upsilon})
=e^{-n\Upsilon}(G_1\beta-nL_0\Upsilon-\braket{L_1\beta,d\Upsilon}).
\end{split}$$ Hence follows, and the proof of Theorem \[thm:smoothness\_extension\] is completed.
Explicit computation on conformally Einstein manifolds {#sec:conformally_Einstein}
======================================================
In this section, we prove the explicit formula of the operator $L_1$ on a conformally Einstein manifold $(M,\mathcal{C})$. The proof here follows the symmetric 2-tensor case carried out in [@Matsumoto_13]. While the argument in [@Matsumoto_13] was given in terms of the Fefferman–Graham ambient metric, the same idea can also be implemented by the Poincaré metric, which we adopt in this exposition.
Suppose first that $\mathcal{C}$ does not necessarily carry Einstein representatives. Without losing generality, we may assume that $M$ is the boundary of an $(n+1)$-dimensional smooth compact manifold-with-boundary $\overline{X}$. Identify an open neighborhood $\mathcal{U}$ of $M\subset\overline{X}$ with $M\times[0,\varepsilon)$. We fix a representative $h\in\mathcal{C}$ once and for all, and let $$g=\frac{dx^2+h_x}{x^2}$$ be a Poincaré metric for which $h_0=h$ and $h_x$ has an expansion in even powers of $x$ (see [@Fefferman_Graham_02]).
Recall that, in Proposition \[prop:harmonic\_extension\_of\_1-forms\], we called a 1-form $\eta\in\Omega^1(X)$ is $O^+(x^m)$ when $\eta$ is $O(x^m)$ and $\eta(\partial_x)=O(x^{m+1})$. We now introduce some subspaces of such 1-forms. For each even integer $w\ge -n+2$, let $\mathcal{A}[w]\subset\Omega^1(X)$ be the space of 1-forms that are expressed, near ${\partial}X$, as $$\eta=x^{-w}\beta_x+x^{-w+2}\varphi_x\frac{dx}{x},$$ where $\beta_x$ and $\varphi_x$ are smooth families of 1-forms and functions on $M$ in $x\in[0,\varepsilon)$ with expansions in even powers of $x$. Moreover, we say that $\eta\in\mathcal{A}[w]$ is in $\mathcal{A}_\mathrm{df}[w]$ when $d_g^*\eta=O(x^n)$. Note that $\mathcal{A}_\mathrm{df}[-n+2]=\mathcal{A}[-n+2]$ (use below). For all $w\le -n$, we set $\mathcal{A}_\mathrm{df}[w]$ ($=\mathcal{A}[w]$) to be $$\Set{\eta=x^{n-2}\beta_x+x^n\varphi_x\frac{dx}{x}|
\text{$\beta_x$ and $\varphi_x$ are families as mentioned above such that $\beta_0=0$}}.$$ We need this somewhat irregular definition for technical reasons which can be seen in the proof of Lemma \[lem:EFH\]. If $\eta\in\mathcal{A}[w]$, we call $\beta=\beta_0=(x^w\eta)|_{TM}\in\Omega^1(M)$ the *restriction* of $\eta$, and $\eta$ an *extension* of $\beta$. It is clear that the restriction of any element in $\mathcal{A}[w]$, $w\le -n$, is zero.
Consider the following three operators between these spaces: $$\begin{aligned}
{2}
E&\colon \mathcal{A}_\mathrm{df}[w]\longrightarrow\mathcal{A}_\mathrm{df}[w+2],&\qquad
\eta&\longmapsto -\tfrac{1}{4}\eta,\\
F&\colon \mathcal{A}_\mathrm{df}[w]\longrightarrow\mathcal{A}_\mathrm{df}[w-2],&\qquad
\eta&\longmapsto (\Delta_g+w(w+n-2))\eta,\\
H&\colon \mathcal{A}_\mathrm{df}[w]\longrightarrow\mathcal{A}_\mathrm{df}[w],&\qquad
\eta&\longmapsto (w+n/2)\eta.\end{aligned}$$ We make the following observations on these operators.
\[lem:EFH\] (1) The operators $E$, $F$, and $H$ above are well-defined and form an $\mathfrak{sl}_2$-triple.
\(2) Any $\beta\in\Omega^1(M)$ can be extended to some $\eta\in\mathcal{A}_\mathrm{df}[0]$.
The most nontrivial point about (1) is that $F$ maps $\mathcal{A}_\mathrm{df}[w]$ into $\mathcal{A}_\mathrm{df}[w-2]$. This can be checked using formulae of Aubry–Guillarmou [@Aubry_Guillarmou_11]\*[Equations (2.2), (2.3)]{}. Namely, if we decompose $\eta\in\mathcal{A}[w]$ into the tangential and normal parts as $\eta=\eta^{(t)}+\eta^{(n)}(dx/x)$, then $$\label{eq:divergence_in_components}
d_g^*\eta=
\begin{pmatrix}
x^2 d_{h_x}^* & -x\partial_x+n \\
0 & 0
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
\eta^{(t)} \\ \eta^{(n)}
\end{pmatrix}+O(x^{-w+4}),$$ where the term indicated by $O(x^{-w+4})$ is expanded in even powers of $x$, and $$\label{eq:Laplacian_in_components}
\Delta_g\eta=
\begin{pmatrix}
-(x\partial_x)^2+(n-2)x\partial_x & 0 \\
2x^2d_{h_x}^* & -(x\partial_x)^2+nx\partial_x
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
\eta^{(t)} \\ \eta^{(n)}
\end{pmatrix}+\mathcal{A}[w-2].$$ Here $\mathcal{A}[w-2]$ of course denotes some 1-form that belongs to this space. Let $\eta\in\mathcal{A}_\mathrm{df}[w]$. Then it is immediate from that $F\eta\in\mathcal{A}_\mathrm{df}[w-2]$ for $w\le -n+2$. For $w\ge -n+4$, observe first that the tangential part of $F\eta$ is $O(x^{-w+2})$. Since $d_g^*\eta=O(x^n)$, implies that $x^2d_{h_x}^*\eta^{(t)}+(w-2+n)\eta^{(n)}=O(x^{-w+4})$. Then a little computation shows that the normal part of $F\eta$ is $O(x^{-w+4})$. Hence $F\eta\in\mathcal{A}[w-2]$ also for $w\ge -n+4$. The fact that $d_g^*F\eta=O(x^n)$ is clear from and $d_g^*F\eta=(\Delta_g+w(w+n-2))d_g^*\eta$.
The assertion (2) follows easily from . Details are left to the reader.
For our purpose, it is also important to note that an extension of $\beta$ in (2) can be constructed from the harmonic extension $\overline{b}$ given in Proposition \[prop:harmonic\_extension\_of\_1-forms\]. Using the notation there, we take $$\eta=\beta+\sum_{k=1}^{n-3}x^k\beta_k+\left(\sum_{k=1}^{n-1}x^k\varphi_{k-1}\right)\frac{dx}{x}.$$ Then one can check that $\beta_k=0$ and $\varphi_{k-1}=0$ for $k$ odd, i.e., $\eta\in\mathcal{A}[0]$ actually. Moreover, $$\label{eq:cutoff_term_of_approximate_harmonic_extension}
\eta-\overline{b}=-x^{n-2}\log x\cdot L_1\beta
-x^n\log x\cdot (G_1\beta)\frac{dx}{x}+O^+(x^{n-2})$$ and $\overline{b}$ admits a polyhomogeneous expansion (see [@Aubry_Guillarmou_11]). Since $\overline{b}$ satisfies $d_g^*\overline{b}=0$ and it is known that $L_1\beta\in\operatorname{im}d_h^*$, we obtain from and that $\eta\in\mathcal{A}_\mathrm{df}[0]$. We will also need the fact that $$\label{eq:error_of_approximate_harmonic_extension}
\Delta_g\eta=(n-2)x^{n-2}L_1\beta+nx^n(G_1\beta)\frac{dx}{x}+O^+(x^n),$$ which follows from , , and the fact that $G_1\beta\in\operatorname{im}d_h^*$.
The three operators are also understood by the ambient metric. Recall from [@Fefferman_Graham_02]\*[Chapter 4]{} that the ambient metric is given as $\tilde{g}=s^2g-ds^2$ in the $(x,\xi,s)$-coordinates, which are related with the standard $(\rho,\xi,t)$-coordinates[^1] on the ambient space $\tilde{\mathcal{G}}\cong\mathbb{R}\times M\times(0,\infty)$ by $$x=\sqrt{-2\rho},\qquad s=\sqrt{-2\rho}\,t$$ in the subdomain $\set{\rho<0}$. The Poincaré manifold $(X,g)$ can be seen as the hypersurface $\set{s=1}$ of $\tilde{\mathcal{G}}$. Let $\eta\in\mathcal{A}_\mathrm{df}[w]$, and for simplicity, assume that $w\ge -n+2$ and $d_g^*\eta=0$. Assign to it the 1-form $\tilde{\eta}=s^w\eta$ on $\set{\rho<0}\subset\tilde{\mathcal{G}}$. Then actually $\tilde{\eta}$ can be extended smoothly across $\rho=0$, and the restriction of $\eta$ to $M$ corresponds to the pullback of $\tilde{\eta}$ to $\set{\rho=0, t=1}$. Now let $T=s\partial_s$. Then $E$, $F$, and $H$ correspond to $$\tilde{\eta}\longmapsto -\tfrac{1}{4}s^2\tilde{\eta},\qquad
\tilde{\eta}\longmapsto \tilde{\Delta}\tilde{\eta},\quad\text{and}\quad
\tilde{\eta}\longmapsto (\tilde{\nabla}_T+\tfrac{n}{2}+1)\tilde{\eta}.$$ For example, noting that $\tilde{\eta}(T)=0$, $\iota_T(d\tilde{\eta})=\mathcal{L}_T\tilde{\eta}=w\tilde{\eta}$, and the fact that $\tilde{g}=e^{2v}(g-dv^2)$ if we put $s=e^v$, by the conformal change law of the Hodge Laplacian we conclude that $$\Delta_{\tilde{g}}\tilde{\eta}
=e^{-2v}(\Delta_{g-dv^{2}}\tilde{\eta}+(n-2)\iota_T(d\tilde{\eta}))
=s^{w-2}(\Delta_g+w(w+n-2))\eta.$$ For general $\eta\in\mathcal{A}_\mathrm{df}[w]$, we need to introduce more careful assignment of ambient 1-forms. We omit it here. The case of $w\le -n$ is not important.
We shall detect $L_1\beta$ in using the commutation relations of $E$, $F$, and $H$ as in Graham–Jenne–Mason–Sparling [@Graham_Jenne_Mason_Sparling_92]. Note first that implies $F\eta=E^{n/2-2}\xi$ with some $\xi\in\mathcal{A}[-n+2]=\mathcal{A}_\mathrm{df}[-n+2]$ that restricts to $(-4)^{n/2-2}(n-2)L_1\beta$. Then we can deduce that $$\begin{split}
F^{n/2-1}\eta=F^{n/2-2}E^{n/2-2}\xi
&=(-1)^{n/2}(n/2-2)!H(H+1)\cdots(H+n/2-3)\xi+E\mathcal{A}_\mathrm{df}[-n]\\
&=(n/2-2)!^2\xi+E\mathcal{A}_\mathrm{df}[-n].
\end{split}$$ Let $\eta'\in\mathcal{A}_\mathrm{df}[0]$ be another extension of $\beta$. Then since $\eta-\eta'\in E\mathcal{A}_\mathrm{df}[-2]$, it follows that $F^{n/2-1}(\eta-\eta')\in E\mathcal{A}_\mathrm{df}[-n]$. In particular, we can conclude that $$\label{eq:GJMS_construction}
\begin{split}
(\text{the restriction of $F^{n/2-1}\eta'$})
&=(-4)^{n/2-2}(n-2)(n/2-2)!^2L_1\beta\\
&=(-1)^{n/2}2^{n-3}(n/2-1)!(n/2-2)!L_1\beta
\end{split}$$ for *any* extension $\eta'\in\mathcal{A}_\mathrm{df}[0]$ of $\beta$.
Now suppose there is an Einstein representative $h$ satisfying $\operatorname{Ric}(h)=2(n-1)\lambda h$ in the conformal class $\mathcal{C}$. In this case, one can take $g=x^{-2}(dx^2+h_x)$, $h_x=(1-\frac{1}{2}\lambda x^2)^2h$ as the Poincaré metric. Since $L_1$ annihilates the closed forms, by the de Rham–Hodge–Kodaira decomposition, we may assume that $d_h^*\beta=0$ ($\beta\in\operatorname{im}d_h^*$ can even be assumed, but we do not need it here). Because $h_x$ is conformal to $h$, we also have $d_{h_x}^*\beta=0$. This implies that the pullback of $\beta$ by the projection $M\times[0,\varepsilon)\longrightarrow M$ is a divergence-free extension of $\beta$.
We compute the Laplacian on 1-forms of the form $\psi(x)\alpha$, where $\alpha\in\Omega^1(M)$ is divergence-free. By , $\Delta_g(\psi(x)\alpha)$ is again in this form and $$\Delta_g(\psi(x)\alpha)
=\left(-(x\partial_x)^2+(n-2)\frac{1-\frac{1}{2}\lambda x^2}{1+\frac{1}{2}\lambda x^2}x\partial_x\right)\psi(x)
\alpha
+\frac{x^2}{(1-\frac{1}{2}\lambda x^2)^2}\psi(x)\Delta_h\alpha.$$ If we put $y=x(1-\frac{1}{2}\lambda x^2)^{-1}$, then $$\Delta_g(\psi(x)\alpha)
=\left(-(y\partial_y)^2+(n-2)y\partial_y
-2\lambda y^2(y\partial_y)^2+2(n-3)\lambda y^2\cdot y\partial_y\right)\psi\alpha
+y^2\psi\Delta_h\alpha.$$ Hence, if we take $\psi(x)=y^w$, then $F(y^w\alpha)=y^{-w+2}(\Delta_h-2\lambda w(w-n+3))\alpha$. By applying this repeatedly, we obtain $$F^{n/2-1}\beta=y^{n-2}\left(\prod_{w=0}^{n/2-2}(\Delta_h-2\lambda w(w-n+3))\right)\beta,$$ which combined with gives the formula of $L_1\beta$ for divergence-free 1-forms $\beta$. Reformulating it for general 1-forms, we get .
[^1]: It is even more standard to use $x$ for the coordinates on $M$, but we use $\xi$ instead as $x$ is already reserved.
|
---
abstract: 'Let $F$ be a field. We show that certain subrings contained between the polynomial ring $F[X] = F[X_1, \cdots, X_n]$ and the power series ring $F[X][[Y]] = F[X_1, \cdots, X_n][[ Y]]$ have Weierstrass Factorization, which allows us to deduce both unique factorization and the Noetherian property. These intermediate subrings are obtained from elements of $F[X][[ Y]]$ by bounding their total $X$-degree above by a positive real-valued monotonic up function $\lambda$ on their $Y$-degree. These rings arise naturally in studying $p$-adic analytic variation of zeta functions over finite fields. Future research into this area may study more complicated subrings in which $Y = (Y_1, \cdots, Y_m)$ has more than one variable, and for which there are multiple degree functions, $\lambda_1, \cdots, \lambda_m$. Another direction of study would be to generalize these results to $k$-affinoid algebras.'
author:
- |
Damek Davis and Daqing Wan\
Department of Mathematics\
University of California\
Irvine, CA 92697-3875\
davisds@uci.edu\
dwan@math.uci.edu
title: Factorial and Noetherian Subrings of Power Series Rings
---
Introduction
============
Let $R$ be a commutative ring with unity, and let $S_k$ be the set of polynomials in $R[X, Y] = R[X_1, \cdots, X_n][ Y_1, \cdots, Y_m]$ that are homogeneous in $Y$ of degree $k$. Every element of $R[X][[Y]]$ can be written uniquely in the form $$\begin{aligned}
f &=& \sum_{k=0}^\infty f_{k}(X, Y),\end{aligned}$$ where $f_k(X, Y)$ is an element of $S_k$. In this expansion, there is no restriction on $\deg_X f_k(X, Y)$. Motivated by several applications to the $p$-adic theory of zeta functions over finite fields, we want to consider subrings of $R[X][ Y]]$ in which $\deg_X (f_k)$ is bounded above by some function $\lambda$. In particular, let $\lambda : {\mathbf{R}}_{\geq 0} \rightarrow {\mathbf{R}}_{\geq 0}$ be a monotonic up function. We call $\lambda$ a growth function. Following Wan [@Wan1], we define a subring of $R[X][[Y]]$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
R[X; Y, \lambda] &=& \{f = \sum_{k=0}^\infty f_{k}(X, Y) :
f_k \in S_k, \deg_X(f_k) \leq C_f\lambda(k), \text{ for } k \gg 0 \},\end{aligned}$$ where $C_f$ is a constant depending only on $f$. Since $\lambda$ is monotonic up, it satisfies the trivial inequality, $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda(x) + \lambda(y) &\leq& 2\lambda(x+y)\end{aligned}$$ for all $x$ and $y$ in ${\mathbf{R}}_{\geq 0}$. From this inequality, it is clear that $R[X; Y, \lambda]$ is an $R[X]$-algebra, which contains $R[X]$.
If $\lambda$ is invertible, we have the following equivalent definition: $$\begin{aligned}
R[X; Y, \lambda] &=& \{g = \sum_{d=0}^\infty g_{d}(X, Y) : g_d \in A_d, {\text{ord}}_Y(g_d) \geq \lambda^{-1}(C_gd), \text{ for } d \gg 0\},\end{aligned}$$ where $A_d$ is the subset of elements of $R[[Y]][X]$, which are homogeneous of degree $d$ in $X$, and ${\text{ord}}_Y (g_d)$ is the largest integer $k$ for which $g_d$ is an element of $Y^kR[X][[Y]]$.
It is clear that for any positive constant $c > 0$, $R[X; Y, c\lambda] = R[X; Y, \lambda]$. If $\lambda(x)$ is a positive constant, then $R[X; Y, \lambda] = R[[Y]][X]$. If $\lambda(x) = x$ for all $x$ in ${\mathbf{R}}_{\geq 0}$, then $R[X; Y, \lambda]$ is called the over-convergent subring of $R[X][[Y]]$, which is the starting point of Dwork’s $p$-adic theory for zeta functions. In both of these cases, if $R$ is noetherian, it is known that $R[X; Y, \lambda]$ is noetherian: when $\lambda$ is constant, the result follows from Hilbert’s Basis Theorem; the case in which $\lambda(x) = x$ is proved in Fulton [@Fulton]. More generally, if $R$ is noetherian and $\lambda$ satisfies the following inequality, $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda(x) + \lambda(y) \leq \lambda(x+y) \leq \lambda(x)\mu(y)\end{aligned}$$ for all sufficiently large $x$ and $y$, where $\mu$ is another positive valued function such that $\mu(x) \geq 1$ for all $x$ in ${\mathbf{R}}_{\geq0}$, then $R[X; Y, \lambda]$ is also noetherian as shown in Wan [@Wan1]. For example, any exponential function $\lambda(x)$ satisfies the above inequalities. In this case the ring is particularly interesting because it arises naturally from the study of unit root F-crystals from geometry, see Dwork-Sperber [@DS] and Wan [@Wan2] for further discussions.
The first condition, $\lambda(x) + \lambda(y) \leq \lambda(x+y)$, is a natural assumption because it ensures that elements of the form $(1-XY)$ are invertible, a vital condition to this paper. If $\lambda$ does not grow at least as fast as linear, then $(1-XY)^{-1} = 1 + \sum_{i=1}^{\infty} X^kY^k$ is not an element of $R[X; Y, \lambda]$. It is not clear, however, if the second condition, $\lambda(x+y) \leq \lambda(x)\mu(y)$, can be dropped. In fact, we have the following open question from Wan [@Wan1].
Let $R$ be a noetherian ring. Let $\lambda(x)$ be a growth function satisfying $\lambda(x) + \lambda(y) \leq \lambda(x+y)$. Is the intermediate ring $R[X; Y, \lambda]$ always noetherian?
This question is solved affirmatively in this paper if $R$ is a field and there is only one $Y$ variable.
Throughout this paper we assume that $R=F$ is a field, and that $\lambda$ grows at least as fast as linear, i.e. $\lambda(x) + \lambda(y) \leq \lambda(x+y)$ for all $x, y \geq 0$. Further, we assume that $\lambda(0) = 0$ and $ \lambda(\infty) = \infty$, because normalizing $\lambda$ this way does not change $F[X; Y, \lambda]$. Without loss of generality we also assume that $\lambda$ is strictly increasing. Finally, we assume that $F[X; Y, \lambda]$ has only one $Y$ variable. We call an element $$\begin{aligned}
g = \sum_{d=0}^\infty g_d(X_1, \cdots, X_{n-1}, Y)X_n^d\end{aligned}$$ in $F[X; Y, \lambda]$ $X_n$-distinguished of degree $s$ if $g_s$ is a unit in $F[X_1,\cdots, X_{n-1};Y,\lambda]$, and ${\text{ord}}_Y(g_d) \geq 1$ for all $d> s$. The main result of this paper is the following
Under the above assumptions, we have
1. (Euclidean Algorithm) *Suppose that $g$ is $X_n$-distinguished of degree $s$ in $F[X; Y, \lambda]$, and that $f$ is an element of $F[X; Y, \lambda]$. Then there exist unique elements, $q$ in $F[X; Y, \lambda]$, and $r$ in the polynomial ring $F[X_1, \cdots, X_{n-1}; Y, \lambda][X_n]$ with ${\rm deg}_{X_n}(r) <s$, such that $f = qg + r$.*
2. (Weierstrass Factorization) *Let $g$ be $X_n$-distinguished of degree $s$. Then there exists a unique monic polynomial $\omega$ in $F[X_1, \cdots, X_{n-1}; Y, \lambda][X_n]$ of degree $s$ in $X_n$ and a unique unit $e$ in $F[X ; Y, \lambda]$ such that $g = e\cdot \omega$. Further, $\omega$ is distinguished of degree $s$.*
3. (Automorphism Theorem) *Let $g(X,Y) = \sum_{\mu}g_\mu(Y)X^\mu$ be an element of $F[X; Y,\lambda]$ where $\mu = (\mu_1, \cdots, \mu_n)$ and $X^\mu = X_1^{\mu_1}\cdots X_n^{\mu_n}$. If $g_\mu(Y)$ is not divisible by $Y$ for some $\mu$, where $\mu_n > 0$, then there exists an automorphism $\sigma$ of $F[X; Y, \lambda]$ such that $\sigma(g)$ is $X_n$-distinguished.*
4. *$F[X; Y, \lambda]$ is noetherian and factorial.*
The Euclidean algorithm is the key part of this theorem. Our proof of this algorithm follows Manin’s proof of the analogous result for power series rings as written in Lang [@Lang], except that we have to keep careful track of more delicate estimates that arise from the general growth function $\lambda(x)$. The other results are classical consequences of this algorithm, which are proved in this paper, but the techniques are essentially unchanged from techniques utilized in proofs of analogous results for power series rings as given in Bosch, etc. [@Bosch].
This topic is also motivated by a considerable body of work concerning “$k$-affinoid” algebras from non-Archimedean analysis. Let $k$ be a complete non-Archimedean valued field, with a non-trivial valuation, and define $T_n = k{\langle}X_1, \cdots, X_n {\rangle}$, Tate’s algebra, to be the algebra of strictly convergent power series over $k$: $T_n = \{ \sum_{\mu} a_\mu X^\mu : |a_\mu| \stackrel{|\mu| \rightarrow \infty}{\rightarrow} 0 \}$. The algebra, $T_n$, is a noetherian and factorial ring with many useful properties, and it is the basis for studying $k$-affinoid algebras, see Bosch etc [@Bosch]. A $k$-algebra, $A$, is called $k$-affinoid if there exists a continuous epimorphism, $T_n \rightarrow A$, for some $n \geq 0$. Given $\rho = (\rho_1, \cdots, \rho_n)$ in ${\mathbf{R}}^n$, where $\rho_i > 0$ for each $i$, one can define $$\begin{aligned}
T_{n}(\rho) &=& \{ \sum_{\mu} a_\mu X^{\mu} \in k[[X_1, \cdots, X_n]] : |a_\mu|\rho_1^{\mu_1}\cdots \rho_n^{\mu_n} \stackrel{|\mu| \rightarrow \infty} {\rightarrow} 0\}.\end{aligned}$$ Note that $T_n(1,\cdots, 1) = T_n$. Furthermore, $T_n(\rho)$ is $k$-affinoid if, and only if, $\rho_i$ is an element of $|k_a^\ast|$ for all $i$, where $k_a$ is the algebraic closure of $k$, from which one can immediately verify that it is noetherian. It is shown by van der Put in [@Put] that this ring is noetherian for any $\rho$ in ${\mathbf{R}}^n$, where $\rho_i > 0$ for each $i$. Define the Washnitzer algebra $W_n$ to be $$\begin{aligned}
W_n &=& \bigcup_{\rho\in {\mathbf{R}}^n, \rho_i > 1} T_n(\rho).\end{aligned}$$ It is shown in Güntzer [@G] that $W_n$ is noetherian and factorial. A motivating study of $W_n$ is given by Grosse-Könne [@Gr]. This overconvergent ring $W_n$ is also the basis (or starting point) of the Monsky-Washnitzer formal cohomology and the rigid cohomology.
More generally, for a growth function $\lambda(x)$, we can also define $$\begin{aligned}
T_n(\rho, \lambda) &=& \{ \sum_{\mu} a_\mu X^\mu \in k[[X_1, \cdots, X_n]] : |a_\mu|\rho_1^{\lambda^{-1}(\mu_1)}\cdots \rho_n^{\lambda^{-1}(\mu_n)} \stackrel{|\mu| \rightarrow \infty}{\rightarrow} 0 \}.\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, define $$\begin{aligned}
W_n(\lambda) &=& \bigcup_{\rho\in {\mathbf{R}}^n, \rho_i > 1} T_n(\rho,
\lambda).\end{aligned}$$ If $\lambda$ is invertible, $W_n(\lambda)$ most closely resembles the ring $k[X; Y, \lambda] = k[X_1, \cdots, X_n; Y, \lambda]$ studied in this paper. If $\lambda(x) = cx$ for some $c > 0$ and all $x$ in ${\mathbf{R}}_{\geq 0}$, then $W_n(\lambda) = W_n$ is the Washnitzer algebra. Similarly, $T_n((1, \cdots, 1), \lambda) = T_n$ for all $\lambda$, and $T_n(\rho, \text{id}) = T_n(\rho)$.
The results of this paper suggest that there may be a $p$-adic cohomology theory for more general growth functions $\lambda(x)$ (other than linear functions), which would help to explain the principal zeroes of Dwork’s unit root zeta function [@Dw], [@Wan2] in the case when $\lambda$ is the exponential function. This is one of the main motivations for the present paper.
[**Acknowledgments**]{}. We would like to thank Christopher Davis for informing us of several relevant references.
Results and Proofs
==================
For the rest of the paper, we assume that $F$ is a field and that $p$ is a fixed positive real number greater than one.
Define $| \; |_\lambda$ on $F[[Y]]$ by $| f(Y) |_\lambda = \frac{1}{p^{\lambda({\text{ord}}_Y(f))}}$ for all $f$ in $F[[Y]]$.
This is basically the $Y$-adic absolute value on $F[[Y]]$, re-scaled by the growth function $\lambda(x)$.
$(F[[Y]], | \; |_\lambda$) is a complete normed ring.
We defined $\lambda(0) = 0$ and $\lambda(\infty) = \infty$, so $|a|_\lambda = 0$ if, and only if, $a = 0$ (because $\lambda$ is strictly increasing), and $|c_0| = 1$ for all $c_0$ in $F^\times$. Suppose that $f$ and $g$ are elements of $F[[Y]]$, then ${\text{ord}}_Y(fg) = {\text{ord}}_Y(f) + {\text{ord}}_Y(g)$, and $\lambda({\text{ord}}_Y(f) + {\text{ord}}_Y(g)) \geq \lambda({\text{ord}}_Y(f)) + \lambda({\text{ord}}_Y(g))$. Thus, $$\begin{aligned}
|fg|_\lambda &=& \frac{1}{p^{\lambda({\text{ord}}_Y(f) + {\text{ord}}_Y(g))}} \\
&\leq& \frac{1}{p^{\lambda({\text{ord}}_Y(f))+\lambda({\text{ord}}_Y(g))}} \\
&=& |f|_\lambda |g|_\lambda.\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, since ${\text{ord}}_Y(f+g) \geq \min\{{\text{ord}}_Y(f), {\text{ord}}_Y(g)\}$ $$\begin{aligned}
|f+g|_\lambda &=& \frac{1}{p^{\lambda({\text{ord}}_Y(f+g))}} \\
&\leq& \frac{1}{p^{\lambda(\min\{{\text{ord}}_Y(f), {\text{ord}}_Y(g)\})}} \\
&=& \max\{|f|_\lambda, |g|_\lambda\}.\end{aligned}$$
To show completeness, if $\left(f^{(i)}\right)_{i=1}^\infty$ is a Cauchy sequence with respect to the standard $Y$-adic norm $|\;|$ on $F[[Y]]$, then $f^{(i)}$ converges to an element $f$ in $F[[Y]]$. Thus, $|f - f^{(i)}| = \frac{1}{p^{{\text{ord}}_Y(f-f^{(i)})}}$ converges to $0$ as $i$ approaches $\infty$, and so ${\text{ord}}_Y(f - f^{(i)})$ must approach $\infty$. This can happen if, and only if, the corresponding sequence, $\lambda({\text{ord}}_Y(f - f^{(i)}))$, approaches $\infty$, as desired.
A norm which only satisfies $|ab| \leq |a||b|$, instead of strict equality is sometimes called a pseudo-norm; we disregard the distinction in this paper.
We can write any element $f$ in $F[X; Y, \lambda]$ in the following form: $$\begin{aligned}
f(X,Y) &=& \sum_{\mu} f_\mu(Y)X^\mu\end{aligned}$$ where $\mu = (\mu_1, \cdots, \mu_n)$ is a tuple of positive integers, and $X^\mu = X_1^{\mu_1}\cdots X_n^{\mu_n}$. This form and the above norms allow us to formulate two equivalent definitions for $F[X; Y, \lambda]$: $$\begin{aligned}
F[X; Y, \lambda] &=& \{f = \sum_{\mu}^\infty f_{\mu}( Y)X^\mu : f_\mu \in F[[Y]], |f_\mu| p^{\lambda^{-1}(C_f|\mu|)} \stackrel{|\mu| \rightarrow \infty}{\rightarrow} 0\} \\
&=& \{f = \sum_{\mu}^\infty f_{\mu}( Y)X^\mu : f_\mu \in F[[Y]], |f_\mu|_\lambda p^{C_f|\mu|} \stackrel{|\mu| \rightarrow \infty}{\rightarrow} 0\}\end{aligned}$$ where $|\mu| = \mu_1 + \cdots + \mu_n$.
For all $c$ in ${\mathbf{R}}^{n}, c_i > 0$, define $$\begin{aligned}
F[X; Y, \lambda]_c &=& \{\sum_{\nu} f_\mu X^\mu : \left| f_\mu \right|_\lambda p^{c\cdot \mu} \stackrel{|\mu| \rightarrow \infty}{\rightarrow} 0\}\end{aligned}$$ where $c \cdot \mu = c_1\mu_1 + \cdots + c_n\mu_n$.
Define $\| \; \|_{\lambda, c}$ on $F[X; Y, \lambda]_c$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\|f\|_{\lambda, c} &=& \max |f_\mu|_\lambda p^{c\cdot \mu}.\end{aligned}$$
It’s easy to see that $F[[Y]] \subset F[X; Y, \lambda]_c \subseteq F[X; Y, \lambda]_{c'}$ if $c_i' \leq c_i$ for $i = 1, \cdots, n$.
The function $\| \; \|_{\lambda, c}$ is a non-Archimedean norm on $F[X; Y, \lambda]_c$.
On $F[[Y]]$, $\|\;\|_{\lambda, c}$ reduces to $| \; |_\lambda$. Suppose that $f$ and $g$ are elements of $F[X; Y,\lambda]_c$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\|f + g\|_{\lambda, c} &=& \max_{\mu}\{ |f_\mu+g_\mu|_\lambda p^{c\cdot \mu}\}\\
&\leq& \max_{\mu}\{\max\{|f_\mu|_\lambda, |g_\mu|_\lambda\}p^{c\cdot \mu}\} \\
&\leq& \max\{ \|f\|_{\lambda, c}, \|g\|_{\lambda, c}\}.\end{aligned}$$ Next, $$\begin{aligned}
\|fg\|_{\lambda, c} &=& \max_{\sigma}\{ \left|\left(\sum_{\mu + \nu = \sigma} f_\mu g_\nu\right) \right|_\lambda p^{c\cdot \sigma} \} \\
&\leq& \max_{\sigma}\{ \max_{\mu + \nu = \sigma}\{ |f_\mu g_\nu|_\lambda\} p^{c\cdot \sigma} \} \\
&\leq& \max_{\mu, \nu}\{ |f_\mu|_\lambda |g_\nu|_\lambda p^{c\cdot ( \mu + \nu)} \} \\
&=& \|f\|_{\lambda, c}\|g\|_{\lambda, c}.\end{aligned}$$
$\displaystyle F[X; Y, \lambda] = \bigcup_{c \in {\mathbf{R}}^n, c_i> 0} F[X; Y, \lambda]_c$
Suppose that $f$ is an element of $F[X; Y, \lambda]$, then $|f_\mu|_\lambda p^{(C_f, \cdots, C_f)\cdot \mu}$ converges to $0$ as $|\mu|$ approaches $\infty$. Conversely, if $f$ is an element of $F[X; Y, \lambda]_c$, let $C_f = \min_{i} c_i$.
Suppose $f$ is an element of $F[X; Y,\lambda]$. Then $f(X,Y)$ is invertible if, and only if, $f \equiv c_0 \mod (Y)$ where $c_0$ is a unit in $F$. If an element $f$ in $F[X; Y, \lambda]_c$ is invertible in $F[X; Y, \lambda]$, then $f^{-1}$ is an element of $F[X; Y, \lambda]_c$. Further, if $\|f\|_{\lambda, c} \leq 1$, then $\| f^{-1}\|_{\lambda, c} \leq 1$.
If $f(X,Y)$ is invertible, then it is an invertible polynomial modulo $(Y)$. Therefore, $f$ is a non-zero unit modulo $(Y)$.
If $f \equiv c_0 \mod (Y)$ for $c_0$ in $F^\times$, we can write $f = c_0(1 - g(X,Y))$ as an element of $F[X;Y,\lambda]_c$ for some $c>0$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
f^{-1} &=& c_0^{-1}\left(1 + \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}g(X,Y)^k\right) \\
&=& c_0^{-1}\left(1 + \sum_{k=1}^\infty\sum_{j=1}^\infty
\sum_{\substack{\mu^{(1)} + \cdots + \mu^{(k)} = \sigma \\
|\sigma| = j} }\prod_{i=1}^k g_{\mu^{(i)}}(Y) X^\sigma\right)\end{aligned}$$ Observe that, $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\left|\prod_{i=1}^k g_{\mu^{(i)}}(Y) X^\sigma\right|_\lambda\right) p^{c\cdot \sigma} &=& \prod_{i=1}^k \left(\left|g_{\mu^{(i)}}(Y) X^\sigma\right|_\lambda p^{c\cdot\mu^{(i)}}\right)\end{aligned}$$ converges to $0$ as $|\sigma|$ approaches $\infty$ because $g_\mu = -c_0f_\mu$. Suppose $\|f\|_{\lambda, c} \leq 1$, then this product is also less than or equal to one, because each term satisfies this property, so $\|f^{-1}\|_{\lambda, c} = |c_0^{-1}|_\lambda = 1$.
The ring, $(F[X; Y, \lambda]_c, \| \; \|_{\lambda, c})$, is an $F[[Y]]$-Banach algebra.
Suppose that $f = \sum_{\mu} f_\mu(Y)X^\mu$ and $g = \sum_{\nu} g_\nu(Y)X^\nu$, are elements of $F[X; Y, \lambda]_c$, then $|f_\mu \pm g_\mu|_\lambda \leq \max\{|f_\mu|_\lambda, |g_\mu|_\lambda\}$, and the quantity $\max\{|f_\mu|_\lambda p^{c\cdot \mu}, |g_\mu|_\lambda p^{c\cdot \mu}\}$ converges to 0 as $|\mu|$ approaches $\infty$. Thus, $f+g$ is an element of $F[X; Y, \lambda]_c$.
Similarly, we see that $$\begin{aligned}
\left|\sum_{\mu + \nu = \sigma}f_\mu g_\nu\right|_\lambda \leq \max_{\mu + \nu = \sigma}\{|f_\mu|_\lambda\cdot |g_\nu|_\lambda\}\end{aligned}$$ and $\lim_{|\sigma| \rightarrow \infty} \max_{\mu + \nu = \sigma}\{|f_\mu|\cdot |g_\nu|p^{c\cdot \sigma}\} = 0$ as desired. Thus, $fg$ is an element of $F[X; Y, \lambda]_c$.
Now to prove that that this norm is complete, we let $\left(f^{(i)}\right)_{i=1}^\infty = \left(\sum_{\mu}^\infty f_\mu^{(i)} X^\mu\right)_{i=1}^\infty$ be a Cauchy sequence in $F[X; Y, \lambda]_c$. Then we can choose a suitable subsequence of $\left(f^{(i)}\right)_{i=1}^\infty$ (because a Cauchy sequence is convergent if, and only if, it has a convergent subsequence) and assume that $$\begin{aligned}
| f_\mu^{(j)} - f_\mu^{(i)} |_\lambda p^{c\cdot \mu} \leq \|f^{(j)} - f^{(i)}\|_{\lambda, c} < 1/i \quad \text{ for all } j > i > 0\text{ and all } |\mu|\geq 0.\end{aligned}$$ For all $j$ and $\mu$, $f_\mu^{(j)}$ is an element of $F[[Y]]$ which is complete, so there is an element $f_\mu$ in $F[[Y]]$ such that $f_\mu^{(j)}$ converges to $f_\mu$ as $j$ approaches $\infty$. Define $f =\sum_{\mu} f_\mu X^\mu$. We claim that $|f_\mu|_\lambda p^{c\cdot\mu}$ converges to $0$ as $|\mu|$ approaches $\infty$.
Note that $| \; |_\lambda$ is continuous, so $|f_\mu - f_\mu^{(i)}|_\lambda p^{c\cdot \mu} \leq 1/i$, for all $|\mu| \geq 0$ and all $i > 0$. We choose $\mu$, such that $|\mu|$ is sufficiently large, so that $|f_\mu^{(i)}|_\lambda p^{c\cdot \mu} < 1/i$. Since the norm is non-Archimedean, this shows that $|f_\mu|_\lambda p^{c\cdot \mu} \leq 1/i$. Thus, $|f_\mu|_\lambda p^{c\cdot \mu}$ converges to $0$ as $|\mu|$ approaches $\infty$. Hence, $f$ is an element of $F[X; Y, \lambda]_c$ and $\|f- f^{(i)}\|_{\lambda,c} = \max |f_\mu - f^{(i)}_\mu|_\lambda p^{c\cdot \mu} \leq 1/i$, therefore, $\lim_i f^{(i)} = f$.
A power series $f(X,Y) = \sum_{k=0}^\infty f_k(X,Y)X_n^k$ in $F[X; Y, \lambda]$ is called $X_n$-distinguished of degree $s$ in $F[X; Y, \lambda]$ if
1. $f_s(X,Y)$ is a unit in $F[X_1,\cdots, X_{n-1}; Y, \lambda]$ and
2. $|f_k(X, Y)| < 1$ for all $k > s$.
Equivalently, $f \mod (Y)$ is a unitary polynomial in $X_n$ of degree $s$.
A power series $f(X, Y) = \sum_{k=0}^\infty f_k(X,Y)X_n^k$ in $F[X; Y, \lambda]_c$ is called $X_n$-distinguished of degree $s$ in $F[X; Y, \lambda]_c$ if
1. $f_s(X,Y)$ is a unit in $F[X_1,\cdots, X_{n-1}; Y, \lambda]_c$ and $\|f_s(X,Y)\|_{\lambda, (c_1, \cdots, c_{n-1})} = 1$,
2. $\|f\|_{\lambda, c} = \|f_s(X,Y)X_n^{s}\|_{\lambda, c} =
p^{c_ns} > \|f_k(X,Y)X_n^k\|_{\lambda, c}$ for all $k \neq s$.
If an element $f$ in $F[X; Y, \lambda]$ is $X_n$-distinguished of degree $s$ in $F[X; Y, \lambda]$, then it is $X_n$-distinguished in $F[X; Y, \lambda]_c$ for some $c$ in ${\mathbf{R}}^n.$ Indeed, suppose that $f$ is an element of $F[X; Y,\lambda]_c$. Since $f_s(X,Y)$ is a unit, we can write $f_s(X,Y) = u + h$, where $u$ is a unit in $F[[Y]]$, and $h$ is an element of $(Y)$. By choosing $c_1, \cdots, c_{n-1}$ small enough, we can make $\|h\|_{\lambda, c} < 1$, and so $\|f_s(X,Y)\|_{\lambda, (c_1, \cdots, c_{n-1})} = 1$. We can reduce $c_1, \cdots, c_{n-1}$ even further to ensure that $\|f_k(X,Y)X_n^{k}\|_{\lambda, c} < \|f_s(X,Y)X_n^s\|_{\lambda, c} = p^{c_ns}$, because $f_k$ is an element of $(Y)$ for all $k > s$. Now, to ensure that $\|f_k(X,Y)X_n^{k}\|_{\lambda, c} < \|f_s(X,Y)X_n^s\|_{\lambda, c} = p^{c_ns}$, for $k < s$, we can shrink $c_1, \cdots, c_{n-1}$ once again so that $\|f_k(X,Y)\|_{\lambda, c} < p^{c_n}$. In this way we find that for all $k < s$, $\|f_k(X,Y)X_n^k\|_{\lambda, c} < p^{c_n} p^{c_n(s-1)} = p^{c_ns} = \|f_s(X,Y)X_n^{s}\|_{\lambda, c}$ as desired.
We can use the notion of $X_n$-distinguished elements to derive a Euclidean algorithm for $F[X; Y, \lambda]_c$. This Euclidean algorithm will then produce Weierstrass factorization for $X_n$-distinguished elements, which will allow us to deduce that $F[X; Y, \lambda]$ is noetherian and factorial.
Let $$\begin{aligned}
g &=& \sum_{k=0}^\infty g_k(X,Y)X_n^k\end{aligned}$$ be $X_n$-distinguished of degree $s$ in $F[X; Y, \lambda]_c$. Then every $f$ in $F[X; Y, \lambda]_c$ can be written uniquely in the form $$\begin{aligned}
f = qg + r\end{aligned}$$ where $q$ is and element of $F[X; Y, \lambda]_c$ and $r$ is a polynomial in $F[X_1, \cdots, X_{n-1}; Y, \lambda]_c[X_n]$, with $\deg_{X_n}(r) < s$. Further, if $f$ and $g$ are polynomials in $X_n$, then so are $q$ and $r$.
Let $\alpha$, $\tau$ be projections given by, $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha : \sum_{k=0}^\infty g_k(X, Y)X_n^k &\mapsto& \sum_{k=0}^{s-1} g_k(X,Y)X_n^k\\
\tau : \sum_{k=0}^\infty g_k(X,Y)X_n^k &\mapsto& \sum_{k=s}^\infty g_k(X,Y)X_n^{k-s} \\\end{aligned}$$ We see that $\tau(w)$ and $\alpha(w)$ are elements of $F[X;Y,\lambda]_c$, and that $\tau(wX_n^{s}) = w$. It is also clear that $\tau(w) = 0$ if, and only if, $\deg_{X_n}( w) < s$, for all $w$ in $F[X; Y, \lambda]_c$.
Such $q$ and $r$ exist if, and only if, $\tau(f) = \tau(qg)$. Thus, we must solve, $$\begin{aligned}
\tau(f) = \tau(q\alpha(g)) + \tau(q\tau(g)X_n^{s}) = \tau(q\alpha(g)) + q\tau(g).\end{aligned}$$ Note that $\tau(g)$ is invertible, trivially, because it is congruent to a unit modulo $(Y)$. Let $M = q\tau(g)$. Thus, we can write $$\begin{aligned}
\tau(f) = \tau\left(M\frac{\alpha(g)}{\tau(g)}\right) + M = \left(I + \tau\circ \frac{\alpha(g)}{\tau(g)}\right)M.\end{aligned}$$ We want to show that the map $\left(I + \tau\circ \frac{\alpha(g)}{\tau(g)}\right)^{-1}$ exists.
Suppose $z$ is an element of $F[X; Y, \lambda]_c.$ We first claim that $\|\tau(z)\|_{\lambda, c} \leq \frac{\|z\|_{\lambda, c}}{p^{c_ns}}$. Indeed, there exists $\mu$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\|z\|_{\lambda, c} &=& |z_\mu|_\lambda p^{c\cdot \mu} \\
&\geq& |z_\nu|_\lambda p^{c\cdot\nu} \quad \text{ for all } \nu\end{aligned}$$ Thus, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\|z\|_{\lambda, c}}{p^{c_ns}} &=& |z_\mu|_\lambda p^{c\cdot \mu - c_ns} \\
&\geq& |z_\nu|_\lambda p^{c\cdot \nu - c_ns} \quad \text{ for all } \nu.\end{aligned}$$ The maximum over all $\nu$ with $\nu_n \geq s$ is equal to $\|\tau(z)\|_{\lambda, c}$, as asserted. Thus $\|\tau(g)\|_{\lambda, c} \leq \frac{p^{c_ns}}{p^{c_ns}} = 1$, so by the lemma 2.8 $\|\tau(g)^{-1}\| \leq 1$. Let $h = \frac{\alpha(g)}{\tau(g)}$. Then, $$\begin{aligned}
\|h\|_{\lambda, c} \leq \|\alpha(g)\|_{\lambda, c}\|\tau(g)^{-1}\|_{\lambda, c} < p^{c_ns}.\end{aligned}$$
Next we claim that $\|(\tau\circ h)^m (z)\|_{\lambda, c} < \frac{\|z\|_{\lambda, c}\|h\|_{\lambda, c}^{m}}{p^{mc_ns}}$, for all $m$ in ${\mathbf{N}}$. Indeed, $\|\tau(zh)\|_{\lambda, c} \leq \frac{\|zh\|_{\lambda, c}}{p^{c_ns}} \leq \frac{\|z\|_{\lambda, c}\|h\|_{\lambda, c}}{p^{c_ns}}$ by what we just proved. Now, assume that this is true for $m$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\|\tau\left((\tau\circ h)^{m}(z) h \right)\|_{\lambda, c} &\leq& \frac{\|(\tau\circ h)^m(z)\|_{\lambda, c}\|h\|_{\lambda, c}}{p^{c_ns}} \\
&\leq& \frac{\|z\|_{\lambda, c}\|h\|_{\lambda, c}^{m}}{p^{mc_ns}}\frac{\|h\|_{\lambda, c}}{p^{c_ns}} \\
&=& \frac{\|z\|_{\lambda, c}\|h\|_{\lambda, c}^{m+1}}{p^{(m+1)c_ns}}\end{aligned}$$ Now, we know that, $$\begin{aligned}
\left(I + \tau\circ h\right)^{-1}(z) &=& z + \sum_{m=1}^\infty (-1)^{m} (\tau\circ h)^m(z).\end{aligned}$$ Let $w^{(i)}(z) = z + \sum_{m=1}^i (-1)^{m} (\tau\circ h)^m(z)$. We claim that the sequence $\left(w^{(i)}(z)\right)_{i=1}^\infty$ is Cauchy for every $z$ in $F[X; Y, \lambda]_c$. Indeed, $$\begin{aligned}
\|w^{(i+1)}(z) - w^{(i)}(z)\|_{\lambda, c} &=& \|(\tau\circ h)^{i+1}(z)\|_{\lambda, c} \\
&\leq& \frac{\|z\|_{\lambda, c}\|h\|_{\lambda, c}^{i+1}}{p^{(i+1)c_ns}}.\end{aligned}$$ Since $\|h\|_{\lambda, c} < p^{c_ns}$, we see that this difference approaches $0$ as $i$ approaches $\infty$. Since this norm is non-Archimedean, this is all we need to show. Therefore, since $F[X; Y, \lambda]_c$ is complete, we see that $w(z) = \lim_i w^{(i)}(z)$ exists for every $z$ in $F[X; Y, \lambda]_c$. Uniqueness is immediate from the invertibility of the map.
To prove the last statement, note that we could already carry out division uniquely in the ring $F[X_1, \cdots, X_{n-1}; Y,
\lambda]_c[X_n]$, by the polynomial Euclidean algorithm. Therefore, the division is unique in $F[X; Y, \lambda]_c$.
Suppose that $g$ is $X_n$-distinguished of degree $s$ in $F[X; Y, \lambda]$, and that $f$ is an element of $F[X; Y, \lambda]$. Then there exist unique elements, $q$ in $F[X; Y, \lambda]$, and $r$ in the polynomial ring $F[X_1, \cdots, X_{n-1}; Y, \lambda][X_n]$ with ${\rm deg}_{X_n}(r) <s$, such that $f = qg + r$.
Choose $c$ for which $f$ and $g$ are elements of $F[X; Y, \lambda]_c$. Then, choose $c_i' \leq c_i$ such that $g$ is $X_n$-distinguished of degree $s$ in $F[X; Y, \lambda]_{c'}$. Carry out the division in this ring.
To show uniqueness we observe that $|f| = \max\{|q|, |r|\}$. Indeed, without loss of generality we can assume that $\max\{|q|, |r|\} = 1$. Thus, $|f| \leq 1$. Suppose that $|f| < 1$. Then, $0 \equiv qg + r \mod (Y)$. Since $\deg_{X_n} (r) < s = \deg_{X_n} (g \mod (Y))$, we must have that $q = r \equiv 0 \mod (Y)$, contradicting $\max\{|q|, |r|\} = 1$. Thus, if $q'g + r' = qg + r$, then $(q-q')g + (r-r') = 0$, thus, $|q-q'| = |r-r'| = 0$.
Let $f$ be $X_n$-distinguished of degree $s$. Then, there exists a unique monic polynomial $\omega$ in $F[X_1, \cdots, X_{n-1}; Y, \lambda][X_n]$ of degree $s$ in $X_n$ and a unique unit $e$ in $F[X ; Y, \lambda]$ such that $f = e\cdot \omega $. Further, $\omega$ is distinguished of degree $s$.
By the previous theorem there exists an element $q$ in $F[X; Y, \lambda]$ and a polynomial $r$ in $F[X_1, \cdots, X_{n-1}; Y, \lambda][X_n]$ such that $\deg_{X_n}( r) < s$ and $X_n^s = qf + r$. We let $\omega = X_n^s - r$. $\omega = qf$ is clearly $X_n$-distinguished of degree $s$. Since the $X_n$-degree of $\omega \mod (Y)$ is the same the $X_n$-degree of $f \mod (Y)$, we see that $q$ is a unit. Set $e = q^{-1}$, yielding $f = e\cdot \omega$. Uniqueness is immediate from the uniqueness of the division algorithm.
A Weierstrass polynomial is a monic $X_n$-distinguished polynomial in $F[X_1, \cdots, X_{n-1}; Y, \lambda][X_n]$.
Let $\sigma$ be the map such that $\sigma(X_i) = (X_i + X_j^d)$ with $d\geq 1$, and $\sigma(X_j) = X_j$ for all $j \neq i$. Then $\sigma$ is a well-defined automorphism of $F[X; Y, \lambda]$.
Without loss of generality, we can assume that $i = n$ and $j = 1$. Let $f(X,Y) = \sum_{\mu} f_\mu(Y)X^\mu = \sum_{\mu} f_\mu(Y)X_1^{\mu_1}\cdots X_n^{\mu_n}$. Observe that, $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma(f) &=& \sum_\mu f_\mu(Y)X_1^{\mu_1}\cdots X_{n-1}^{\mu_{n-1}}(X_n + X_1^d)^{\mu_n} \\
&=& \sum_\mu f_\mu(Y)X_1^{\mu_1}\cdots X_{n-1}^{\mu_{n-1}}\sum_{j=0}^{\mu_n} \binom{\mu_{n}}{j}X_1^{dj}X_n^{\mu_n-j}.\end{aligned}$$ The quantity $dj + \mu_n - j= (d-1)j +\mu_n$ is maximal when $j = \mu_n$. Therefore, the above converges if $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_\mu f_\mu(Y)X_1^{\mu_1 + d\mu_n}\cdots X_{n-1}^{\mu_{n-1}}X_n^{\mu_n}\end{aligned}$$ converges. Choose $c$ so that $|f_\mu(Y)|p^{c\cdot \mu}$ converges to $0$ as $|\mu|$ approaches $\infty$. Let $c_n' = \frac{c_n}{2(d+1)}$. Then, $c_1\mu_1 + \cdots + c_n\mu_n > c_1\mu_1 + \cdots + c_n'\mu_{n}(d+1)$, so $|f_\mu(Y)|p^{c_1\mu_1 + \cdots + c_n'\mu_{n}(d+1)}$ converges to $0$ as $|\mu|$ approaches $\infty$. Therefore, this map is well defined with inverse, $\sigma^{-1}(X_n) = X_n - X_1^d$ and $\sigma^{-1}(X_j) = X_j$, if $j \neq n$.
Suppose $f(X,Y) = \sum_{\mu}f_\mu(Y) X^\mu$ is an element of $F[X; Y,\lambda]$. If $|f_\mu(Y)| = 1$, for some $\mu$, where $\mu_n > 0$, then there exists an automorphism $\sigma$ of $F[X; Y, \lambda]$ such that $\sigma(f)$ is $X_n$-distinguished.
Let $f(X,Y) = \sum_{\mu} f_\mu(Y) X^\mu = \sum_{\mu} f_\mu(Y)X_1^{\mu_1}\cdots X_n^{\mu_n}$. Let $\nu = (\nu_1, \cdots, \nu_n)$ be the maximal $n$-tuple, with respect to lexicographical ordering, such that $f_\nu(Y)$ is not an element of $(Y)$. Let $t \geq \max_{1\leq i\leq n} \mu_i$ for all indices $\mu$ such that $f_\mu(Y)$ is not an element of $(Y)$, e.g., let $t$ be the total $X$-degree of $f(X,Y) \mod (Y)$. Now, define an automorphism $\sigma(X_i) = X_i + X_n^{d_i}$ for $i = 1, \cdots, n-1$, and $\sigma(X_n) = X_n$, where $d_n = 1$, and $d_{n-j} = 1 + t\sum_{k=0}^{j-1} d_{n-k}$, for $j = 1, \cdots, n-1$. We see that this map is just a finite composition of automorphisms of the same type as given above. Hence, it is an automorphism.
We will prove that $\sigma(f)$ is $X_n$-distinguished of degree $s = \sum_{i=1}^nd_i\nu_i$. First, for all $\mu$ such that $f_\mu(Y)$ is a unit, and $\mu \neq \nu$, we have $\sum_{i=1}^n d_i\mu_i < s$: There exists an index $q$ such that $1 \leq q \leq n$, such that $\mu_1 = \nu_1, \cdots, \mu_{q-1} = \nu_{q-1}$ and $\mu_q < \nu_q$. Therefore $\mu_q \leq \nu_q - 1$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{i=1}^nd_i\mu_i \leq \sum_{i=1}^{q-1}d_i\nu_i + d_q(\nu_q-1) + t\sum_{i=q+1}^nd_i =
\sum_{i=1}^qd_i\nu_i - 1 < \sum_{i=1}^nd_i\nu_i = s.\end{aligned}$$ Now, $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma(f) &=& \sum_\mu f_\mu(Y)(X_1 + X_n^{d_1})^{\mu_1}\cdots(X_{n-1} + X_n^{d_{n-1}})^{\mu_{n-1}}X_n^{\mu_n} \\
&\equiv& \sum_{\substack{\mu\\ f_{\mu}(Y) \notin (Y)}}f_{\mu}(Y)\sum_{\substack{\lambda_1, \cdots, \lambda_{n-1} \\ 0\leq \lambda_i \leq \mu_i}}\binom{\mu_1}{\lambda_1}\cdots\binom{\mu_{n-1}}{\lambda_{n-1}}X_1^{\mu_1 - \lambda_1}\cdots X_{n-1}^{\mu_{n-1} - \lambda_{n-1}}X_n^{d_1\lambda_1 + \cdots + d_{n-1}\lambda_{n-1} + \mu_n} \\
&\equiv& \sum g_iX^i_n \mod(Y)\end{aligned}$$ where the $g_i$ are elements of $F[X_1, \cdots, X_{n-1}]$. Therefore, $\sigma(f) \mod (Y)$ is a polynomial in $X_n$ of degree less than or equal to $s$, and $X_n^{d_1\lambda_1 + \cdots + d_{n-1}\lambda_{n-1} + \mu_n} = X_n^s$ if, and only if, $\mu_n = \nu_n$ and $\lambda_i = \mu_i = \nu_i$ for $i = 1, \cdots, n-1$. Thus, we have $g_s = f_\nu(Y) \mod(Y)$, but $f_\nu(Y)$ is not an element of $(Y)$, and so $\sigma(f)$ is a unitary polynomial modulo $(Y)$. Therefore, $\sigma(f)$ is $X_n$-distinguished of degree $s$.
Let $\omega$ be a Weierstrass polynomial of degree $s$ in $X_n$. Then for all $d \geq 0$
1. $Y^dF[X; Y, \lambda]/Y^d\omega F[X; Y, \lambda]$ is a finite free $F[X_1, \cdots, X_{n-1}; Y, \lambda]$-module, and
2. $Y^dF[X_1, \cdots, X_{n-1}; Y, \lambda][X_n]/Y^d\omega F[X_1, \cdots, X_{n-1}; Y, \lambda][X_n]$ is isomorphic to\
$Y^dF[X; Y, \lambda]/Y^d\omega F[X; Y, \lambda]$.
Suppose that $g$ is an element of $Y^dF[X; Y, \lambda]$, then $g = Y^dh$ for some element $h$ in $F[X; Y, \lambda]$. Since $\omega$ is $X_n$-distinguished, there exists a unique element $q$ in $F[X; Y, \lambda]$, and a unique polynomial $r$ in $F[X_1, \cdots, X_{n-1}; Y, \lambda][X_n]$ with $\deg_{X_n} (r) < s$, such that $h = q\omega + r$, so $g = qY^d\omega + Y^dr$. Therefore, $g \equiv Y^dr \mod Y^d\omega F[X; Y, \lambda]$, so the set $\{Y^d, Y^dX_n, \cdots, Y^dX_n^{s-1}\}$ forms a generating set of $Y^dF[X; Y, \lambda]/Y^d\omega F[X; Y, \lambda]$ over the ring $F[X_1,\cdots, X_{n-1}; Y, \lambda]$. The natural map $$Y^dF[X_1, \cdots, X_{n-1}; Y, \lambda][X_n] \rightarrow Y^dF[X; Y, \lambda]/Y^d\omega F[X; Y, \lambda]$$ is thus surjective. The kernel of this map is $Y^d \omega F[X_1, \cdots, X_{n-1}; Y, \lambda][X_n]$, trivially.
$F[X; Y, \lambda] = F[X_1, \cdots, X_n; Y, \lambda]$ is factorial, for all $n \geq 1$.
First assume that $n=1$. Suppose that $f$ is an element of $F[X; Y, \lambda]$. Write $f = e\cdot Y^d \omega $, where $\omega$ is a unitary polynomial in $X$ of degree $s$ in $F[[Y]][X]$, and $e$ is a unit in $F[X; Y, \lambda]$. We can factor $\omega = uq_1\cdots q_m$ into irreducible factors and a unit in $F[[Y]][X]$ because this ring is factorial. We want to show that these factors are still irreducible in $F[X; Y, \lambda]$. Suppose that $q_i$ is not irreducible modulo $\omega F[[Y]][X]$, then $q_i \equiv ab \mod \omega$, so there exists $g \neq 0$ such that $q_i = ab + g\omega$. However, by the uniqueness of the division algorithm $g = 0$, thus, $a$ or $b$ is a unit modulo $\omega$. Therefore, $q_i$ is irreducible in $F[[Y]][X]/\omega F[[Y]][X] \simeq F[X; Y, \lambda]/\omega F[X; Y, \lambda]$.
If $q_i$ is not irreducible in $F[X; Y, \lambda]$, then there exists elements $a$ and $b$ in $F[X; Y, \lambda]$, such that $q_i = ab$. Without loss of generality, $b$ must be a unit modulo $\omega$, so $b = c_0 + g\omega$. Write $q_i = a(c_0 + g\omega) = ac_0 + ag\omega$. However, by the uniqueness of the division algorithm, the same representation of the division algorithm which holds in $F[[Y]][X]$, holds in $F[X; Y, \lambda]$, and since $\deg_X (ac_0) < s$, we must have $ag = 0$. This is a contradiction. Therefore, the $q_i$ are irreducible in both rings. Write $f = eu\cdot Y^dq_1\cdots q_m$ uniquely as a product of irreducible factors and a unit. Continue by induction.
$F[X_1, \cdots, X_n; Y, \lambda]$ is noetherian.
Assume first that $n =1$. Let $I \subseteq F[X; Y, \lambda]$ be an ideal. Suppose that $d$ is the largest positive integer such that $I \subseteq Y^d F[X; Y,\lambda]$. Then every $f$ in $I$ is divisible by $Y^d$. Choose an element $f$ in $I$ such that ${\text{ord}}_Y f = d$. We can then write $f = e\cdot Y^d \omega $ for some unit $e$, and Weierstrass polynomial $\omega$. Consider the image of $I$ in $Y^dF[X; Y, \lambda]/Y^d\omega F[X; Y, \lambda] \simeq Y^dF[[Y]][X]/Y^d\omega F[[Y]][X]$; this is Noetherian. Therefore, we can pull back the finite list of generators for the image of $I$ and add $Y^d \omega$ to get a finite generating system for $I$. Continue by induction.
Further Questions
=================
This paper resolves the open problem left in Wan [@Wan1], stated at the beginning of the paper, only when $F$ is a field and when $F[X; Y, \lambda]$ has only one $Y$ variable. It would be interesting to settle the general case (either positively or negatively) when $Y$ has more than one variable and $R$ is a general noetherian ring.
Another open question is whether $F[X; Y, \lambda]$ is factorial if there is more than one $Y$ variable. The answer to this question cannot be obtained from the same methods used in this paper because elements exist that cannot be transformed into an $X_n$ distinguished element through an automorphism. For example: $$\begin{aligned}
f(X,Y) = Y_1 + XY_2 + X^2Y_1^2 + X^3Y_2^3 + \cdots .\end{aligned}$$
Another direction of research could involve studying the algebras $T_n(\rho, \lambda)$ and $W_n(\lambda)$. One could try to generalize results only known about the overconvergent case $(\lambda(x) = id)$, such as those proven in Gross-Klönne [@Gr]. One could also try to develop the $k$-affinoid theory of $T_n(\rho, \lambda)$ and $W_n(\lambda)$.
[00]{}
S. Bosch, U. Güntzer and R. Remmert, Non-Archimedean Analysis, Grundl. Math. Wiss. 261 (1984), Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg. pp. 191-235
B. Dwork, Normalized period matrices II, Ann. Math., 98(1973), 1-57.
B. Dwork and S. Sperber, Logarithmic decay and overconvergence of the unit root and associated zeta functions, Ann. Sci. École Norm. Sup. (4) 24 (1991), no. 5, 575–604.
W. Fulton, A note on weakly complete algebras, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 75 (1969), 591-593.
U. Güntzer, Modellringe in der nichtarchimedischen Funktionentheorie, Indag. Math. 29 (1967), 334-342.
E. Grosse-Klönne, Rigid analytic spaces with overconvergent structure sheaf. J. Reine Angew. Math. 519 (2000), 73-95.
S. Lang, Algebra, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1971, pp. 205-210.
M. van der Put, Non-archimedean function algebras, Indag. Math. 33 (1971), 60-77.
D. Wan, Noetherian subrings of power series rings, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., Vol. 123, No. 6 (1995), pp. 1681-1686.
D. Wan, Dwork’s conjecture on unit root zeta functions, Ann. Math., 150(1999), 867-927.
|
---
abstract: 'We study the phase-ordering kinetics following a quench to a final temperature $T_f$ of the one-dimensional $p$-state clock model. We show the existence of a critical value $p_c=4$, where the properties of the dynamics change. At $T_f=0$, for $p\le p_c$ the dynamics is analogous to that of the kinetic Ising model, characterized by Brownian motion and annihilation of interfaces. Dynamical scaling is obeyed with the same dynamical exponents and scaling functions of the Ising model. For $p>p_c$, instead, the dynamics is dominated by a texture mechanism analogous to the one-dimensional XY model, and dynamical scaling is violated. During the phase-ordering process at $T_f>0$, before equilibration occurs, a cross-over between an early XY-like regime and a late Ising-like dynamics is observed for $p>p_c$.'
author:
- 'Natascia Andrenacci$^\S$, Federico Corberi$^\dag$, and Eugenio Lippiello$^\ddag$'
title: 'Crossover between Ising and XY-like behavior in the off-equilibrium kinetics of the one-dimensional clock model'
---
§andrenacci@sa.infn.it
corberi@na.infn.it lippiello@sa.infn.it
PACS: 05.70.Ln, 75.40.Gb, 05.40.-a
Introduction {#intro}
============
After quenching a ferromagnetic system to a low temperature phase, relaxation towards the new equilibrium state is realized by a progressive phase-ordering [@Bray94]. The specific mechanisms involved in the coarsening phenomenon depend on the presence and on the nature of topological defects seeded by the disordered initial configuration which, in turn, are determined by the space dimensionality $d$ and the number of components $N$ of the order parameter. For $N<d$ defects are spatially extended; in this case coarsening is driven by reducing the typical curvature of the defect core, removal of sharp features and shrinking of domain bubbles or vortex loops. Systems with $N=d$ are characterized by the presence of stable localized topological defects and the ordering process occurs by mutual defect-antidefect annihilation. This is the case of the Ising chain quenched to a final temperature $T_f=0$, where up and down domains are separated by point-like interfaces performing Brownian walks. When $N=d+1$, such as in the one dimensional XY model, the kinetics is characterized by textures, spatially extended defects without a core, along which the order parameter rotates by $2\pi$. Growth of the typical size of textures is a relevant mechanism at work in these systems. Finally, for $N>d+1$ topological defects are unstable and the dynamics is solely driven by the reduction of the excess energy related to the smooth rotations of the order parameter.
In any case, the development of order is associated to the growth of one or more characteristic lengths, with laws that, besides the specific mechanisms discussed above, depend on the conservation laws of the dynamics.
Generally, the late stage is characterized by dynamical scaling. This implies that a single characteristic length $L(t)$ can be associated to the development of order in such a way that configurations of the system are statistically independent of time when lengths are measured in units of $L(t)$. The characteristic length usually has a power law growth $L(t)\propto t^{1/z}$. In systems with a non-conserved order parameter one generally finds $z=2$. In particular, this value is provided by the exact solution of the kinetic Ising chain [@Glauber63] quenched to zero temperature.
However, there are cases where dynamical scaling is violated, notably the XY model in $d=1,2$. In $d=1$ this is related [@Rutenberg95] to the presence of two lengths $L_w(t)$ and $L_c(t)$, associated to the texture length and to the texture-antitexture distance, growing with different exponents $z=4$ and $z=2$ respectively.
In this Article, we investigate the interplay between two coarsening mechanisms, point-like defect annihilation and texture growth, in the phase-ordering kinetics of the one dimensional $p$-state clock model. This spin system reduces to the Ising model for $p=2$ and to the XY model for $p=\infty $. We study how the model with generic $p$ interpolates between these limiting cases which, as discussed above, behave in a radically different way. In doing that, we uncover the existence of a critical value $p_c=4$, where the properties of the dynamics change abruptly. For $p\le p_c$ the dynamics at $T_f=0$ is characterized by Brownian motion and annihilation of interfaces between domains, as in the Ising model. One has dynamical scaling with the same dynamical exponents and, interestingly, the same scaling functions of the Ising model. For $p>p_c$, instead, the dynamics is dominated by a texture mechanism analogous to the case with $p=\infty $, and dynamical scaling is violated.
In $d=1$ there is no possibility of ergodicity breaking except at $T=0$. At any finite temperature the equilibrium state is disordered with a vanishing magnetization and a coherence length $\xi (T)$ that diverges in the $T\to 0$ limit. If the system is quenched to a sufficiently low temperature one has a coarsening phenomenon in a pre-asymptotic transient until the growing length associated to the development of order becomes comparable with $\xi (T_f)$. Since $\xi (T_f)$ diverges as $T_f\to 0$ the phase-ordering stage can be rather long. In this regime we show that activated processes restore, after a characteristic time $\tau _p^{cross}(T_f)$, the Ising behavior also in the cases with $p>p_c$.
This paper is organized as follows: In Sec. \[model\] we introduce the model and define the observable quantities that will be considered. In Sec. \[num\] we present the outcome of numerical simulations of the model with different $p$. In particular, quenches to $T_f=0$ or to $T_f>0$ will be discussed in Secs. \[Tzer\] and \[Tnzer\], respectively. Here we enlighten the crossover between the Ising and the XY universality class and provide an argument explaining its microscopic origin. A summary and the conclusions are contained in Sec. \[concl\].
Model and observables {#model}
=====================
The $p$-state clock model in one dimension is defined by the Hamiltonian H\[\]=-J\_[i=1]{}\^[N]{}\_i \_[i+1]{}= -J\_[i=1]{}\^[N]{}cos(\_i-\_[i+1]{}), \[hamiltonian\] where $\vec \sigma _i$ is a two-components unit vector spin pointing along one of the directions \_i= n\_i, \[theta\] with $n_i \in \{1,2,...,p\}$, $i=1,...,{\cal N}$ are the sites of the lattice and we assume periodic boundary conditions $\theta _{{\cal N}+1}=\theta _1$. This spin system is equivalent to the Ising model for $p=2$ and to the XY model for $p\to \infty $. In $d=1$ the system is ergodic except at $T=0$. At any finite temperature the equilibrium state is disordered with a vanishing magnetization and a coherence length $\xi (T)$ that diverges in the $T\to 0$ limit.
We consider a system initially prepared in an high temperature uncorrelated state and then quenched, at time $t=0$, to a lower final temperature $T_f$. The dynamics is characterized by the ordering of the system over a characteristic length growing in time until, at time $\tau _p^{eq}(T_f)$ it becomes comparable to $\xi (T_f)$. At this point the final equilibrium state at $T_f$ is entered. Quenching to $T_f=0$, since $\xi (0)=\infty $, one has $\tau _p^{eq}(T_f)=\infty$; therefore an infinite system never reaches equilibrium and the phase-ordering kinetics continues indefinitely. If the system is quenched to a sufficiently low temperature, since $\xi (T_f)$ is very large, the same behavior, as for $T_f=0$, can be observed over the time window $t<\tau _p^{eq}(T_f)$.
The power law growth of the characteristic size of ordered regions depends on the specific mechanisms at work in the kinetic process. In the 1d Ising model with non conserved order parameter, i.e. single spin flip dynamics, ordering is determined by the Brownian motion of the interfaces between up and down domains, which annihilate upon meeting. This leads to L(t)\~t\^, \[ldit\] with $z=2$. The same value is also expected [@Leyvraz86] for $p\le 4$.
The situation is different in the XY model in $d=1$. Here the order parameter is a vector which can gradually rotate with a low energy cost. A smooth $2\pi $ rotation of the phase $\theta $ is called a texture when the rotation is clockwise, or antitexture when it is counterclockwise. The length over which this phase winding occurs will be denoted by $L_w(t)$. After a quench from a disordered state textures and antitextures are formed with equal probability. Then, there are points where the rotation of $\theta $ changes direction and the phase decohere. We denote with $L_c(t)$ the characteristic length over which the phase remains coherent. It was shown [@Rutenberg95] that $L_w(t)$ and $L_c(t)$ grow with a power law (\[ldit\]) but with different exponents. Specifically one has $z=4$ for $L_w(t)$ and $z=2$ for $L_c(t)$. The existence of these two lengths is at the heart of the scaling violations of the XY model.
Characteristic lengths can be estimated from the knowledge of the two-points equal time correlation function G(r,t)=\_i(t) \_[i+r]{}(t) , \[gdir\] where $\langle \dots \rangle$ means an ensemble average, namely taken over different initial conditions and thermal histories. Due to space homogeneity, $G(r,t)$ does not depend on $i$. If there is a single characteristic length in the system, one has dynamical scaling [@Bray94], which implies G(r,t)=g(x), \[scalgferro\] where $x=r/L(t)$. In the Ising model one finds [@Glauber63] g(x)=erfc {x}. \[struttising\] with $L(t)=\sqrt {2t}$. For small $x$ one has the Porod linear behavior $1-g(x)\sim x$, which is expected for systems with sharp interfaces [@Bray94]. From Eq. (\[scalgferro\]) one can extract a quantity $L_G(t)$ proportional to $L(t)$ from the condition G(L\_G(t),t)=, \[halfheight\] namely as the half-height width of $G(r,t)$. In the XY model, $G(r,t)$ still obeys Eq. (\[scalgferro\]), with $x=r/L_w(t)$, $L_w(t)=2^{3/4}(\pi t)^{1/4}$, and [@Bray94] g(x)={-}. \[xystrutt\] Here $\xi _i$ is the correlation length of the initial condition which, for a quench from a disordered state, is of the order of the lattice spacing. The Porod law is not obeyed, since instead of sharp interfaces one has smooth textures. Note that $G(r,t)$ has a scaling form, although dynamical scaling is violated. Scaling violations can be evidenced by considering different quantities as, for instance, the autocorrelation function C(t,s)=\_i (t)\_i (s) . \[autocorr\] In the Ising model this quantity can be cast in scaling form [@Glauber63] C(t,s)=h(y), \[ccs\] where $y=t/s$ and h(y)=. \[ccsc\] In the XY model, instead, one finds [@Rutenberg95] the stretched exponential behavior C(t,s)={-s\^ }, \[cxy\] This expression cannot be cast in a scaling form, as for the Ising model, revealing the absence of dynamical scaling.
Numerical results {#num}
=================
In the following we will present the numerical results. Setting $J=1$, for each case considered we simulated a string of $10^4$ spins with periodic boundary conditions and different values of $p$ ranging from $p=2$, corresponding to the Ising model, to $p=\infty$, corresponding to the XY model. We consider a single spin flip dynamics regulated by transition rates w{\[\]}=w\_p()= . \[metropolis\] Here $[\sigma]$ and $[\sigma']$ are the spin configurations before and after the move, differing at most by the value of the spin on a randomly chosen site, $\Delta E=H[\sigma']-H[\sigma]$, and we have set the Boltzmann constant to unity. The transition rates (\[metropolis\]) are a generalization of Glauber transition rates to the $p$-state spins of the clock model. They reduce to the usual Glauber transition rates $w\{[\sigma]\to [\sigma']\}=(1/2)[1+\tanh (-\Delta E/2T)]$ for $p=2$. The factor $2/p$ in Eq. (\[metropolis\]) ensures that all spin values have the same probability $1/p$ when $\Delta E=0$.
An average over $10^4$ realizations is made for each simulation. The statistical errors in the data reported in the figures are always smaller than the dimension of the symbols or the thickness of the lines.
Quenches to $T_f=0$. {#Tzer}
--------------------
Let us start with quenches to $T_f=0$, by illustrating the behavior of the characteristic length $L_G(t)$ defined in Eq. (\[halfheight\]). In Fig. \[figlengthT0\] this quantity is plotted against $t^{1/2}$ (left panel) or against $t^{1/4}$ (right panel), for several values of $p$ ranging from $p=2$ to $p=\infty $.
This figure shows that $L_G(t)$ has an asymptotic power law growth, as in Eq. (\[ldit\]), for every value of $p$. However, the dynamic exponent $z$ radically changes going from $p\le p_c$, where one has values very well consistent with $z=2$ (best fits yield $1/z=0.49\pm 0.01$ for $p=2,3,4$), to $p>p_c$ where $z=4$ is found with good accuracy (we find $1/z=0.27\pm 0.01, 0.27\pm 0.01, 0.25\pm 0.01$ for $p=5,6,10$). We recall that these are the values found in the Ising model and in the XY model. The behavior of $L_G(t)$, then, indicates a crossover from Ising to XY behavior upon crossing $p_c=4$. We will see in the following that this is confirmed by the analysis of other dynamical quantities. Before doing that, however, let us discuss which is the microscopic mechanism at the basis of this crossover.
For finite values of $2<p<\infty $ we generalize the definition of a texture as a region of the lattice of length $L_w(t)$ where $p$ subsequent domains are found, each of average length $L_d(t)\sim L_w(t)/p$, such that moving along the lattice the value of $n$ follows the sequence $n=p,p-1,...,1$. This is schematically shown in Fig. \[figture\].
To developed order two mechanisms are possible: A texture can grow by increasing the number of spins $L_d(t)$ on every step. We anticipate that this process is found to be relevant for $p>p_c$ and leads to the power law behavior (\[ldit\]) of $L_w(t)$ with $z=4$, as in the XY model. This behavior competes with the tendency to build the largest possible domains, instead of textures. This amounts to replace a texture with a number $N_D \ll p$ of domains each characterized by a single value of $n$. However, for $p>p_c$ at $T=0$, once textures are present, this process is not allowed. In fact, let us consider the situation of Fig. \[figture\] and the possibility to form, in this region, a unique domain with, say, $n=p$ (the dotted line in Fig. \[figture\]). There are several ways to do this. Suppose one starts by rotating the spins with $n=1$ to $n=2$, as shown by the thin arrow in Fig. \[figture\]. After the move the energy would change by an amount E\_p= J\[2(2/p) - (4/p)-1\]. \[activation\] This function is plotted in Fig. \[figenergy\].
Interestingly one has $\Delta E_p\le 0$ or $\Delta E_p>0$ for $p\le p_c$ or $p>p_c$, respectively. At $T_f=0$ moves with $\Delta E_p>0$ are forbidden. Therefore, for $p>p_c$ there is no possibility to destroy the textures and form domains. Other possible moves, as, for instance, a rotation from $n=1$ to $n=3$, correspond to a larger activation energy and are forbidden as well. Therefore, for $p> p_c$ textures and antitextures are stable against domain formation and the only ordering mechanism left is their growth and annihilation, much in the same way as in the XY model, leading to $z=4$. Conversely, for $p\le p_c$ textures are removed and domains are created whose competition leads to the Ising like behavior $z=2$. As already discussed, in the XY model the exponent $z=4$ is associated to the growth of the size of single textures. In order to check if the same mechanism is at work also in the clock model, in the numerical simulation we have identified the textures present in the system at each time and we have computed their average size $L_w(t)$. The results are shown in Fig. \[figlengthture\] for different values of $p>p_c$, showing that, actually, the size of textures grows as a power law $L_w\sim t^{1/z}$ with $z$ quite compatible with $z=4$ (best fits yield $1/z=0.29\pm 0.02, 0.29\pm 0.02,
0.28\pm 0.02, 0.23\pm 0.02$ for $p=5,6,10,25$, respectively). This confirms that the exponent $z=4$ of the algebraic growth of $L_G(t)$ is determined by the texture mechanism, as in the XY model.
The previous results for $L_G(t)$ indicate the presence of a crossover at $p=p_c$ from the Ising to the XY non-equilibrium universality class. In order to substantiate this conjecture we have computed other dynamical quantities. The equal-time correlation function is plotted in Figs. \[figg1\],\[figg2\],\[figg3\] against $x=r/L_G(t)$. In Fig. \[figg1\] the cases with $p=2,3,4$ are considered. According to Eq. (\[scalgferro\]) for $p=2$ one should find collapse of the curves with different $s$ on a single mastercurve $g(x)$ given by Eq. (\[struttising\]). This is indeed observed in Fig. \[figg1\]. According to our hypothesis the same behavior should be observed also for $p=3,4$, as can be verified in the figure. Moreover, one also finds that the mastercurves $g(x)$ are numerically indistinguishable for different $p$, and they all coincide with that of Eq. (\[struttising\]). This result is trivial for $p=4$, since in this case the clock model can be mapped exactly on two non-interacting Ising models. The same property could be expected also for $p=3$. In fact, by considering $G(r,t)$, it easy (see Appendix) to check that G(r,t)=G\_P(r,t)-, \[maj1\] where $G_P(r,t)$ is the [*single phase* ]{} equal time correlation function of the 3-state Potts model. This quantity was computed in [@Sire], where it was found G\_P(r,t)=G\_I(r,t)+, \[maj2\] where $G_I(r,t)$ is the equal time correlation function of the Ising model. Plugging Eq. (\[maj2\]) into Eq. (\[maj1\]) one finds $G(r,t)=G_I(r,t)$. The same argument shows also the identity between the two time correlation functions of the clock model with $p=3$ and the Ising model, strongly suggesting the complete equivalence between these models.
Let us emphasize that this result indicates a stronger similarity among the cases $p=2,3,4$ than a unique non-equilibrium universality class would imply, since not only the exponents are equal but the whole functional form of the scaling function. This results are in contrast with those of ref. [@Liu93] where an approximate theory was used to show the dependence of $g(x)$ on $p$. However, the approximation used in [@Liu93] is expected to improve increasing the dimensionality $d$.
The cases with $p>p_c$ are shown in Fig. \[figg2\],\[figg3\]. As discussed in Section \[model\], $G(r,t)$ obeys the scaling form (\[scalgferro\]) also in the XY model, although dynamical scaling is violated. According to our conjecture, for $p>p_c$ we expect the same behavior. In Fig. \[figg2\] it is shown that, indeed, the curves at different times collapse when plotted against $x=r/L_G(t)$. However, differently from the cases $p\le p_c$, the masterfunction $g(x)$ depends on $p$ and converges to the form (\[xystrutt\]) of the XY model for $p\to \infty $, as shown in Fig. \[figg3\].
Let us turn to consider the autocorrelation function, that is plotted in Figs. \[figauto1\]-\[figauto2\] against $y=t/s$. In Fig. \[figauto1\] the cases with $p=2,3,4$ are considered. Here the situation is analogous to that of $G(r,t)$. For $p=2$ one should find collapse of the curves with different $s$ on a mastercurve $h(y)$, Eq. (\[ccs\]). This is indeed observed in Fig. \[figauto1\]. The same behavior is observed also for $p=3,4$. Again, as for $G(r,t)$, we find that the mastercurves $h(y)$ are numerically indistinguishable for different $p$, and they all coincide with that of Eq. (\[ccsc\]).
In order to check if this property is completely general, namely if every observable is characterized by the same exponents and scaling functions for $p=2,3,4$, besides the correlation functions we have also computed the integrated autoresponse function (t,s)=\_s \^t dt’ R(t,t’). \[integrated\] Here R(t,t’)=\_ . \_[h\_i=0]{}, $\alpha =1,2$ being the generic vector components, is the linear autoresponse function associated to the perturbation caused by an impulsive magnetic field $\vec h _i$ switched on at time $t'<t$. In the Ising model [@Lippiello00], in the $T\to 0$ limit one finds (t,s)=f(t/s), \[ccschichi\] with f(y)= (1-). \[ccschi\] Here we measure the response function using the efficient method derived in [@Lippiello05] without applying the perturbation.
The behavior of $\chi (t,s)$ is shown in Fig. \[figchi1\] for the cases $p=2,3,4$. One finds collapse of the curves with different $s$ on a mastercurve $f(y)$, as in Eq. (\[ccschichi\]) for $p=2$. Also in this case mastercurves $f(y)$ for different $p$ are numerically indistinguishable. In conclusion, then, our data for $G(r,t)$, $C(t,s)$ and $\chi (t,s)$ confirm that the cases with $p=2,3,4$ share the same exponents and scaling functions. Notice that having the same scaling function both for $C(t,s)$ and $\chi (t,s)$, the cases with $p\le p_c$ have also the same parametric plot of $\chi (t,s)$ versus $C(t,s)$ [@Lippiello00].
The situation is radically different for $p>p_c$. We expect here to see a texture-dominated XY-like dynamics, with violations of dynamical scaling that can be detected from $C(t,s)$. In fact, this is what one observes in Fig. \[figauto2\], where the autocorrelation function is plotted against $y$. For each value of $p$, curves with different values of $s$ do not collapse. The whole behavior is qualitatively similar to that of the XY model described by Eq. (\[cxy\]), which predicts the lowering of the curves for fixed $y$ as $s$ increases. Quantitatively, as already observed regarding $G(r,t)$, the analytic form of the curves depends on $p$ and is different from that of the XY model, namely Eq. (\[cxy\]). As shown in Fig. \[figauto3\], Eq. (\[cxy\]) is gradually approached increasing $p$.
Quenches to $T_f>0$. {#Tnzer}
--------------------
When quenches to finite temperatures are considered, as already discussed in Sec. \[model\], one has a finite equilibration time $\tau _p^{eq}(T_f)$. In the following we will always discuss the ordering kinetics preceding the equilibration time, namely for $t\ll \tau _p^{eq}(T_f)$.
According to our hypothesis, the XY-like behavior observed for $p>p_c$ is due to the impossibility to eliminate textures and form domains, because this would require activated processes with $\Delta E_p>0$ given by Eq. (\[activation\]). Quenching to a finite temperature those processes are no longer forbidden and we expect textures to start being removed after a characteristic time $\tau _p ^{cross}(T_f)$. In order to estimate the crossover time let us consider again the situation of Fig. \[figenergy\]. The activated process described by the thin arrow, where the spins with $n=1$ are rotated to $n=2$, is a first action towards the removal of the texture, but the texture is not disappeared yet. The second action is the rotation of spins from $n=2$ to $n=3$, indicated by a bold arrow in the figure [@nota1]. This requires an energy E\_p\^[(2)]{}= J\[(2/p) +(4/p) - (6/p)-1\]. \[activation2\] Then a third action is required, where spins with $n=3$ are rotated to $n=4$, and so on, until, after $p-1$ steps all the spins in the region considered have $n=p$. It is easy to generalize Eqs. (\[activation\],\[activation2\]) to the generic $m$-th action: E\_p\^[(m)]{}= J\[(2/p) +(2m/p) - (2(m+1)/p)-1\]. \[activationm\] Let us consider $\Delta E_p^{(2)}$. This quantity is positive for $p>6$. For $p=5,6$, therefore, the second action is not an activated process, while it is activated for $p>6$. In general, from Eq. (\[activationm\]) one has $\Delta E_p^{(m)}>0$ for $p>2+2m$. The accomplishment of an action requires a time [@nota2] t \_p \^[(m)]{}(T\_f)\^[-1]{}= {1+}, \[ttcross\] $w_p$ being the transition rates defined in Eq. (\[metropolis\]). The crossover time, namely the characteristic time after which textures are removed, is given by the sum of the times required for all the $p-1$ actions. It can be evaluated as \_p \^[cross]{}(T\_f)=\_[m=1]{}\^[p-1]{}t \_p\^[(m)]{}(T\_f). \[tcross\] In the limit $T_f\to 0$ the sum is dominated by the process with the largest activation energy \_p \^[cross]{}(T\_f0)=Sup \_[{m=1,p-1}]{}t \_p\^[(m)]{}(T\_f). The $Sup $ in this equation is obtained for $m=m^*$ given by m\^\* = {
[ll]{} 1 $for$ p < 10\
$for$ p10
. where $[ x ]$ is the integer part of $x$. Then, in the low-$T$ limit one has \_p \^[cross]{}(T\_f0)=t \_p\^[m\^\*]{}(T\_f). In conclusion, for $p\le p_c$ no activated processes are required and the system immediately enters the Ising-like phase ordering behavior. For $p>p_c$, instead, the dynamics is initially of the XY type until, at $t\sim \tau _p^{cross}(T_f)$ there is a crossover to the Ising-like non-equilibrium behavior.
The crossover can be appreciated in Figs. \[figlengthT2\],\[figlengthT1\]. The former shows the behavior of $L_G(t)$ for $p=6$ and different values of $T_f$. Here one observes initially the same behavior as for $T_f=0$, namely $L_G(t)\propto t^{1/4}$, i.e. a straight line in the plot of $L_G(t)$ against $t^{1/4}$ (right panel). For larger times there is a crossover to the Ising behavior $L_G(t)\simeq t^{1/2}$, namely a straight line in the plot of $L_G(t)$ versus $t^{1/2}$ (left panel). Although the crossover is a quite smooth phenomenon, as can be seen in Fig. \[figlengthT2\], $\tau _p^{cross}(T_f)$ given by Eq. (\[tcross\]), represented by thick segments across the lines, turns out to be of the correct order of magnitude for all the temperatures considered.
In Fig. \[figlengthT1\] we plot $L_G(t)$ for $T_f=0.1$ and different values of $p$. One observes the same pattern of behavior of Fig. \[figlengthT2\] with a crossover from a power law growth with $z=4$ to one with $z=2$. The crossover time (\[tcross\]) grows with $p$, as expected.
Conclusions {#concl}
===========
In this paper we have studied the phase-ordering kinetics of the one dimensional $p$-state clock model. We have shown the existence of a critical value $p_c=4$ separating two radically different dynamical behaviors. For $p\le p_c$ the dynamics is in all respects analogous to that of the Ising model with $p=2$. Phase-ordering proceeds by means of formation and subsequent growth of domains through interface diffusion and annihilation. This similarity goes beyond the qualitative level: we find the same exponent and scaling functions for every $p\le p_c$ and for all the one-time or two-time quantities considered. This reflects a deeper similarity than what a unique universality class, involving only the value of the exponents, would imply. For $p>p_c$ the dynamics changes dramatically, due to the relevant role played by textures. While for $p\le p_c$ textures are quickly removed by means of non-activated processes, for $p>p_c$ their removal can only be realized through activated processes. For quenches to $T_f=0$, activated process are forbidden, and, therefore, textures remain in the system up to the longest times. Their peculiar growth mechanisms characterize the dynamics, similarly to what happens in the one-dimensional XY model, with the notable feature of violation of dynamical scaling and the anomalous growth with $z=4$ of the winding length $L_w(t)$. For quenches to finite $T_f$, textures survives up to a characteristic time $\tau _p^{cross}(T_f)$ which can be rather long for small temperatures or large $p$. A crossover phenomenon is then observed from an initial dynamics of the XY type, to a later Ising-like behavior.
Our results are at odd with what is found in Ref. [@Liu93] where an approximate analytical solution of the clock model in arbitrary dimension is obtained, finding an analogous scaling behavior for all $p< \infty $ but with $p$-dependent scaling functions. In the present one-dimensional case, instead, the situation is the opposite. There is not an analogous scaling behavior for all values of $p$, but a qualitative difference occurs crossing $p_c$. In addition, when scaling holds, namely for $p\le p_c$, the scaling functions do not depend on $p$. We believe, however, the behavior of the system considered in this paper, to be peculiar. Actually, the different dynamics observed crossing $p_c$ is determined by the simultaneous presence of interfaces and textures. On the basis of the discussion of Sec. \[intro\] we expect a similar situation to be only realized in $N$-component vectorial models with discrete states and $N=d+1$, where extended defects without a core may exist. For instance, it would be very interesting to study if a similar pattern is observed in $d=2$ for a generalization of the clock model where a three component order parameter is only allowed to point on a finite number $p$ of directions. In addition, we expect the remarkable feature of unique scaling functions for different values of $p$ to be peculiar to the one-dimensional case. Considering the function $G(r,t)$, for instance, the scaling function describes the spatial distribution of domains and it is quite evident that in $d>1$ this depends on $p$. Taking the case $d=2$, for simplicity, one has the usual bicontinuous domain structure of domains and interfaces for $p=2$, while for $p>2$ there is a different pattern with interfaces and vortices [@Kaski83]. However, in the one dimensional case interfaces are point-like objects for all values of $p$ and one does not expect relevant differences in their spatial distribution when $p$ is changed.
Finally, it would be very interesting to study if a similar pattern is observed in the one-dimensional clock model with a conserved order parameter. Concerning the value of the growth exponent $z$, which in the non-conserved case considered here effectively discriminate the Ising dynamics with $z=2$ from the XY behavior with $z=4$, in the conserved case one should observe a crossover from $z=3$ to $z=6$ [@Bray94; @Rutenberg95].
[**Acknowledgment**]{}
We acknowledge the referee for valuable suggestions.
This work has been partially supported from INFM through PAIS and from MURST through PRIN-2004.
\[appendix1\]
For the 3-states clock model the correlation between two spins at a certain time $t$ can be written as G(r,t)=\_i \_j= \_[n,n’=1,3]{}P\_i(n,t)P\_[i,j]{}(n,tn’,t), where $r$ is the distance between $i$ and $j$. $n$, $\theta _i$ (and their relation) are defined in Eq. (\[theta\]), $P_i(n,t)$ is the probability to find the spin on site $i$ in the state $n$ at time $t$, and $P_{i,j}(n,t\mid n',t)$ is the conditional probability to find the state $n'$ on site $j$ provided that the state $n$ is found in $i$. Isolating the diagonal terms one has G(r,t) = \_[n=1,3]{}P\_i(n,t)P\_[i,j]{}(n,tn,t)- \_[n=1,3]{}P\_i(n,t)\_[n’n]{}P\_[i,j]{}(n,t n’,t), where we have used the value $\cos (\theta _i-\theta _j)=-1/2$ when $\theta _i\ne \theta _j$. Since $\sum _{n'\ne n}P_{i,j}(n,t\mid n',t)=1-P_{i,j}(n,t\mid n,t)$ one has G(r,t)= -\_[n=1,3]{}P\_i(n,t)+ \_[n=1,3]{}P\_i(n,t)P\_[i,j]{}(n,tn,t) =-+ \_[n=1,3]{}P\_i(n,t)P\_[i,j]{}(n,tn,t) \[appe3\]
Let us turn now to the Potts model where a generic spin on site $i$ can be found in the states labeled with $m_i=1,2,3$. Following Ref. [@Sire], we define an auxiliary field $\phi _i (n)$ such that $\phi _i (n)=1$ if $m_i=n$, where $n$ is a reference state, and $\phi _i (n)=0$ otherwise. The correlation of the auxiliary field is the [*single phase*]{} correlation function of the Potts model and can be written as G\_n(r,t)=\_i (n)\_j (n)= P\_i(n,t)P\_[i,j]{}(n,tn,t), \[appe4\] where the probabilities are defined analogously to the those of the clock model introduced above. Recognizing $G_n(r,t)$ in the last term of the right hand side of Eq. (\[appe3\]) one arrives at G(r,t)= -+ \_[n=1,3]{}G\_n(r,t). \[resul\] Because of the rotational symmetry one has $G_P(r,t)=G_n(r,t)$ for all values of $n$ and then one recovers Eq. (\[maj1\]).
[99]{}
A.J. Bray, Adv.Phys. [**43**]{}, 357 (1994).
R.J. Glauber, J.Math.Phys. [**4**]{}, 294 (1963).
A.D. Rutenberg and A.J. Bray, Phys.Rev.Lett. [**74**]{}, 3836 (1995).
F. Leyvraz and N. Jan, J.Phys.A: Math.Gen. [**19**]{}, 603 (1986).
C. Sire and S.N. Majumdar, Phys.Rev.Lett. [**74**]{}, 4321 (1995); Phys.Rev.E [**52**]{}, 244 (1995).
F. Liu and G.F. Mazenko, Phys.Rev.B [**47**]{}, 2866 (1993).
E. Lippiello and M. Zannetti, Phys.Rev. E [**61**]{}, 3369 (2000).
E. Lippiello, F. Corberi, and M. Zannetti, Phys.Rev.E [**71**]{}, 036104 (2005). Here the algorithm for the computation of the response function was obtained making explicit reference for simplicity to the case $p=2$, but the same derivation applies as well to generic $p$.
As for the first action, other possible moves require a larger activation energy and are, therefore, suppressed at low temperatures.
In a texture there may be several adjacent spins with the same value of $n$ on a step, as in Fig. \[figture\]. Since the accomplishment of an action requires all these spins to be rotated, a number of elementary moves with $\Delta E=0$ may occur besides the (possibly) activated processes with energy variation $\Delta E_p ^{(m)}$. These moves correspond to the Brownian displacement of the boundaries between, say, spins with $n=2$ and $n=3$ in Fig. \[figture\]. They can be disregarded in the computation of $t_p^m(T_f)$ at low temperatures since they require a microscopic time to occur.
K. Kaski and J.D. Gunton, Phys.Rev.B [**28**]{}, 5371 (1983); K. Kaski M. Grant and J.D. Gunton, Phys.Rev.B [**31**]{}, 3040 (1985).
|
---
abstract: 'In this work we study the encoding of smooth, differentiable multivariate functions distributions in quantum registers, using quantum computers or tensor-network representations. We show that a large family of distributions can be encoded as low-entanglement states of the quantum register. These states can be efficiently created in a quantum computer, but they are also efficiently stored, manipulated and probed using Matrix-Product States techniques. Inspired by this idea, we present eight quantum-inspired numerical analysis algorithms, that include Fourier sampling, interpolation, differentiation and integration of partial derivative equations. These algorithms combine classical ideas—finite-differences, spectral methods—with the efficient encoding of quantum registers, and well known algorithms, such as the Quantum Fourier Transform. *When these heuristic methods work*, they provide an exponential speed-up over other classical algorithms, such as Monte Carlo integration, finite-difference and fast Fourier transforms (FFT). But even when they don’t, some of these algorithms can be translated back to a quantum computer to implement a similar task.'
author:
- Juan José García Ripoll
title: 'Quantum-inspired algorithms for multivariate analysis: from interpolation to partial differential equations'
---
Introduction {#sec:introduction}
============
Quantum computers use the exponential capacity of a Hilbert space to process information. A quantum computer with $m$ qubits can store $2^m$ complex numbers as the components in of the quantum register wavefunction, $\ket{\psi} =\sum_{s=0}^{2^m-1}\psi_s\ket{s}.$ A quantum algorithm creates, manipulates and probes these amplitudes to solve a concrete problem. In this work we discuss algorithms where the amplitudes $\psi(s)$ encode a smooth function defined over some a volume in $\mathbb{R}^N.$ A common example is storing probability distributions in the quantum register [@grover2002] and developing algorithms to extract expected values [@montanaro2015] or conditional probabilities [@woerner2019]. With this, it becomes possible to perform valuations of complex financial assets [@rebentrost2018; @stamatopoulos2019], VaR estimates [@egger2019], and other sophisticated interrogations. Using a similar encoding, one may also address radically different problems, such as solving partial differential equations with finite differences [@cao2013; @fillion2018; @costa2019].
In this work we discuss how efficient it is to encode discretized functions in a quantum register. We find that for certain distributions—smooth differentiable functions with bounded derivatives or bounded spectrum—, the accuracy of the discretization increases exponentially with the number of qubits, while the bipartite entanglement grows slowly or even remains bounded with the problem size. This implies such distributions may be constructed with quasi-local operations and polynomial resources on quantum computers. But it also opens an exciting possibility: a family of quantum-inspired matrix-product state (MPS) techniques that, under approximations of low entanglement, represent the quantum register efficiently and provide new classical (and quantum) algorithms for interpolating, differentiating, Fourier transforming or solving differential equations of such distributions. These techniques work efficiently because of an implicit renormalization where different qubits work with different length scales, in a way that lends itself to efficient interpolation and compression. This idea, with strong parallelisms to the 2D quantum image processing world [@latorre2005], gives rise to a performance improvement over earlier techniques based on tensor trains [@grasedyck2013; @bachmayr2016] or MPS encodings of mode expansions [@iblisdir2007].
This paper is structured in three parts. The bulk of the work is preceded by a summary (Section \[sec:summary\]) of the main results and heuristic algorithms that are developed in this work. The first section addresses the representation of discretized functions in quantum registers. It presents state-of-the-art techniques (Sect. \[sec:gr-construct\]) and new discretizations (Sect. \[sec:other-discretizations\]) on an equal footing. We argue that these samplings produce to weakly entangled multi-qubit states (Sect. \[sec:bounds\]). This prediction is confirmed numerically for common distributions in 1, 2 and 3 dimensions, using exact simulations of up to 28 qubits and MPS simulations of up to 36 qubits. The second part of this work introduces the idea of MPS quantum registers, whereby we encode multivariate functions in arrangements of qubits that are represented, manipulated and interrogated using the MPS representation. Section \[sec:quantum-inspired-algorithms\] further develops this idea, recalling well known algorithms from the literature and how they specialize for our purposes. With these tools at hand, Section \[sec:analysis\] develops new quantum-inspired algorithms for the numerical analysis of multivariate functions. These include the mapping of functions to MPS format (Sect. \[sec:exponential\]), Fourier analysis (Sect. \[sec:qft\]), interpolation methods (Sect. \[sec:interpolation\]), and techniques for approximating derivatives of discretized functions (Sect. \[sec:derivatives\]), both through finite-difference (Sect. \[sec:finite-differences\]) and the Quantum Fourier Transform (QFT, Sect. \[sec:QFT-derivative\]). Sect. \[sec:time-evolution\] combines these techniques into higher level algorithms for solving partial derivative equations, demonstrating their performance in the Fokker-Planck model. This work is closed with a discussion of the results, including connections to recent advances in tensor-based numerical analysis, and an outlook of applications.
Summary {#sec:summary}
=======
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Problem Algorithm Type Cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------- ------ ----------------------------------------------------- --
Expected value Monte Carlo C $\mathcal{O}(1/\varepsilon^2)$
“ & Amplitude estimation & Q & $\mathcal{O}(1/\varepsilon)$\ MPS QI $\mathcal{O}(-N\chi^3\log(\varepsilon))$
”
Fourier transform QFT Q $\mathcal{O}(N^2m^2)$
“ & FFT & C & $\mathcal{O}(Nm2^{Nm})$\ MPS QFT QI $\mathcal{O}(Nm \times \text{Simp}_{Nm})$
”
Interpolation Linear $(k=1)$ C $\mathcal{O}(2^{Nm})$
“ & MPS Linear $(k=1)$ & QI & $\sim\text{Simp}_{Nm}$\ FFT C $\mathcal{O}(N(m+k)2^{N(m+k)})$
”
“ & MPS QFT & QI & $\sim 3\times \text{QFT}_{N(m+k)}$\ MPS differences QI $\mathcal{O}(T_\text{cgs}\times\text{Simp}_{Nm})$
PDE Evolution & Finite differences & C & $\mathcal{O}(T_\text{cgs}2^{2Nm})$\
”
“ & FFT method & C & $\mathcal{O}((Nm+1)2^{Nm})$\ MPS QFT QI $\sim 2\times \text{QFT}_{N(m+k)}$
”
State construct GR-like (Sect. \[sec:bounds\]) Q $\mathcal{O}(Nm\chi^2)$
“ & Explicit wavefunction & C & $\mathcal{O}(2^{Nm})$\ MPS QI $\mathcal{O}(T_\text{steps}\times\text{Simp}_{Nm})$
”
MPS algorithms Simplification $(\text{Simp}_{Nm})$ C $\mathcal{O}(T_\text{sweeps} Nm 4d^3\chi^3)$
“ & Expected values & C & $\mathcal{O}(Nm\times 2d\chi^3)$\ $\hat{O}_f\ket{p}$, MPO-MPS product C $\mathcal{O}(Nm(d\chi\chi_f)^2)$
”
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Algorithms and their costs. We compare the costs of different tasks when working with multivariate functions, from the construction of the state, to the simulation of their evolution. We use the following heuristic values: $\varepsilon,$ desired error bound; $N,$ number of variables; $m\sim \mathcal{O}(\log_2(\varepsilon)),$ number of qubits per variable for $2^m$ points in discretization; $d=2,$ physical dimension of qubits; $\chi, \chi_f,$ effective MPS and MPO bond dimensions; $T_\text{sweeps}$ number of iterations in the simplification algorithm (cf. Sect. \[sec:mps-approximation\]); $T_\text{cgs},$ number of iterations in conjugate gradient method (cf. Sect. \[sec:pde-finite-differences\]). We distinguish classical methods (C), from algorithms for a quantum computer (Q), or classical MPS techniques that rely on a quantum register approach (QI).[]{data-label="tab:algorithms"}
Quantum computing has introduced the clever idea of encoding probability distributions in quantum registers. In this encoding, a small number of qubits can store an exponentially large number of function samples. To fix ideas and notation, let us take a function $p(x_1,\ldots,x_N)$ of $N$ variables in a bounded interval. Let us use $m$ qubits to uniformly discretize the domain $$\begin{aligned}
x_s^{i} &= a_i + \frac{b_i-a_i}{2^m}s_i = a_i + \delta^{i}_m \sum_{k=1}^m\frac{s_i^k}{2^k},\;i=1,2\ldots N.\label{eq:coordinates}\end{aligned}$$ The non-negative integer $s_i$ takes all possible values obtained by grouping $m$ bits $s_i^1s_i^2\cdots s_i^m,$ ordered in decreasing significance. The $N$ integers or $Nm$ bits can be associated to different states of a quantum register, enabling two representations of the function $p.$ The first one assumes a non-negative function, $$\ket{p} \propto \sum_{s_1,\ldots,s_N} \sqrt{p(s_1,\ldots,s_N)}\ket{s_1}\otimes\cdots\ket{s_N},\;s_i\in\{0,1,\ldots 2^{m}-1\},\label{eq:representation-1}$$ and associates $p(s)$ to the probability of the state $\ket{s}.$ The second encoding does not make this assumption and maps the distribution directly to the wavefunction $$\ket{p} \propto \sum_{s_1,\ldots,s_N} p(s_1,\ldots,s_N)\ket{s_1}\otimes\cdots\ket{s_N}.
\label{eq:representation-2}$$ Both representations can be extended to situations where the functions are not normalized, just by keeping track of global prefactors.
In this work we argue that both representations are exponentially efficient in many ways. First, the quantum register demands only a logarithmically growing number of qubits $Nm$ to store an exponential amount of weights $2^{Nm}$ in a discretized function. Second, we also need an exponentially small number of qubits $m\sim-\log(\varepsilon)$ to reduce the discretization error below a given tolerance $\varepsilon.$ Third and finally, we find that for smooth, differentiable functions with bounded derivatives, these states have a small amount of entanglement. Indeed, for many distributions of interest we obtain the scaling $\mathcal{O}(N)$ with the dimension of the problem. We conjecture that this behavior is due to an implicit renormalization that happens in the quantum register, where some bits $s_1^1,s_2^1\ldots$ carry information over long wavelengths and large features, and the least significant bits $s_1^m,s_2^m\ldots$ are efficiently approximated with low-entanglement interpolation methods over those qubits (Sect. \[sec:interpolation\]).
These findings suggest that many useful functions and problems can be constructed in a quantum register with polynomial resources, due to the bounded entanglement (see Sect. \[sec:bounds\]). However, the same results open the field of *quantum-inspired numerical analysis,* which combines the quantum computing encoding of functions with tensor-network representations and algorithms to manipulate them (see Sect. \[sec:quantum-inspired-algorithms\]). This approach suggests new algorithms for integrating probability distributions and computing expected values (Sect. \[sec:expected\]), for implementing discrete differentiation (Sect. \[sec:derivatives\]), Fourier transform (Sect. \[sec:qft\]), interpolation (Sect. \[sec:interpolation\]) and for the solution of partial differential equations (Sect. \[sec:time-evolution\]).
Table \[tab:algorithms\] summarizes the algorithms discussed in this work, paired with alternatives that already exist for quantum computers or in the field of numerical analysis. The table summarizes the costs of those algorithms, expressed in terms of well known quantities—discretization error, number of qubits, estimated entanglement and bond dimension size, etc—. In the case of quantum-inspired numerical analysis, we must emphasize that the performance metrics are heuristic. However, if entanglement remains bounded throughout the simulations, the quantum register method demands a small bond dimension $\chi,$ and the algorithms provide an exponential speedup over other classical techniques—from finite differences to the highly performant FFT techniques.
Storing multivariate functions in quantum registers {#eq:quantum-register}
===================================================
GR discretization {#sec:gr-construct}
-----------------
One of the earliest works suggesting the encoding of functions in quantum registers is the unpublished manuscript by Grover and Rudolph [@grover2002]. This designed a unitary operator $U_p$ that encodes a probability distribution $p(x)$ in an empty quantum register with $m$ qubits $$\begin{aligned}
\ket{p_\text{GR}^{(m)}} &:= U_p\ket{0,0,\ldots,0} = \sum_{i=0}^{2^m-1} \sqrt{p_\text{GR}^{(m)}(s)}\ket{s},\;\mbox{with}\;
&p_\text{GR}^{(m)}(s) =\int_{x_s}^{x_{s+1}}p(u)\mathrm{d}u.\end{aligned}$$ The original construct assumes a random variable $x$ in a bounded interval $[a,b]$ subdivided into $2^m$ smaller intervals, labeled by the quantum register states $\ket{s}=\ket{s^1s^2\cdots s^m}.$
A practical application of this encoded state would be the computation of expected values for any observable or function $f(x).$ This requires engineering an observable $\hat{O}^{(m)}_f$ such that $$\bar{f} = \int\! f(x) p(x) \mathrm{d}x \simeq \braket{p_\text{GR}^{(m)}|\hat{O}^{(m)}_f|p_\text{GR}^{(m)}} + \varepsilon_\text{int}.
\label{eq:expected}$$ Typically, we approximate $\hat{O}^{(m)}_f =\sum_s f(x_s){\ensuremath{\ket{s}\!\bra{s}}},$ and apply a uniform discretization , to have an integration error that decays exponentially with register size, $\varepsilon_\text{int} \sim \mathcal{O}(\delta_m).$
As found by A. Montanaro [@montanaro2015], using amplitude estimation with $U_p$ and the operator $\hat{O}_f,$ one may estimate $\bar{f}$ with a precision that scales better than Monte Carlo algorithms. If the cost of implementing $U_p$ is $T_\text{GR},$ and we aim for a sampling precision $\varepsilon_\text{sample},$ the asymptotic time cost of the ideal amplitude estimation algorithm is roughly $$T_{QCMC} = \mathcal{O}\left( T_{GR}/\varepsilon_\text{sample}\right).$$ This represents a favorable scaling when compared with traditional Monte Carlo, where the sampling uncertainty goes as $\mathcal{O}(\varepsilon_\text{sample}^{-2}),$ but only if the cost of encoding the probability state $T_\text{GR}$ remains small or weakly dependent on the integration error $\varepsilon_\text{int}.$
![(a) A probability state $\ket{p^{(m)}}$ with discretization size $2^{m+1}$ can be constructed from a coarser state $\ket{p^{(m)}}$ by appending one auxiliary qubit through a unitary operation $U^{(m)}.$ (b) When a state of $m$ qubits is upgraded to $m+k,$ we can study the entanglement between the old and new qubits through a Schmidt decomposition . (c) If the state has a small Schmidt number for all 1D bipartitions, it is weakly entangled and admits an efficient MPS representation .[]{data-label="fig:states"}](fig-states.pdf){width="0.9\linewidth"}
The unitary by Grover and Rudolph’s $U_p$ is a recursive construct that adds one more qubit of precision in each step. As sketched in Fig. \[fig:states\]a, the procedure reads $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:GR-unitary}
\ket{p_\text{GR}^{(m+1)}}&=u^{(m+1)}\ket{p_\text{GR}^{(m)}(s)}\ket{0}
= \sum_{s=0}^{2^m-1} \sqrt{p_\text{GR}^{(m)}(s)}\ket{s}(\cos(\theta_s)\ket{0}+\sin(\theta_s)\ket{1})\\
&= \sum_{s'=0}^{2^{m+1}-1}\sqrt{p_\text{GR}^{(m+1)}(s')}\ket{s'},
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where we identify $\ket{s}\!\ket{0}=:\ket{2s}$ and $\ket{s}\!\ket{1}=:\ket{2s+1}.$ The rotation angle $0\leq\theta_i\leq\pi/2$ is obtained from two identities $$\cos(\theta_s)^2 = \frac{p_\text{GR}^{(m+1)}(2s)}{p_\text{GR}^{(m)}(s)},\; \sin(\theta_s)^2= \frac{p_\text{GR}^{(m+1)}(2s)}{p_\text{GR}^{(m)}(s)}.$$ Unfortunately, this algorithm *requires an exponentially large number of angles* and involves a highly non-local unitary with a potentially bad decomposition. The GR algorithm must be therefore considered more a proof of existence, than a practical recipe that can be used when bounding the resources of Monte Carlo analysis.
We will study the GR construct and other discretizations, demonstrating that there are efficient alternatives to equation . Our analysis centers on the complexity of the sampled states. Using the bipartite entanglement as quantifier, we will show that the cost of adding one more qubit of resolution decays exponentially. This will help us understand that there one quasi-local unitary procedure that builds the GR state with a cost that is polynomial in the number of qubits, $T_\text{GR}\sim \mathcal{O}(-m\log(\varepsilon)).$ We will confirm numerically this result using various well-known probability distributions.
Other discretizations {#sec:other-discretizations}
---------------------
The integral representation by Grover and Rudolph reproduces exactly the probability that is contained inside each interval, but it requires computing $2^m$ integrals. In practice, this is unnecessary because the estimation of expected values already introduces a discretization error $\varepsilon_\text{sample}\sim \mathcal{O}(\delta_m)$ in the operator definition. It is not difficult to find simpler representations that have the same or better scaling. The obvious one is the uniform sampling of the probability distribution $$\label{eq:riemann}
\ket{p_R^{(m)}} = \sqrt{\frac{\delta_m}{N_m}}\sum_s \sqrt{p(x_s)}\ket{s},\;\mbox{with}\; N_m = \sum_s \delta_mp(x_s).$$ The standard error bound for this Riemann-type state is $\varepsilon_\text{sample} \leq \max\left|\frac{d}{dx}(fp)\right| \delta_m,$ which depends on the derivatives of both the sampled observables and probability.
The first order scaling is good enough for the simulations that we will show below, because the interval size decreases exponentially with the number of qubits $m.$ We will therefore stick to the GR states or to Eq. , unless otherwise noted. However, if we need to save some qubits, we can try variations, such as a probability state that implements the trapezoidal or the Simpson rule $$\label{eq:Simpson}
\ket{p_S^{(m)}} = \frac{1}{S_m^{1/2}}\sum_s \sqrt{\theta_sp(x_s)}\ket{s},\;\theta_s=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}1,&s=0,2^{m}-1\\ 4-(s\,\mathrm{mod}\,2),&\mathrm{else}. \end{array}\right.$$ The discretization error of the Simpson state decreases faster with the interval size, $\varepsilon_\text{sample}\sim \mathcal{O}(\delta_m^2).$ This scaling means that the qubits required to achieve a given precision $m\sim \log_2(\varepsilon_\text{sample})$ can be half those required by the uniform ansatz. These savings may be interesting in resource-starved architectures, such as NISQ computers, and also in the algorithms to be considered later in Sect. \[sec:quantum-inspired-algorithms\].
Existence of efficient constructs {#sec:bounds}
---------------------------------
We can show that adding $k$ new qubits to a GR probability state with $m$ qubits demands a vanishingly small amount of entanglement, that decreases exponentially with $2^m.$ This small amount of entanglement suggests that the GR unitary $U^{(m)}_p$ can be replaced with simpler decomposition in terms of quasi-local gates. The reasoning proceeds as follows. In App. \[app:reduced-dty\] we study the reduced density matrix $\rho^{(m,k)}$ of the $k$ new qubits in a GR state with $m+k$ bits of resolution. Assuming that the probability distribution is smooth, differentiable and has an upper bound on its derivative, $$D_p = \max_x |p'(x)|,
\label{eq:max-derivative}$$ we obtain upper bounds for the entropy of the extra qubit. For one added qubit, $k=1$ our bound reads $$S[\rho^{(m,1)}] \leq \sqrt{2(1-P)} \leq 2\sqrt{D_p}|b-a|2^{-m/2}.
\label{eq:one-qubit-bound}$$ If $k$ is larger, we have roughly $$S[\rho^{(m,k)}] \leq \mathcal{O}\left( 2\sqrt{D_p}|b-a|2^{-(m-k)/2} \right).
\label{eq:k-qubit-bound}$$ Note that this argument easily extends to the Riemann-type or Simpson sampling , because the differences between them decays exponentially with the number of qubits.
The fact that adding every new bit requires a small amount of entanglement implies that the probability state $\ket{p^{(m)}}$ has an efficient matrix-product state (MPS) representation. A matrix product state is a decomposition of a wavefunction as a contraction of matrices that are labeled by the physical indices of a composite quantum system $$\ket{p^{(m)}} = \sum_s \sqrt{p^{(m)}(s)}\ket{s} \simeq \sum A_{\alpha_1}^{s_1}A_{\alpha_1,\alpha_2}^{s_2}\cdots
A^{s_m}_{\alpha_{m}}\ket{s_1,s_2,\ldots,s_m}.
\label{eq:MPS}$$ Each of the tensors is in general different, and has three indices $A_{\alpha_i,\alpha_{i+1}}^{s_i}\in \mathbb{C}^{2\times \chi_i\times \chi_{i+1}}.$ There is one physical index $s$ of dimension 2, and two *bond dimensions* of sizes $\chi_i$ and $\chi_{i+1}.$ In our particular case, the fact that $S[\rho^{(i,m-i)}]$ decays exponentially with $i$ means that the bond dimensions also decrease extremely fast, making the representation efficient.
It is known that MPS’s admit an efficient, sequential construct [@schoen2005; @schoen2007]. This algorithm consists of $m$ steps. On each step, an ancilla with $\log_2\chi_i$ qubits is correlated with a fresh new qubit using a unitary operation of dimension $(d\max\{\chi_i,\chi_{i+1}\})^2.$ This unitary operation is potentially smaller and more efficient than the GR unitary, because the whole process has bounded time-cost $T_\text{GR}\sim \mathcal{O}(m\chi^2).$
Numerical study of 1D distributions {#sec:numerics-1d}
-----------------------------------
![(a) Entropy of entanglement between the $m$ first qubits and an additional qubit that is added to a GR state. We use $(\sigma,\mu)=(1,0),(1,1),(1,0),(1,0)$ for the Gaussian, Lognormal, Lorentzian and non-convex distributions, choosing the intervals $[a,b]=[\mu-6\sigma,\mu+6\sigma],[10^{-16},\mu+50\sigma],\; [\mu-10\sigma,mu+10\sigma]$ and $[0,7\sigma].$ (c-d) Similar as (a), but we plot the entanglement of a bipartition with $(k,M-k)$ qubits, for $M=14.$[]{data-label="fig:entropies"}](fig-entropies.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
Let us put these ideas to the test using three paradigmatic distributions $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Gaussian}
\mbox{Gaussian:}
& \quad p_G(x;\sigma,\mu) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}\sigma}e^{-(x-\mu)^2/\sigma^2}, \\
\label{eq:log-normal}
\mbox{Log-normal:}
& \quad p_{ln}(x;\sigma,\mu) = \frac{1}{x}p_G(\log(x)),\\
\label{eq:Lorentzian}
\mbox{Lorentzian:}
& \quad p_{L}(x;\sigma,\mu) = \frac{\sigma}{2\pi}\frac{1}{(x-\mu)^2+\sigma^2}.\end{aligned}$$ We will also consider an unconventional function that also has a finite bandwidth, but which is not log-convex $\sigma$ $$\label{eq:non-convex}
p_{nc}(x;\sigma) \propto e^{-x}\sin(2\sigma x)^2\cos(3\sigma x)^2.$$ We have chosen all these distributions because we can compute the functions $p^{(m)}(x)$ exactly for all sampling sizes, constructing the GR states for up to $m=14$ qubits[^1], analyzing their structure and complexity.
In Fig. \[fig:entropies\]a we plot the entanglement required to enlarge the quantum register by one bit, from $m$ to $m+1.$ This is the entropy $S[\rho^{(m,1)}]$ in the notation above. As shown in Fig. \[fig:entropies\]b, the bipartition never exceeds one *e-bit* of entanglement, and exhibits an exponential decay at large sizes that goes as $2^{-\gamma m}$ with $\gamma$ between 1.73 and 1.84, depending on the simulation and probability distribution. The behavior is therefore more favorable than the bound from Eq. , which overestimates the entanglement.
Fig. \[fig:entropies\]c shows that just like the entropy increase of adding one more qubit is small, the cumulative entropy obtained by studying all bipartitions of $m+k$ qubits also remains small, and with a similar tendency. Moreover, for a detailed enough sampling with $m=14,$ there is no difference between the GR states and the simpler discretizations from Sect. \[sec:other-discretizations\], shown here with dash-dot lines.
To test whether these favorable dependencies are artifacts of our choice of distributions, we have varied the parameters of the distributions and also tested situations where one of them acquires more features. Fig. \[fig:states\]d shows the maximum entanglement entropy over all bipartitions as we change the parameter $\sigma.$ The first three probability distributions have a bounded entanglement below an e-bit. The non-log-convex distribution $p_{nc}(x)$ behaves slightly different: increasing $\sigma$ leads to the appearance of more peaks, that are more difficult to describe. This causes a steady increase in entropy, but this is slow enough that still facilitates an efficient construct.
Extensions to more variables {#sec:numerics-2d}
----------------------------
Challenging applications to fields such as Physics, fluid dynamics or finance [@orus2019] require the study of states with many more, $p(x_1,x_2\ldots).$ To better understand the scaling of entanglement and the complexity of the state, we have studied the discretization of two- and three-dimensional Gaussian distributions $$\label{eq:Gaussian-nd}
p(\vec{x}) = \frac{1}{(2\pi)^{N/2}\mathrm{det}(\Sigma)}\exp\left(-\frac{1}{2}\vec{x}^T\Sigma^{-2}\vec{x}\right),\;\vec{x}\in\mathbb{R}^N,$$ with covariance matrix $\Sigma$ and zero mean, using the same number of qubits in all dimensions.
As in the 1D problem, we will treat the quantum register as a one-dimensional arrangement of qubits, studying the entanglement over all 1D bipartitions. Naturally, the complexity of this discretization will depend on how we arrange the qubits. The simple straightforward order (A) distributes the qubits sequentially, first by coordinate, then by significance. In this order, Gaussian states with a diagonal covariance matrix $\Sigma=\mathrm{diag}\{\sigma_1,\sigma_2,\ldots\}$ become products states of one-dimensional distributions, such as those studied in Sects. \[sec:bounds\] and \[sec:numerics-1d\]. We also introduce the order (B), where qubits are first sorted by significance and only then by coordinate. This order is inspired by the renormalization group, and deeply similar to the multi-scale representation of 2D quantum image encodings [@latorre2005]. For a distribution with two random variables, $x_1$ and $x_2,$ using three qubits per variable, the two orders read $$\begin{aligned}
\mbox{Order (A):}& \ket{s_1s_2} \to \ket{s_1^1}\ket{s_1^2}\ket{s_1^3}\ket{s_2^1}\ket{s_2^2}\ket{s_2^3},
\;\mbox{and}\label{eq:orders}\\
\mbox{Order (B):}& \ket{s_1s_2}\to \ket{s_1^1}\ket{s_2^1}\ket{s_1^2}\ket{s_2^2}\ket{s_1^3}\ket{s_2^3}. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
![(a) Two-mode Gaussian probability distribution with variances $(\sigma_{min},\sigma_{max}),$ rotated an angle $\theta.$ We work with a discretization interval $[-7\sigma_{max},7\sigma_{max}]^{\otimes 2},$ compressing $\sigma_{min}$ down to 0.1, which is a 20dB squeezing of the variance. (b) Maximum entanglement of all bipartitions, for different variances, orientations and orders. In solid lines, we plot the trivial sampling with $N\times m=28$ qubits in total. We compare those plots with the same simulation using an MPS at a higher sampling (circles). We probe two angles $\theta=0$ and $\pi/4$ in Eq. , and two orders . (c) Entanglement entropies for all bipartitions of $Nn=24$ qubits into $(k,Nm-k),$ for the highly squeezed state $\sigma_{min}=0.1\sigma_{max}$ with $\theta=\pi/4.$ (d) Similar plot but for the MPS algorithm using a $Nm=36$ qubits.[]{data-label="fig:entropies2d"}](fig-entropies2d.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
Let us begin the discussion using a general two-dimensional covariance matrix $$\Sigma = O(\theta)\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\sigma_{max} & 0 \\ 0 & \sigma_{min}
\end{array}
\right)O^T,\;
\mbox{with}\; O =\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\cos(\theta) & \sin(\theta) \\ -\sin(\theta) & \cos(\theta)
\end{array}
\right).\label{eq:covariance2d}$$ One quadrature is squeezed by a factor $\sigma_{min}/\sigma_{max},$ while rotating the frame of reference an angle $\theta$, as shown in Fig. \[fig:entropies2d\]a. We sample this probability, reconstructing the exact wavefunction with $Nm=28$ qubits. As shown in Table \[tab:state-sizes\], this size approaches the limits of a decent computer, using 2 gigabytes of data in real double precision form. In contrast, the same distributions using MPS, the techniques from Sect. \[sec:exponential\] and up to $Nm=36$ qubits consume less than 1 megabyte.
Discretization Nm $\sigma_{min}/\sigma_{max}$ $\theta$ exact size order MPS size
---------------------------- ----- ----------------------------- ---------- -------------------------- ------- ------------------ --
$16,384^2$ 28 1 0 $268\times 10^6$ (2 Gb) (A) 1,040 (8 kb)
“ & 28 & 0.1 & $\pi/4$ & ” (A) 126,628 (1 Mb)
“ & 28 & 0.1 & $\pi/4$ & ” (B) 9,388 (71 kb)
$262,144^2$ 36 0.1 $\pi/4$ $69\times 10^9$ (524 Tb) (A) 183,220 (1 Mb)
“ & 36 & 0.1 & $\pi/4$ & ” (B) 10,626 (80 kb)
$2048^3$ 33 0.1 $\pi/4$ $8.6\times 10^9$ (64 Gb) (A) 825,922 (6.6 Mb)
“ & 33 & 0.1 & $\pi/4$ & ” (B) 156,720 (1.22 Mb)
: Summary of resources to describe numerically the Gaussian probability distributions with covariance matrices given by and , using $m$ qubits per dimension, either in an exact form—storing all values $p^{(m)}(x_s)$—or in the compact MPS representation .[]{data-label="tab:state-sizes"}
The output of these simulations is shown in Fig. \[fig:entropies\]. When $\theta=0,$ the wavefunction $\ket{p^{(m)}_{2d}}$ is a product state $\ket{p^{(m)}(\sigma_{max})}\otimes\ket{p^{(m)}(\sigma_{min})}$ of two one-dimensional distributions. As shown in Fig. \[fig:entropies\]b (blue solid), the maximum entanglement over all one-dimensional bipartitions is less than one e-bit, consistent with Sect. \[sec:numerics-1d\]. To grow the entanglement we must combine squeezing and rotation, recreating a two-mode squeezed state. From the theory of Gaussian states, the entanglement should be maximal for $\theta=\pi/4$ and it should diverge with the squeezing. Our simulations confirm this prediction for the (A) order. Fig. \[fig:entropies2d\]b (orange, solid) shows that the maximum bipartite entanglement between our qubit variables grows as $(\sigma_\text{max}/\sigma_\text{min}){1/4}.$ This entanglement is also spread all along the chain of qubits, as seen in Fig. \[fig:entropies2d\]c. We can even improve on these results. As shown in Fig. \[fig:entropies2d\]b, if we adopt the renormalization order (B), all states can be described with $N=2$ e-bits of entanglement. Moreover, the entanglement distribution concentrates around the most significant qubits \[cf. Fig. \[fig:entropies2d\]c (dashed, green)\], producing significantly smaller tensors.
Despite the growth of entanglement, the quantum states that we create always admit a compact MPS representation that beats the classical approach of storing the full wavefunction. As shown in Table \[tab:state-sizes\], a highly-correlated discretization in the (A) order with 14 and 18 bits per coordinate, requires 1Mb of floating point real numbers in MPS form. The same states stored using the (B) order, take, in the worst scenario $\sigma_{min}=0.1\sigma_{max}$ with $\theta=\pi/4,$ just about 80 kilobytes of information. All this is to be compared to the 2 Gb and 524 Tb of data required to write down the wavefunctions of $28$ and $36$ qubits.
![(a) Maximum entanglement over all bipartitions for a three-dimensional Gaussian state , computed with exact wavefunctions ($m=7$ bits per mode, lines) or MPS ($m=9$ bits per mode, circles), using different squeezing rates, angles and orders. (b) Illustration of the three-dimensional Gaussian probability distribution for $\sigma_{min}=0.5\sigma_{max}.$[]{data-label="fig:entropies3d"}](fig-entropies3d.pdf){width="0.75\linewidth"}
We have performed the same study using three-dimensional Gaussian states. For concreteness, we have focused on a three-mode squeezed state that starts with a diagonal matrix $\mathrm{diag}(\sigma_{min},\sigma_{max},\sigma_{min})$ and performs two identical rotations around the X and Z axes, with angles $\theta_x=\theta_y=\theta$ $$\begin{aligned}
&\Sigma = O_x(\theta_x)O_z(\theta_y)
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\sigma_{max} & 0 \\
0 & \sigma_{min}
\end{array}
\right)
O_z(\theta_z)^TO_x(\theta_x),\;
\mbox{with}\label{eq:covariance3d}\\
&O_x =\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & \cos(\theta) & \sin(\theta) \\ 0 & -\sin(\theta) & \cos(\theta)
\end{array}
\right),\,O_z =\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
\cos(\theta) & \sin(\theta) & 0 \\ -\sin(\theta) & \cos(\theta) & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1
\end{array}
\right)
.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ We show results for a large, exact simulation with $Nm=21$ qubits, which amounts to $256^3$ points and 128 Mb of data, together with an MPS that is directly built with $33$ qubits, a sampling of $2048^3$ points. As in the two-dimensional case, the combination of squeezing and rotation deforms the state, which as shown in Fig. \[fig:entropies3d\]b becomes a titled rugby ball. Once more, the unrotated state remains weakly entangled. It is a product of three one-dimensional probabilities, and the entanglement never exceeds one 1 e-bit \[cf. Fig. \[fig:entropies3d\]a (blue, solid)\]. The squeezing and rotation leads to a divergence of the maximum entanglement, but this divergence is once more cured by the (B) order. This importance-based structure brings down the entanglement to about 3 e-bits and a reduction of 54,000 in the information required. We conjecture that for these Gaussian states—and other smooth functions—the (B) order consumes at most $N$ e-bits, giving a scaling of resources $\mathcal{O}(2^{2N}\times N)$ in both the time and memory costs of reproducing the probability distribution.
MPS quantum registers {#sec:quantum-inspired-algorithms}
=====================
In the previous section we have seen that it is possible to encode single and multimode probability distributions in quantum registers, that these states are typically weakly entangled and admit an efficient MPS representation. We now review the representation of wavefunctions and operators, and the basic ingredients in the MPS toolbox—tensor contraction and reordering, tensor renormalization, time evolution, etc—that will be used in Sect. \[sec:analysis\] to implement actual algorithms. More precisely, Sect. \[sec:bilinear\] introduces two representations of multivariate functions: one following the precepts from Sect. \[sec:other-discretizations\], and another one that improves the computation of expected values (Sect. \[sec:expected\]) and equation solving. We will also discuss the algorithm of MPS simplification (Sect. \[sec:mps-approximation\]), which is an essential tool to implement all numerical analysis approximation schemes.
Quadratic and linear representation {#sec:bilinear}
-----------------------------------
![Quadratic MPS representation, where functions are mapped to the amplitude of a wavefunction (as MPS) and observables are mapped to operators (as MPO). Expected values $\bar{f}=\braket{p|\hat{O}_f|p}$ are obtained by contracting three layers of tensors with physical dimensions $d$ and bond dimensions $\sim \chi.$ This has a cost $\mathcal{O}(3d^2\chi^4)$ and causes each tensor to appear twice—in other words, $\bar{f}$ is a quadratic function w.r.t. each tensor.[]{data-label="fig:mps-quadratic"}](fig-mps-quadratic.pdf){width="0.8\linewidth"}
Our overarching goal for the rest of this work is to encode multivariate functions using a virtual quantum register, and to store this register efficiently as an MPS. If the function we want to encode is non-negative—such as a probability distribution—, we can follow Sect. \[eq:quantum-register\], identify $\sqrt{p}$ with a quantum register wavefunction and use the MPS representation to compress it. In this representation, observables $f(x)$ become Matrix-Product operators (MPO’s) $$\hat{O}_f^{(m)}= \sum_{\alpha,s} B^{s_1,r_1}_{\beta_1}B^{s_2,r_2}_{\beta_2,\beta_3}\cdots B^{s_m,r_m}_{\beta_m}{\ensuremath{\ket{s_1,s_2\ldots s_m}\!\bra{r_1,r_2\ldots r_m}}}.
\label{eq:mpo}$$ We call this the *quadratic MPS representation* because the mean value of an observable $\bar{f}\sim \braket{p|\hat{O}_f|p}$ is a quadratic function of any of the tensors in the MPS state \[cf. Fig. \[fig:mps-quadratic\]\].
In the alternative encoding from equation , both observables $f(x)$ and probability distributions $p(x)$ become unnormalized vectors in a Hilbert space $$\begin{aligned}
\ket{f^{(m)}} &= \sum_{s}f^{(m)}(s)\ket{s} = \sum_{\alpha,s} F^{s_1}_{\beta_1}F^{s_2}_{\beta_2,\beta_3}\cdots F^{s_m}_{\beta_m}\ket{s_1,s_2\ldots s_m},
\\
\ket{p^{(m)}}&= \sum_{s}p^{(m)}(s)\bra{s} = \sum_{\alpha,s} A_{\alpha_1}^{s_1}A_{\alpha_1,\alpha_2}^{s_2}\cdots
A^{s_m}_{\alpha_{m}}\ket{s_1,s_2,\ldots,s_m}.\label{eq:mps-representation-2}\end{aligned}$$ In this representation, each probability state is a linear form that maps observables to expected values, or vice versa $$\bar{f} = \sum_s f(s)p(s) = \braket{p|f}\simeq \int\!f(x)p(x)\mathrm{d}x.
\label{eq:integration-mps}$$ We will call this strategy the *linear MPS representation* because $\bar{f}$ is a linear function with respect to any of the tensors in $\ket{p}$ or $\ket{f}.$
Memory cost {#sec:memory}
-----------
Let us denote $\chi_f,$ $\chi_p$ or simply $\chi$ the largest bond dimensions to encode those functions as MPS. Assuming an $N$-dimensional volume, discretized with $m$ qubits per dimension, the space required by an MPS and an MPO scales as $\mathcal{O}(Nm\chi^2).$ Since $\chi$ dominates this scaling, we need to understand how this dimension behaves in typical problems.
The answer to this question is connected to the bipartite entanglement that is stored in the MPS representations. Since MPS’s are obtained through a recursive Schmidt decomposition [@vidal2003], the entanglement entropy over any sequential bipartition of the state is bounded by $S\leq \log_2(\chi).$ Conversely, if the maximum entanglement is $S,$ we will expect that the bond dimension scales as $\chi\sim 2^S.$ Thus, for the smooth distributions from Sect. \[sec:numerics-1d\], where $S\sim N,$ we expect a scaling of resources of the form $$\mbox{memory} \sim \mathcal{O}(mN 2^{2S+1}) \sim \mathcal{O}(mN 2^{2N+1})\sim \mathcal{O}\left(-N 2^{2N+1}\log_2\varepsilon_\text{int}\right)$$ This represents an exponential saving over the space $\mathcal{O}(2^{Nm})\sim \mathcal{O}(\varepsilon_{int}^{-1})$ required to store the full wavefunction in general classical algorithms.
This exponential improvement is similar in origin to the one in quantum computers, as it also exploits the rapid growth of the Hilbert space with the number of qubits. However, in the MPS quantum register the gain is heuristic: it only appears for distributions with nice sampling properties. There are infinitely many problems where this improvement vanishes, due to the growth of $S$ and the exponential blowup of the bond dimensions $\xi.$ However, it seems that there are still many problems of interest where the MPS quantum register approach is useful, as we see below.
Integrals and expected values {#sec:expected}
-----------------------------
![Linear MPS representation. (a) Both observables $\ket{f}$ and a probability distributions $\ket{p}$ have MPS representations with bond dimensions of order $\xi,$ and they combine to give a mean value $\bar{f}=\braket{p|f}$. (b) When there are m qubits, the optimal contraction is sequence of $m\times 2$ steps, with the structure shown here, taking $\mathcal{O}(2d\chi^3)$ operations.[]{data-label="fig:mps-linear"}](fig-mps-linear.pdf){width="0.8\linewidth"}
In the linear MPS representation, the scalar product $\braket{f|p}$ is an approximation to the integral between both functions $\int\!f(x)p(x)\mathrm{d}x.$ As sketched in Fig. \[fig:mps-linear\]a, there is an optimal contraction scheme that starts from one boundary—the left-most site in Fig. \[fig:mps-linear\]a—, and sequentially contracts with one tensor from $\ket{p}$ and one from $\ket{f}.$ The optimal sequence of contractions in Fig. \[fig:mps-linear\]b demands $\mathcal{O}(d\chi^3)$ operations in $2Nm$ steps, with an estimated cost $\mathcal{O}(2dNm\chi^3).$ We can perform a similar analysis for the quadratic MPS representation, where mean values $\bar{f}=\braket{p|\hat{O}_f|p}$ involve contracting the state $\ket{p}$ twice with the MPO $\hat{O}_f$ that represents the observable. In this case the optimal procedure is slightly more involved, with a higher asymptotic cost $\mathcal{O}(Nm\times4\chi^4).$
In order to compare these algorithms with other classical methods, we have to introduce the accuracy of the estimate. In the MPS representation the only error we make is the discretization error of discretizing $N$ variables with $m$ qubits, which scales as $\varepsilon_\text{int} \sim N2^{-m}.$ Thus, the MPS approximation to the integral demands a time $T_{constr}+\mathcal{O}(-N\log_2(\varepsilon_\text{int}/N)\times 2\chi^3),$ where $T_{constr}$ is the time to build the MPS and the rest is a logarithmically growing cost associated to the contraction. We can compare this with Monte Carlo sampling, a good and general method for integration. The errors in this technique arise from the statistical uncertainty $\varepsilon_\text{sample} \sim 1/\sqrt{M}.$ This error decays slowly with the number of iterations $M,$ giving a time cost $\mathcal{O}(1/\varepsilon^2).$ The MPS therefore has the potential of providing an exponential speedup, given that (i) the bond dimension $\chi$ remains small and (ii) the cost of constructing the MPS states is also bounded.
Approximating states {#sec:mps-approximation}
--------------------
In working with the quantum register, we will frequently need to apply operators that distort the MPS representation, increasing the size of the tensors. This is corrected by a process known as MPS simplification, which seeks the closest matrix-product state with the smallest bond dimensions, within a prescribed time and error tolerance. The simplification is an optimization typically defined with respect to the norm-2 distance between states $$\text{argmin}_{\phi\mbox{ in }\mathrm{MPS}} \Vert \phi - p\Vert^2 = \text{argmin}_\phi d(\phi,p).$$ Here $p$ is the state we wish to approximate and $\phi$ is the new MPS. The distance $d(\phi,p)=\braket{p|p} + \braket{\phi|\phi} - 2\mathrm{Re}\braket{\phi|p}$ is a quadratic form with respect to the tensors in $\phi,$ which is optimized iteratively, sweeping across the MPS [@verstraete2008; @garcia-ripoll2006] in a two-site DMRG-like process.
The cost of this optimization has two parts. The estimation of the linear form $\braket{\phi|p}$ involves a contractions like the ones shown in Fig. \[fig:mps-linear\]b, involving $\mathcal{O}(d\chi^3)$ operations per site. On top of this, we apply a two-site simplification algorithm that optimizes pairs of tensors simultaneously, dynamically adapting the bond dimension. This has an extra cost $\mathcal{O}(4(d\chi)^3)$ due to the singular value decomposition. Thus, assuming that we need $T_\text{sweeps}$ for convergence, the simplification time cost grows as $\mathcal{O}(T_\text{sweeps} 4d^3\chi^3).$ In practical examples we find that $T_\text{sweeps}$ is very small: one or two sweeps reach the numerical precision of the computer, giving efficient results.
Finally, note that we can use the algorithm to construct a new state $\phi$ that approximates a linear combination of MPS $$\text{argmin}_{\phi\mbox{ in }\mathrm{MPS}} \Vert \phi - \sum_{i=1}^k \alpha_ip_i\Vert^2.$$ This has a linear increase in the cost, $\mathcal{O}(kT_\text{sweeps}4d^3\chi^3),$ that has been exploited in other algorithms such as time evolution [@garcia-ripoll2006].
Function multiplication {#sec:multiplication}
-----------------------
In many algorithms below we will need to construct a state $\ket{fp}$ that approximates the product of two sampled functions $f(x)p(x).$
This operation can be implemented efficiently in at least four cases. Given is an arbitrary complex constant $c$ and a discretization of $N$ variables with $m$ qubits per dimension, there exist MPO’s for $f(x)=c x,\, c x^2$ and $\exp(c x)$ using bond dimensions $2, Nm$ and $1,$ respectively. As illustration, let us discuss the implementation of $c x.$ This operator is an MPO with a bond dimension of size $\xi=2$ that keeps track of whether any operator has been applied. The $n-th$ tensor reads $$B^{s_n's_n}_{a,b}=\delta_{s_n',s_n}
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
c L 2^{-n}s_n, & a=0,b=1\\
1, & a=b=1,\;n>1\\
1, &a=b=0,\\
0, &\mbox{else}.
\end{array}
\right.$$
More generally, we can write the exponential of any QUBO formula as a product of MPO’s with bond dimension 2 $$\exp(\sum_{i,j=1}^KQ_{ij}s_is_j)
= \prod_{k=1}^K\exp\left( s_i\sum_jQ_{ij}s_j \right).$$ The MPO’s inside the product are constructed with simple tensors. In particular, for the $k-$th step, the tensors read $$B^{s_n's_n}_{a,b}=\delta_{s_n's_n}
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\delta_{a0}\delta_{b0},&n<k,\\
\delta_{bs_1}\delta_{a0}\exp(Q_{11}s_n), & n=k,\\
\delta_{ab}\exp(2aQ_{an}s_n), & k<n.
\end{array}
\right.\label{eq:QUBO-exponential-tensor}$$ Using this idea, we can decompose any exponential or Gaussian, such as $\exp(cx^2+dx)$ or $\exp(\sum_{nm}c_{nm}x_nx_m),$ using $Nm$ layers of MPO’s. This technique is discussed in Sect. \[sec:exponential\] when we construct MPS.
For other formulas, we find other alternative approaches. One is to find an MPO representation of the operator $\hat{O}_f.$ This is expected to be a simple tensor contraction for smooth functions, but the cost of computing it in general may be significant, unless we combine it with strategies such as interpolation (cf. Sect. \[sec:Fourier-interpolation\]). Another alternative is to approximate $f(x)$ in Taylor series and use multiplications by constants and by $x,$ combined with simplification stages, to approximate the product. A final approach is to use algorithms from quantum computing to implement the equivalent transformations [@bhaskar2016; @wiebe2016]. The interesting thing in this approach is that, since we are working with artificial registers, we can forego many of the ancillas, imposing success in all operations.
Multivariate analysis on the MPS quantum register {#sec:analysis}
=================================================
After this brief review of MPS quantum register, we will now introduce specific, higher level algorithms for interpolation, Fourier analysis, differentiation, solving PDEs and creating MPS for a sampled function. Unless otherwise stated, all algorithms are implemented using the linear MPS encoding from equations and . Whenever possible we provide also a comparison with state-of-the-art classical algorithms, with regard to efficiency, accuracy and numerical stability.
Fourier transforms and frequency analysis {#sec:qft}
-----------------------------------------
![(a) Discretized Gaussian probability distribution with $\sigma=1,\mu=0,$ over 15 qubits, and (b) quantum Fourier transform. (b) Entanglement entropy with respect to all bipartitions of a probability distribution $\psi$ (blue, circles), its quantum Fourier transform $\mathcal{F}\psi$ (orange), and the two’s complement of this (green, squares). (c) Maximum entanglement entropy for all bipartitions for the original state (circle), different stages of the QFT (orange) and the QFT after a two’s complement transformation.[]{data-label="fig:QFT-entropy"}](fig-QFT-entropy){width="\linewidth"}
Assume a function $p(x_s)$ uniformly sampled over $2^m$ points in an interval $x_s\in[a,b]$ of size $L=|b-a|.$ We can define $2^m$ distinct Fourier modes $\tilde\psi_r(x_s)\propto \exp(i q_r x_s)$ for $q_r=2\pi r/L$ and $r=0,1,\ldots 2^m.$ We can also define a Fourier transform $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{p}(q_r) = [\mathcal{F}p](q_r)
&= \frac{1}{2^{m/2}} \sum_{s=0}^{2^m-1}\exp\left( -i q_r (x_s-a) \right) p(x_s) \label{eq:Fourier}\\
&= \frac{1}{2^{m/2}} \sum_{s=0}^{2^m-1}\exp\left( -i 2\pi r s/2^m \right) p(x_s),\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ which returns the expansion of the original function in the Fourier basis.
The Quantum Fourier Transform (QFT) is the extension of the classical operator $\mathcal{F}$ to the quantum realm. The QFT operator $\hat{\mathcal{F}}$ takes a quantum state with wavefunction $p(s)$ and converts it into its Fourier transform $$\label{eq:QFT}
\hat{\mathcal{F}}\ket{p} = \sum_s p(s) \hat{\mathcal{F}}\ket{s} = \sum_r \tilde{p}(r)\ket{r}.$$ The QFT is defined by the action on the quantum register states $$\hat{\mathcal{F}}\ket{s} = \frac{1}{2^{m/2}}\sum_s e^{i2\pi s s'/2^m} \ket{s'}.$$ This operation can be implemented using $m+1$ layers of quantum gates, as $\mathcal{F}=\mathcal{U}_\text{flip}\mathcal{F}_{m}\cdots \mathcal{F}_{1}.$ The last operation, $U_\text{flip}$ just reverses the order of the qubits in the quantum register. The $i$-th layer $\mathcal{F}_i$ contains a Hadamard gate $H_i$ on the $i$-th qubit, followed by $m-i$ controlled rotations with respect to the following $m-i$ qubits $$\mathcal{F}_i = \prod_{j=i+1}^{m} \exp\left( i\frac{2\pi}{2^{j-i}} \sigma^z_i\otimes \sigma^z_j\right) \exp\left( i\frac{\pi}{2}\sigma^y_i \right).$$ Each of the $\mathcal{F}_i$ is an MPO with bond dimension $\chi=2$ and tensors $$\begin{aligned}
B^{s_n',s_n}_{0,0} &= \delta_{s_n',s_n}, & n< i,\\
B^{s_i's_i}_{0,s_i'}&=H_{s_i',s_i}, & i\mbox{-th qubit},\notag\\
B^{s_j',s_j}_{s_i,s_i} & = \exp\left( i\frac{2\pi}{2^{j-i}}s_js_i \right)\delta_{s_j's_j},& j>i.\notag\end{aligned}$$
Applying the QFT on an MPS requires contracting the $Nm$ operators $\mathcal{F}_i$ and simplifying the resulting states. As in other algorithms \[cf. Table \[tab:algorithms\]\], the simplification dominates the asymptotic cost and the performance is strongly dependent on the amount of entanglement in the transformed states. For smooth functions we expect that the entanglement will be bounded, both because of the estimates above, and because smooth functions will also tend to be concentrated in Fourier space. In that case we expect an overall scaling of time as $\mathcal{O}(m^2N^22^{3N}),$ which is exponentially faster than the classical FFT. It is interesting to note that other authors have considered using the QFT in a classical context [@niwa2002; @steijl2018], but they never observed a real speed-up—more like a 20-fold slow down—because of working with the complete wavefunction and not with the MPS quantum register.
As example, take the Gaussian probability distribution from Fig. \[fig:QFT-entropy\]a. Its QFT is a highly concentrated state, another Gaussian in momentum space shown in Fig. \[fig:QFT-entropy\]b. We know that the entanglement entropy of the transformed state is upper-bounded by 1 e-bit (see Sect. \[sec:numerics-1d\]). This is what we see not only for the final state—orange line in Fig. \[fig:QFT-entropy\]c—, but also when we analyze all stages of the transform $\mathcal{F}_1\psi,$ $\mathcal{F}_2\mathcal{F}_1\psi,$ etc \[cf. Fig. \[fig:QFT-entropy\]d.\]
Let us inspect more carefully the Fourier transformed wavefunction Fig. \[fig:QFT-entropy\]b. Note how the wavefunction concentrates on both sides of the interval, $s\simeq 0$ and $s\sim 2^m-1.$ This is caused by the mapping from the non-negative quantum register states $s,$ to the actual momenta, and which has the representation $$\hat{k} = \sum_s k_{\bar{s}}{\ensuremath{\ket{s}\!\bra{s}}},\;\mbox{with}~
k_s = \frac{2\pi}{L} \bar{s} \in \left[ \frac{\pi}{L},\frac{\pi}{L} \right].
\label{eq:momentum}$$ Here $\bar{s}$ is the two’s complement of the binary number $s=s_1s_2\ldots s_m$ $$\bar{s} = (1-s_1)\sum_{n=2}^m 2^{m-n}s_n - s_1\left[ 1+ \sum_{n=2}^m 2^{m-n}s_n\right].$$ It is useful to implement a two’s complement operation that flips all qubits conditioned on the state of the sign qubit, $U_\text{2c}=\ket{s_1,s_2,\ldots,s_m}\to\ket{s_1,s_1\oplus s_2,\ldots,s_1\oplus s_m}.$ When we apply this operator to the Fourier transformed state, $U_\text{2c}\mathcal{F}\psi,$ we find that the amount of entanglement surprisingly drops down, almost close to zero for all bipartitions—see Figs. \[fig:QFT-entropy\]c-d. This hints at the fact that the signed quantum register is a much better variable for describing this (and probably other) symmetric probability distributions.
Interpolation {#sec:interpolation}
-------------
Interpolating means approximating values of a discretized function on points that were not initially considered. We discuss two techniques for interpolating from a quantum register with $m$ qubits to a new register and discretization with $m+k$ qubits. The first method uses finite differences to extrapolate new points as linear combinations of previous values. The second method is a spectral technique based on Fourier transformations that, as we will show, can be exponentially more accurate for finite bandwidth functions.
### Taylor expansions {#sec:taylor-interpolation}
Let us consider a scenario in which we have discretized the interval $[a,b]$ uniformly with $2^m$ points, and we want to add $2^m$ extra points, moving to $m+1$ qubits. Let us call $x_s$ the original variables and $x_{r}'$ the new sampling, which satisfies $$x_{2s}'=x_{2s},\; x_{2s+1}'=x_{s}+\delta_m/2.$$ We assume that the values at $x_s$ determine those at $x_{2s}'$ $$p^{(m+1)}(x_{2s}') = p^{(m)}(x_s),\;s=0,1,\ldots 2^{m}-1,\label{eq:linear-interp-1}$$ and we only need to extrapolate the values at the odd sites $x_{2s+1}'.$ In order to do so, we can assume that our function is analytic and admits a Taylor expansion to some finite order, which gives the following approximation $$p(x_s+\delta_{m+1}) = \frac{1}{2}\left[ p(x_s)+p(x_{s+1}) \right] + \mathcal{O}(\delta_{m+1}^2).\label{eq:linear-interp-2}$$
We can translate equations and into an algorithm that extends a sampling with $m$ qubits into another one with $m+1.$ In a way that resembles very much the Grover and Rudolph protocol, but which is definitely not unitary, we add one least significant qubit at the end $$\ket{p^{m+1}} = \ket{p^{m}}\ket{0} + \frac{1}{2}(\hat{S}^-+1)\ket{p^{m}}\ket{1}.
\label{eq:linear-interpolation}$$ The ladder operators $\hat{S}^\pm$ increase or decrease the quantum register by one, displacing the function we encoded $$\hat{S}^+ \ket{s} = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} \ket{s+1},&s<2^m\\ 0, & \mbox{else} \end{array} \right.\quad \hat{S}^-=(\hat{S}^+)^\dagger.
\label{eq:ladder}$$ Instead of using reversible operations (Toffoli, CNOT), we implement the MPO as a smaller, irreversible and classical circuit with one carry bit that propagates through the bond-dimension. This requires a single tensor $C$ $$\hat{S}^+ = \sum C^{s_1',s_1}_{0,a_1} C^{s_2',s_2}_{a_1,a_2}\cdots C^{s_m',s_m}_{a_m,1}\ket{s_1',s_2'\ldots s_m'}\!\bra{s_1,s_2\ldots s_m}.$$ The tensor $C^{s',s}_{a,b}$ is nonzero only for $s'=s\oplus b,$ and $a=s \land b.$ The MPO $\hat{S}^-$ is obtained by simply exchanging the indices as $$\hat{S}^- = \sum C^{s_1',s_1}_{0,a_1} C^{s_2',s_2}_{a_1,a_2}\cdots C^{s_m',s_m}_{a_m,1}{\ensuremath{\ket{s_1,s_2\ldots s_m}\!\bra{s_1',s_2'\ldots s_m'}}},$$ and the linear combination algorithm can be implemented using the simplification techniques from Sect. \[sec:mps-approximation\].
### Fourier interpolation {#sec:Fourier-interpolation}
![(a) Gaussian probability distribution sampled with $m=5$ qubits and $32$ points. (b) Fourier interpolation and exact sampling with $m=10$ qubits and $1024$ points. Both samplings are indistinguishable. (c) Fourier spectrum of the original distribution. Note how higher frequency components are negligible. (d) Fourier transform of the interpolated function. We have added zero values over $2^5$ sites at higher momental, outside the axes.[]{data-label="fig:QFT-interpolation"}](fig-QFT-interpolation){width="0.8\linewidth"}
The problem with linear interpolation is that the accuracy of the approximation is constrained by the initial sampling, $\mathcal{O}(\delta_m^2).$ This seems to contradict the Nyquist-Shannon theorem, according to which a function with a bounded spectrum only needs to be sampled with a frequency of $2\times\nu_\text{max}$ for a perfect interpolation.
Take for instance a Gaussian probability distribution with width $\sigma,$ which has been sampled in the interval $[-8\sigma,8\sigma].$ Its Fourier transform is a normal distribution with center $\nu=0$ and width $1/\sigma.$ We can say that the information beyond $\nu=4/\sigma,$ is exponentially suppressed. According to Nyquist’s theorem, we can exactly reconstruct a Gaussian function by sampling it with period $\sigma/8.$ For the conditions above, that means $8/\sigma\times 16\sigma\sim 128$ points stored in $7$ qubits. However, if we attempt linear interpolation, we typically will make a bounded error that is fixed by the initial sampling, $\mathcal{O}(\delta{x}\sim 1/16).$
A well known solution is to do the interpolation in frequency space. When we perform a discrete Fourier transform, we are decomposing the sampled function $p(x_s)$ as a sum of discrete Fourier modes $\psi(k_{\bar{s}'})\propto \exp(ik_{\bar{s}'}x_s).$ We can use this to reconstruct a *continuous approximation* to the original function $p(x)$ in what is known as *Fourier interpolation* $$p(x) \simeq \frac{1}{\sqrt{|b-a|}}\sum_{s=0}^{2^{m}-1} \exp(ik_{\bar{s}}x)\left[ \mathcal{F}p^{(m)} \right](k_{\bar{s}}),\;x\in[a,b].
\label{eq:Fourier-interpolation}$$ This continuous approximation can then be resampled with as fine a grid as needed.
We can implement the approximation and re-sampling very efficiently. If we wish to enlarge the number of qubits from $m$ to $m+k,$ we compute $$\ket{p^{(m+k)}}=\hat{\mathcal{F}}^{(m+k)}U_{2c}^{m+k}\left[ \left( U_\text{2c}\hat{\mathcal{F}}^{(m)}\ket{p^{(m)}} \right)\otimes \ket{0_2,0_3,\ldots,0_{k+1}} \right].$$ We start with a Fourier transform and two’s complement over $m$ qubits. We then insert $k$ qubits in positions $2$ to $k+1.$ These are bits that encode very high frequencies and which are populated with zeros, as we do not need any finer details in the sampled function. We finally take the enlarged register and invert both the two’s complement and the Fourier transform. As illustrated in Fig. \[fig:QFT-interpolation\] this is a powerful technique that can reconstruct a Gaussian using $2^{10}=1024$ points out of a discretized Gaussian with $2^{5}=128$ points, with negligible error.
Differentiation {#sec:derivatives}
---------------
In numerical analysis, there are two main ways to estimate the derivative of a discretized function. The first method is called finite differences, because it relies on linear combinations of the function $p(x_s)$ and its displacements $p(x_s\pm n \delta{x}).$ The second type of methods is called a spectral method, because it works with the Fourier expansion from . Both methods have simple translations to the language of MPO’s and MPS’s.
### Finite differences {#sec:finite-differences}
We will work out this technique by example. Our starting point are two standard finite-difference approximations to the spatial derivatives, with different degrees of approximation $$\begin{aligned}
&\frac{\partial}{\partial x} p(x)
\simeq \frac{p(x+\delta{x})-p(x-\delta{x})}{2\delta{x}}+\mathcal{O}(\delta{x}^2), \\
&\frac{\partial^2}{\partial x^2} p(x)
\simeq \frac{p(x+\delta{x})p(x-\delta{x})-2p(x)}{\delta{x}^2}+\mathcal{O}(\delta{x}).\end{aligned}$$ The step $\delta{x}$ will be the discretization $(b-a)/2^m$ of the uniform sampling . Small changes $x_s\pm\delta{x}$ map to increments and decrements of the variable $s$ and using the ladder operators . Our finite-difference formulas become $$\partial_x\ket{p} \simeq\frac{\hat{S}^+ - \hat{S}^-}{2\delta{x}}\ket{p},\;
\partial_{xx}^2\ket{p} \simeq\frac{\hat{S}^+ + \hat{S}^- - 1}{\delta{x}^2}\ket{p}.
\label{eq:finite-differences-example}$$ These formulas can be implemented as MPO’s of bond dimension 3, which can be efficiently contracted and simplified using the algorithm from Sect. \[sec:mps-approximation\]. Note that hhigher order approximations are also possible using the same operator or powers of it. Roughly, the bond dimension of the MPO that implements a finite difference formula grows linearly with the order of the approximation, just like the number of non-diagonals in its matrix representation. This is a moderate cost that makes differentiation an approachable routine in higher level algorithms.
### Fourier approximations to derivatives {#sec:QFT-derivative}
Since Fourier interpolation works so well, we can use it to approximate the action derivatives at arbitrarily high orders. The action of a general differential operator $G(\partial_x)$ on the interpolated state is very simple $$G(\partial_x)p(x) \simeq \frac{1}{\sqrt{|b-a|}}\sum_{s=0}^{2^{m}-1} G(ik_{\bar{s}})\exp(ik_{\bar{s}}x)\left[ \mathcal{F}p^{(m)} \right](k_{\bar{s}}),\;x\in[a,b] .$$ If we resample this function with $m$ bits, we obtain a representation of the differential operator in terms of the momentum operator $$G(\partial_x)\ket{p^{(m)}} = \hat{\mathcal{F}}^{-1} G(i\hat{k}) \hat{\mathcal{F}}\ket{p^{(m)}}.$$
Solving partial differential equations {#sec:time-evolution}
--------------------------------------
One of the main applications of all these techniques is the study of how multivariate functions evolve in time, when subject to one of many partial differential equations. We focus our discussion on the Fokker-Planck equation in one dimension $$\frac{\partial}{\partial t}p(x,t) = -\frac{\partial}{\partial x}[\mu(x,t)p(x,t)] + \frac{\partial^2}{\partial x^2}[D(x,t)p(x,t)],
\label{eq:FP}$$ using uniform drift and diffusion, $\mu(x,t)=\mu$ and $D(x,t)=D.$ This equation governs the evolution of probability distributions for random variables undergoing a Wiener process in the Îto representation—a recurrent problem in quantum optics and finance, for instance. Moreover, this is already a challenging toy model from numerical analysis that is subject to numerical instabilities and demands state-of-the-art integration techniques. We will provide two techniques to solve this equation using the MPS quantum register approach, matching the two methods to work with differential operators from Sects. \[sec:finite-differences\] and \[sec:QFT-derivative\].
### Finite differences {#sec:pde-finite-differences}
![Solution of the Fokker-Planck equation using MPS and finite differences. (a) Density plot of the probability distribution evolved with the Fokker-Planck equation and algorithm . In dashed lines we plot the expected value $\bar{x}(t)$ and the curves $\bar{x}(t)\pm\sigma(t).$ (b) Center $\bar{x}(t)$ and variance $\sigma^2(t)$ of the a probability distribution. We use $D=0.1,\mu=0.2$ and a 10-qubit discretization (1024 points), with a time step $\delta{t}=0.01.$ In circles we show the theoretical predictions. []{data-label="fig:FP"}](fig-FP.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
Let us assume that we have the MPS representation of the initial value $p(x,0)$ and we need to estimate the evolution of this probabilty distribution at later times, $p(x,t).$ Following Sect. \[sec:finite-differences\], we write a finite-difference approximation to the Fokker-Planck model, replacing derivative operators with ladder operators. This transforms the Fokker-Planck equation into a first order differential equation $$\label{eq:FP-linear}
\partial_t \ket{p(t)} = \hat{G} \ket{p(t)},$$ generated by the linear operator $\hat{G},$ whose action we approximate with an MPO.
For concreteness, we will use the combined first-second order approximation from $$\hat{G} = -\mu\frac{\hat{S}^+-\hat{S}^-}{2\delta{x}}+D\frac{\hat{S}^++\hat{S}^--1}{\delta{x}^2}.$$ We also need to build an implicit integration method that works around the fact that equation is not unitary and has the potential to develop exponentially growing numerical instabilities. We have chosen a second order implicit method, $$\partial_t \ket{p(x,t)} \simeq \frac{1}{\delta t}\left[ \ket{p(x,t+\delta)} - \ket{p(x,t)}\right] \simeq \frac{1}{2}\hat{G}\left[ \ket{p(x,t+\delta)} - \ket{p(x,t)}\right].$$ which translates into our integration recipe $$\ket{p(t+\delta t)} \simeq \left( 1 - \frac{1}{2}\delta t \hat{G} \right)^{-1}\left( 1 + \frac{1}{2}\delta t \hat{G} \right)\ket{p(x,t)}.\label{eq:implicit-step}$$ Since $\hat{G}$ has a simple representation in terms of MPO’s, we build our algorithm around the repetition of two elementary steps. First, compute the MPS for the product $\ket{\phi_1(t)}=(1+\frac{1}{2}\delta t \hat{G})\ket{p(x,t)},$ using standard simplification techniques to get the simplest and best approximation. Second, estimate the MPS $\ket{\phi_2(t)}$ that best approximates the equation $$\left( 1-\frac{1}{2}\delta{t}\hat{G} \right)\ket{\phi_2(t)} = \ket{\phi_1(t)}.$$ In practice, we implement this step using a conjugate gradient method, but one could also write quadratic optimization techniques that minimize the distance between both states, as in DMRG’s *correction vector techniques* [@ramasesha1997; @kuhner1999; @schollwock2005].
As illustration, Fig. \[fig:FP\]a shows the solution of the Fokker-Planck equation for a state that is initially Gaussian with variance $\sigma(0)=1$ and center $\bar{x}(0)=0,$ living in an interval $[-10,10]$ discretized with $m=10$ bits. The finite difference methods have some intrinsic limitations. The operator $\Vert{\delta{t}\hat{G}}\Vert \propto 2^{2m}$ diverges as we add more and more qubits. Our simulation is therefore very limited both in time and in the spatial discretization. This intrinsic instability is only partially cured with the implicit methods, but not always and also not for very long simulations. If we wish to have higher precision and numerical stability, we need to develop slightly better techniques, described in the following section.
### Spectral split-step method {#sec:time-evolution-qft}
![Solution of the Fokker-Planck equation using the Quantum Fourier Transform, for $D=0.1,\mu=0.5$ and a 14-qubit discretization (16384 points in space). (a) Density plot of the probability distribution. In dashed lines we plot the expected value $\bar{x}(t)$ and the curves $\bar{x}\pm\sigma.$ Note how the QFT implements periodic boundary conditions and the wavefunction wraps around the borders. (b) Error bounds for a time-step $\delta{t}=0.3$ (solid) and $\delta{t}=3.$ Note how the estimate decreases, indicating that our error bounds are pessimistic and that we can implement evolution for arbitrary long times without truncation errors.[]{data-label="fig:FP-QFT"}](fig-FP-QFT.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
The spectral methods, and in particular the Fourier transform and the split-step method techniques [@weideman1986], have been traditionally used in many nonlinear Optics and quantum mechanical problems, due to their efficiency, stability and accuracy. The method is optimally designed to solve equations of the form $$\partial_t p(x,t) = G(\partial_x)p(x,t),\label{eq:general-pde}$$ where $G(\partial_x)$ is a function of the differential operator $\partial_x$ and the coordinates are defined over a regular interval. It works by moving to Fourier space, where the generator of the evolution is a function of the momentum $k$ $$\partial_t \tilde{p}(x,t) = G(ik)\tilde{p}(x,t)\; \Rightarrow \; \tilde{p}(x,t) = e^{G(ik)t}\tilde{p}(x,0).
\label{eq:Fourier-continuous-solution}$$ Here $\tilde{p}$ is the Fourier transform of the original function, $\tilde{p} = \hat{\mathcal{F}}p,$ over the real line.
In our discrete scenario with uniformly sampled, regular intervals, the spectral method can be implemented using the Quantum Fourier Transform and the interpolation techniques from Sect. \[sec:QFT-derivative\]. The approximate solution to is expressed as $$\ket{p^{(m)}(t)} = \hat{\mathcal{F}}^{-1} \exp\left[ G(i\hat{k})t \right] \hat{\mathcal{F}}\ket{p^{(m)}(0)},
\label{eq:QFT-solution}$$ The function $G(i\hat{k})$ quasimomentum operator is approximated by small MPO’s, as explained in Sect. \[sec:mps-approximation\]. Unlike the finite difference method, if the generator $G(\partial_x)$ does not depend on $x,$ the solution is exact: it works for all times in a single step.
We have implemented the recipe using MPS and MPO’s. We represent $\hat{\mathcal{F}},$ $\hat{\mathcal{F}}^{-1}$ and $\exp(-\mu \hat{k} + D\hat{k}^2)$ using $3(m+1)$ MPO’s of bond dimension 2. Provided that states remain weakly entangled, we can exactly solve the time evolution, without any numerical instabilities or truncation error, for any time and coefficients. As illustration, Fig. \[fig:FP-QFT\] reproduces once more the solution of the Fokker-Planck equation for a state that is initially Gaussian with variance $\sigma(0)=1$ and center $\bar{x}(0)=0,$ living in an interval $[-10\sigma,10\sigma]$ discretized with $m=14$ bits (16384 points in spacee). We can afford larger number of qubits and longer times than in the finite difference method, because the algorithm is orders of magnitude more efficient and very stable numerically. Notice also how the algorithm implements periodic boundaries by default; this is a feature that is very useful to avoid boundary reflections and simulate in small intervals the dynamics of propagating fields.
This recipe can be extended to problems that include dependencies on both the spatial derivatives and the spatial coordinates. We explicitely refer to equations of the form $$\partial_t p(x,t) = \left[ G(\partial_x) + V(x) \right] p(x,t),$$ or higher-dimensional equivalents. The solution to this problem is no longer exact, but relies on a Trotter-Suzuki expansion of the generator $$\begin{aligned}
\ket{p^{(m)}(t+\delta{t})} &= e^{\left[ G(\partial_x)+V(x) \right]\delta{t}}\ket{p^{(m)}(t)}\notag\\
&\simeq e^{V(x)\delta{t}/2}
\hat{\mathcal{F}}^{-1}e^{G(i\hat{k})\delta{t}}\hat{\mathcal{F}}
e^{V(x)\delta{t}/2}\ket{p^{(m)}(t)}+\mathcal{O}(\delta{t}^2),\label{eq:split-step}\end{aligned}$$ This technique is known as a split-step method because it combines evolution steps in real space, with stages that are implemented in Fourier space [@weideman1986]. All ingredients in this formula are well known from earlier pages.
Construction of the MPS {#sec:exponential}
-----------------------
The algorithms from previous sections assume that we already have an MPS wavefunction to begin with. We will now discuss different ways in which to obtain such initial conditions.
#### Exact discretization
The trivial way to construct an MPS representation is to begin with the discretized function $p^{(m)}(s_1,s_2\ldots s_m)$ and perform a sequential Schmidt decomposition. This has an exponential cost $\mathcal{O}(2^{3m/2})$ and fails when the number of qubits goes above 30-something, due to memory and time constraints, as we have seen in Sect. \[sec:numerics-2d\].
#### Explicit formulas
Some probability distributions admit analytical expressions. We can see those functions $p(x)$ as a product $p(x)e(x)$ with the uniform distribution $e(x),$ an operation that can be approximated using the techniques from Sect. \[sec:multiplication\].
An important example is the Gaussian probability distribution. When we express the coordinates in terms of qubits, the Gaussian becomes the partition function of an Ising model $H$ $$p(x_{s_1},x_{s_2}\ldots x_{s_N}) = \frac{1}{Z(\beta)}e^{-\beta H(s_1^1,s_2^1,\ldots, s_N^m)}\ket{s_1}.\label{eq:partition-function}$$ As discussed in Sect. \[sec:multiplication\], we could write the whole MPS using the exponential of a QUBO formula. In practice, this only works well when the state $\Sigma$ is not very squeezed[^2]. More generally, we need to reconstruct the whole probability state a progressive refinement of the uniform distribution $$p(x) = \left[ \frac{1}{Z(\beta/K)} e^{-\beta H/K} \right]^K e(x),$$ with each step implemented by an MPO $$\ket{p} = \hat{Z}_\text{MPO}(\beta/K) \cdot \hat{Z}_\text{MPO}(\beta/K)
\cdots \hat{Z}_\text{MPO}(\beta/K) \ket{e},
\label{eq:product}$$ that is a better behaved Gaussian function. We have used this technique to reconstruct the MPS representations of the 2D and 3D Gaussian states. Figs. \[fig:entropies2d\]b and \[fig:entropies3d\]a show the maximum entanglement entropy over all bipartitions of the resulting MPS state, while Table \[tab:state-sizes\] discusses the amount of memory and the size of the tensors.
#### Imaginary time evolution
Equation is nothing but a discrete approximation to the imaginary time evolution of the unnormalized state $\ket{p_u}$ $$\partial_\beta\ket{p_u} = - \hat{H}\ket{p_u},$$ with uniform initial condition $\ket{p_u(\beta=0)}=\ket{e}.$ This equation can be solved for any partition function distribution generated by an operator $\hat{H}$ with an efficient MPO representation. This approach is reminiscent of how thermal state density matrix have been simulated using the MPS formalism [@verstraete2004], but it is much simpler, since we do not introduce any auxiliary *purification* degrees of freedom.
#### Machine learning
The challenge of writing an MPS representation of a function $p(x)$ is comparable to the challenge of constructing that function in a quantum computer: there are efficient protocols, but we do not know them a priori. The quantum computing field has developed different strategies to address this problem. A promising one is to approximate the state $\ket{p}$ using a parameterized quantum circuit that is trained using the techniques of machine learning, such as generative adversarial networks [@zoufal2019]. These techniques can be extended to our domain. Instead of using a quantum-classical approach with a circuit that generates the probabilities and a neural network that discriminates, we can use the MPS as generator and apply similar training techniques.
Porting back to the quantum computers {#sec:qc-algorithms}
-------------------------------------
This work has introduced various classical MPS algorithms that use the tools of quantum computing—quantum registers, function encodings, quantum gates and algorithms—to solve efficiently various numerical analysis tasks. These techniques, and the whole line of research, can feed back to the world of quantum computing. For instance, the Fourier interpolation algorithm from Sect. \[sec:Fourier-interpolation\] has an immediate translation to a real quantum computer.
Other algorithms require some fine tuning. In linear interpolation and finite differences, the the $\hat{S}^\pm$ operator was designed to use irreversible arithmetic. However, we know that a similar operator can be implemented or approximated using ancillas and reversible arithmetic—half and full adders—, or other ideas from quantum simulation [@cao2013].
Something similar happens in the case of PDE solvers. Our discussion has focused on the non-unitary evolution induced by Fokker-Planck techniques, studying the implementation of the non-unitary operator $\exp[G(\hat{k})].$ Algorithms and can be trivially generalized to solve Schrödinger equations such as $$\partial_t \psi(x,t) = \left[-i\frac{\hbar}{2m}\nabla^2 -i V(x)/\hbar \right]\psi(x,t).$$ The generator of this equation is anti-Hermitian and both $\exp[\delta{t}\,G(i\hat{k})]$ and $\exp[-iV(x)\delta{t}/\hbar]$ can be implemented as a unitary gate in the quantum register. As in the MPS case, the scaling of the algorithm is problem dependent. The exponential $\exp[i\alpha\hat{k}^2]$ can be implemented with $\mathcal{O}(N^2m^2)$ steps, but the exponential of $V(x)$ may have a more complicated scaling, strongly dependent on function arithmetic. However, we expect that the smoothness of usual potentials will also lead to simple approximations with quasi-local gates.
Discussion and outlook {#sec:outlook}
======================
This work has presented many numerical algorithms for constructing, manipulating and interrogating multivariate functions in MPS-encoded quantum registers. We have shown that, heuristically, the renormalization provided by the quantum register representation is key to the creation of states with low entanglement, capable of encoding smooth, differentiable functions.
The use of tensor network states is a modern development in numerical analysis [@grasedyck2013; @bachmayr2016]. In the field of *low-rank tensor approximations*, a multivariate function $\psi(x_1,x_2\ldots x_N)$ is approximated by a contraction of tensors, labeled either by the continuous variables $x_i,$ or discretized versions of them $x_{s_i}.$ In other works, the spatial degrees of freedom are replaced by labels in some local mode expansion [@iblisdir2007]. Nevertheless, all these approaches preserve a notion of local degrees of freedom that translates into the tensor structure. In this work we are instead using a quantum register discretization, where each local coordinate is exploded into $m$ qubits of information, each of them probing the function at a different length scale. As we have seen in Sect. \[sec:numerics-2d\], these qubits need not be kept together, and there may be more efficient renormalization schemes when we group common length scales that are more strongly correlated. This implicit renormalization scheme is a discovery of the quantum computing community that has not been sufficiently exploited so far and which may empower many recent developments in the field, specially in the field of quantum finance and probability distribution analysis [@rebentrost2018; @orus2019; @woerner2019].
The algorithms in this paper bend themselves to a broad family of problems which have been considered in the quantum computing world. We have illustrated the solution of time-dependent partial differential equations, but the same techniques can be extended to stationary problems. This way, the MPS quantum register becomes a natural tool to solve the Poisson equation [@cao2013], the wave equation [@arrazola2018], the fluid equations [@steijl2018], or even the Schrödinger equation itself. This implies not just abstract, fundamental studies in Physics, but practical applications in fields such as aerodynamics or finance. We expect new applications of quantum-inspired finance that reach beyond the state-of-the-art [@orus2019], providing new schemes for evaluating financial products [@rebentrost2018], performing risk analysis [@woerner2019] and even more sophisticated time-dependent simulations and tracking.
Let us also remark that the algorithms developed in this work are of a heuristic nature. All methods and techniques in Sections \[sec:quantum-inspired-algorithms\] and \[sec:analysis\] assume states with low entanglement. This approximation is bound to break at some point, either because of functions with broad spectra and complex structure, or because of increased dimensionality. Quantum computers become a valuable tool that still has an exponential advantage over classical algorithms, and which may profit from the ideas and developments associated to MPS quantum register techniques, as discussed before \[cf. Sect. \[sec:qc-algorithms\]\].
Finally, all simulations in this paper have all been implemented with the SeeMPS Python library [@garcia-ripoll2019]. This library is a simple, straightforward set of notebooks that summarize the main MPS tools—state representation, computing expected values, simplifying MPS, implementing various MPO’s and contracting them with the states, etc—, in a literate, self-explanatory manner. While Python is a slow language, the algorithms are high-level and benefit from the efficient tensor operations that are available in Numpy and Scipy. This makes the code performant enough for practical applications. However, it is undeniable that recent frameworks based on TensorFlow [@mislted2019] and highly parallelized architectures for tensor contractions [@huang2019] would be a better platform to real-world deployment.
J.J.G.-R. thanks Andrea Cadarso for discussions around the motivation of the method and its applications. This material is based upon work supported by the Air Force Office of Scientific Research under award number FA2386-18-1-4019. This work has been supported by funding from project PGC2018-094792-B-I00 (MCIU/AEI/FEDER, UE) and and CAM/FEDER Project No. S2018/TCS-4342 (QUITEMAD-CM).
[34]{} \[1\][\#1]{} \[1\][`#1`]{} urlstyle \[1\][doi: \#1]{}
Juan Miguel [Arrazola]{}, Timjan [Kalajdzievski]{}, Christian [Weedbrook]{}, and Seth [Lloyd]{}. . *arXiv e-prints*, art. arXiv:1809.02622, Sep 2018.
Koenraad M R Audenaert. A sharp continuity estimate for the von neumann entropy. *Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical*, 400 (28):0 8127–8136, jun 2007. [doi: ]{}[10.1088/1751-8113/40/28/s18]{}.
Markus Bachmayr, Reinhold Schneider, and Andr[é]{} Uschmajew. Tensor networks and hierarchical tensors for the solution of high-dimensional partial differential equations. *Foundations of Computational Mathematics*, 160 (6):0 1423–1472, Dec 2016. ISSN 1615-3383. [doi: ]{}[10.1007/s10208-016-9317-9]{}.
Mihir K Bhaskar, Stuart Hadfield, Anargyros Papageorgiou, and Iasonas Petras. Quantum algorithms and circuits for scientific computing. *Quantum Information & Computation*, 160 (3-4):0 197–236, 2016.
Yudong [Cao]{}, Anargyros [Papageorgiou]{}, Iasonas [Petras]{}, Joseph [Traub]{}, and Sabre [Kais]{}. . *New Journal of Physics*, 150 (1):0 013021, Jan 2013. [doi: ]{}[10.1088/1367-2630/15/1/013021]{}.
Pedro C. S. Costa, Stephen Jordan, and Aaron Ostrander. Quantum algorithm for simulating the wave equation. *Phys. Rev. A*, 99:0 012323, Jan 2019. [doi: ]{}[10.1103/PhysRevA.99.012323]{}.
Daniel J. [Egger]{}, Ricardo [Gac[í]{}a Guti[é]{}rrez]{}, Jordi [Cahu[é]{} Mestre]{}, and Stefan [Woerner]{}. . *arXiv e-prints*, art. arXiv:1907.03044, Jul 2019.
F Fillion-Gourdeau and Emmanuel Lorin. Simple digital quantum algorithm for symmetric first-order linear hyperbolic systems. *Numerical Algorithms*, pages 1–37, 2018. [doi: ]{}[10.1007/s11075-018-0639-3]{}.
Juan José García-Ripoll and Burçin Danac[i]{}. Seemps - self explanatory matrix-product states library. [DOI:10.5281/zenodo.3401566](https://github.com/juanjosegarciaripoll/seemps), 2019.
Juan Jos[é]{} Garc[í]{}a-Ripoll. Time evolution of matrix product states. *New Journal of Physics*, 80 (12):0 305–305, dec 2006. [doi: ]{}[10.1088/1367-2630/8/12/305]{}.
Lars Grasedyck, Daniel Kressner, and Christine Tobler. A literature survey of low-rank tensor approximation techniques. *GAMM-Mitteilungen*, 360 (1):0 53–78. [doi: ]{}[10.1002/gamm.201310004]{}.
Lov [Grover]{} and Terry [Rudolph]{}. . *arXiv e-prints*, art. quant-ph/0208112, Aug 2002.
Cupjin [Huang]{}, Mario [Szegedy]{}, Fang [Zhang]{}, Xun [Gao]{}, Jianxin [Chen]{}, and Yaoyun [Shi]{}. . *arXiv e-prints*, art. arXiv:1909.02559, Sep 2019.
S. Iblisdir, R. Orús, and J. I. Latorre. Matrix product states algorithms and continuous systems. *Phys. Rev. B*, 75:0 104305, Mar 2007. [doi: ]{}[10.1103/PhysRevB.75.104305]{}.
Till D. Kühner and Steven R. White. Dynamical correlation functions using the density matrix renormalization group. *Phys. Rev. B*, 60:0 335–343, Jul 1999. [doi: ]{}[10.1103/PhysRevB.60.335]{}. URL <https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.60.335>.
Jose I. [Latorre]{}. . *arXiv e-prints*, art. quant-ph/0510031, Oct 2005.
Ashley [Milsted]{}, Martin [Ganahl]{}, Stefan [Leichenauer]{}, Jack [Hidary]{}, and Guifre [Vidal]{}. . *arXiv e-prints*, art. arXiv:1905.01331, May 2019.
Ashley Montanaro. Quantum speedup of monte carlo methods. *Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences*, 4710 (2181):0 20150301, 2015. [doi: ]{}[10.1098/rspa.2015.0301]{}.
Jumpei Niwa, Keiji Matsumoto, and Hiroshi Imai. General-purpose parallel simulator for quantum computing. *Phys. Rev. A*, 66:0 062317, Dec 2002. [doi: ]{}[10.1103/PhysRevA.66.062317]{}. URL <https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.66.062317>.
Román Orús, Samuel Mugel, and Enrique Lizaso. Quantum computing for finance: Overview and prospects. *Reviews in Physics*, 4:0 100028, 2019. ISSN 2405-4283. [doi: ]{}[https://doi.org/10.1016/j.revip.2019.100028]{}.
S. Ramasesha, Swapan K. Pati, H.R. Krishnamurthy, Z. Shuai, and J.L. Brédas. Low-lying electronic excitations and nonlinear optic properties of polymers via symmetrized density matrix renormalization group method. *Synthetic Metals*, 850 (1):0 1019 – 1022, 1997. ISSN 0379-6779. [doi: ]{}[https://doi.org/10.1016/S0379-6779(97)80136-1]{}.
Patrick Rebentrost, Brajesh Gupt, and Thomas R. Bromley. Quantum computational finance: Monte carlo pricing of financial derivatives. *Phys. Rev. A*, 98:0 022321, Aug 2018. [doi: ]{}[10.1103/PhysRevA.98.022321]{}. URL <https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.98.022321>.
U. Schollwöck. The density-matrix renormalization group. *Rev. Mod. Phys.*, 77:0 259–315, Apr 2005. [doi: ]{}[10.1103/RevModPhys.77.259]{}. URL <https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.77.259>.
C. Schön, E. Solano, F. Verstraete, J. I. Cirac, and M. M. Wolf. Sequential generation of entangled multiqubit states. *Phys. Rev. Lett.*, 95:0 110503, Sep 2005. [doi: ]{}[10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.110503]{}.
C. Schön, K. Hammerer, M. M. Wolf, J. I. Cirac, and E. Solano. Sequential generation of matrix-product states in cavity qed. *Phys. Rev. A*, 75:0 032311, Mar 2007. [doi: ]{}[10.1103/PhysRevA.75.032311]{}.
Nikitas [Stamatopoulos]{}, Daniel J. [Egger]{}, Yue [Sun]{}, Christa [Zoufal]{}, Raban [Iten]{}, Ning [Shen]{}, and Stefan [Woerner]{}. . *arXiv e-prints*, art. arXiv:1905.02666, May 2019.
René Steijl and George N. Barakos. Parallel evaluation of quantum algorithms for computational fluid dynamics. *Computers & Fluids*, 173:0 22 – 28, 2018. ISSN 0045-7930. [doi: ]{}[https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compfluid.2018.03.080]{}.
F. Verstraete, J. J. García-Ripoll, and J. I. Cirac. Matrix product density operators: Simulation of finite-temperature and dissipative systems. *Phys. Rev. Lett.*, 93:0 207204, Nov 2004. [doi: ]{}[10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.207204]{}. URL <https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.207204>.
F. Verstraete, V. Murg, and J.I. Cirac. Matrix product states, projected entangled pair states, and variational renormalization group methods for quantum spin systems. *Advances in Physics*, 570 (2):0 143–224, 2008. [doi: ]{}[10.1080/14789940801912366]{}.
Guifré Vidal. Efficient classical simulation of slightly entangled quantum computations. *Phys. Rev. Lett.*, 91:0 147902, Oct 2003. [doi: ]{}[10.1103/PhysRevLett.91.147902]{}. URL <https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.91.147902>.
J. Weideman and B. Herbst. Split-step methods for the solution of the nonlinear schrödinger equation. *SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis*, 230 (3):0 485–507, 1986. [doi: ]{}[10.1137/0723033]{}.
Nathan Wiebe and Martin Roetteler. Quantum arithmetic and numerical analysis using repeat-until-success circuits. *Quantum Info. Comput.*, 160 (1-2):0 134–178, January 2016. ISSN 1533-7146.
Stefan Woerner and Daniel J Egger. Quantum risk analysis. *npj Quantum Information*, 50 (1):0 15, 2019. [doi: ]{}[10.1038/s41534-019-0130-6]{}.
Christa [Zoufal]{}, Aur[é]{}lien [Lucchi]{}, and Stefan [Woerner]{}. . *arXiv e-prints*, art. arXiv:1904.00043, Mar 2019.
Technical annexes
=================
Reduced density matrix {#app:reduced-dty}
----------------------
For this analysis, assume that we have produced a GR state up with $m$ bits and we wish to extend it for additional $k$ bits. Our intermediate goal is to show that there exists an Schmidt decomposition of the new state into two sets of $m$ and $k$ qubits $$\label{eq:Schmidt}
\ket{p^{(m+k)}} = \sum_\alpha \lambda_\alpha^{1/2}\ket{\xi_\alpha^{(m)}}\otimes\ket{\xi_\alpha^{(m,k)}},$$ with a small amount of entanglement between its components $$S[\rho^{(m,k)}] = -\sum_\alpha\lambda_\alpha\log(\lambda_\alpha).$$
Our first goal is to derive an expression for $\rho^{(m,k)}.$ In our extended state, the coordinates $x$ are a function two numbers of $m$ and $k$ bits, which we label $s$ and $u.$ These numbers combine to form a larger previous index $s$ with $m+k$ bits. More precisely $$x \in a+ \delta^{(m)}s+\delta^{(m+k)}u=: r_s + \epsilon_u,\;\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
s=0,1,\ldots,2^{m}-1, \\
u=0,1,\ldots,2^{k}-1.
\end{array}\right.$$ For convenience, we will us split $x_z = r_s + \epsilon_u,$ separating a large and small length scale. We can write $$\rho^{(m,k)} = \sum_{s,u,v} \sqrt{p^{(m+k)}(r_s+\epsilon_u)p^{(m+k)}(r_s+\epsilon_{v})}{\ensuremath{\ket{u}\!\bra{v}}}.
\label{eq:reduced-dty}$$ Starting with Eq. , we split the density matrix into $$\rho^{(m,k)} = {\ensuremath{\ket{e}\!\bra{e}}} + \sigma,$$ with the unit vector $$\ket{e} = \frac{1}{2^{k/2}}\sum_{u=0}^{2^k-1}\ket{u},$$ and the perturbation $$\braket{u|\sigma|v} = \sum_s\left[ \sqrt{p^{(m+k)}(r_s+\epsilon_u)p^{(m+k)}(r_s+\epsilon_v)}-\frac{1}{2^k}p^{(m)}(r_u) \right].$$ Thanks to the mean-value theorem, we know that $p(x)$ achieves its mean value $$\bar{p}^{(m)} = \frac{1}{\delta^{(m)}} p^{(m)}(r_s) = p(\bar{r}_s)$$ at some point $\bar{r}_s$ in the interval $[r_s,r_s+\delta^{(m)}].$ We can therefore bound $$p^{(m+k)}(r_s+\epsilon_u) = \int_{r_s+\epsilon_u}^{r_s+\epsilon_u+\delta^{(m+k)}}p(w)\mathrm{d}w
\leq \delta^{(m+k)}\times \left[ p(\bar{r}_s) + D_p \delta^{(m)} \right],$$ where $D_p=\max_{a\leq x\leq b}p'(x).$ Using $\delta^{(m+k)}=\delta^{(m)}/2^k,$ we bound $$|\sigma_{uv}| \leq \sum_s \frac{1}{2^k} D_p (\delta^{(m)})^2 = D_p(b-a)^2 \frac{1}{2^{m+k}}$$
We can now use this bound in various ways. We can for instance study the purity of the state, using ${\mathrm{tr}}(\sigma^2)\geq 0$ to obtain $$P[\rho] = {\mathrm{tr}}{\rho^2} = 1 + {\mathrm{tr}}(\sigma^2) - 2{\mathrm{tr}}\braket{e|\sigma|e} \geq 1 - 2D_p(b-a)^2 \frac{1}{2^{m}},$$ a value that vanishes exponentially with the number of qubits. In the particular case in which $k=1,$ the two eigenvalues of the reduced density matrix are $$\lambda_\pm = \frac{1}{2}\left( 1\pm\sqrt{2P-1} \right).$$ Using the bound $$H_2(x) = -x\log_2(x)-(1-x)\log_2(1-x)\leq 2\sqrt{x(1-x)},$$ we find that the von Neumann entropy is upper bounded by Eq. .
We can also bound the von Neumann entropy of the reduced density matrix for a larger number of extra qubits. Introducing the trace norm of $\sigma$ $$T[\sigma] = \frac{1}{2}\Vert\sigma\Vert_1 = \sum_{uv}|\sigma_{uv}| \leq D_p(b-a)^2 \frac{1}{2^{m-k+1}}.$$ Manipulating the Fannes-Audenaert bound [@audenaert2007] $$|S(\rho) - S({\ensuremath{\ket{e}\!\bra{e}}})| \leq T\log_2(2^k-1) +H_2(T) \leq T (k-e^{-k+1}) + 2\sqrt{T},$$ we have that the entropy can be made arbitrarily close to zero as we make $T$ smaller and smaller, by increasing $2^{mc-k+1}.$ For sufficiently small $T,$ we can neglect the first term and write .
[^1]: While $m=14$ qubits do not challenge the computational capabilities of classical computers, in one dimension this precision leads to discretization error $6\times 10^{-6}$ so small that the plots do not change by enlarging the register.
[^2]: When there is a lot of squeezing, or when the interval size $|b-a|$ is orders of magnitude larger than the exponential width, the computer cannot represent the extreme values that appear in the MPO tensors .
|
---
author:
- 'Juste Raimbault [^1], Arnaud Banos [^2], and René Doursat [^3]\'
title: |
**A Hybrid Network/Grid Model of\
Urban Morphogenesis and Optimization**
---
[[**Abstract.**]{} We describe a hybrid agent-based model and simulation of urban morphogenesis. It consists of a cellular automata grid coupled to a dynamic network topology. The inherently *heterogeneous* properties of urban structure and function are taken into account in the dynamics of the system. We propose various layout and performance measures to categorize and explore the generated configurations. An *economic evaluation* metric was also designed using the sensitivity of segregation models to spatial configuration. Our model is applied to a real-world case, offering a means to optimize the distribution of activities in a zoning context.\
[**Keywords.**]{} agent-based modeling, cellular automata, bi-objective pareto optimization, evidence-based urbanism, urban morphogenesis.]{}
Introduction {#sec_intro}
============
Recent progress in many disciplines related to urban planning can be interpreted as the rise of a “new urban science” according to Batty [@batty2013new]. From agent-based models in quantitative geography [@heppenstall2012agent], in particular the successful Simpop series by Pumain et al. [@pumain2012multi], to other approaches termed “complexity theories of cities” by Portugali [@portugali2012book], involving physicists of information theory such as Haken [@haken2003face] or architects of “space syntax theory” such as Hillier [@hillier1976space], the field is very broad and diverse. Yet, all these works share the view that urban systems are quintessentially *complex systems*, i.e. large sets of elements interacting locally with one another and the environment, and collectively creating a emergent structure and behavior. Taking into account the intrinsic *heterogeneity* of geographical and urban systems, this view lends itself naturally to an agent-based modeling and simulation (ABMS) approach.
Among the most popular ABMS methods are cellular automata (CA), in which agents are cells that have fixed locations on a grid and evolve according to the state of their neighbors. CA models of urban planning, in particular the reproduction of existing urban forms and land-use patterns, have been widely studied, notably by White and Engelen [@white1993cellular], then analyzed [@batty1997cellular; @batty1997possible] and synthesized [@Bat07] by Batty. A recent review by Iltanen [@iltanen2012cellular] of CA in urban spatial modeling shows a great variety of possible system types and applications. They include, for example, “microeconomic” CA for the simulation of urban sprawl [@DBM11], “linguistic” CA (including real-time rule update via feedback from the population) for the measure of sustainable development in a fast growing region of China [@Wu96alinguistic], and one-dimensional CA [@peeters2009space] showing discontinuities and strong path-dependence in settlement patterns.
In this context, we propose a *hybrid* model of urban growth that combines a CA approach with a graph topology containing long-range edges. It is inspired by Moreno et al.’s work [@MBB09; @moreno2007conception], which integrates a network dynamics in a CA model of urban morphology. Its goal was to test the effects of physical proximity on urban development by introducing urban mobility in a network whose evolution was coupled with the evolution of urban shape. We generalize this type of model to take into account *heterogeneous urban activities* and the *functional properties* that they create in the urban environment. This idea was introduced by White [@white2006modeling] and explored by van Vliet et al. [@van2012activity] but, to our knowledge, never considered from the perspective of *physical accessibility* and its impact on sprawl patterns.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. The model and indicator functions used to quantify the generated patterns are explained in Section \[sec\_model\]. Next, Section \[sec\_results\] presents the results of internal and external validations of the model by sensitivity analysis and reproduction of typical urban patterns. It is followed by an application to a concrete case, proposing a bi-objective optimization heuristic of functional configuration based on the relevant objective functions from the validation study. We end with a discussion and conclusion in Sections \[sec\_discussion\] and \[sec\_conclusion\].
Model description {#sec_model}
=================
Agents and rules
----------------
The world is represented by a square lattice $(L_{i,j})_{1\leq i,j\leq N}$ composed of cells that are empty or occupied (Fig. \[fig\_lattice\]). This is denoted by a function $\delta(i,j,t)\in\{0,1\}$, where time $t$ follows an iterative sequence $t\in\mathbb{T} = \tau\mathbb{N} = \{0, \tau, 2\tau, ...\}$ [@golden2012modeling] with a regular time step $\tau$. Another evolving structure is laid out on top of the lattice: a Euclidean network $G(t)=(V(t),E(t))$ whose vertices $V$ are a finite subset of the world and edges $E$ (its agents) represent *roads*. In the beginning, the lattice is empty: $\delta(i,j,0)=0$, and the network is either initialized randomly (e.g. uniformly) or set to a user-specified configuration $G(0)=(V_0,E_0)$. In order to translate functional mechanisms into the growth of a city, we assume that the initial vertices include a subset formed by *city centers*, $C_0\subset V_0$, which have integer *activities*, denoted by $a:C_0\rightarrow\{1,\ldots,a_{\max}\}$.
To characterize the urban structures emerging in this world, we define in general a set of $k$ functions of the lattice, $(d_k(i,j,t))_{1\leq k\leq K}$, called *explicative variables*. These variables are here: $d_1$, the *density*, i.e. the average $\delta$ around a cell $(i,j)$ in a circular neighborhood of radius $\rho$; $d_2$, the Euclidean *distance* of a cell to the nearest road; $d_3$ the *network-distance* of a cell to the nearest city center, i.e. the sum of $d_2$ and edge lengths; and $d_4$, the *accessibility* of activities (or rather difficulty thereof), written $$d_4(i,j,t)=\left(\frac{1}{a_{\max}}\sum_{a=1}^{a_{\max}}d_3(i,j,t;a)^{p_4}\right)^{1/p_4}$$ where $d_3(i,j,t;a)$ is the network-distance of the cell to the nearest center with an activity $a$, and $p_4\geq1$ (typically 3) defines a $p$-norm.
A set of weights $(\alpha_k)_{1\leq k\leq K}\in[0,1]^K$ is assigned to these variables to tune their respective influence on what we define as the net *land value* of a cell, as follows: $$v(i,j,t)=\frac{1}{\sum_k \alpha_k}\sum_{k=1}^K \alpha_k\;\frac{d_{k,\max}(t)-d_k(i,j,t)}{d_{k,\max}(t)-d_{k,\min}(t)}.$$
Houses are preferentially built where $v$ is high, i.e. $d_k$’s are low. Thus the evolution of the system proceeds in three phases at each time step: (a) all values $v(i,j)$ are updated, (b) among the cells that have the best values, $n$ new cells are randomly chosen and “built” (set to $\delta=1$); (c) for each built cell, if $d_2$ is greater than a threshold $\theta_2$ (maximum isolation distance), then that cell is directly connected to the network by creating a new road branching out orthogonally from the nearest edge.
Network initialization is random (see details in \[sec\_extval\]), and the selection of new cells is also random among identical values of $v$. A sensitivity analysis and model exploration is conducted in the next section to determine the relative effect of parameters with respect to these sources of randomness. In any case, growth is halted after a constant amount of time $T$, evaluated from experiments, so that the final structure is neither “unfinished” nor filling out the world (see \[sec\_extval\]). Fig. \[fig\_flowchart\] displays the core ABMS flowchart with feedback interactions between agents.
![The hybrid network/grid model. *Blue arrows*: feedback interactions. *Red arrows*: output evaluation functions.[]{data-label="fig_flowchart"}](lattice){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
![The hybrid network/grid model. *Blue arrows*: feedback interactions. *Red arrows*: output evaluation functions.[]{data-label="fig_flowchart"}](flowchart){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
Evaluation functions
--------------------
Once a structure is generated, its properties need to be quantified so that it can be categorized or compared to other structures for optimization purposes. To this goal, we define various *evaluation functions*, both objective quantification measures and structural fitness values. The measures described in this section take into account all the explicative variables, whose distributions over the grid are emergent properties that cannot be known in advance and are therefore essential to monitor.
#### Morphology
To assess the morphological structure of an urban configuration, we map it onto a 2D metric space defined by a pair of global indicators $(D,I)$ called the *integrated density* and the *Moran index* (Fig. \[fig\_morpho\]). The density $D\in[0,1]$ is calculated by taking the $p$-norm (with exponent $p_D\geq 1$, typically 3) of the local densities $d_1$: $$D(t)=\left(\frac{1}{\sum_{i,j} \delta(i,j,t)}\!\!\sum_{\scriptstyle i,j=1\atop\scriptstyle\delta(i,j,t)\neq0}^N\!\!d_1(i,j,t)^{p_D}\right)^{1/p_D}$$ Moran’s $I$, an index of spatial autocorrelation, is widely used in quantitative geography [@tsai2005quantifying; @lenechet:hal-00696445] to evaluate the “polycentric” character of a distribution of populated cells. It is defined by $$I(t)=\frac{M^2}{\sum_{\mu\neq\nu} 1/d_{\mu\nu}}\frac{\sum_{\mu\neq\nu} (P_\mu-\overline{P})(P_\nu-\overline{P})/d_{\mu\nu}}{\sum_{\mu=1}^{M^2}(P_\mu-\overline{P})^2}$$ where the lattice is partitioned into $M\times M$ square areas, at an intermediate scale between cell size and world size ($1\ll\!M\ll\!N$), $d_{\mu\nu}$ is the distance between the centroids of areas $\mu$ and $\nu$, $(P_\mu)_{1\leq\mu\leq M^2}$ denotes the number of occupied cells in each area, and $\overline{P}$ is their global average. We can recognize in this formula the normalized ratio of a modified covariance (pairwise correlations divided by distances) and the variance of the distribution. Moran’s $I$ belongs by construction to the interval $[-1,1]$, where values near 1 correspond to a strong monocentric distribution, values around 0 to a random distribution, and values near $-1$ to a checkered pattern (every other cell occupied). Usually, polycentric distributions have relatively small positive $I$ values, depending on the size and distance between centers.
#### Network performance
Due to the branching nature of the growth algorithm, the network of roads $G$ cannot contain any other loops than the ones initially present in $G_0$. Therefore, notions of “clustering coefficient” or “robustness” (with respect to node removal) are not relevant here. On the other hand, since $G$ is intended to simulate a *mobility* network, we can evaluate its performance by defining a *relative speed* [@banos2012towards] $S$, representing the “detours” imposed by $G$ with respect to direct, straight travels: $$S(t)=\left(\frac{1}{\sum_{i,j}\delta(i,j,t)}\!\!\sum_{\scriptstyle i,j=1\atop\scriptstyle\delta(i,j,t)\neq0}^N\!\!\left(\frac{d_3(i,j,t)}{e_3(i,j,t)}\right)^{p_S}\right)^{1/p_S}$$ where $p_S\geq 1$ (also 3), and $e_3(i,j,t)$ is the direct Euclidean distance between cell $(i,j)$ and the nearest city center over the network, i.e. the one that realizes the value of $d_3(i,j,t)$. Note that $S\ge1$ and is actually higher for more convoluted networks (thus it is a measure of “slowness”, but we still employ “speed”).
#### Functional accessibility
The global functional accessibility $A$ to city centers is another $p$-norm (also 3), based on the relative local accessibility from each cell, which is $d_4$ over its maximum: $$A(t)=\left(\frac{1}{\sum_{i,j}\delta(i,j,t)}\!\!\sum_{\scriptstyle i,j=1\atop\scriptstyle\delta(i,j,t)\neq0}^N\!\!\left(\frac{d_4(i,j,t)}{d_{4,\max}(t)}\right)^{p_A}\right)^{1/p_A}$$
This normalization puts $A$ in $[0,1]$ and allows comparing configurations of different sizes. Like $S$, “better” urban configurations are characterized by a lower $A$.
#### Economic performance
It was shown by Banos [@banos2012network] that the Schelling segregation model, a standard ABM of socio-economic dynamics [@schelling1969models], was highly sensitive to the spatial structures in which it could be embedded, since segregation rules depended on proximity. This justifies the use of this model as an evaluation of *economic performance* of our urban configurations, measuring how much structure influences segregation. To this aim, we implemented a model of residential dynamics based on the work of Benenson et al. [@benenson1998multi]. The output function is a segregation index $H(t)$ calculated on the residential patterns that emerge inside a distribution of built patches. For urban structures produced in a practical case (Section \[sec\_practapp\]), we obtained densities of mobile agents between 0.1 and 0.2. Following Gauvin et al. [@gauvin2009phase], the phase diagram of the Schelling model indicates that in such a density range, tolerance thresholds of 0.4 to 0.8 lead to clustered frozen states, where the calculation of a spatial segregation index is indeed relevant. The detailed description of this economic model is out of the scope of this paper.
Results {#sec_results}
=======
Our hybrid network/grid model was implemented in NetLogo [@NetLogo]. Plots and charts were created in R [@R] from exported data. Processing of GIS Data (for vectorization by hand of simple raster data) was done in QGIS [@QGIS_software]. Exploration of the 4D space of explicative variables’ weights $\alpha_k$ was conducted inside the $[0,1]^4$ hypercube with a linear increment of 0.2. This created $6^4-1=1295$ points, from $(0,0,0,0)$ excluded to $(1,1,1,1)$ included, via $(0.2,0,0,0)$, etc. Unless otherwise noted, the output values of the evaluation functions were averaged over 5 simulations for each combination of the $\alpha_k$’s.
Generation of urban patterns: validation of the model {#sec_extval}
-----------------------------------------------------
#### Typical patterns
We ran the model on different initial configurations, in which a few city centers $C_0$ (typically 4) were randomly positioned on a $56\times 56$ lattice, and their activity values drawn in $[1,a_{\max}]$ (both uniformly). The initial network $G_0$ was built progressively and quasi deterministically over increasing distances, by creating isolated clusters and linking them until they percolated into one component. The initial grid was empty ($\delta=0$ everywhere). Simulations were cut off at 30 iterations ($T=30\tau$), before the sprawl of urban settlements reached the square boundaries of the world and started “reverberating”. Since this artifact occurred the fastest in a density-driven model, $\alpha_k=(1,0,0,0)$, we empirically assessed $T$ in that case and applied it everywhere.
Different parameter settings generated very diverse structures. In particular, we observed striking similarities between the patterns obtained for binary values of $\alpha_k$’s in some “corners” of the hypercube (one or two measures $d_k$ with weight 1, the others 0), and the fundamental urban configurations that Le Corbusier had identified in his 1945 analysis of human settlements [@mangin2004ville] (Fig. \[fig\_corbu\]).
![Typical patterns obtained from our model, reproducing Le Corbusier’s analysis of “human settlements”. In his 1945 attempt to theorize urban planning, Le Corbusier analyzed the form of cities by hand and outlined three types of settlements: radial-concentric cities, linear cities along communication roads, and rural communities. We were able to reproduce this typology by setting the weights of the explicative variables of our model to corner values: *Top-right*: $(\alpha_k)=(1,0,0,0)$, i.e. density-based only. *Middle*: $(0,1,0,0)$, i.e. distance-to-road only. *Bottom*: $(0.2,0,1,0)$, i.e. network-distance combined with a little density. *Left*: source [@mangin2004ville].[]{data-label="fig_corbu"}](corbu){width="\columnwidth"}
![Influence of each explicative variable $d_k$ on urban morphogenesis. Color darkness corresponds to the relative value of weight $\alpha_k$ used during the growth of mapped structures. Whereas Figs. \[fig\_morpho\]-\[fig\_influences\] showed distinct classes at expected locations, this plot displays a rather uniform and chaotic distribution of high weights for $d_2$, $d_3$, and $d_4$, revealing a pervasive role of roads, city centers, and accessibility. Only density $d_1$ correlates better with its own evaluation function $D$ (a high influence of density results in low-density patterns), except for the cluster on the right.[]{data-label="fig_influences"}](morpho){width="\columnwidth"}
![Influence of each explicative variable $d_k$ on urban morphogenesis. Color darkness corresponds to the relative value of weight $\alpha_k$ used during the growth of mapped structures. Whereas Figs. \[fig\_morpho\]-\[fig\_influences\] showed distinct classes at expected locations, this plot displays a rather uniform and chaotic distribution of high weights for $d_2$, $d_3$, and $d_4$, revealing a pervasive role of roads, city centers, and accessibility. Only density $d_1$ correlates better with its own evaluation function $D$ (a high influence of density results in low-density patterns), except for the cluster on the right.[]{data-label="fig_influences"}](paramInfluences){width="\columnwidth"}
#### Classification of structures
Using the pair of morphological indicators $(D,I)$ defined above, and by varying the $\alpha_k$’s, we constructed a 2D map of the dynamical regimes of our system (Figs. \[fig\_morpho\]-\[fig\_influences\]), in which qualitatively different morphological “classes” could be distinguished. The projected locations of urban configurations in this plane allowed a better understanding and comparison of their features and growth process. Again, for certain corner parameter values (all of them 0 except one or two at 1), the results ended up in distinct locations on the map, which could be relatively well explained. Intermediate combinations of parameters, however, seemed to project the structures quite literally “all over the map”, which might be interpreted as the emergence of chaos in the system.
![Statistical distribution of the output evaluations. For each of the 15 corner points of the 4D hypercube of $\alpha_k$’s (excluding the origin), we ran 500 simulations from random initializations of 4 city centers $C_0$. Three resulting distributions out of these 15 are displayed, each in the form of a histogram of evaluation function values, $D$, $S$, $I$, and $A$, fitted with a Gaussian curve. *Green*: $(\alpha_k)=(1,0,0,0)$, i.e. a simulation taking into account only the density $d_1$. *Yellow*: $(0,1,0,0)$, i.e. Euclidean distance $d_2$ only. *Red*: $(0,0,0,1)$, i.e. accessibility $d_4$ only. These three histograms were chosen for their minimum overlap and clarity of display; the other 17 are similar. The narrow peaks (except one), spread about the mean by $\pm10\%$, attest to the low sensitivity of the model with respect to the spatial initialization, and validates its internal consistency. This also allowed us to rely on a smaller number of runs in our experiments.[]{data-label="fig_hists"}](goodHists2){width="\columnwidth"}
![Assessing the influence of the update scheme on the morphologies. In the $(D,I)$ classification plane, each point corresponds to 3 runs of a given combination of $\alpha_k$ parameters, repeated under a sequential ($n=1$) and under a parallel ($n=20$) update scheme. For each run, the symmetric difference $\Delta$ between the two patterns is computed and its average over the 3 runs is projected on the map. The color of a point highlights its “significance”, defined as the product of its local density (clustered points represent more frequent configurations) and its pattern size, $|\Delta|$ (large patterns are more significant). The scattered points indicate that the model is sensitive to the update scheme for certain parameters. On the other hand, the concentration of significant points near the origin and $D=0.5$ means that corner cases, such as $(1,0,0,0)$, are more robust.[]{data-label="fig_imprint"}](imprintColorordered){width="\columnwidth"}
Sensitivity analysis and parameter space exploration: internal validation
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
#### Sensitivity to initial conditions
To ensure the validity of the results, we investigated the sensitivity of the model to the spatial conditions, the initial set of nodes $C_0$, estimating in particular the number of repetitions necessary to obtain statistically meaningful values for the evaluation functions. If conclusions drawn from one case were highly susceptible to small changes in the initial layout, then the model would obviously have less significance than if there was some invariance with respect to abstract topological features (in particular the distribution of centers’ activities). The optimization heuristics would have to be designed very differently in these two cases.
Toward this assessment, we ran a large number of simulations under the same parameter values but starting from different initial $C_0$ configurations, and collected statistics on the output. For each of the 15 binary combinations of $\alpha_k$’s (excluding all zero), standard deviations were calculated over 500 runs. We obtained narrow peak distributions in most cases, with Gaussian widths typically at 10% of the mean function value (Fig. \[fig\_hists\]). In order to ensure that these were the typical widths on all the parameter space and not only on extreme binary points, we also explored the grid $\{0;0.5;1\}^{4}$ with 100 runs per point, assessing in a more representative subspace the relative spread of distributions. This confirmed that the evaluation functions were significantly less sensitive to the exact spatial locations than the parameters and overall topology, and justified our use of a smaller number of trials in subsequent experiments. Typically, assuming a normal distribution of width $\sigma = 0.1$, we needed $n=(2\sigma\!\cdot\!1.96/0.05)^2\simeq60$ trials to reach a 95% confidence interval of length 0.05, and 5 trials for a length 0.17. For practical reasons of computing speed, we chose the latter.
#### Sensitivity to update scheme
On the other hand, the emergent urban patterns depended on the number $n$ of cells filled at every iteration, before land values were recalculated at the next iteration, i.e. whether the update scheme was a sequential ($n=1$) or parallel ($n>1$). Building several houses “simultaneously” between two market reevaluations is consistent with the view that real-world functions have a response delay, here of the order of $\tau$. There must be a limit, however, and an intermediate $n$ must be found to obtain reasonable simulations.
To this aim, we explored the 4D parameter space of the $\alpha_k$’s as in Figs. \[fig\_morpho\]-\[fig\_influences\] and ran one sequential update scheme and one parallel update scheme with $n=20$ in each case. At the end of the simulation, $t=T$, the two corresponding output patterns $\delta_\mathrm{seq}$ and $\delta_\mathrm{par}$ were compared by calculating their symmetric difference, i.e. the subset of lattice cells that were built either in one or the other but not in both: $\Delta = \{(i,j);\;\delta_\mathrm{seq}(i,j,T) \neq \delta_\mathrm{par}(i,j,T)\}$. Then, these difference patterns $\Delta$ were projected on the same classification map $(D,I)$ used previously (Fig. \[fig\_imprint\]). The results showed that for many combinations of parameters, the model’s behavior could be noticeably influenced by the update scheme, as many difference patterns exhibited a nontrivial structure with high density or high Moran’s index or both. On the other hand, it exhibited a stronger invariance for the corner quadruplets of $\alpha_k$’s: in these cases the $\Delta$’s clustered near the origin and $D=0.5$. Based on this study, we decided to adopt a parallel update scheme with $n=15$ built cells per time step in the remainder of the experiments.
#### Exploration of parameter space
The above two preliminary studies validated the robustness of the model with respect to the initialization and update scheme, and helped us choose a reasonable number of runs (about 5) for each parameter combination, and a adequate degree of parallelism in the simulations ($n=15$). Next, we revisited the $\alpha_k$ hypercube (same 1295 points in the partition of step 0.2), this time calculating the complete charts of all evaluation functions. Other parameters with a direct correspondence to the real-world, depending on the scale adopted, were set to fixed values. For example, the neighborhood radius $\rho$ or the road-triggering distance $\theta_2$ were both equal to 5 cells: this number could represent 50m, characteristic of a block at the scale of a district, or 500m for a district in a city, or 5km between cities in a region.
Examples of evaluation surfaces in 2D projection spaces are shown in Fig. \[fig\_plots3d\]. Each function, $D$, $I$, $S$, and $A$, was plotted against two parameters out of four, chosen for their higher “influence” (variations in amplitude) on the function. The economic index $H$ was not calculated here (see \[sec\_practapp\]). This exhaustive exploration of parameter space was necessary to gain deeper insight into the behavior of the model. It also represents a crucial step toward making computational simulations more rigorous [@banos2013HDR].
Altogether, we observed that outputs varied for the most part smoothly, except Moran’s index which appeared more chaotic. Variations were greater in cases where one parameter was dominant. For example, the measures of density $D$, speed $S$ and (global) accessibility $A$ all exhibited a significant jump when including the effect of (local) accessibility $d_4$ in the simulations, i.e. when transitioning from $\alpha_4=0$ to $\alpha_4>0$. In particular, the more activities were influent, the denser the city became—a nonintuitive emergent effect, compared to top-down planning alternatives that would try to optimize accessibility while keeping density low. Speed, or rather “sluggishness”, exploded when density was the only influence on urban sprawl: this confirmed that pure density-driven dynamics creates anarchic growth, without concern for network performance.
As for global accessibility, or rather the difficulty thereof, it was minimal for $\alpha_4=0$ : an interesting paradoxical effect suggesting that when individual agents took into account local accessibility ($\alpha_4>0$), a few of them might have occupied the “best spots” too quickly, significantly diminishing the others’ prospects. Therefore, at the collective level, it would be better for everyone to ignore that dimension—an example where competition at the individual level does not produce the most efficient system for all. Finally, no meaningful conclusion could be formulated about the chaotic variations of Moran’s index, except for its extreme sensitivity to spatial structure.
![Sample surface plots of the evaluation functions. For each 4D field of evaluation values in the hypercube, we select two out of four parameters and display the 2D slice corresponding to the other two parameters set to $(0,0)$. Horizontal axes are reoriented in each case to minimize visual clutter. This exhaustive exploration has an intrinsic explanatory value (see text), and allows us to predict with some level of confidence how the model responds to certain input parameters.[]{data-label="fig_plots3d"}](3DWithArrowsLast){width="\columnwidth"}
{height="45.00000%"}{height="45.00000%"}
Practical example {#sec_practapp}
-----------------
In this section, we apply our model to the optimization of activities on top of a real-world urban structure obtained from a geographic file, as opposed to an randomly generated, artificial configuration. This type of scenario occurs in a planning problem where one must decide about the possible land use of predefined zones.
The practical example under study here concerns the planning of a new district. It is based on a real-world neighborhood, Massy Atlantis (Paris metropolitan area), built in 2012 (Fig. \[fig\_atlantis\]). We would like to investigate whether a more efficient planning could have been achieved. The goal of this exercise is to find an optimal assignment of two types of activities, “residential” (apartments) or “tertiary” (offices), to the centers of 9 areas located on a map. The transportation infrastructure is already in place and the train station is also considered a center with a fixed, third type of activity. A network of avenues is laid out and passes through the 9 centers. The district is initially empty (unbuilt). The particular spatial configuration was automatically imported from a GIS shapefile, so the computation could be readily applied to other cases.
Parameters of the model were set as follows: high influence of activities, $\alpha_4=1$, reflecting the fact that accessibility to home, workplace, and train station are of special importance to the agents of this district; medium influence of density, $\alpha_1=0.7$, because, not far from Paris, housing must reasonably fill the available areas; no influence of road proximity, $\alpha_2=0$, since the initial network is already built and the scale is relatively small; and no influence of network-distance, $\alpha_3=0$, because centers in this problem are abstract entities representing areas.
For every possible distribution of binary activities over the 9 areas, excluding the two uniform cases (all residential or all tertiary), the model was simulated 5 times, producing a total of $(2^9-2)\times 5=2550$ runs. The resulting configurations were examined here via a morphological projection in the $(H,A)$ plane, instead of $(D,I)$ used in the previous sections, as we judged it to be a more meaningful measure of fitness in this application. The calculation of the economic segregation index $H$ involved a secondary agent-based simulation on top of the main urban development model (details not provided here).
Results are shown in Fig. \[fig\_pareto\]. We obtained a Pareto front of “optimal solutions” trying to minimize both $H$ and $A$, while observing that the actual configuration is not far from being optimal itself, and appears to be a compromise between accessibility and economic performance. After closer examination of the Pareto front and its vicinity, we found that the distribution of activities was highly mixed in these points. More precisely, we defined a spatial heterogeneity index of center activities by $$\lambda=a_\mathrm{max}\frac{\sum_{\scriptstyle c\neq c'\atop\scriptstyle a(c)\neq a(c')}d(c,c')^{-1}}{\sum_{c\neq c'}d(c,c')^{-1}}$$ where $c=(i,j)$ and $c'=(i',j')$ are two centers, $d(c, c')$ their Euclidean distance, and $a(c)$, $a(c')$ their activities. Points in the scatterplot were colored according to their level of $\lambda$. Highly heterogeneous configurations appeared in regions of the plot distinct from homogeneous configurations, which were for the most part located in the central cluster. Optimal solutions and their neighbors all corresponded to high heterogeneity. This interesting result is a step toward evidence-based justification of mixed land use in planning—a principle often invoked by urbanists but never quantitatively demonstrated.
In conclusion, this case study is encouraging as it proposes a concrete methodology of optimal planning with respect to criteria that are relevant to a particular situation. It could be used by generically planners in similar situations, while remaining cautious on the conditions of its applicability. We discuss this point next.
![Scatterplot of all configurations in the $(H,A)$ morphological plane. A Pareto front (red circles) is apparent in the bottom left part of the plot: it corresponds to “optimal” configurations trying to minimize both $H$ and $A$ objectives. The real situation (blue circle in $H=0.067, A=0.76$) corresponds to Fig. \[fig\_atlantis\] and is not far from this front. Points are colored according to their level of heterogeneity $\lambda$, from low (black) to high (yellow). More homogeneous configurations are concentrated in the central cluster, whereas Pareto points and their neighbors have higher heterogeneity levels. This lends support to the principle of “functional diversity”, which is often adopted by planners and urbanists today but has never been backed up by computational simulations.[]{data-label="fig_pareto"}](ParetoLastGoodRealPoint){width="\columnwidth"}
Discussion {#sec_discussion}
==========
The reproduction of typical urban morphologies and the possible application to a real-world problem shown in the previous sections indicate that a model like ours can be useful for evidence-based decision-making in urban planning. Several questions remain open, however, and would need further investigation.
#### Scale of the model
One ambiguity of the model is that it can be applied at different scales, therefore there is no unique correspondence between its agents and the real world. As the above results illustrate, the simulated urban configurations may represent a system of cities at the macroscopic scale, the neighborhoods of one city at the mesoscopic scale, or the buildings of one district at the microscopic scale. Without engaging in an ontological debate over levels of abstraction, this could still be pointed out as a potential issue.
We wish to argue, however, that the multiscale applicability of our model is legitimate as a great number of urban systems and associated dynamics have been shown to be “scale-free”, in particular by Pumain [@pumain2004scaling], and even to possess fractal properties, by Batty [@FractalCities]. It means that scaling laws may also operate in our model, therefore qualitative results should remained unchanged while the quantitative evolution of variables and relations should only depend on the underlying power law’s exponent.
Barthélemy [@2013arXiv1309.3961L] warns that most multi-agent urban models fail because they do not focus on the “dominating” physical process but, instead, integrate too many aspects that bear no relevance to the emergent properties of the system. Following up on this advice, we believe that we have successfully identified “good” proxies for the dominating processes of urban morphogenesis, namely: urban density, accessibility to road network, and accessibility to main functionalities.
#### Local scope
When the model is considered at a mesoscopic or microscopic scale, another objection could be that it seems to limit itself to an artificially “closed” urban system, neglecting important contextual phenomena such as economic exchanges. Yet, although input and output flows are greatly simplified here, they are still present in implicit form. Our simulated world is not truly closed, since newly built houses are associated with a net influx of resources. Moreover, despite the absence of a direct economic force in the growth dynamics (the $H$ index is only a post-hoc metric), the attractivity of centers constitutes a proxy for underlying activity, and a form of interdependence among urban processes. Finally, other models that have taken into account the global complex network of cities [@andersson2003urban] have reproduced well-known patterns of urban systems much like ours.
Therefore, here too, local or global approaches appear to be equivalent and the modeling decisions and compromises made in each case must be compared. This question also ties in with the fundamental issue, contained in the previous point, of the existence of a “minimal dimension” for a generalized representation of urban systems. The challenge is to understand how universal the dependence between a system and its dimension may be, and if a generalized minimalist formulation can be constructed. Speculations toward that ambitious goal have been formulated by Haken [@haken2003face] through a notion of “semantic information” linked to properties of attractors in dynamical systems. This theory, however, has not been quantified, i.e. neither confirmed nor falsified.
#### Quantitative calibration
The question of the validity of the model is also linked to the need for a finer quantitative calibration based on real patterns, which creates a dilemma: on the one hand, calibration on the errors of output function proxies does not influence the formation of spatial patterns; on the other hand, calibration on the spatial patterns themselves is too constraining and may preclude the emergence of other, similar patterns. Previous works addressing the issue of calibration [@maria2003stochastic] have not been conclusive so far.
To revisit this question, we would need to apply our model at a finer grain of spatial resolution, i.e. a very large world in terms of data size. In this scenario, it would be particularly important to keep processing time under control by reducing computational complexity, for example through a cache of the network’s shortest paths. The potential increase in size can also create methodological hurdles, not just computational, as a huge amount of details in the resulting patterns might contribute to more noise than signal and significantly bias the indicators. One solution would be to create a new operator extracting the morphological envelope of the generated pattern, along the lines of an original method proposed by Frankhauser et al. [@frankhauser2005multi; @tannier:halshs-00461657]. Other ways to deal with noise may involve Gaussian smoothing.
#### Complex coupling with economic model
Our method of economic evaluation consists of “simple coupling”, i.e. running a secondary agent-based model (the basis of $H$’s calculation, not described here) after the primary urban growth simulation has finished. Another important direction of research would implement a “complex coupling” between the two models in the sense proposed by Varenne [@varenne2013modeliser]: the study of urban sprawl on other time scales would require the *simultaneous* and mutually interacting evolutions of the population, the building rents, and the terrain values. Obviously, this would lead to a more sophisticated model oriented toward a whole new set questions, such as the evaluation of long-term rent policies to foster social diversity.
Conclusion {#sec_conclusion}
==========
We have proposed a hybrid network/grid model of urban growth structures, and studied their morphological and functional properties by simulation. Results showed that it could reproduce the characteristic urban facts of a classical typology of “human settlements”, and was also applicable to a concrete scenario by calculating “optimal” solutions (in the Pareto sense) to a planning challenge in an existing zoning context. Our work provide evidence in favor of the “mixed-use city”, a topic on which literature is still scarce and future work is needed. This paradigm is now commonly advocated by urbanists, such as Mangin [@mangin2004ville] through his concept of *“ville passante”* (a pun on “evolving/flowing/pedestrian city”), and would require more validation through quantitative results.
Finally, beyond its technical achievements and potential usefulness as a decision-making tool, our work also fuels a contemporary debate on the state-of-the-art in “quantitative urbanism”. Siding with Portugali [@portugali2012complexity], we certainly agree that the conception and application of computational models is a delicate matter, which can lead to more confusion than explanation if not properly handled and validated. Depending on the scale, a careless choice of parameter values can produce dubious results. Yet, we support the idea that *quantitative* insights are paramount for a better understanding of urban and social systems. With the recent explosion in data size and computing power, evidence-based analysis and solutions are becoming a real alternative to older attitudes, such as Lefebvre’s [@henri1968droit], which doubted that scientific approaches could ever translate or predict the mechanisms of a city.
[10]{}
C. Andersson, A. Hellervik, K. Lindgren, A. Hagson, and J. Tornberg. Urban economy as a scale-free network. , 68(3):036124, 2003.
A. Banos. Network effects in schelling’s model of segregation: new evidences from agent-based simulation. , 39(2):393–405, 2012.
A. Banos. . PhD thesis, UMR CNRS G[é]{}ographie-Cit[é]{}s, ISCPIF, D[é]{}cembre 2013.
A. Banos and C. Genre-Grandpierre. Towards new metrics for urban road networks: Some preliminary evidence from agent-based simulations. In [*Agent-based models of geographical systems*]{}, pages 627–641. Springer, 2012.
M. Batty. Cellular automata and urban form: a primer. , 63(2):266–274, 1997.
M. Batty. . MIT Press, 2007.
M. Batty. . MIT Press, 2013.
M. Batty and P. Longley. . Academic Press, London, 1994.
M. Batty and Y. Xie. Possible urban automata. , 24:175–192, 1997.
I. Benenson. Multi-agent simulations of residential dynamics in the city. , 22(1):25–42, 1998.
G. Caruso, G. Vuidel, J. Cavailhes, P. Frankhauser, D. Peeters, and I. Thomas. Morphological similarities between dbm and a microeconomic model of sprawl. , 13:31–48, 2011.
P. Frankhauser and C. Tannier. A multi-scale morphological approach for delimiting urban areas. In [*9th Computers in Urban Planning and Urban Management conference (CUPUM’05), University College London*]{}, 2005.
L. Gauvin, J. Vannimenus, and J.-P. Nadal. Phase diagram of a schelling segregation model. , 70(2):293–304, 2009.
B. Golden, M. Aiguier, and D. Krob. Modeling of complex systems ii: A minimalist and unified semantics for heterogeneous integrated systems. , 218(16):8039–8055, 2012.
H. Haken and J. Portugali. The face of the city is its information. , 23(4):385–408, 2003.
L. Henri. Le droit [à]{} la ville. , 1968.
A. J. Heppenstall, A. T. Crooks, and L. M. See. . Springer, 2012.
B. Hillier, A. Leaman, P. Stansall, and M. Bedford. Space syntax. , 3(2):147–185, 1976.
S. Iltanen. Cellular automata in urban spatial modelling. In [*Agent-based models of geographical systems*]{}, pages 69–84. Springer, 2012.
F. Le N[é]{}chet and A. Aguilera. D[é]{}terminants spatiaux et sociaux de la mobilit[é]{} domicile-travail dans 13 aires urbains fran[ç]{}aises : une approche par la forme urbaine, [à]{} deux [é]{}chelles g[é]{}ographiques. In [*[ASRDLF 2011]{}*]{}, SCHOELCHER, Martinique, July 2011. http://asrdlf2011.com/.
R. [Louf]{} and M. [Barthelemy]{}. . , Sept. 2013.
D. Mangin. . ditions de la Villette Paris, 2004.
C. Maria de Almeida, M. Batty, A. M. Vieira Monteiro, G. C[â]{}mara, B. S. Soares-Filho, G. C. Cerqueira, and C. L. Pennachin. Stochastic cellular automata modeling of urban land use dynamics: empirical development and estimation. , 27(5):481–509, 2003.
D. Moreno, D. Badariotti, and A. Banos. Un automate cellulaire pour exp[é]{}rimenter les effets de la proximit[é]{} dans le processus d’[é]{}talement urbain : le mod[è]{}le raumulus. , 2009.
D. Moreno, A. Banos, and D. Badariotti. Conception d’un automate cellulaire non stationnaire [à]{} base de graphe pour mod[é]{}liser la structure spatiale urbaine: le mod[è]{}le remus. , 2007.
D. Peeters and M. Rounsevell. Space time patterns of urban sprawl, a 1d cellular automata and microeconomic approach. , 36:968–988, 2009.
J. Portugali. Complexity theories of cities: Achievements, criticism and potentials. In [*Complexity Theories of Cities Have Come of Age*]{}, pages 47–62. Springer, 2012.
J. Portugali, H. Meyer, E. Stolk, and E. Tan. . Springer, 2012.
D. Pumain. Scaling laws and urban systems. , 2:26, 2004.
D. Pumain. Multi-agent system modelling for urban systems: The series of simpop models. In [*Agent-based models of geographical systems*]{}, pages 721–738. Springer, 2012.
. . Open Source Geospatial Foundation, 2009.
. . R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, 2013.
T. C. Schelling. Models of segregation. , 59(2):488–493, 1969.
C. Tannier, G. Vuidel, and P. Frankhauser. . In J.-C. Folt[ê]{}te, editor, [*[Actes des huiti[è]{}mes Rencontres de Th[é]{}o Quant]{}*]{}, page 14, Besan[ç]{}on, France, 2008. http://thema.univ-fcomte.fr/theoq/.
Y.-H. Tsai. Quantifying urban form: compactness versus’ sprawl’. , 42(1):141–161, 2005.
J. van Vliet, J. Hurkens, R. White, and H. van Delden. An activity-based cellular automaton model to simulate land-use dynamics. , 39(2):198, 2012.
F. Varenne, M. Silberstein, et al. . 2013.
R. White. Modeling multi-scale processes in a cellular automata framework. In [*Complex artificial environments*]{}, pages 165–177. Springer, 2006.
R. White and G. Engelen. Cellular automata and fractal urban form: a cellular modelling approach to the evolution of urban land-use patterns. , 25(8):1175–1199, 1993.
U. Wilensky. Netlogo. Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL., 1999.
F. Wu. A linguistic cellular automata simulation approach for sustainable land development in a fast growing region. , 20:367–87, 1996.
[^1]: Graduate School, École Polytechnique, Palaiseau, France; and LVMT, Ecole Nationale des Ponts et Chaussées, Paris, France. :
[^2]: Géographie-cités, CNRS UMR8504, Paris, France. :
[^3]: Complex Systems Institute, Paris Île-de-France (ISC-PIF), CNRS UPS3611. :
|
---
abstract: 'We introduce a kind of partial observability to the projective simulation (PS) learning method via Dirac notation. It is done by adding a projection operator and an observability parameter to the original formulation of the efficiency in PS model. Our examples are from invasion toy problem regarding a multi-agent setting.'
author:
- 'R. Kheiri'
date: 'Received: date / Accepted: date'
title: 'A Projective Simulation Scheme for a Partially-Observable Multi-Agent Game '
---
[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 {#intro}
============
Projective simulation, to put it briefly, is an embodied learning method which tries to represent a reductionist approach of a brain-like learning (thinking) scheme utilizing random walks between some network of clips via their interface edges as episodic and compositional memories. In the article titled “projective simulation for artificial intelligence” [@Briegel1], the authors formulate PS model using a toy problem as “invasion game” and checked the speed of learning, maximum blocking efficiency, etc. from which we expand our examples on it for the early step of introducing the partially observable PS method.
As the primary feature, the PS thinking process is considered to be decoupled from immediate motor action since the random walks happen between virtual (fictitious) percept and action clips in the memory (networks of clips) itself which can be modified (updated) both in the number of its clips and/or in the transition probabilities between the clips via reflections or some compositional properties before the real action $a$ takes place. Due to the ability of the creation of new clips in the network of clips,[^1]one may think of every percept clip or every action clip just as a network clip in the system. Therefore one can formulate PS model just on the network’ clips irrespective of the kind of them. Therefore the transitional probabilities between every two clips $c_i$ and $c_j$ in the time step $t$ can be written as a normalized conditional probability function build of the wight transitions ${\omega}^{(t)} (c_i ,c_j )$. $$P^{(t)} ( c_j |c_i ) = \frac{{\omega}^{(t)} (c_i, c_j )}{\sum_k {\omega}^{(t)} (c_i, c_k)},
\label{eqprob}$$ where ${\omega}^{(t)} (c_i ,c_j ) = f (h^{(t)} (c_i ,c_j ) )$ is modified as an adaptation rule of $$h^{(t+1)} (c_i, c_j ) = h^{(t)} (c_i, c_j ) - \gamma ( h^{(t)} (c_i, c_j ) -1 ) + \sum_l \delta (c_i , c_{k_l} ) \delta (c_j, c_{m_l}) {\lambda}^{(t+1)}
\label{eqtrans}$$ when the edges $(c_{k_l}, c_{m_l})$ were traversed during the last random walk, where $0\leq \gamma \leq 1$ is a forgetting factor (damping parameter), and $\lambda$ is a non-negative reward that will increment the related *h*-value function. It follows that the forgetting factor $ \gamma $ in Eq. \[eqtrans\] can show a positive effect in speed-up learning and an adverse effect on the amount of efficiency.[^2] The simplest function for $\omega$ is for $f(h)=h$ as will be used in the current study and have used in the previous studies[^3]. In addition, the weight matrix $\omega = h^{(t)} (c_i, c_j)$ is initially unit ($h^{(1)} (c_i, c_j )=1$) for all edges.
Subsequently, learning happens by changing transition probabilities of Eq. \[eqprob\] on a given pair of $(c_i, c_j )$ by updating the rule of Eq. \[eqtrans\]. One can evaluate the efficiency of learning, $r^{(t)}$, by adding together the amounts of desirable joint probabilities $P^{(n)} (a_s^{*} , s)$ at time $t$, where $ a_s^{*} $ is a pleasing action on a given percept $ s $. Assuming that $$r^{(t)} = \sum_s P^{(t)} (s)\, P^{(t)} (a_s^{*} |s) , \quad P^{(n)} (s) = \frac{1}{\textit{number of different percepts}},$$ then we have $$r^{(t)} = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^N P^{t} (a_{s_i}^{*} | s_i ).
\label{eqoriggin}$$
There are other important properties in the PS scheme such as edge-glow mechanism $ g(c_i, c_j ) \in [0, 1] $ [@Briegel2; @Alexey1] which refers to a delayed reward $ g^{(t+1)} (c_i, c_j ) \, \lambda^{(t+1)} $ for a non-traversed edge in the right hand of Eq. \[eqtrans\]. In the current study, however, our examples contain only the invasion game for which the agent performs optimally in case we do not have such temporal correlations that are $ g=0 $ [@Briegel3]. Accordingly, the adaptation rule of Eq. \[eqtrans\] is enough for our purpose here.
Projective simulation as a new model for classical and quantum artificial intelligence needs to be expanded in all AI directions as a lot of works have been done so far. Particularly, some classical studies are [@Briegel1; @Briegel2; @Briegel3; @Alexey1] and some quantum works are [@Dunjko1; @Tiersch11; @JensClausen.; @Alexey2; @Dunjko2]. In the current study, we use Dirac notation, which is a useful theoretical method in both classical AI and quantum context, to speak of the influence of a partially observable environment on the efficiency of a given agent, though my results are presented classically here.
Partially observability and multi-agent approaches have been considered widely in AI [@KaelblingLittman; @book:Russel; @book:Sigaud] and reinforcement learning [@Fujita; @Doshi]. In this paper, we introduce the notion of a partially observable environment to the PS learning method using a set of belief states in the formulation of efficiency. As our examples, we use a multi-agent invasion setting where another agent as an interpreter can teach the percepts to the defender. Afterwards, every agent can be considered as a simultaneous learner-teacher where there could be some game theoretical aspects therein.
A one way partially observable projective simulation (POPS)
===========================================================
In a partially observable environment, the agent may be unable to observe the current state. In this approach, a fully observable environment is just a special case of the partial observability when the belief state ($b$) is equal to the current percept ($s$) for every real percept $s$ at all times. It is believed that partially observable AI can add more realistic examples to the entirely observable AI scenarios.
We track a multi-agent partially observable example in this article, though our following formulation is independent of any multi-agent hypothesis and I think it will be beneficial as an interior network structure too. For a multi-agent setting, there are two main streams in literature as interactive partially observable [@Gmytrasiewicz1; @Gmytrasiewicz2; @Panella] and also decentralized partially observable [@Bernstein1; @bookchapter:Oliehoek; @Amato1].
In the PS context, remembering efficiency of Eq.\[eqoriggin\] and using a vector notation for $N$ different percept-actions, then $$r^{(t)} = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^N \, \langle a_{s_i}^{*} | s_i \rangle.
\label{eqfullyy}$$
Where we omitted the superscript $ t $ for the probabilities. The environments, so far, have been stochastic, fully observable (since the agent observes real percepts) and containing one learning agent. However, people may think of expanding a vector space on a different basis to make some belief states from the world states $ | s_i \rangle $. As a tangible example, considering one another intelligent agent as an interpreter (an **intelligent projector**) as illustrated in Fig. \[interpreter:1\]. We can span our real states (world states) $ | s_i \rangle $ on the belief states $ | b_i \rangle $ which are what is learned by an interpreter (I) concerning $ s_i $. One can write a projection operator [@book:Sakurai] $ B_j $ as $$B_j = | b_j \rangle \langle b_j |.$$ Then $$| s_i \rangle = \sum_j \, | b_j \rangle \langle b_j | s_i \rangle \quad , \quad \sum_j \, \langle b_j | s_i \rangle = 1.$$ $$r^{(t)}= \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^N \sum_{j=1}^{N'} \, \langle a_{s_i}^{*} | \, B_j \, | s_i \rangle = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^N \sum_{j=1}^{N'} \, \langle a_{s_i}^{*} | b_j \rangle \, \langle b_j | s_i \rangle
\label{blockeff}$$ where $ \langle \alpha | \beta \rangle = P^{t} ( \alpha | \beta) $ and $ {N'} $ stands for the number of possible belief states which in immediate examples equal to the number of world states $ N $. One can also write the belief states’ vectors with respect to the world states using an inverse matrix for probabilities $\langle b_i | s_i \rangle $. Notice that in the probability matrix of $\langle b_k | s_k \rangle $, the summation of elements on a row is equal to one $ \sum_j \, \langle b_j | s_i \rangle = 1 $ but it is not the case for the summation on a column $ \sum_j \, \langle b_i | s_j \rangle $. We can also, assume that $${\delta}_{ij} = \langle s_i | s_j \rangle \, = \langle a_i | a_j \rangle \ = \langle b_i | b_j \rangle$$ where needed.
As a more general case, one can consider a combinational operator $ (S+B)_j $ which regards an **observability parameter** $ \alpha $ for a given environment that is some portion $ \alpha $ of all percepts to be fully observable and the rest of them be partially observable. In other words, a given world percept is visible with the probability of $ \alpha $ and is invisible with the probability of $1 - \alpha $.
$$\alpha \, S_j + ( 1 - \alpha ) \, B_j = \alpha \, | s_j \rangle \langle s_j | \, + \, ( 1 - \alpha ) \, | b_j \rangle \langle b_j | ,$$
$$r^{(t)} = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^N \sum_{j=1}^{N'} \, \langle a_{s_i}^{*} | \, \alpha \, S_j + ( 1 - \alpha ) \, B_j \, | s_i \rangle ,$$
$$r^{(t)}= \frac{\alpha }{N} \sum_{i=1}^N \, \langle a_{s_i}^{*} | {s_i} \rangle \, + \, \frac{1 - \alpha }{N} \sum_{i=1}^N \sum_{j=1}^{N'} \, \langle a_{s_i}^{*} | b_j \rangle \, \langle b_j | s_i \rangle .
\label{kabli}$$
Further, we could include the imaginary space to define our generic belief state $ | (S+B)_{j} \rangle $ as $$| (S+B)_{j} \rangle = \sqrt{\alpha} \, | s_{j} \rangle + i \, \sqrt{1 - \alpha } \, | b_j \rangle ,
\label{eqktswmtt}$$ $$(S+B)_j = \, | (S+B)_{j} \rangle \,\, \langle (S+B)_{j} | .
\label{thefifi}$$ Then, one can define the efficiency of Eq.\[kabli\] as the real part of $ r^{(t)} $ that is $$r^{(t)}= \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^N \sum_{j=1}^{N'} \, \langle a_{s_i}^{*} | (S+B)_j | s_i \rangle$$ $$\begin{aligned}
efficiency \equiv Real \, [ r^{(t)} ] = \frac{\alpha }{N} \sum_{i=1}^N \, \langle a_{s_i}^{*} | {s_i} \rangle \, + \, \frac{1 - \alpha }{N} \sum_{i=1}^N \sum_{j=1}^{N'} \, \langle a_{s_i}^{*} | b_j \rangle \, \langle b_j | s_i \rangle .
\label{jankan}\end{aligned}$$ Equation \[eqktswmtt\] is well-defined. Because the operators as $ | b_j \rangle \langle s_j | $ and $ | s_j \rangle \langle b_j | $ for $ b_j \neq s_j $ cause seemingly nonsensical probabilities in the current study. The former would bring probabilities from which when a direct world state $ s_j $ was seen, the action takes place for an indirect $ b_j $, and the effect is just vice versa for the latter.
Suppose that we have asymptotic probabilities as a function of forgetting factor, $${\langle a_k | s_l \rangle}_{max} = {\langle a_k | b_l \rangle}_{max} =
\begin{cases}
p ( \gamma_{pa} ) , \quad k = l \\
q ( \gamma_{pa} ) , \quad k \neq l
\end{cases} \\
,{\langle b_k | s_l \rangle}_{max} =
\begin{cases}
p ( \gamma_{I} ) , \quad k = l \\
q ( \gamma_{I} ) , \quad k\neq l
\end{cases}$$ where $ \gamma_{pa} $ and $ \gamma_{I} $ stand for the protagonist agent’s forgetting factor and interpreter’s forgetting factor respectively. Hence, for a simple fully observable problem with $ a_{s_i}^{*} = a_i $ we have $ r_{max} = p ( \gamma_{pa} ) $ according to Eq. \[eqoriggin\] or Eq. \[eqfullyy\]. Yet, considering our partially observable two-agent model with $ N'=N $ ($ |S| = |A| = |B|= N $) one can use Eq. \[jankan\], regarding $ r_{PO} $ for the asymptotic efficiency in a partially observable environment (versus $ r_{FO} $ preserved for a fully observable one) and write
$$\begin{gathered}
r_{PO} \equiv r_{max}^{pa} (\alpha , \gamma_{pa}, \gamma_{I} ) = \alpha \, p ( \gamma_{pa} ) + (1- \alpha ) \left[ p ( \gamma_{pa} ) . p ( \gamma_{I} ) + q ( \gamma_{pa} ) . q ( \gamma_{I} ) \right].
\label{eqrmaxxx}\end{gathered}$$
\
$$r_{PO} = p ( \gamma_{pa} ) \left\lbrace 1 - (1 - \alpha ) \left[ 1 - p ( \gamma_{I} ) - \frac{q ( \gamma_{I} )}{p ( \gamma_{pa} ) } . q ( \gamma_{I} ) \right] \right\rbrace .
\label{lalbkusab}$$ Remembering the efficiency of a given agent in a fully observable environment, $ r_{FO} = p ( \gamma_{pa} ) $, then $$r_{PO} = \beta \,\, r_{FO} , \qquad 0 \leq \beta \leq 1 \quad \Longrightarrow \quad r_{PO} \leq r_{FO}.$$ We may recall $ \beta $ as a transparency coefficient or $ \mu = 1 - \beta $ as the reduction of transparency. Besides, one can have $ q $ with respect to $ p $ according to the specific form of $ h $-matrix within a given problem, see Eq. \[diwwonehhha\] for instance, for which $$If \quad p + q \, ( N-1 ) = 1,$$ $$\mu = (1 - \alpha ) \, q ( \gamma_{I} ) \left[ (N - 1) - \frac{q ( \gamma_{pa} )}{p ( \gamma_{pa} ) } \right] , \quad N \geq 2.$$\
Our formulation can go beyond to include multi-agent games where an interpreter could be a sort of protagonist agent by itself and a protagonist agent, on the other hand, would be an intelligent interpreter too so that every agent become a simultaneous player-interpreter (see Sec. \[sectionmmultii\]). Then, some world percepts would be invisible for each agent while another agent can detect them and help its partner to have more efficiency. Assuming a different forgetting factor for every task to be done for a given agent $ i $ in a multi-agent setting containing $ n $ tasks, we could have $$\gamma_{i} = \sum_{k=1}^n \gamma_{ki} , \quad 0 \leq \gamma_{i} \leq 1.
\label{gamasamam}$$ In such a scenario, the parameter of observability $ \alpha $ can also differ for two given agents $ i $ and $ j $, that is $ \alpha_{i} \neq \alpha_{j}$.
Specific examples of a multi-agent invasion toy problem
=======================================================
The original formulation of PS has been introduced using a toy problem called invasion game as elaborated in [@Briegel1; @Briegel2]. To add partial observability employing another agent to the original projective simulation, we can assume an interpreter added to the standard invasion problem. In the basic form of the invasion game, an attacker (A) send some precepts $s \in \{ \Leftarrow , \Rightarrow \}$ (in case $ N=2 $) where a defender (D) perceives and learns them by taking action $a\in \{ - , + \}$ on a percept and getting a reward ($\lambda$). $$\{ s_1 , s_2 \} = \{ \Leftarrow , \Rightarrow \}, \qquad
\{ - , + \} = \{ a_1 , a_2 \} ,$$ where we can consider $ | s_i \rangle = \{ | \Leftarrow \rangle , | \Rightarrow \rangle \} $ and $ | a_i \rangle = \{ | - \rangle , | + \rangle \} $ for $ N=2 $ in an invasion game.
While the theoretical asymptotic efficiency for a small amount of $ \gamma $ has been derived for a fully observable one defender invasion game [@Briegel1; @Briegel2], that derivation cannot be used for an arbitrary choice of $ \gamma $ even in the simple form of one agent toy problem. The asymptotic efficiency relating to a given agent ”$ D $” that is $r_{max}^D = r_{max}^D ( \alpha , \gamma_{D}, \gamma_{I}) $ occurs with respect to $ \lim_{t \to \infty} h^{(t)} (s,a) $ regarding the adaptation rule of Eq. \[eqtrans\]. This adaptation is changed stochastically, however, in a big enough time, $ t \to \infty $, the averaged efficiencies on a large number of agents ($ m $) reaches a certain asymptote for every forgetting factor $ \gamma $ (see Appendix. \[averagefequa\]). Then one can assume that there is an effective reward function, $ \lambda_{eff} $, for every $ \gamma $ so that it becomes the averaged rewards obtained on a large number of agents $ m $. $${\left\langle \sum_l \delta (c_i , c_{k_l} ) \delta (c_j , c_{m_l}) {\lambda}^{(t+1)} \right\rangle }_{ m \to \infty} \longrightarrow \quad \lambda_{eff}^{(t+1)} (c_i , c_j , \gamma ) ,$$ thus $$h^{(t+1)} (c_i , c_j ) = h^{(t)} (c_i , c_j ) - \gamma ( h^{(t)} (c_i , c_j ) -1 ) + \lambda_{eff}^{(t+1)} (c_i , c_j , \gamma ) .
\label{effectivee}$$\
A constant reward for every time in Eq.\[eqtrans\], $${\lambda}^{(t+1)} (c_i , c_j ) = \lambda (c_i , c_j ),
\label{conditionddq}$$ leads to $$h_{max} = \lim_{t \to \infty} h^{(t)} (c_i , c_j ) \, = \, \frac{\lambda_{eff} (c_i , c_j , \gamma ) }{\gamma} + 1.$$ Then $$h_{max} =
\begin{cases}
\frac{\lambda_{eff}^{reward}}{\gamma} + 1 & \textit{for a rewarded pair of $ (c_i , c_j) $} \\
1 & \textit{for a non-rewarded pair of $ (c_i , c_j) $}
\end{cases}$$ Due to the fact that $ \lambda_{eff}^{non-reward} = 0 $, we rename $ \lambda_{eff}^{reward} = \lambda ( \gamma ) $ from so on. Given $ N $ different percept-action but just one desirable action $ a_{s_i}^{*} $ for each percept $ s_i $, we have $$p + q \, ( N-1 ) = 1,
\label{diwwonehhha}$$ and $$p_{N} ( \gamma ) = \frac{\lambda_{N} (\gamma) + \gamma}{\lambda_{N} (\gamma) + N \gamma} \quad , \quad q_{N} ( \gamma ) = \frac{ \gamma}{\lambda_{N} (\gamma) + N \gamma} , \qquad p(0) = 1, \qquad q(0) = 0.
\label{incsioo}$$
Equations \[incsioo\] are the evaluations of the asymptotic probabilities in our partially observable multi-agent model of problems for which Eq. \[conditionddq\] is satisfied. Otherwise, we may use the specific properties of a given scenario to have $ p $ and $ q $.
In the following, we consider an invasion with $ N=2 $. Figure \[effrewardx\] shows the effective reward of the rewarded pairs of $(c_i, c_j )$ for a fully observable one agent invasion with $ \lambda^{t+1} (s, a_{s}^{*} ) =1 $. For instance, $$p_2 (\gamma \rightarrow 1) \longrightarrow \frac{1.2}{2.2}, \quad q_2 (\gamma \rightarrow 1) \longrightarrow \frac{1}{2.2}.$$
{width="75.00000%"}
**An example of an absolute partially observable environment; Regarding Equation \[blockeff\]**
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fully observable environments have been considered widely with respect to Eq. \[eqfullyy\]. Here, we start from Eq. \[blockeff\] which describe an environment in which all of the percepts are invisible to the protagonist agent. Here, in my invasion example, the belief percepts are produced by an interpreter (I), such as what is depicted in Fig. \[interpreter:1\] and coming indirectly to the defender (D). To be nontrivial, the interpreter is not a kind of a simple mirror or a polarizer. Instead it is another intelligent agent that learns the percepts $ s_i $ by itself and sends what it is learning to the defender as a new state $ b_i $, where the defender percieves them and take actions $ a_i $ on them. As it is assumed in the original paper [@Briegel1], the defender always reaches sooner to the next door than the attacker (here, with or without a stamp from the interpreter).
{width="75.00000%"}
Figures \[n\_027000\] and \[n\_227000\] show a reduction in the speed of learning (or learning time) in a partially observable environment (red solid curves) in comparison with a fully observable one (dashed curves) when the interpreter’s forgetting factor is zero. Whereas, we have a reduction in the efficiency of the defender as illustrated in \[n\_127000\] and \[n\_1027000\] when the interpreter’s forgetting factor is not zero. While the reduction in the learning time is caused by that the defender learning must wait for the interpreter learning, the non-vanishing decrease in the efficiency is due to the portion of permanent partially observability arising from the interpreter’s forgetting factor.[^4]
Figure \[gasbu\] illustrates the same property in Fig. \[n\_1027000\] for extreme dissipation factor of $ \gamma = 1 $.
{width="5.6cm" height="4.7cm"}
It is worth noting that, the multiplied probabilities of Eq.\[blockeff\] reduce the maximum blocking efficiency of a partially observable environment in comparison with a fully observable one for every $ \gamma > 0 $ even in the case of the minimum efficiency of $ \gamma = 1 $. This is because the term including $ \gamma $ in the adaptation rule of Eq. \[eqtrans\] refers to forgetting what the agent learned in the previous states, but not the current state. Therefore, this adaptation rule leaves something (even small) more than nothing ($ r_{max} > 0.5 $) for $ \gamma = 1 $ that can be reduced in a partially observable environment.
**An example of a general fully-partially observable environment; Regarding Equation \[jankan\]** {#secsecdfga}
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a more general scenario, there are both partially and fully observable percepts in the environment where an agent is expected to act. A physics correspondence for such a situation might be where two kinds of ray lights are coming to a given (learning!) polarizer in the condition that the $ \alpha $ portion of rays is already polarized in the same direction of the polarizer. In our invasion example, one can add some portion ($ \alpha $) of fully observability to the problem. It means that the defender can see an $ \alpha $ portion of its percepts directly coming from the attacker and $ 1 - \alpha $ portion come indirectly from the interpreter. As a tangible example of the situation, one can suppose that the attacker’s signs are being sent in two different colors from which one of these colors are invisible for a given defender.
{width="75.00000%"}
It follows that, Figs. \[gasbulbdata\] and \[gasbu\] are specific examples of the current scenario with the observability parameter of $ \alpha =0 $. A comparison between the effect of the defender’s forgetting factor ($ \gamma_{D}$) and the interpreter’s forgetting factor ($ \gamma_{D}$) is illustrated in Fig. \[pilot1\], that is, the former (Gamma D) is dominated the later (Gamma I) in the amount of efficiency. Moreover, the effect of the reduction of observability $ \alpha $ in the amount of efficiency is depicted in Fig. \[kesh2\]. What apparently seems from these two, Fig. \[pilot1\] and Fig. \[kesh2\], is that the contribution of the defender itself in its efficiency is more important than the contribution of the interpreter. To be more clear, in the following, we focus on the maximum blocking efficiency (asymptotic efficiency) containing both Gamma factors ($ \gamma_{D}$ and $\gamma_{I} $).
Figure \[3d\_alpha\_1\_0\_5\] shows that, while the blocking efficiency in the plane of $ \gamma_{D} = constant $ alters drastically with changing $\alpha$, the plane of $ \gamma_{I} = constant $ has a few changes, respecting $ \alpha $ alterations, in its amounts. It is because the reduction of the observability $ \alpha $ means an increase in the contribution of the interpreter and thus its dissipation factor $ \gamma_{I} $ becomes more important. Thereby and as it might be expected, we can see that while in $ \alpha =1 $ (Fig. \[3d\_alpha\_1\]) the interpreter’s forgetting factor has no rule in the amount of maximum efficiency due to the fact that the environment is fully observable in this case, it will be as influential as the defender’s gamma factor in $ \alpha =0 $ (the absolute partially observable environment). Therefore and because of the relevant game-theoretical considerations, in the next two asymptotic figures, I will focus just on the plane of $ \gamma_{D} = constant $ to show more details about it.
Eventually, Fig. \[alpanim\] is comparing the maximum blocking efficiencies of the defender in some planes of $ \gamma_{D} = const $ in a certain amount of $\alpha = 0.5$. Obviously, there is no intersection between the lines in Fig. \[alpanim\] which refers to the domination of a smaller $ \gamma_{D} $ for a given $\alpha$.[^5] Alternatively, when we also introduce some different $ \alpha $ factor in the planes of $ \gamma_{D} = const $, it causes a bunch of plots (or a scattering) for every $ \gamma_{D} = const $ and we can see some intersection between the lines of the asymptotic efficiencies thereafter. As a result, in a certain observability ($ \alpha = const $) the line of maximum blocking efficiency dominates for a smaller $ \gamma_{D} = const $; however, the ultimate domination of a smaller $ \gamma_{D} $ can be annihilated by changes in the amount of observability of the environment.
{width="75.00000%"}
{width="75.00000%"}
In the next section, we use this consequence to have some discussion about a related 2-defender-interpreter game.
**Multi-agent invasion game** {#sectionmmultii}
-----------------------------
In this section, we consider an invasion including two agents $ i $ and $ j $ such as illustrated in Fig. \[fig:1\] and then, for every agent, $ i $, there is a forgetting factor $ \gamma_{i} $. Due to the fact that every agent has two different tasks of blocking and teaching, we consider $ \gamma_{i} = \gamma_{1i} + \gamma_{2i} $ according to Eq. \[gamasamam\], where the first Gamma $ \gamma_{1i} $ stands for a forgetting factor in a blocking task belonging to the agent $ i $ and the second Gamma $ \gamma_{2i} $ stands for its forgetting factor in a teaching (helping) task. Furthermore, it assumed that every agent can select to be absolutely selfish ($ \gamma_{1i} =0 , \gamma_{2i} = \gamma_{i} $) as a defender, sacrifice its blocking task ($ \gamma_{1i} = \gamma_{i} , \gamma_{2i} = 0 $) to be more helpful in teaching, or having every other selection among these two border options, namely, $ \gamma_{i} = ( \gamma_{1i} , \gamma_{2i} ) $, $ \gamma_{1i} + \gamma_{2i} = \gamma_{i} $.
{width="75.00000%"}
Then we can have $$\begin{gathered}
r_{max}^i (\alpha_{i} , \gamma_{1i}, \gamma_{2j} ) = \alpha_{i} \, p ( \gamma_{1i} ) + (1- \alpha_{i}) \left[ p ( \gamma_{1i} ) . p ( \gamma_{2j} ) + q ( \gamma_{1i} ) . q ( \gamma_{2j} ) \right] ,
\label{eqrmaxx}\end{gathered}$$\
according to Eq. \[eqrmaxxx\]. For example, if $$\begin{cases}
\alpha_{i} = \alpha_{j} = \alpha , \\
\forall k \quad \gamma_{ki} = \gamma_{kj} = \gamma_{k} ,
\end{cases}
\Longrightarrow \quad r_{max}^i (\alpha , \gamma_{k}) = r_{max}^j (\alpha , \gamma_{k}),$$\
which refers to the symmetry of the problem between two agents. Otherwise, the efficiency of one agent would differ from that of its partner as a function of its own forgetting factor, its partner’s forgetting factor and also the parameter of observability of the environment for one agent. With the same variables of $ \gamma_{1i}, \gamma_{2j} $ as regarded for Eq. \[eqrmaxx\], one would have $$\begin{gathered}
r_{max}^j (\alpha_{j} , \gamma_{1i}, \gamma_{2j} ) = \alpha_{j} \, p ( \gamma_{j} - \gamma_{2j} ) + (1- \alpha_{j}) [ p ( \gamma_{j} - \gamma_{2j} ) . p ( \gamma_{i} - \gamma_{1i} ) \\ + q ( \gamma_{j} - \gamma_{2j} ) . q ( \gamma_{i} - \gamma_{1i} ) ]. \end{gathered}$$
### classes of coalitions {#superadditiven .unnumbered}
Considering the collective efficiency of two gaents as $ r_{col} = r_{max}^i + r_{max}^j $, one may ask about the classes of coalitions (see [@book:MultiagentShoham] p. 386 for the definitions) in this game comparing two cases: $ r_{col-FO} (\gamma_{i}, \gamma_{j} ) $ in a fully observale environment versus $ r_{col-PO} (\alpha_{i},\alpha_{j} , \gamma_{1i}, \gamma_{2j}) $ in a partially observable environment. The former is straightforward as $$r_{col-FO} (\gamma_{i}, \gamma_{j} ) = p ( \gamma_i ) + p ( \gamma_j)$$ on one hand. However, regarding the latter, one the other hand, we deal with a four variable function. At first, we can see that every *selfish-selfish* coalition $ \gamma_i = (0 , \gamma_i ) \,\, \& \,\, \gamma_j = ( 0 , \gamma_j ) $ will be superadditive, $$\begin{aligned}
r_{max}^i = \alpha_{i} + ( 1 - \alpha_i ) p ( \gamma_j ) = p ( \gamma_j ) + \alpha_{i} q ( \gamma_j ) , \notag \\
r_{max}^j = \alpha_{j} + ( 1 - \alpha_j ) p ( \gamma_i ) = p ( \gamma_i ) + \alpha_{j} q ( \gamma_i ) . \notag \end{aligned}$$ Then $$r_{col-PO} (\alpha_i , \alpha_j , \gamma_{1i} = 0 , \gamma_{2j} = \gamma_{j} ) \geq r_{col-FO} (\gamma_{i}, \gamma_{j} ) .
\label{supsupadlll}$$\
Equation \[supsupadlll\] will be satisfied for every $ 0 \leq \gamma_{i}, \gamma_{j} \leq 1 $. Specifically, the underlying reason for being a superaddition in the *selfish-selfish* coalition of $ \gamma_{i}= \gamma_{j}= 1 $ is that it will increase the collective efficiency only due to the use of random information that two players share with each other.
Secondly, in the case of a *sacrifice-sacrifice* coalition, $ \gamma_i = (\gamma_i , 0 ) \,\, \& \,\, \gamma_j = (\gamma_j , 0 ) $, we can obtain $ r_{max}^i = p ( \gamma_i ) $, $ r_{max}^j = p ( \gamma_j ) $ according to Eq. \[eqrmaxx\] that is independent of $ \alpha_{i} \,\, \& \,\, \alpha_{j} $. Therefore, $$r_{col-PO} ( \alpha_{i}, \alpha_{j}, \gamma_{1i} = \gamma_i , \gamma_{2j}= 0 ) = r_{col-FO} (\gamma_{i}, \gamma_{j} ).
\label{adlkntkacx}$$ Hence, every *sacrifice-sacrifice* coalition will be an additive game.
On the contrary, while there are a plenty of selections which for them the coalition is superadditive, especially in the big $ \alpha $ factors (see Fig. \[colcoclckeh1\] for $\alpha_{i} = \alpha_{j} =1$), there are a variety of other selections for which, $ r_{col-PO} < r_{col-FO} $, according to the example of Fig. \[colclckeh0\], especially for small observability parameters.
### Some other game theoretical aspects {#some-other-game-theoretical-aspects .unnumbered}
After all, we can consider the maximum blocking efficiencies of $ i $ and $ j $ as a simple symmetric game. Furthermore, with $\gamma_{i} = \gamma_{j} =1$, we can analyze the game using the results in Sec. \[secsecdfga\] considering a small adjustment in the variables therein so that $$\gamma_D \rightarrow \gamma_{1i}, \qquad \gamma_I \rightarrow \gamma_{2j}, \qquad \alpha \rightarrow \alpha_i .
\label{moakasdi}$$ regarding the agent $ i $.
Beside this, if we assume two agents as two players, then every selection of every agent for its forgetting factor can be considered as a different pure strategy. For the condition of $ \gamma_{1i} + \gamma_{2i} = \gamma_{1j} + \gamma_{2j} = 1 $, a given pure strategy $ A $ would be a selection as $ A \equiv \gamma = [\gamma_{A}, 1-\gamma_{A}] $. Therefore we can have two players regarding 2 different pure strategies $ A, B $ and build our game such that playing $ A [\gamma_{A}, 1-\gamma_{A}] $ for two agents means that two agents have similar selections for their blocking and teaching forgetting factors. In addition, a payoff obtained by every agent could be considered as its maximum efficiency $ r_{max} (\alpha ) $ as a function of observability for every pure strategy. Having in mind that $ \alpha_{i} \neq \alpha_{j}$, then in a general situation there would be a variety of different payoffs for every agent.
Nevertheless, regarding the modification of Eq.\[moakasdi\], considering some other restrictions might be helpful. One can see that if every agent can choose between $ A ( \alpha_A ) $ and $ B ( \alpha_B ) $, then we can have a game as the following $$\begin{aligned}
player2\,(j) \quad \: \quad \nonumber \\ [0.2 cm]
player1 (i) \; \; \;
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
\hline & $A ( \alpha_A )$ & $B ( \alpha_B )$ \\
\hline $A ( \alpha_A ) $ & $a,a$ & $c,d$ \\
\hline $ B ( \alpha_B )$ & $d,c$ & $b,b$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$\
where the lowercase Latin letters refer to the playoffs of each player for a given pure strategy. $$\begin{cases}
a = r_{max} ( \alpha_{A}, \gamma_{A}, 1 - \gamma_{A} ) \\
b = r_{max} ( \alpha_{B}, \gamma_{B}, 1- \gamma_{B} )
\end{cases} \\
,\qquad
\begin{cases}
c = r_{max} ( \alpha_{A}, \gamma_{A}, 1 - \gamma_{B} ) \\
d = r_{max} ( \alpha_{B}, \gamma_{B}, 1- \gamma_{A} ) .
\end{cases}$$ Suppose that we always have $ \gamma_{A} < \gamma_{B} $. Then, regarding the modification of Eq.\[moakasdi\], Fig. \[alpanim\] as an example of $ \alpha = constant $ and tracking other plots in Fig. \[alpamore\] for other examples of $ \alpha = constant $ show that, in a certain amount of $ \alpha $, we have $ a +c > b + d $. Therefore, the strictly dominant strategy for every player is being absolutely selfish (selecting the lowest amount of the blocking forgetting factor) and since we have symmetry between two agents, then (absolute) selfishness is also the only Nash equilibrium. It is a pure strategy, strictly dominant for each player as well as Pareto optimal in the case of $ \alpha_A = \alpha_B $; it can also be considered as the fair share (the simplest Shapley value) between the agents in a superadditive coalition game.
In contrast, Fig. \[alpamore\] shows that regarding different amounts of observability parameter, $ \alpha_{A} \neq \alpha_{B} $, one could have more complicated games. For example, the (absolute) selfishness as the Nash equilibrium can be dominated by another Pareto optimal solution which gives a higher payoff to two agents. In particular, tracking the scattering between the maximum and the minimum curves of $ r_{max} $ for $ \gamma_{1i} = 0 $ ($ \alpha_i = 0.99$ and $\alpha_i = 0 $ respectively) in Fig. \[alpamore\] shows that there would be a variety of other selections of $ \gamma_{1i} \neq 0 $ for which the related $ r_{max} $ have some intersections with that of (absolute) selfishness of $ \gamma_{1i} = 0 $ with $ \alpha_i =0 $. In other words, regarding different amounts of observability ($ \alpha_{A} \neq \alpha_{B} $), one can build other games such as a dilemma to be played as $ A( \alpha_A ) $ or $ B( \alpha_B ) $. For instance, one can count for the payoffs if $ \gamma_A = 0 $, $ \gamma_B = 0.9 $ and $ \alpha_A = 0 $ and $ \alpha_B = 1$ which leads to
$$\begin{aligned}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|}
\hline $p(1), p(1)$ & $p(0.1), p(0.9)$ \\
\hline $p(0.9), p(0.1)$ & $p(0.9), p(0.9)$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
\
We can see that while $ p(1)$ is the Nash equilibrium, $ p(0.9) > p(1) $ is the Pareto optimal strategy; however, $ p(0.9) $ is not a Nash equilibrium itself.
Discussion {#discussion .unnumbered}
==========
- In our invasion example, one can distinguish between belief states and world states by adding another property such as color to them for simplicity. That is, for example, $ | s\rangle \in \{ | \Leftarrow \rangle , | \Rightarrow \rangle \} $, $ | a \rangle \in \{ | - \rangle , | + \rangle \} $ and $ | b\rangle \in \{ | { \color{mygreen} \Leftarrow} \rangle , | {\color{mygreen} \Rightarrow} \rangle \} $ for $ N=2 $ in a partially observable invasion toy problem. More importantly, we have used a multi-agent framework for our work. However, It is important noting that the additional properties such as different colors and also multi-agent setting have not any significant rule in the theory of the partially observable of Eq. \[jankan\]. It means that additional features such as different colors and multi-agent setting are not inherent properties and do not have vital importance in the formulation of partially observable PS.
- As a programmer point of view, one may think that we could add temporal correlations (glow mechanism [@Briegel2]) between actions down by the interpreter and actions down by the defender to recognize the world percepts little by little via delayed rewards. However, it has no sense in case the belief states are producing by another intelligent agent. Because we have two agents with two disconnected brains as their clip networks. That is, the former action clip (interpreter’s action) happens on a separate network where the latter action clip (defender’s action) occurs in the defender’s brain. Therefore we must prevent any connection between the two detached network of clips related to two agents in a multi-agent setting.
Conclusion
==========
In this paper, we add two new concepts of the *projection operator* and the *observability parameter* to the original scheme of Projective simulation (PS) for the performance of an agent in a partially observable environment. A given projector makes some belief states from the world states to the extent of the observability parameter of a given environment. We used our method in a multi-agent invasion example where the projector is a second agent called an interpreter. In this example, the fully observable percepts are coming directly from the attacker while the partially observable percepts are conveying indirectly through the interpreter. Then, we continued our case example to include the game theoretical aspects of a 2-agent toy problem.
It is worth noting that, the projective simulation model is applying in quantum artificial intelligence likewise in the classical AI. Our partially observable PS formulation, on the other hand, founded on Dirac notation as it is utilized both in the theoretical quantum mechanic as well as in the artificial intelligence. Thereby, we hope that our partially observable method can be used uncomplicatedly in the quantum AI problems such as quantum machine learning, quantum multi-agent systems and game theory, quantum random walk and quantum neural networks.
Nevertheless, In my opinion, PS model and its partially observable method can be considered widely in psychology or behavioural economics too. Owing to the existence of the difference between the fictitious memory clips of $\textcircled{\textit{s}}$, $\textcircled{\textit{a}}$ with their actual counterparts ($s, \, a$), on the other hand, PS is a compelling context for understanding the various decision-making processes among artificial people in a certain condition via different perceptions on a specific situation. For example, merging some memory clips in some compositional memory may be applied to build an abstract clip network which can form a creative thinking or an illusion that is related to one type of personality as “openness to new experiences” in the five-factor model which we want to consider as another study.
Further, the partially observable PS might be utilized in psychology by itself. Because a projector may not be just an exterior interpreter, but it can also be considered as an interior brain structure of a given agent. For instance, a brain can have some projections from the childhood, and as a result, it affects on the perception of a given situation and thereby it affects on the performance or the decision-making. Consequently, an internal projection as a part of the whole other technical methods might make some subconscious notion in the individuals or even different cultures in the societies via some more general interior-exterior projectors.
Finally, as we saw, the transparency was dependent on three parameters, the environment parameter $ \alpha $, the agent parameter $ \gamma_{pa} $ and the belief states raised by another agent for example $ \gamma_{I} $. In a general perspective, on the other hand, the transparency or a given perception can be dependent on the environment, the agent itself and its society.
I thank Alexey Melnikov for long-term discussions. I think the final version could not have been completed without any discussion.
Appendix 1: Actions versus the probability of actions {#averagefequa .unnumbered}
=====================================================
While in the original papers of PS, averaged performing rewarded actions are depicted for the efficiency, we used the probability of doing rewarded actions $ r^{(t)} $ for the same purpose.
It is due to the fact that the probability of doing an action in a large time step $ t $, as in Fig. \[figappendix11\], is a better approximation for $ r^{t \to \infty} $ than the real actions in $ t $.
Briegel, H. J., & Cuevas, G. D. (2012). Projective simulation for artificial intelligence. *Scientific Reports*, 2, 400. Mautner, J., Makmal, A., Manzano, D., Tiersch, M., & Briegel, H. J. (2015). Projective simulation for classical learning agents: A comprehensive investigation. *New Generat. Comput.*, 33(1), 69-114. Makmal, A., Melnikov, A. A., Dunjko, V., & Briegel, H. J. (2016). Meta-learning within Projective Simulation. *IEEE Access*, 4, 2110-2122. Melnikov , A. A., Makmal , A., Dunjko, V., & Briegel , H. J. (2017). Projective simulation with generalization.*Scientific Reports*, 7, 14430. Watkins, C. J. C. H., & Dayan, P. (1992). Q-learning. *Machine Learning*, 8, 279-292. Verbeeck, K., Nowé, A., Parent, J., & Tuyls, K. (2007). Exploring selfish reinforcement learning in repeated games with stochastic rewards. *Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems*, 14, 239-269. This figure is produced by *Anna Antinori* whom we have gotten permission to be re-used in our paper. The figure is depicted in the following website. https://theconversation.com/people-with-creative-personalities-really-do-see-the-world-differently-77083. Russel, S. J., & Norvig, P. (2010). *Artifical intelligence - A modern approach*. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Kaelbling, L. P., Littman, M. L., & Cassandra, A. R. (1998). Planning and acting in partially observable stochastic domains. *Artificial intelligence*, 101(1-2), 99-134. Ceren, R., Doshi, P., & Banerjee, B. (2016). Reinforcement Learning in Partially Observable Multiagent Settings: Monte Carlo Exploring Policies with PAC Bounds. In *Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2016)*, 530-538. Ishii, S., Fujita, H., Mitsutake, M., Yamazaki, T., Matsuda, J., & Matsuno, Y. (2005). A Reinforcement Learning Scheme for a Partially-Observable Multi-Agent Game. *Machine Learning*, 59, 31-54. Sigaud, O., & Buffet, O. (2010). *Markov Decision Processes in Artificial Intelligence*. New York: Wiley. Panella, A., & Gmytrasiewicz, P. (2017). Interactive POMDPs with finite-state models of other agents. *Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems*, 31(4), 861–904. Gmytrasiewicz, P., & Doshi, P. (2005). A Framework for Sequential Planning in Multi-Agent Settings. *Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research*, 24, 49-79. Doshi, P., Gmytrasiewicz, P. (2006). On the Difficulty of Achieving Equilibrium in Interactive POMDPs. In *Proceedings of the 21st national conference on artificial intelligence, vol. 2, AAAI’06*, (pp. 1131-1136). AAAI Press. Bernstein, D. S., Givan, R., Immerman, N., & Zilberstein, S. (2002). The complexity of decentralized control of Markov decision processes. *Mathematics of Operations Research*, 27(4) , 819-840. Oliehoek, F. A. (2012). Decentralized POMDPs. In *Reinforcement Learning: State of the Art, Adaptation, Learning, and Optimization* (pp. 471-503). Berlin: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Amato, C., Chowdhary, G., Geramifard, A., Ure, N. K., & Kochenderfer, M. J. (2013). Decentralized control of partially observable Markov decision processes. In *Proc. of the 52nd IEEE Conf. on Decision and Control*. Sakurai, J. J. (1994). *Modern Quantum Mechanics, Revised edn*. Reading: Addison Wesley. Shoham, Y., & Leyton-Brown, K. (2009). *Multiagent systems: algorithmic, game-theoretic, and logical foundations* (p. xiii). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Paparo, G. D., Dunjko, V., Makmal, A., Martin-Delgado, M. A., & Briegel, H. J. (2014). Quantum Speedup for Active Learning Agents. *Physical Review X*, 4, 031002. Clausen, J., & Briegel, H. J. (2018). Quantum machine learning with glow for episodic tasks and decision games. *Physical Review A*, 97, 022303. Tiersch, M., Ganahl, E., J., & Briegel, H. J. (2015). Adaptive quantum computation in changing environments using projective simulation. *Sci. Rep.*, 5, 12874. Melnikov, A., Nautrup, H. P., Krenn, M., Dunjko, V., Tiersch, M., Zeilinger, A., & Briegel, H. J. (2018). Active learning machine learns to create new quantum experiments. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences*, 201714936. Dunjko, V., & Briegel, H. J. (2018). Machine learning & artificial intelligence in the quantum domain: a review of recent progress. *Reports on Progress in Physics*.
[^1]: I may think of also annihilation of old useless clips or decaying some portion of the network (clips or edges) as a result of a sort of neurological disorder.
[^2]: The probabilities in projective simulation change fractionally as in fictitious play models and the role of forgetting (dissipation) factor in the projective simulation can be indirectly compared with the task of the discounted reward or learning factor in Q-learning [@WatkinsDayan], or the step size parameter in the linear update scheme of reinforcement learning [@Verbeeck].
[^3]: Though there could be other alternative functions like an exponential function as mentioned in [@Alexey1] similar to that of original reinforcement learning.
[^4]: In the original works, the authors have plotted their figures for action blocking, whereas mine have been planned in respect to the probability of action blocking using the fact that the action blocking averaged on an infinite number of actions would ultimately be equal to the probability of doing an action, for more details see Appendix \[averagefequa\].
[^5]: Although Fig. \[alpanim\] is depicted just for $ \alpha = 0.5 $, this consequence is true for every $ \alpha = constant $ that can be tracked in Fig. \[alpamore\].
|
---
abstract: 'We present first-principles calculations of phase coherent electron transport in a carbon nanotube (CNT) with realistic contacts. We focus on the zero-bias response of open metallic CNT’s considering two archetypal contact geometries (end and side) and three commonly used metals as electrodes (Al, Au, and Ti). Our [*ab-initio*]{} electrical transport calculations make, for the first time, quantitative predictions on the contact transparency and the transport properties of finite metallic CNT’s. Al and Au turn out to make poor contacts while Ti is the best option of the three. Additional information on the CNT band mixing at the contacts is also obtained.'
author:
- 'J. J. Palacios'
- 'A. J. Pérez-Jiménez'
- 'E. Louis'
- 'E. SanFabián'
- 'J. A. Vergés.'
bibliography:
- 'moletronics.bib'
title: 'First-principles phase-coherent transport in metallic nanotubes with realistic contacts'
---
Controversy on the observed electrical transport properties of carbon nanotubes (CNT’s) has been mostly due to our lack of control and understanding of their contact to the metallic electrodes. It has finally become clear that the contact influences critically the overall performance of the CNT and that it is crucial to lower the inherent contact resistance to achieve the definite understanding of the intrinsic electrical properties of CNT’s[@Frank:science:98; @Bachtold:prl:00; @Nygard:nature:00]. In order to determine the relevant factors behind the contact resistance so that this can be pushed down to its alleged quantum limit $R_0=h/2e^2$ per CNT channel a big experimental effort has been made both in CNT growth and lithographic techniques[@Soh:apl:99; @Zhou:prl:00; @Appenzeller:apl:01; @Kong:prl:01; @Kanda:apl:01; @Liang:prl:02; @Derycke:apl:02]. While considerable progress in this direction has already been achieved, theoretical progress, on the other hand, lags behind in this important issue.
The actual atomic structure of the electrode (and probably that of the CNT) at the contact are unknown and, most likely, change from sample to sample when fabricated under the same conditions. Atomic-scale modeling, however, can still be of guidance to the interpretation of the experiments and to the future design of operational devices with CNT’s. In this work we focus on the two key ingredients in this puzzle: The effect the atomic-scale geometry and the chemical nature of the electrode have on the transparency of the contact. We have studied open single-walled metallic (5,5) CNT’s contacted in two representative forms (see Fig. \[geom\]) to Al, Au, and Ti electrodes which are among the most commonly used metals in the experiments . From our [*ab-initio*]{} transport study we find that in CNT’s contacted to Al and Au electrodes for end-contact geometry \[see Fig. \[geom\](a)\] the two CNT bands couple weakly to the electrodes. This allows us to resolve quasi-bound CNT states in the conductance and to estimate the magnitude of the degeneracy removal due to Coulomb blockade effects in a direct manner. Moreover, we find that the two bands couple very differently to the electrodes (one of them is almost shut down for transport) and do not mix. For the side-contact geometry \[see Fig. \[geom\](b)\] the coupling is the same for both bands, but similar in strength to the end-contact geometry. Finally, our study presents the first direct numerical evidence of what has been hinted at on the basis of indirect first-principles calculations[@Andriotis:apl:00; @Yang:prb:02] and what has recently been observed in experiments[@Kong:prl:01]: Early 3-$d$ elements as Ti are probably the best choice for making high-transparency contacts to CNT’s compared to more traditional metals such as Al and Au. Although perfect transparency at the contact is nerver achieved, our calculations indicate that properly engineered Ti contacts are a good bet for future perfect contacts to CNT’s.
![ The two contact geometries considered in this work: An open (5,5) carbon nanotube end-contacted to (111) surfaces (a) and the same nanotube side-contacted (b). \[geom\] ](Al19-C150-Al19.111-m-111.end.eps "fig:"){width="2.0in"} ![ The two contact geometries considered in this work: An open (5,5) carbon nanotube end-contacted to (111) surfaces (a) and the same nanotube side-contacted (b). \[geom\] ](Al19-C200-Al19.111-m-111.side.eps "fig:"){width="2.0in"}
From a theory point of view, the “contact” problem has been previously addressed[@Choi:prb:99; @Anantram:apl:01; @Derycke:apl:02], but only partially. The reason is that a full analysis of this problem requires the use of sophisticated state-of-the-art numerical techniques to calculate electrical transport from first-principles[@Lang:prb:95; @Yaliraki:jcp:98; @Damle:prb:01], where even the electrodes need to be described down to the atomic level[@Taylor:prb:01:a; @Taylor:prb:01:b; @Palacios:prb:01; @Palacios:prb:02; @Brandbyge:prb:02]. These techniques are currently under development. First of all, charge transfer at the contact, which aligns the chemical potentials of the electrodes and the CNT, needs to be evaluated self-consistently[@Xue:prl:99; @Rubio:prl:99]. Secondly, one needs to combine the [*ab-initio*]{} calculation with Landauer’s formalism[@Datta:book:95]. Recently, we have presented a very promising approach, termed Gaussian Embedded Cluster Method[@Palacios:prb:01; @Palacios:prb:02], that allows us to address this problem in its full complexity. Our method is based on standard quantum chemistry calculations performed with the Gaussian98 code[@Gaussian:98]. A density functional (DF) calculation of a cluster comprising the CNT and a significant part of the electrodes is performed (see Fig. \[geom\]). Next, the retarded(advanced) Green’s functions associated with the self-consistent hamiltonian or Fock operator $\hat{F}$ of the cluster is modified to include the rest of the semi-infinite electrodes: $$\left [(E\pm i\delta)-\hat F - \hat\Sigma^{(\pm)}
\right ] \hat G^{(\pm)}= \hat I.
\label{green}$$ In this expression $\hat\Sigma^{(\pm)}=\hat\Sigma_{\rm R}^{(\pm)} +
\hat\Sigma_{\rm L}^{(\pm)}$, where $\hat\Sigma_{\rm R}$($\hat\Sigma_{\rm L}$) denotes a self-energy operator that accounts for the part of the right(left) semi-infinite electrode that has not been included in the initial DF calculation[^1], and $\hat I$ is the unity matrix. In a non-orthogonal basis, like those commonly used in Gaussian98, the embedded cluster density matrix takes the form $$P=-\frac{1}{\pi}\int_{-\infty}^{E_{\rm F}}{\rm Im}
\left[S^{-1} G^{(-)}(E) S^{-1} \right ]\; {\rm d}E,
\label{eqn:nab}$$ where $S$ is the overlap matrix, $G^{(-)}$ is the retarded Green’s function expressed in the non-orthogonal basis, and $E_{\rm F}$ is the Fermi energy which is set by imposing overall charge neutrality in the cluster. The density matrix is returned to Gaussian98 and the process is repeated until the procedure converges. The conductance can finally be calculated through the standard expression[@Datta:book:95]: $${\mathcal G}=\frac{2e^2}{h}{\rm Tr}[T] = \frac{2e^2}{h}{\rm Tr}
[\Gamma_L G^{(-)}\Gamma_R G^{(+)}],
\label{g}$$ where Tr denotes the trace over all the orbitals in the cluster and where the matrices $\Gamma_R$ and $\Gamma_L$ are $i(\Sigma^{(-)}_R-\Sigma^{(+)}_R)$ and $i(\hat\Sigma^{(-)}_L-\hat\Sigma^{(+)}_L)$, respectively. In order to single out the contribution of individual channels to the current one can diagonalize the transmission matrix $T$.
\]. The nanotube-surface distance has been optimized to a value of 1.8 Åand the Fermi energy is set to zero. Inset: Schematic band structure of the metallic nanotube showing the four states responsible for the resonances. (b) Transmission as a function of energy for the highest conducting channels. The symmetry of the two main channels is also shown.\[end100\] ](Al19-C100-Al19.111-m-111.end.3s3p.eps){width="3.0in"}
Figure \[end100\](a) shows $\mathcal{G}$ around the Fermi energy for a (5,5) metallic CNT composed of $N=10$ carbon layers that has been end-contacted \[Fig. \[geom\](a)\] to Al(111) surfaces (the end-carbon-layer–surface distance has been optimized to a value of 1.8Å)[^2]. Four resonances appear around the Fermi energy (set to zero). These resonances can be easily traced back to four extended states of the isolated finite CNT[@Rubio:prl:99]. Two of them ($k_1,k_2$) originate in the bonding ($\pi$) band of the CNT and the other two ($k_1^*,k_2^*$) in the antibonding ($\pi^*$) band (see inset in Fig. \[end100\]). The resonances have different widths for different bands indicating that they couple very differently to the electrodes. Moreover, the two bands do not mix with each other. This is more clearly seen in Fig. \[end100\](b) where we show the highest transmission eigenvalues of the transmission matrix. Two independent channels exhibit resonances in the energy window ($\approx 3.5 eV$) around $E_{\rm F}$ where only the $\pi$ and $\pi^*$ bands can contribute to transport. This result is consistent with the fact that $\pi^*$ states, of large angular momentum, do not couple to the low-angular momentum states of the electrode, while $\pi$ states, of low angular momentum, couple more easily[@Choi:prb:99; @Anantram:apl:01]. Notice that there is a charge transfer from the metal to the CNT, but this mainly localizes at the end carbon layer ($\approx 0.2$ per carbon atom) and it does not affect the overall band positioning in the center of the CNT.
\]. The Fermi energy has been set to zero.\[endX\] ](Al19-CX-Al19.111-m-111.end.3s3p.eps){width="3.0in"}
The specific band assignment of the resonances is nicely confirmed by their evolution on the length of the CNT presented in Fig. \[endX\]. We have calculated the conductance for $N=8,9,10,11,12$, and 13 carbon-layer CNT’s. The opposite signs of the group velocity for the $\pi$ and $\pi^*$ bands make the quasi-bound states belonging to the $\pi^*$ band shift down in energies while those belonging to the $\pi$ band shift up as $N$ increases. As expected from a simple particle-in-a-box argument applied to finite CNT’s[@Rubio:prl:99], for $N=3l$, where $l$ is an integer, we should expect two states with the same wave vector $k_n$ but in different bands to coincide at the Fermi energy. Naively one should thus expect $\mathcal{G}=4e^2/h$[@Orlikowski:prb:01]. Our results for the contacted $N=9$ and $N=12$ CNT’s show otherwise: Two resonances never coincide at the Fermi level. The reason is that Coloumb blockade prevents two (band and/or spin) degenerate quasibound states to be filled up at the same time and degeneracies are removed[^3]. From Figs. \[endX\](b) and (e) we estimate the charging energy to be $\approx 0.3$ eV in these CNT’s which is smaller than the single-particle level spacing as confirmed by experiments[@Liang:prl:02].
\]. The nanotube-surface distance has been optimized to a value of 2.2 Å. (b) Transmission as a function of energy for the three highest conducting channels.\[end150\] ](Al19-C150-Al19.111-m-111.side.3s3p.eps){width="3.0in"}
If the interpretation of the different coupling strengths of the CNT bound states with the Al electrodes is correct and angular momentum considerations are relevant, similar couplings should be expected for both bands if no axial symmetry is present. This is the case for the other contact geometry considered in this work \[see Fig.\[geom\](b)\]. Figure \[end150\] shows results for an $N=15$ CNT side-contacted to Al(111) surfaces (the CNT–surface distance has been optimized to 2.3Å). Conductance resonances come in pairs in the relevant energy window which is what is expected for an $N=15$ CNT. More importantly, all of them present similar widths, confirming our expectations. Contrary to the previous geometry, localized end states[@Rubio:prl:99] influence the coupling around 1eV for this contact geometry where mixing with the CNT extended states takes place. Our results for the coupling strength with Al contacts are consistent with previous studies where jellium models were considered as contacts[@Anantram:apl:01], and with those in Ref. , but we do not subscribe previous [*ab-initio*]{} results presented in Ref. based on what it seems to be more realistic contact models similar to ours.
\]. The nanotube-surface distance has been optimized to a value of 2.2 Å. (b) Transmission as a function of energy for the highest conducting channels.\[end100Au\] ](Au19-C100-Au19.111-m-111.end.5d6s6p.eps){width="3.0in"}
\]. The nanotube-surface distance has been optimized to a value of 1.8 Å. (b) Transmission as a function of energy for the highest conducting channels.\[end100Ti\] ](Ti19-C100-Ti19.111-m-111.end.3d4s.eps){width="3.0in"}
We now complete our study for end-contacted $N=10$ CNT’s considering Au and Ti electrodes (see Figs. \[end100Au\] and \[end100Ti\]). Several resonances are clearly visible close to the Fermi energy for the case of Au, but, in contrast to Al electrodes, it is difficult to identify specific extended states as we did above. This is in part due to the mixing of the $\pi$ and $\pi^*$ bands with the end states which, in addition, induce extra channels in the conductance, although these channels are only relevant for transport in very short CNT’s[^4]. Apart from this, the coupling strength of the two bands is similar to that found for Al electrodes despite of the fact that the Mulliken population analysis reflects a minor charge transfer from the electrode to the CNT. In Fig. \[end100Au\](b) we appreciate that the $\pi$ band coupling is also stronger than that of the $\pi^*$ band. In contrast to Al and Au electrodes, where $\mathcal{G}$ exhibits resonances, $\mathcal{G}$ presents an oscillatory behavior for Ti around $E_{\rm F}$. This is accompanied, as the anticrossings in the transmission eigenvalues reveal in Fig. \[end100Ti\](b), by band mixing. This result reflects, as suggested in Ref. , that Ti couples differently to the CNT (due to the presence of $d$-states at the Fermi energy) and forms a better contact (the charge transfer is $\approx$ 0.4 electrons per C atom at the end layer). At this point, however, we can only speculate on the possibility of perfect transparency for other Ti electrode geometries.
We acknowledge support by the Spanish CICYT under Grant No. 1FD97-1358 and by the Generalitat Valenciana under Grants No. GV00-151-01 and GV00-095-2. J.J.P. thanks S. Y. Wu for encouraging this work in its initial stages.
[^1]: We choose to describe the bulk electrode with a Bethe lattice tight-binding model with the coordination and parameters appropriate for the electrodes[@Palacios:prb:01; @Palacios:prb:02]. Details on the Bethe lattice parameters, the density functional, and the basis set used in our calculations can be found in Ref. .
[^2]: A word of caution is due here. Within DF theory only $\mathcal{G}(E_{\rm F})$ has a strict meaning. In order to obtain the zero-bias conductance at different energies which would correspond to the conductance for different values of an external gate potential which can charge or discharge the system, one must perform the self-consistent calculation for a varying Fermi energy. We have analyzed the extent of this problem and found that our conclusions are not modified significantly as the charge in the system varies. This partially justifies plotting $\mathcal{G}(E)$ for neutral systems. However this problem might deserves a further consideration when bound or quasibound states are present in the CNT (see text below).
[^3]: We have analyzed the Coulomb blockade process in detail for the $N=9$ CNT. For a partially discharged CNT the two resonances labeled $k_1$ and $k_1^*$ coincide in energy above the Fermi energy and the conductance reaches there 4$e^2/h$. For the neutral \[see Fig. \[endX\](b)\] or slightly charged system this degeneracy is partially removed and the conductance drops. The spin degeneracy removal due to Coulomb blockade requires technically challenging open shell calculations and is currently under study.
[^4]: A detailed analysis of why the end states do not play a significant role for Al in end-contact geometries is deferred for future work.
|
---
abstract: |
We present *Hubble Space Telescope* ultraviolet spectroscopy of the white dwarfs PG0843+516, PG1015+161, SDSS1228+1040, and GALEX1931+0117, which accrete circumstellar planetary debris formed from the destruction of asteroids. Combined with optical data, a minimum of five and a maximum of eleven different metals are detected in their photospheres. With metal sinking time scales of only a few days, these stars are in accretion/diffusion equilibrium, and the photospheric abundances closely reflect those of the circumstellar material. We find C/Si ratios that are consistent with that of the bulk Earth, corroborating the rocky nature of the debris. Their C/O values are also very similar to those of bulk Earth, implying that the planetary debris is dominated by Mg and Fe silicates. The abundances found for the debris at the four white dwarfs show substantial diversity, comparable at least to that seen across different meteorite classes in the solar system. PG0843+516 exhibits significant over-abundances of Fe and Ni, as well as of S and Cr, which suggests the accretion of material that has undergone melting, and possibly differentiation. PG1015+161 stands out by having the lowest Si abundance relative to all other detected elements. The Al/Ca ratio determined for the planetary debris around different white dwarfs is remarkably similar. This is analogous to the nearly constant abundance ratio of these two refractory lithophile elements found among most bodies in the solar system.
Based on the detection of all major elements of the circumstellar debris, we calculate accretion rates of $\simeq1.7\times10^8\,\mathrm{g\,s^{-1}}$ to $\simeq1.5\times10^9\,\mathrm{g\,s^{-1}}$. Finally, we detect additional circumstellar absorption in the [[Si]{}1394,1403Å]{} doublet in PG0843+516 and SDSS1228+1040, reminiscent to similar high-ionisation lines seen in the *HST* spectra of white dwarfs in cataclysmic variables. We suspect that these lines originate in hot gas close to the white dwarf, well within the sublimation radius.
author:
- |
B.T. Gänsicke$^1$, D. Koester$^2$, J. Farihi$^3$, J. Girven$^1$, S.G. Parsons$^1$, E. Breedt$^1$\
$^{1}$ Department of Physics, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK\
$^{2}$ Institut für Theoretische Physik und Astrophysik, University of Kiel, 24098 Kiel, Germany\
$^{3}$ Department of Physics Astronomy, University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 7RH, UK
date: 'Accepted 2005. Received 2005; in original form 2005'
title: 'The chemical diversity of exo-terrestrial planetary debris around white dwarfs'
---
\[firstpage\]
Stars: individual: PG0843+516, PG1015+161, SDSSJ122859.93+104032.9, GALEXJ193156.8+011745 – white dwarfs – circumstellar matter – planetary systems
Introduction
============
Most of our current insight into the interior structure of exo-planets is derived from the bulk density of transiting planets [e.g. @valenciaetal10-1], and transit spectroscopy provides some information on the chemical composition of their atmospheres [e.g. @grillmairetal08-1]. More detailed investigations of the chemistry of exo-planetary systems around main-sequence host stars are beyond the reach of present observational instrumentation. However, @zuckermanetal07-1 demonstrated in a pioneering paper that the photospheric abundances of polluted white dwarfs can be used to infer the bulk abundances of the planetary debris material detected around the white dwarf GD362, and showed that the composition of this material is broadly comparable to that of the Earth-Moon system.
The strong surface gravity of white dwarfs implies that metals will sink out of the photosphere on time scales that are orders of magnitude shorter than their cooling ages, and therefore white dwarfs are expected to have either pure hydrogen or helium atmospheres [@fontaine+michaud79-1]. Exceptions to this rule are only hot (${\mbox{$T_{\mathrm{eff}}$}}\ga25\,000$K) white dwarfs where radiative levitation can support some heavy elements in the photosphere [e.g. @chayeretal95-1], and cool (${\mbox{$T_{\mathrm{eff}}$}}\la10\,000$K) white dwarfs where convection may dredge up core material [@koesteretal82-2; @fontaineetal84-1]. Yet white dwarfs with metal-contaminated atmospheres have been known for nearly a century [@vanmaanen17-1], and accretion from the interstellar medium [e.g. @koester76-1; @wesemael79-1; @dupuisetal93-2] has been the most widely accepted scenario, despite a number of fundamental problems [e.g. @aannestadetal93-1; @friedrichetal04-1; @farihietal10-2]. However, the rapidly growing number of white dwarfs that are accreting from circumstellar discs [e.g. @becklinetal05-1; @kilicetal05-1; @gaensickeetal06-3; @vonhippeletal07-1; @farihietal08-1; @vennesetal10-1; @dufouretal12-1] unambiguously demonstrates that debris from the tidal disruption of main-belt analogue asteroids or minor planets [@grahametal90-1; @jura03-1], or Kuiper-belt like objects [@bonsoretal11-1], likely perturbed by unseen planets [@debesetal02-1; @debesetal12-1], is the most likely origin of photospheric metals in many, if not most polluted white dwarfs.
Because of the need for high-resolution, high-quality spectroscopy, detailed abundance studies have so far been limited to a handful of white dwarfs [@kleinetal10-1; @kleinetal11-1; @vennesetal11-1; @melisetal11-1; @zuckermanetal11-1; @dufouretal12-1; @juraetal12-1]. For a given abundance and white dwarf temperature, metal lines are stronger in a helium-dominated (DB) atmosphere than in a hydrogen-dominated (DA) atmosphere, as the opacity of helium is much lower than that of hydrogen. Therefore, the small sample of well-studied metal polluted white dwarfs is heavily biased towards DB white dwarfs, which have diffusion time scales of $\sim10^5-10^6$yr. These long diffusion time scales introduce a significant caveat in the interpretation, as the abundances of the circumstellar debris may substantially differ from those in the white dwarf photosphere if the accretion rate varies on shorter time scales [@koester09-1]. While the life times of the debris discs are subject to large uncertainties, there are theoretical [@rafikov11-2; @metzgeretal12-1] and observational (@girvenetal12-1, Farihi et al. 2012 in press) arguments that suggest that the accretion rates onto the white dwarfs may vary significantly over periods that are short compared to the diffusion time scales. In fact, some of the most heavily polluted white dwarfs have no infrared excess [@farihietal09-1; @kleinetal11-1], and may have accreted all the circumstellar debris a few diffusion time scales ago [@farihietal09-1; @girvenetal12-1].
We are currently carrying out an ultraviolet spectroscopic survey of young DA white dwarfs that have cooling ages of 20 to 200Myr, metal sinking time scales of a few days, and are hence guaranteed to be in accretion-diffusion equilibrium. The aim of this survey is to determine the fraction of white dwarfs that are presently accreting planetary debris, and to determine accurate abundances for a subset. Here we present the analysis of four heavily polluted white dwarfs that are known to also host planetary debris discs.
{width="2\columnwidth"}
Observations
============
The targets for our ongoing far-ultraviolet spectroscopic survey of young and correspondingly warm ($17\,000\,\mathrm{K}<{\mbox{$T_{\mathrm{eff}}$}}<25\,000$K) DA white dwarfs were drawn from the compilations of @liebertetal05-1 and @koesteretal09-2, supplemented with a few recent discoveries [e.g. @gaensickeetal06-3; @vennesetal10-1]. Our sample also includes a small number of post-common envelope binaries (PCEBs) in which the white dwarf accretes from the wind of the M-dwarf companion. These systems were selected from @schreiber+gaensicke03-1 and @farihietal10-3 with the same cut on white dwarf temperature and cooling age. Under the assumption that the M-dwarfs have a solar-like composition, the white dwarfs in PCEBs serve as “abundance standards” for our abundances analyses and diffusion calculations.
*HST*/COS spectroscopy {#s-hstobs}
----------------------
PG0843+516, PG1015+161, and GALEXJ193156.8+011745 (henceforth GALEX1931+0117) were observed as part of our snapshot survey, with exposure times of 1420s, 1424s, and 800s, respectively. We used the G130M grating with a central wavelength of 1291Å, which covers the wavelength range $1130-1435$Å, with a gap at $1278-1288$Å due to the space between the two detector segments. To mitigate the fixed pattern noise that is affecting the COS far-ultraviolet detector, we split the exposure time equally between two FP-POS positions (1&4, the limited duration of the snapshot visits did not allow to use the full set of four different FP-POS positions).
We also report COS observations of three PCEBs observed within this snapshot survey, that will be used as “abundances standards”: GD448 (HRCam, @maxtedetal98-1), GD245 (MSPeg, @schmidtetal95-3), and PG2257+162 (KUV22573+1613, @wachteretal03-1), with exposure times of 900s, 600s, and 1070s, respectively.
SDSSJ122859.93+104032.9 (henceforth SDSS1228+1040) was observed in Cycle17 as part of a regular Guest Observer programme. We obtained two sets of spectroscopy with the G130M grating with central wavelengths of 1291Å and 1327Å, and both observations were again split among two FP-POS positions (1&4). In addition, we obtained G160M spectroscopy with central wavelengths of 1577Å and 1623Å. The total exposure time of the G130M and G160M observations were 2821s and 4899s, respectively, seamlessly covering the wavelength range $1130-1795$Å.
The data retrieved from the *HST* archive were processed and calibrated with CALCOS 2.15.6. The COS spectra of the four white dwarfs shown in Fig.\[f-cos\] reveal the broad profile typical of DA white dwarfs, plus a multitude of narrow absorption lines from a range of metals. The peak signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) of the COS spectra is reached in a line-free region near $1320$Å, and ranges from $\simeq25$ for PG0843+516 and PG1015+161 to $\simeq40$ for SDSS1228+1040 and GALEX1931+0117. However, these values only include photon count statistics, and do not account for the residual fixed-pattern noise related to the use of only two FP-POS positions. The resolving power of the COS spectra, as measured from on-orbit data ranges from $\sim15\,000$ at 1150Å to $\sim20\,000$ at 1430Å.
Optical observations {#s-optobs}
--------------------
The wavelength spanned by our COS observations does not cover any strong line of either Ca (traditionally the most important tracer of metal pollution in white dwarfs, and an important refractory element) or Mg (one of the major constituents of rocky material in the solar system, including the Earth). Ground-based abundance studies using the [Ca]{} H/K doublet and the [[Mg]{} 4482Å]{} line are already published for GALEX1931+0117 [@vennesetal10-1; @vennesetal11-1; @melisetal11-1]. Two short (10min) VLT/UVES spectra of PG1015+161 were obtained as part of the SPY project [@napiwotzkietal01-1], which @koesteretal05-2 analysed to determine the Ca abundance of PG1015+161 (Sect.\[s-pg1015\]). Here we use the same spectra to determine in addition the abundance of Mg.
We observed PG0843+516 for a total of 2h on the WHT using ISIS with the R600B grating and a $1\arcsec$ slit, covering the Ca and Mg lines at a resolving power of $\simeq2500$ and a S/N of $\approx90$. The data were reduced and calibrated as described in @pyrzasetal12-1.
We also obtained a total of 9h VLT/UVES spectroscopy of SDSS1228+1040 between 2007 and 2009 using the Blue390 and Blue437 setup with a $0.9\arcsec$ slit, covering both the Ca and Mg features with a resolving power of $\simeq40\,000$. The data were reduced in Gasgano using the UVES pipeline. The individual spectra were of relatively low S/N, and we analysed only the error-weighted average spectrum, binned to 0.05Å, with $\mathrm{S/N}\simeq35$.
The optical spectra around the [Ca]{}K and [[Mg]{} 4482Å]{} lines are shown in Fig.\[f-camg\]. We note that while most previous studies of metal-polluted white dwarfs have focused on the [Ca]{} H/K lines, their strength for a given abundance decreases strongly with increasing temperature, as [Ca]{} is ionised to [Ca]{}. For temperatures ${\mbox{$T_{\mathrm{eff}}$}}\simeq20\,000-25\,000$K, [[Mg]{} 4482Å]{} becomes a more sensitive probe of metal pollution (e.g. @gaensickeetal07-1 [@farihietal12-1]).
[lrr]{} Object & \[K\] & $\log g$ \[cgs units\]\
\
optical, [@liebertetal05-1]& $23\,870 \pm 392$& $7.90 \pm 0.05$\
HST, this paper & $23\,095 \pm 230$& $8.17 \pm 0.06$\
\
optical, [@liebertetal05-1]&$19\,540 \pm 305$ & $8.04 \pm 0.05$\
optical, [@koesteretal09-2]&$19\,948 \pm 33$ & $7.925\pm0.006$\
HST, this paper &$19\,200 \pm 180$& $8.22 \pm 0.06$\
\
optical, [@eisensteinetal06-1] &$22\,125 \pm 136$& $8.22 \pm 0.02$\
optical, [@gaensickeetal07-1] &$22\,292 \pm 296$& $8.29 \pm 0.05$\
optical, our fit to SDSS spectrum &$22\,410 \pm 175$& $8.12 \pm 0.02$\
HST, this paper &$20\,565 \pm 82$ & $8.19 \pm 0.03$\
adopted, this paper (Sect. \[s-teff\_logg\]) &$20900 \pm 900$& $8.15 \pm 0.04$\
\
optical, [@vennesetal10-1] & $20\,890 \pm 120$& $7.90 \pm 0.03$\
optical, [@melisetal11-1] & $23\,470 \pm 300$& $7.99 \pm 0.05$\
HST, this paper & $21\,200 \pm 50$ & $7.91 \pm 0.02$\
{width="\columnwidth"} {width="\columnwidth"}
{width="\columnwidth"} {width="\columnwidth"}
Atmosphere models
=================
\[s-teff\_logg\]Effective temperature and surface gravity
---------------------------------------------------------
All observed *HST*/COS and optical spectra were analysed with theoretical model atmospheres using input physics as described in @koester10-1, and including the Lyman and Balmer line profiles of @tremblay+bergeron09-1. We used a fine grid of models spanning the range of temperatures and surface gravities found for the four targets by previous studies (Table \[t-parameters\]) and determined the best-fit parameter by minimising $\chi^2$, using the very good relative flux calibration as an additional constraint. The errors reported in Sect.\[s-notes\] are statistical only and do not include systematic effects of observation, reduction, or models. More realistic errors can be estimated from a comparison with the other measurements in the literature, which used similar models, but optical spectra. Table \[t-parameters\] suggests a systematic trend for somewhat lower temperatures derived from the ultraviolet data when compared to the values based on optical spectroscopy. A similar trend is seen for DA white dwarfs with ${\mbox{$T_{\mathrm{eff}}$}}\sim20\,000$K in @lajoie+bergeron07-1, who compared the effective temperatures derived from optical and (*International Ultraviolet Explorer *) ultraviolet spectroscopy. We carried out a range of test calculations to explore the effect of these systematic uncertainties in ${\mbox{$T_{\mathrm{eff}}$}}$ and $\log g$ on the derived metal abundances (Sect. \[s-abundances\]). The abundances and mass fluxes do not change by more than $\simeq0.1$dex, which is less than the typical uncertainty of our fits, and the abundance ratios vary by much less. Hence, the discussion in Sect. \[s-debrisnature\] and \[s-mdot\] is not affected by the systematic uncertainties in ${\mbox{$T_{\mathrm{eff}}$}}$ and $\log g$.
Finally, to assess the possible effect that the presence of metals has on the effective temperature and surface gravity, we computed a small grid of models for the two most metal-polluted stars (PG0843+516, GALEX1931+0117), including metals at the abundances determined in Sect.\[s-abundances\], and re-fitted the *HST*/COS spectra. For both stars, the best-fit ${\mbox{$T_{\mathrm{eff}}$}}$ and $\log g$ did not change significantly, and we therefore adopted the atmospheric parameters from the pure-hydrogen fits for all four targets.
Ion Vacuum wavelengths \[Å\]
---------------- --------------------------------------------------------
[C]{} 1334.530,1335.660,1335.708
[C]{} 1174.930,1175.260,1175.590,1175.710,1175.987,1176.370
[N]{} 1199.550,1200.220,1200.710
[O]{} 1152.150,1302.170,1304.860,1306.030
[Mg]{} 1239.925,1240.395,1367.257,1367.708,1369.423,
4482.383,4482.407,4482.583
[Al]{} 1670.787,1719.442,1724.922,1724.982,1760.106,1761.977,
1763.869,1763.952,1765.816
[Al]{} 1379.670,1384.132,1605.766,1611.873
[Si]{} 1190.416,1193.292,1194.500,1197.394,1246.740,1248.426,
1250.091,1250.436,1251.164,1260.422,1264.738,1265.002,
1304.370,1305.592,1309.276,1309.453,1311.256,1346.884,
1348.543,1350.072,1350.516,1350.656,1352.635,1353.721,
1526.707,1533.431,3854.758,3857.112,3863.690,4129.219,
4132.059,5042.430,5057.394,6348.864,6373.132
[Si]{} 1140.546,1141.579,1142.285,1144.309,1144.959,1154.998,
1155.959,1156.782,1158.101,1160.252,1161.579,1206.500,
1206.555,1294.545,1296.726,1298.892,1301.149,1303.323,
1312.591,1341.458,1342.389,1365.253,1417.237
[Si]{} 1393.775,1402.770
[P]{} 1149.958,1152.818,1153.995,1155.014,1156.970,1159.086,
1249.830,1452.900,1532.533,1535.923,1536.416,1542.304,
1543.133,1543.631
[P]{} 1334.813,1344.326
[S]{} 1250.584,1253.811,1259.519
[S]{} 1194.041,1194.433
[Ca]{} 1169.029, 1169.198,1341.890,3737.965,3934.777
[Sc]{} 1418.773,1418.793
[Ti]{} 1298.633,1298.697,1298.996,1327.603
[V]{} 1148.465,1149.945,1149.945
[Cr]{} 1136.669,1146.342,1247.846,1252.616,1259.018,1261.865,
1263.611
[Mn]{} 1162.015,1188.505,1192.316,1192.330,1197.184,1199.391,
1201.118,1233.956,1254.410
[Mn]{} 1174.809,1177.478,1179.851,1183.308,1183.863,1183.880
[Fe[/iii]{}]{} many weak lines, individually recognisable 1140-1152
[Ni]{} 1317.217,1335.201,1370.123,1381.286,1393.324,1411.065
: \[t-idlines\] List of major line features used for the abundance determinations and upper limits. Because of the different wavelength ranges of the available spectra not all lines could be used for all four stars.
\[s-abundances\] Metal abundances
---------------------------------
The COS spectra of the four white dwarfs contain a multitude of absorption lines from a range of elements. GALEX1931+0117 has the richest absorption spectrum, in which we securely identified transitions of nine elements (C, O, Al, Si, P, S, Cr, Fe, Ni), and we included those metals in the abundance analysis of all four targets. We also include in the analysis N, Na, Ti, V, Mn, which have moderately strong transitions in the wavelength range covered by the COS observations, but that were not detected. All metals were fully included in the calculation of the equation of state.
Synthetic spectra were calculated adopting the atmospheric parameters determined in Sect.\[s-teff\_logg\], and including approximately 2500 metal lines. The basic source of atomic line data (wavelengths, excitation energies, transition probabilities $\log$gf, Stark broadening constant $\Gamma_4$) was VALD (Vienna Atomic Line Database), which is described in [@piskunovetal95-1], [@ryabchikovaetal97-1], and [@kupkaetal99-1; @kupkaetal00-1]. The ion [Si]{} has a large number of lines in the ultraviolet, and we noted a significant scatter in the abundances derived from different lines. Replacing the $\log$ gf values from VALD values with those from the NIST (National Institute of Standards) database, which differ for some lines by up to 0.3dex, leads to more consistent results. Nevertheless, the situation for this ion is not satisfactory (Sect.\[s-silicon\]), and we have consulted a number of original sources in the literature [@lanz+artru85-1; @nahar98-1; @bautistaetal09-1] during the compilation of the most reliable atomic data.
The abundances were varied until a satisfactory fit, as judged by visual inspection, was achieved for each element. We then changed the abundances in several steps of 0.1 - 0.2 dex, until the fit was clearly worse. The resulting difference was used as a conservative estimate for the abundance error, or for an upper limit if no line was identified. Table \[t-idlines\] lists the lines used in this procedure, although not all lines could be used for all four stars. The best-fit models to the COS observations are illustrated in Figs.\[f-fit1\] and \[f-fit2\], and the metal abundances of the four white dwarfs are given in Table\[t-abundances\] (along with the previous abundance studies were carried out for GALEX1931+0117, @vennesetal11-1 [@melisetal11-1]). Notably, upper limits for N were always larger than solar relative to C. For Na, Ti, V, Mn (and additionally Ca in PG0843+516 as well as Ca, Al, P, S, Ni in PG1015+161) the upper limits were larger than solar relative to Si. We have used these (solar) values in the models, but it did not change the atmosphere structure and the results for the detected elements.
### Interstellar line absorption and airglow
In all objects interstellar absorption is visible in the resonance lines of [C]{}, [N]{}, [O]{}, [Si]{}, and [S]{}. In SDSS1228+1040, PG1015+161, and GALEX1931+0117 the interstellar absorption lines are shifted blue-wards with respect to the photospheric lines by velocities of $v = 57$, $36$, and $61$ , respectively. In PG0843+516, $|v| < 7$ , and the interstellar lines are not fully separated from the photospheric features. However, the presence of some interstellar absorption is obvious from the line ratio of [[C]{} 1334.5Å]{}/[[C]{} 1335.7Å]{} (Fig. \[f-fit1\] & \[f-fit2\]). Because the latter line originates from a level only 0.008 eV above the real ground state, it is equally populated in a stellar photosphere, but not in the interstellar medium, where the blue component is much stronger in spite of a lower transition probability. Nevertheless, the abundances of C, O, Si, and S are robust, as a sufficient number of excited transitions are present in the photospheric spectrum (Table\[t-idlines\]).
The COS pipeline does not correct for airglow emission. Therefore, the reduced COS spectra can contain geocoronal lines of [[O]{}1302, 1305, 1306Å]{} whose intensity, and, to a lesser extent, profile shape, vary as a function of *HST*’s orbital day/night, and weakly with the Earth-limb angle. Airglow is clearly seen in the spectrum of GALEX1931+0117 (Fig.\[f-fit2\], right panel), which affects the fit to the photospheric [O]{} and [Si]{} lines in this region. For Si, this is a minor problem as there are many additional lines of [Si[-iv]{}]{}. For O, another strong line in the COS spectra is [[O]{} 1152Å]{}.
### Silicon {#s-silicon}
We notice relatively large differences of the silicon abundance determined from optical versus ultraviolet spectra in SDSS1228+1040 and GALEX1931+0117, for the latter also the oxygen abundances show this difference. There are at least three possible explanations:
*Uncertain atomic data.* This is a perennial problem, as there are many, and large differences in various compilations of atomic data. The [O]{} resonance lines in GALEX1931+0117 are perturbed by airglow, interstellar absorption and overlapping [Si]{} lines (see above), and the ultraviolet abundance determination rests largely on one excited line at 1152.1 Å. Similarly, the optical O abundance is measured only from the [[O]{}7777Å]{} triplet [@vennesetal10-1; @melisetal11-1]. However, our abundance measurements for Si use many lines in the ultraviolet. In the recent compilation by [@bautistaetal09-1] the authors combined several different computational methods, previous theoretical calculations by other authors, and experimental data into a “recommended” value for $\log$ gf. These values agree fairly well with the ultraviolet data from NIST that we have used. However, for the five optical lines they consider, the values are $0.25-0.30$dex smaller, though with errors as large as 0.3dex. Using these values would [*increase*]{} the abundance determined from optical spectra, contrary to what would be needed for a more consistent solution. In addition, in a recent analysis of ultraviolet spectra for the DBZ star GD40, @juraetal12-1 find a discrepancy between optical and ultraviolet abundances for Si of the same size, but in opposite direction - the abundances are smaller for the optical determinations. Since that study used the same models and atomic data as the one presented here, there is no indication that the atomic data are behind this discrepancy.
------------ ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------- ----------------
Element PG0843+516 PG1015+161 SDSS1228+1040
Vennes et al. Melis et al.
C $-7.30\pm0.30$ $<-8.00$ $-7.50\pm0.20$ $-6.80\pm0.30$ $<-4.15$ $<-4.85$
O $-5.00\pm0.30$ $-5.50\pm0.20$ $-4.55\pm0.20$ $-4.10\pm0.30$ $-3.62\pm0.05$ $-3.68\pm0.10$
Mg $-4.90\pm0.20$ $-5.30\pm0.20$ $-5.10\pm0.20$ $-4.42\pm0.06$ $-4.10\pm0.10$
Mg (strat) $-5.00\pm0.20$ $-5.30\pm0.20$ $-5.20\pm0.20$
Al $-6.50\pm0.20$ $-5.75\pm0.20$ $-6.20\pm0.20$
Si $-5.20\pm0.20$ $-6.40\pm0.20$ $-5.20\pm0.20$ $-4.75\pm0.20$
Si (opt) $-4.70\pm0.20$ $-4.24\pm0.07$ $-4.35\pm0.11$
P $-6.60\pm0.20$ $<-7.30$ $-7.00\pm0.30$
S $-5.50\pm0.30$ $<-6.20$ $-6.60\pm0.20$
Ca $-6.30\pm0.20$ $-5.70\pm0.20$ $-6.11\pm0.04$ $-5.83\pm0.10$
Ca (strat) $-6.45\pm0.20$ $-5.94\pm0.20$
Cr $-5.80\pm0.30$ $<-5.80$ $<-6.00$ $-6.10\pm0.30$ $-5.92\pm0.14$
Mn $-6.26\pm0.15$
Fe $-4.60\pm0.20$ $-5.50\pm0.30$ $-5.20\pm0.30$ $-4.50\pm0.30$ $ -4.43\pm0.09$ $-4.10\pm0.10$
Ni $-6.30\pm0.30$ $<-6.50$ $-6.70\pm0.30$ $<-5.60$
------------ ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------- ----------------
*Abundance stratification.* Contrary to DB stars like GD40 at similar temperatures, there are no convection zones in the atmospheres and envelopes of our four objects, which would act as a homogeneously mixed reservoir in the accretion/diffusion scenario. Assuming a steady state between the two processes, we thus expect a stratified abundance configuration. Whether this can explain the observations will be studied in Sect.\[s-diffusion\].
*Genuine variation of the accretion rates.* As will also be discussed in the next section, the time scales for diffusion in these atmospheres are of the order of days. If the accretion rate is not constant the observed abundances may change on the same short time scales. Given that the COS and ground-based observations that we analysed were taken months to years apart, such variations can not be excluded. Noticeable variations of the [Ca]{} equivalent widths in the debris disc white dwarf G29-38 were reported by @vonhippeletal07-2. However, a similar study on the same star by @debes+lopez-morales08-1 did not find any variations in the line strengths. Thus, the current evidence for accretion rate variations on time scales of months to years is ambiguous, and a second-epoch COS observations of the stars studied here would be desirable.
We also noticed an unidentified absorption feature between 1400 and 1410 Å, with a strength roughly correlated with the Si abundances. Such a feature has been discussed in the literature and related to an autoionisation line of [Si]{} or to a resonance feature in the photoionisation cross section [@artru+lanz87-1; @lanzetal96-1]. We have tested such a hypothetical line with their data for the oscillator strength and line width data. However, the width ($\approx
80$Å) is much too broad to lead to visible features in the spectrum. We have also included the [Si]{} photoionisation cross sections from the Opacity Project [@seatonetal94-1], which indeed show a resonance maximum in this spectral region. But again, the Si abundance is too small to let this feature show up in the spectrum.
Our model uses the six [Si]{} lines at 1403.8, 1404.2, 1404.5, 1409.1, 1409.9, and 1410.2 Å in this range (Table\[t-idlines\]). The first two have the source “guess” in VALD, the first three have no entry in NIST, and the $\log$ gf values of the strongest line (1410.2Å) differ by $\approx 0.8$dex between the two databases. The upper levels of the transitions have a parent configuration belonging to the second ionisation limit of [Si]{}. They are still $\approx0.7$eV below the first ionisation limit and thus not strictly auto-ionising. However, the broadening may well be underestimated by our simple approximation formulae. In summary, the atomic data of the lines in the region are very uncertain and may be the explanation for the broad feature. However, with the present data we cannot prove that hypothesis.
Finally, we note that the [[Si]{}1394,1403Å]{} doublet in PG0843+516 is very poorly fit by our atmosphere model (Fig.\[f-fit1\]). A weaker additional [[Si]{}1394,1403Å]{} absorption is also seen in the spectrum of SDSS1228+1040 (Fig.\[f-fit2\]). We interpret this as evidence for absorption by hot gas close to the white dwarf, see the discussion in Sect.\[s-hotgas\].
Element
---------- -------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------
C $1.66\times10^{5}$ $4.65\times10^{4}$ $1.25\times10^{5}$ $4.57\times10^{5}$
O $9.27\times10^{7}$ $3.78\times10^{7}$ $2.70\times10^{8}$ $5.61\times10^{8}$
Mg $4.47\times10^{7}$ $2.66\times10^{7}$ $3.21\times10^{7}$ $1.47\times10^{8}$
Al $2.09\times10^{6}$ $1.18\times10^{7}$ $3.08\times10^{6}$
Si $4.77\times10^{7}$ $3.64\times10^{6}$ $4.80\times10^{7}$ $9.93\times10^{7}$
P $2.44\times10^{6}$ $<5.24\times10^{5}$ $7.57\times10^{5}$
S $3.92\times10^{7}$ $<9.46\times10^{6}$ $2.64\times10^{6}$
Ca $4.84\times10^{6}$ $1.57\times10^{7}$ $8.10\times10^{6}$
Cr $3.81\times10^{7}$ $<3.85\times10^{7}$ $<2.29\times10^{7}$ $1.37\times10^{7}$
Mn $1.06\times10^{7}$
Fe $7.11\times10^{8}$ $9.50\times10^{7}$ $1.72\times10^{8}$ $6.45\times10^{8}$
Ni $1.66\times10^{7}$ $<9.98\times10^{6}$ $4.71\times10^{6}$
$\Sigma$ $1.02\times10^{9}$ $1.68\times10^{8}$ $5.61\times10^{8}$ $1.50\times10^{9}$
### Diffusion and stratified atmosphere models {#s-diffusion}
In the absence of a convection zone there is no deep homogenous reservoir in our DAZ sample, and therefore there is no straightforward definition of diffusion time scales. Adopting the usual definition, i.e. dividing the mass of some element above a layer in the envelope or atmosphere of the star by the diffusion flux, results in diffusion time scales that strongly depend on the chosen layer. [@koester+wilken06-1] and [@koester09-1] defined the Rosseland optical depth $\tau=5$ as the “standard” layer, assuming that no trace of any heavy element below this would be seen in a spectrum.
However, a more consistent way to determine the abundances in the accreted material, which is the quantity ultimately desired, is the assumption of a steady state between accretion and diffusion throughout the whole atmosphere. At Rosseland optical depth $\tau =
2/3$, and typical conditions for the observed ultraviolet spectra, the diffusion times in the four white dwarfs analysed here are $\simeq0.4$ to four days. Assuming that the accretion rate does not vary over such time scales, we can use the condition of constant flow of an element with mass fraction $X(\tau)$ $$\rho X v = \mbox{const}$$ with $\rho$ and $v$ the mass density and the diffusion velocity of this element. $\rho$ and $v$ are known from the atmosphere model and diffusion calculations, and $X(\tau=2/3)$ is derived from the spectral analysis. This determines the diffusion flux at $\tau = 2/3$. In steady state, as it is the case for the DAZ analysed here, the diffusion flux is constant throughout the atmosphere, and is equal to the accretion rate polluting the atmosphere. The constant diffusion flux then in turn allows the determination of the abundance stratification $X(\tau)$ [see also @vennesetal11-1 for a thorough discussion].
We calculated new stratified models and synthetic spectra for all objects, using the steady state condition and the abundances (at $\tau
= 2/3$) from Table \[t-abundances\]. The resulting spectra are almost indistinguishable from those of the homogeneous atmospheres; the only exception are small increases of the optical [Mg]{} and [Ca]{} line strengths. The small change can easily be explained by the structure of the stratified atmosphere. In these models $\rho
\,v$ increases with depth, and consequently the abundance decreases. On the other hand a monochromatic optical depth of $\approx
2/3$ is reached in the ultraviolet near Rosseland optical depth of $\tau_\mathrm{Ross}\simeq2/3$, while it is reached at $\tau_\mathrm{Ross} \approx 0.15$ for $\lambda = 4480$ Å, i.e. higher in the atmosphere, where the abundance is correspondingly higher.
For PG0843+516, PG1015+161, and SDSS1228+1040, the Ca and Mg abundances were obtained from the optical data (Sect.\[s-optobs\]) and our models. We have iterated them by fitting to stratified models (denoted with “strat” in Table \[t-abundances\]). For GALEX1931+0117, we adopted the photospheric Mg an Ca abundances of @vennesetal11-1 and the Mn abundance of @melisetal11-1 to calculate the corresponding diffusion fluxes.
As a result we have to conclude that diffusion and a stratified abundance structure lead only to minor adjustments of the abundances that cannot explain the large discrepancy between optical and ultraviolet determinations for silicon. There is, however, an important caveat to this conclusion. Our diffusion calculations use only the surface gravity (and as a minor effect the temperature gradient for thermal diffusion) as driving force. [@chayer+dupuis10-1] have recently demonstrated that for silicon, radiative levitation can lead to a negative effective gravity and support the atoms in the outer layers of the atmosphere against diffusion. They only published detailed data for a DAZ model with 20000K and $\log g=8.00$, and in their model only abundances smaller than $\log\mathrm{[Si/H]}=-8.0$ are really supported, because the lines saturate at higher abundances, effectively reducing the radiative support. However, it is quite feasible that even if the atoms are not totally supported, the diffusion velocity would be smaller, changing the abundance gradient. The answer to this puzzle will have to await similar, detailed models for a variety of stellar parameters and heavy elements that can be tested against the large range of Si abundances found in our snapshot survey (Gänsicke et al. in prep).
Other points worth mentioning are that the determination of an effective ion charge with the simple pressure ionisation description of @paquetteetal86-1 is not appropriate in the absence of deep convection. We have used the usual Saha equation (with a small lowering of the ionisation potential from non-ideal interactions) to determine the abundances of different ions from an element. The diffusion velocity is then calculated as a weighted average of the ionisation stages. This procedure was already used in @koester+wilken06-1 and @koester09-1 for the models without or with only a shallow convection zone, although not explicitly stated in those papers. New in our present calculation is the consideration of neutral particles, following the discussion and methods outlined in @vennesetal11-2.
The main results of our calculations are the diffusion fluxes, $X \rho
v$, for each element, which are assumed (in steady state) to be the abundances of the accreted matter. These are summarised for the four objects in Table \[t-fluxes\]. The total diffusion fluxes (=accretion rates) are obtained by multiplying these fluxes with $4 \pi R_\mathrm{wd}^2$, where we used the cooling tracks of [@wood95-1] to obtain the white dwarf radii from ${\mbox{$T_{\mathrm{eff}}$}}$ and $\log g$. The mass fluxes (=accretion rates) of the individual elements, as well as their sum, are shown in Fig.\[f-mdot\] and discussed in Sect. \[s-mdot\]. The number abundances of the circumstellar debris are then calculated from the diffusion fluxes via $$\mathrm{\frac{N(X)}{N(Si)}=\frac{\dot M(X)}{\dot M(Si)}\frac{A(Si)}{A(X)}}$$ where A is the atomic mass. The implications that these abundances have on the nature and origin of the circumstellar debris are discussed in detail in Sect.\[s-debrisnature\].
![\[f-mdot\] Accretion rates of the elements detected in our four targets. Their sum is given in the right-most column.](mdot.ps){width="\columnwidth"}
Notes on individual white dwarfs {#s-notes}
================================
In the following sections, we give a brief overview of previous work on the four white dwarfs that we have analysed, as well as a summary of the key results of our observations.
PG0843+516
----------
PG0843+516 was identified as a DA white dwarf in the Palomar-Green Survey [@greenetal86-1], and @liebertetal05-1 obtained ${\mbox{$T_{\mathrm{eff}}$}}=23\,870\pm392$K, $\log g=7.90\pm0.05$ from the analysis of a high-quality optical spectrum. The best fit to our *HST* data was ${\mbox{$T_{\mathrm{eff}}$}}=23\,095 \pm 230$K, $\log g=8.17\pm0.06$. Our COS spectrum reveals PG0843+516 to be an extremely polluted DAZ white dwarf (Fig.\[f-cos\] & \[f-fit1\]), with an accretion rate of $\simeq10^9\,\mathrm{g\,s^{-1}}$, placing it head-to-head with GALEX1931+0117 (Sect.\[s-mdot\]). We identified in the COS spectrum photospheric absorption lines of C, O, Al, Si, P, S, Fe, Cr, and Ni, plus Mg in the optical WHT spectrum, the second largest set of elements detected in a DAZ white dwarf. The fact that the metal pollution of PG0843+516 went unnoticed in the published high-quality intermediate resolution spectroscopy underlines the strength of our ultraviolet survey for young and relatively warm white dwarfs accreting planetary debris. We note that @xu+jura12-1 recently detected infrared flux excess at PG0843+516 in an analysis of archival *Spitzer* data, making this the second white dwarf (after G29-38, @zuckerman+becklin87-1 [@koesteretal97-1]) where circumstellar dust was found without prior knowledge of photospheric metal pollution.
PG1015+161 {#s-pg1015}
----------
PG1015+161 is another DA white dwarf discovered in the Palomar-Green Survey [@greenetal86-1]. @liebertetal05-1 determined ${\mbox{$T_{\mathrm{eff}}$}}=19\,540\pm305$K, $\log g = 8.04\pm0.05$ from optical spectroscopy. High-resolution spectroscopy of PG1015+161 was obtained as part of the SPY project [@napiwotzkietal01-1], from which @koesteretal09-2 measured ${\mbox{$T_{\mathrm{eff}}$}}=19\,948\pm33$K and $\log
g=7.925\pm0.006$. Our fit to the HST spectrum gives in ${\mbox{$T_{\mathrm{eff}}$}}=19\,200 \pm
180$K, $\log g = 8.22 \pm 0.06$. @koesteretal05-2 detected of a photospheric [Ca]{}K absorption line in the SPY data, with a number abundance $\log\mathrm{[Ca/H]}=-6.3$, which triggered follow-up observations with *Spitzer* that revealed the presence of circumstellar dust [@juraetal07-1]. The COS spectrum contains absorption lines of O, Si, and Fe. In addition to [Ca]{}K, we detected [[Mg]{} 4482Å]{} in the SPY spectrum. PG1015+161 has the lowest accretion rate among the four stars discussed in this paper.
SDSS1228+1040
-------------
@eisensteinetal06-1 identified this DA white dwarf in Data Release 4 of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, and found ${\mbox{$T_{\mathrm{eff}}$}}=22\,125\pm136$K, $\log g=8.22\pm0.02$ from a fit to the SDSS spectrum. @gaensickeetal06-3 discovered double-peaked emission lines of [[Ca]{}8498,8542,8662Å]{} as well as weak [Fe]{} emission lines and [[Mg]{} 4482Å]{} absorption, and concluded that SDSS1228+1040 accretes from a volatile-depleted gaseous circumstellar disc. The [Ca]{} lines form in a region extending in radius from a few tenths to $\simeq1.2$, no emission is detected from closer in to the white dwarf (but see Sect. \[s-hotgas\]). *Spitzer* observations showed that SDSS1228+1040 also exhibits an infrared excess [@brinkworthetal09-1], and that there is a large radial overlap between the gaseous and dusty components of the disc. Yet, the strong [Ca]{} emission lines require a gas temperature of $T\sim4000-6000$K (e.g. @hartmannetal11-1), substantially exceeding the sublimation temperature of the dust. This implies the thermal decoupling of the gas and dust, most likely in the form of a complex vertical temperature structure, with hotter, optically thin gas on top cooler, probably optically thick dust [@kinnear11; @melisetal10-1]. Irradiation from the white dwarf is sufficient to explain this temperature inversion [@kinnear11; @melisetal10-1], but the origin of the gas found at radii larger than the sublimation radius is unclear, and may be related to relatively fresh disruption events [@gaensickeetal08-1; @melisetal10-1] or the intrinsic evolution of the debris disc [@bochkarev+rafikov01-1; @metzgeretal12-1]. Among the four white dwarfs studied here, SDSS1228+1040 is the only one that exhibits emission lines from a gaseous disc.
The COS spectrum of SDSS1228+1040 contains absorption lines of C, O, Al, Si, Cr, and Ni. SDSS1228+1040 was observed outside the snapshot program described in Sect.\[s-hstobs\], and our COS spectroscopy extends up to 1790Å, i.e. 360Å further than that obtained for the other three white dwarfs. This extended wavelength range includes additional strong lines of [Si]{}, [Al]{}, and [Al]{}, but no further elements. Our high-quality average UVES spectrum is used to determine the abundances of Mg and Ca, bringing the total number of detected elements in SDSS1228+1040 to eight.
We fitted the SDSS spectrum, finding ${\mbox{$T_{\mathrm{eff}}$}}=22\,410\pm175$K, $\log g=
8.12 \pm 0.03$, whereas a fit to the ultraviolet spectrum gives ${\mbox{$T_{\mathrm{eff}}$}}=20\,565 \pm 82$K, $\log g=8.19 \pm 0.03$. This discrepancy underlines that, for high-quality data, the uncertainties are dominated by systematic rather than statistical errors. As a compromise we take the weighted mean of the latter two results with increased errors, ${\mbox{$T_{\mathrm{eff}}$}}=20\,900 \pm 900$K, $\log g = 8.15 \pm 0.04$.
GALEX1931+0117
--------------
As part of a spectroscopic identification program of ultraviolet-excess objects @vennesetal10-1 recently identified GALEX1931+0117 as a nearby ($\simeq55$pc) DAZ white dwarf. @vennesetal10-1 and @melisetal11-1 analysed optical spectroscopy, and obtained ${\mbox{$T_{\mathrm{eff}}$}}= 20\,890\pm120$K, $\log
g=7.90{+0.03\atop-0.06}$ and ${\mbox{$T_{\mathrm{eff}}$}}= 23\,470\pm300$K, $\log
g=7.99\pm0.05$, respectively. Our best-fit parameters from the *HST*/COS spectrum are ${\mbox{$T_{\mathrm{eff}}$}}=21\,200\pm50$K, $\log
g=7.91\pm0.02$, consistent with that of @vennesetal10-1 but somewhat lower than that of @melisetal11-1[^1]. The VLT/UVES spectroscopy obtained by @vennesetal10-1 [@vennesetal11-1] revealed strong metal lines of O, Mg, Si, Ca, and Fe, indicating ongoing accretion. @vennesetal10-1 also showed that the 2MASS $H$- and $K$-band fluxes exceeded those expected from the white dwarf, and suggested a close brown dwarf or a dusty debris disc as origin of the accreting material. @debesetal11-1 ruled out the presence of a sub-stellar companion based on the infrared fluxes detected by *WISE*, and argued that the white dwarf accretes from a dusty disc. This was independently confirmed by VLT/ISAAC near-IR observations obtained by @melisetal11-1, who also measured abundances for Cr and Mn.
Our *HST*/COS spectroscopy provides independent measurements for O, Si, Cr, and Fe, as well as the first detection of C, Al, P, S, and Ni, bringing the total number of elements observed in the photosphere of GALEX1931+0117 to 11 (Table\[t-abundances\]). As discussed in Sect.\[s-abundances\], the O, Si, Cr, and Fe abundances that we derive from the COS spectroscopy are lower than those determined by @vennesetal11-1 and @melisetal11-1. However, the discussion of the nature of the planetary material is usually based on relative metal-to-metal abundance ratios [@nittleretal04-1], which are more robust than absolute abundances measurements. Figure\[f-mm\] compares the metal abundances determined for GALEX1931+0117 normalised with respect to Si, and relative to the corresponding ratios for the chemical composition of the bulk Earth. It is evident that our metal-to-Si ratios are consistent with those of @melisetal11-1, whereas the Mg/Si, Fe/Si, and Ca/Si ratios of @vennesetal11-1 are systematically lower.
{width="\columnwidth"} {width="\columnwidth"}
The nature and origin of the circumstellar material {#s-debrisnature}
===================================================
The four white dwarfs studied here have diffusion time scales of a few days (Sect.\[s-diffusion\]), and we can therefore safely assume that we observe them in accretion-diffusion equilibrium. In other words, the abundances of the circumstellar debris can be determined from the photospheric analysis without any additional assumptions regarding the history of the accretion rate that are necessary for stars with very long diffusion time scales [e.g. @kleinetal11-1]. In what follows, we discuss the abundances of the circumstellar debris normalised to Si, the main rock-forming element, as is common use for solar-system objects [e.g. @lodders+fegley11-1].
Figure\[f-mm\] (right panel) illustrates the metal-to-Si ratios of the planetary debris around the four white dwarfs relative to the same abundances of the bulk Earth model by @mcdonough00-1. The first striking observation is that the C/Si ratios of all four stars (including one upper limit) are much lower than that of CI chondrites, and in fact agree within their errors with the C/Si value of the bulk Earth model. While the C abundance of the bulk Earth is subject to some model-dependent assumptions (see the left panel of Fig.\[f-mm\] for an alternative chemical model of the Earth by @allegreetal01-1), these uncertainties are comparable to the errors in our abundance determinations.
For comparison, we include in Fig.\[f-mm\] the abundance ratios of three white dwarfs that accrete from the wind of a close M-dwarf companion, that were also observed as part of our COS snapshot programme[^2]. The only elements detected in the COS spectra of these three stars are C, O, Si and S, and they exhibit high abundances in C and S, as expected for the accretion of solar-like material. The extremely low abundances of the volatile C found for the debris around the four white dwarfs strongly underlines its rocky nature. This corroborates the previous studies of @jura06-1 and @juraetal12-1, who found strong evidence for substantial depletion of C around three DB white dwarfs.
However, Fig.\[f-mm\] also shows that there is a significant scatter among the individual abundances for a given element. Among the four targets, the abundances of the debris in SDSS1228+1040 most closely resembles those of the bulk Earth. PG1015+161 stands out by having all detected elements over-abundant with respect to Si, when compared to the bulk Earth. An interesting trend is seen in PG0843+516, where Fe, Ni, and S are significantly over-abundant, and, in fact, broadly consistent with the abundance ratios of the core Earth model. In particular, the volatile S is extremely overabundant with respect to C, compared to the bulk silicate Earth. In melts, S will form FeS, and hence be depleted from remaining minerals. The affinity of S to Fe is thought to be the reason for the depletion of S in the silicate mantle of the Earth, as it will have settled into the Earth’s core in the form of iron sulfide [@ahrens79-1; @dreibus+palme96-1]. Similarly, also Cr is significantly over-abundant in PG0843+516 with respect to the bulk Earth. While Cr is a moderately volatile element, the depletion of Cr in the silicate Earth is thought to be due to partitioning into the Earth’s core [@moynieretal11-2]. Finally, the refractory lithophile Al is under-abundant compared to the silicate Earth. Thus, the abundance pattern seen in PG0843+516 suggests that the planetary debris is rich in material that has undergone at least partial melting, and possibly differentiation. A possible test of this hypothesis would be a measurement of the abundance of Zn, a lithophile element with a similar volatility as S that is not depleted into iron melt [@lodders03-1], and it will be important to test whether the refractory lithophile Ca is depleted at a similar level as Al. The most promising feature to measure the Zn abundances is the [[Zn]{}2026,2062Å]{} resonance doublet, and [Ca]{}K should be easily detectable in high-resolution optical spectroscopy.
To further explore the chemical diversity of the planetary debris around the four white dwarfs studied here, we compare pairwise a range of metal-to-Si abundance ratios with those of the bulk Earth and bulk silicate Earth [@mcdonough00-1], as well as with those of a variety of meteorites (taken from @nittleretal04-1). We inspect first the relative abundances of Al and Ca, which are two of the three most abundant refractory lithophile elements (the third one being Ti), i.e. elements that sublimate only at very high temperatures, and that do not enter the core in the case of differentiation. Therefore, the Al/Ca ratio is nearly constant across most classes of meteorites, and hence, the Al/Si values determined from many solar-system bodies follows a linear correlation with Ca/Si (Fig.\[f-mm\_mm\], top right). Finding that the abundances for the debris discs, where Al, Ca, and Si are available, generally follow that trend is reassuring, as large variations in the relative Al and Ca abundances would cast doubts on the overall methodology using white dwarf photospheres as proxies for the abundances of the circumstellar material.
The relative abundances of O, Si, Mg, and Fe, which are the major constituents of the terrestrial planets in the solar system, show substantial variations between different meteorite groups (Fig.\[f-mm\_mm\], top left and bottom right panels), and at least as much scatter between the individual white dwarfs. The difficulty with these elements is that they form a range of different minerals (metal oxides), depending on the prevailing pressure and temperature. Iron in particular may occur as pure metal, alloy, or mineral, and is subject to differentiation into planetary cores. Oxygen, on the other hand, can be be locked in a wide range of oxides (see the discussion by @kleinetal10-1), or potentially water [@kleinetal10-1; @jura+xu10-1; @farihietal11-1; @jura+xu12-1]. Therefore, the relative abundances of O, Si, Mg, and Fe will vary according to the processing that material underwent (e.g. condensation, melting, and differentiation), and it is maybe not too surprising to find that the debris around white dwarfs exhibits at substantial degree of diversity, as it represents different planetary systems formed around different stars. We note that the debris at PG0843+516 falls close to the abundance ratios of Pallasites, a class of stony-iron meteorites. This further supports our hypothesis that PG0843+516 is accreting material in which iron has undergone (partial) melting.
{width="1.5\columnwidth"}
Another interesting pair of elements is C and O (Fig.\[f-mm\_mm\], lower left panel). The possible range of the C/O ratio among exo-planets has been subject to intense discussion. It is thought that for $\mathrm{C/O}>0.8$ in the proto-planetary discs, the ambient chemistry will favour solid “carbon planets”, that are dominated by carbides rather than oxides [@kuchner+seager05-1]. The possible existence of carbon planets has gained some support by the recent report of a C/O value exceeding unity in the atmosphere of the transiting hot Jupiter WASP-12b [@madhusudhanetal11-1], and by abundance studies that found a significant fraction of exo-planet host stars having $\mathrm{C/O}>0.8$ (@petigura+marcy11-1 [@delgademenaetal10-1]), but see @fortney12-1 for a critical discussion.
Planetary debris at white dwarfs provides a unique opportunity to probe the C/O ratio of exo-terrestrial material. However, measuring C abundances in white dwarfs is challenging, as the optical detection of carbon in cool white dwarfs is usually related to dredge-up from the core rather than external pollution [e.g. @dufouretal05-1; @koester+knist06-1; @desharnaisetal08-1]. At higher temperatures, where convective dredge-up can be excluded, suitable lines of C are only found at ultraviolet wavelengths. As mentioned above, the four stars studied here have very similar (low) C/Si ratios, but do show a range of O/Si ratios. Nevertheless, the debris around all four stars studies here, as well as GD40 [@juraetal12-1], have $-3\la\log(\mathrm{C/O})\la-2.3$, very similar to the bulk silicate Earth, $\log(\mathrm{C/O})\simeq-2.5$, and are hence representative of solar system minerals.
Accretion rates {#s-mdot}
===============
Estimating accretion rates for metal-polluted white dwarfs is notoriously difficult, as it is based on scaling from the elements detected in the photosphere to an assumed bulk composition of the accreted material. In addition, in the case of white dwarfs with significant convective envelope masses, only the average accretion rate over the diffusion time scale can be obtained.
@koester+wilken06-1 calculated accretion rates for 38 DAZ white dwarfs based on the abundance of Ca, and adopting solar abundances for the accreting material. For PG1015+161, these assumptions implied $\dot M\simeq2\times10^{11}\,\mathrm{g\,s^{-1}}$. Since then, it has become increasingly clear that many, if not most, metal-polluted (single) white dwarfs accrete volatile-depleted material from circumstellar planetary debris. @farihietal09-1 estimated accretion rates for 53 metal-polluted white dwarfs following the prescription of @koester+wilken06-1, but scaling the results by the typical gas-to-dust ratio in the interstellar medium to account for the absence of H and He in the accreted debris, resulting in $\dot
M\simeq2\times10^{9}\,\mathrm{g\,s^{-1}}$ for PG1015+161.
The uncertainty in the estimated accretion rates can be greatly reduced if photospheric abundances for the major constituents of the debris material can be measured. While we do not detect all elements that are likely present in the circumstellar debris at the four white dwarfs studied here, we have determined the accretion rates of all the major elements, in particular O, Si, Mg, and Fe (Sect.\[s-diffusion\]). The accretion rates of all detected elements, as well as their sum are given in Table \[t-fluxes\], and are illustrated in Fig. \[f-mdot\]. For PG1015+161, we find $\dot M\simeq1.7\times10^8\,\mathrm{g\,s^{-1}}$, which is strictly speaking a lower limit, however, the undetected elements (e.g. Al, S, Ti, Mn, Cr) are unlikely to contribute more than 10% of the total accretion rate. Similarly, we find the accretion rates of PG0843+516, SDSS1228+1040, and GALEX1931+0117 to be $\dot
M\simeq1.0\times10^9\,\mathrm{g\,s^{-1}}$, $5.6\times10^8\,\mathrm{g\,s^{-1}}$, and $1.5\times10^9\,\mathrm{g\,s^{-1}}$, respectively.
Hot circumstellar gas {#s-hotgas}
=====================
The discs around white dwarfs are passive, i.e. their emission is solely due to the thermal reprocessing of intercepted stellar flux. The inner disc radius where typical dust grains will rapidly sublimate is determined by the luminosity of the white dwarf [@vonhippeletal07-1]. The gaseous material will viscously spread, both flowing inwards onto the white dwarf, and outwards over the dusty disc, potentially accelerating the inwards migration of the dust via aerodynamic drag [@rafikov11-2]. While gaseous material orbiting at radii coincident with circumstellar dust is observed in a number of systems in the form of double-peaked emission lines [@gaensickeetal06-3; @gaensickeetal07-1; @gaensickeetal08-1; @brinkworthetal09-1; @brinkworthetal-12; @melisetal11-1; @melisetal12-1; @farihietal12-1; @dufouretal12-1], there has yet been no detection of gaseous material well inside the sublimation radius.
Inspection of Fig. \[f-fit1\] reveals that the strength of the [[Si]{}1394,1403Å]{} doublet in PG0843+516 is extremely under-predicted by the photospheric model. These [Si]{} lines correspond to the highest ionisation energy of all transitions detected in the COS spectrum. For the temperature and the Si abundance of PG0843+516, the observed strength of the [Si]{} lines is absolutely incompatible with a purely photospheric origin. The most plausible explanation is that there is additional absorption along the line of sight, associated with hot gas close to the white dwarf that is optically thin except for the strong resonance lines of high-ionisation species, such as [Si]{}. In fact, extremely similar features were found in the far-ultraviolet observations of cataclysmic variables, i.e. white dwarfs that accrete from a (hydrogen-rich) accretion disc that is in turn fed by Roche-lobe overflow of a close M-dwarf companion. *HST*/GHRS and *FUSE* spectroscopy of the white dwarf in UGem contains very strong absorption of [[N]{}1239,1243Å]{} and [[O]{}1032,1038Å]{} that can not form in the $\simeq30\,000$K photosphere, as well as excess absorption in [[Si]{}1394,1403Å]{} [@sionetal98-1; @long+gilliland99-1; @longetal06-1]. All three high-ionisation doublets are red-shifted with respect to the systemic velocity of the white dwarf, but somewhat less so than the lower-ionisation photospheric lines, which are subject to the gravitational redshift at the photospheric radius. These observations were interpreted as evidence for a hot ($\sim80\,000$K) layer of gas sufficiently close to the white dwarf to still experience a noticeable gravitational redshift. Measuring the central wavelengths of the strong [[Si]{}1394, 1403Å]{} lines in PG0843+516, we find that they are blue-shifted with respect to the photospheric features by $\simeq25$, which implies a height of $\simeq1.5$ white dwarf radii above the white dwarf surface. This assumes that there is no significant flow velocity, which seems reasonably well justified given the symmetric shape of the [Si]{} profiles.
A discrepancy between the best-fit white dwarf model and the region around the [Si]{} doublet is also seen in the COS spectrum of SDSS1228+1040 (Fig. \[f-fit2\], bottom left panel), however, in this star, the additional absorption is rather weak. These additional absorption features are clearly blue-shifted with respect to the photospheric lines, however, the relatively low signal-to-noise ratio of the spectrum prevents an accurate determination of this offset.
For PG1015+161 and GALEX1931+0117, the photospheric fits match the observed [Si]{} lines well, i.e. there is no evidence for any additional absorption component. Given that these two stars have, respectively, the lowest and highest accretion rate of our small sample (Sect.\[s-mdot\]), there seems to be no clear correlation between the detection of absorption from highly ionised gas to the mass flow rate onto the white dwarf. A key difference between the two stars where circumstellar [Si]{} absorption is detected is that SDSS1228+1040 also shows strong *emission* lines from circumstellar gas, which indicate a relatively high inclination of the accretion disc. In contrast, no gaseous emission is found in PG0843+516 (Gänsicke et al. in prep). Identifying additional absorption features from these hot layers of gas would provide substantial constraints on the physical parameters in the corresponding regions. The strongest line seen in cataclysmic variables, [N]{}, is naturally absent in the white dwarfs accreting rocky debris[^3], but the [[O]{}1032,1038Å]{} doublet detected in UGem [@longetal06-1] is a promising candidate.
Conclusions
===========
Recent years have seen a surge of interest in the evolution of extra-solar planetary systems through the late phases in the lifes of their host stars [e.g. @burleighetal02-1; @debesetal02-1; @villaver+livio07-1; @villaver+livo09-1; @nordhausetal10-1; @distefanoetal10-1]. While no planet has yet been discovered orbiting a white dwarf [@hoganetal09-1; @faedietal11-1], significant progress has been made in the discovery and understanding of planetary debris discs around white dwarfs.
Our COS study substantially increases the number of polluted white dwarfs for which a wide range of chemical elements have been detected. We find that the C/Si ratio is consistent with that of the bulk Earth, which confirms the rocky nature of the debris at these white dwarfs, and their C/O values are typical of minerals dominated by Fe and Mg silicates. There is so far no detection of planetary debris at white dwarfs that has a large C/O ratio which would be indicative of silicon carbide-based minerals. The abundances of planetary material found around white dwarfs show a large diversity, comparable to, or exceeding that seen among different meteorite classes in the solar system. We find that the Al/Ca ratio follows a similar trend as observed among solar system objects, which suggests that processing of proto- and post-planetary material follows similar underlying principles. A particularly interesting pattern is found in PG0843+516, where over-abundances of S, Cr, Fe, and Ni are suggestive of the accretion of material that underwent melting and possibly differentiation. Extending the abundance studies of metal-polluted white dwarfs both in detail and number will provide further insight into the diversity of exo-terrestrial material, and guide the understanding of terrestrial exo-planet formation [@bondetal10-1; @carter-bondetal12-1].
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We gratefully acknowledge Larry Nittler for sharing his meteorite abundance data with us, and William Januszewski, Charles Proffitt, and Elena Mason for their tireless efforts in the implementation of the *HST* program. D.K. wants to thank P.-E. Tremblay and P. Bergeron for sharing their new calculations of the hydrogen Lyman and Balmer line Stark profiles. Based on observations made with the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope, obtained at the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under NASA contract NAS 5-26555. These observations are associated with program \#11561, \#12169 and \#12474. Also based on observations made with ESO Telescopes at the La Silla Paranal Observatory under programme ID 79.C-0085, 81.C-0466, 82.C-0495, 383.C-0695. We thank the anonymous referee for a constructive report.
[119]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}
, P. A., [Kenyon]{}, S. J., [Hammond]{}, G. L., [Sion]{}, E. M., 1993, AJ, 105, 1033
, T. J., 1979, Journal of Geophysical Research, 84, 985
, C., [Manh[è]{}s]{}, G., [Lewin]{}, E., 2001, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 185, 49
, C. J., [Poirier]{}, J., [Humler]{}, E., [Hofmann]{}, A. W., 1995, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 134, 515
, M.-C., [Lanz]{}, T., 1987, A&A, 182, 273
, N. P., [Barstow]{}, M. A., [Holberg]{}, J. B., [Bruhweiler]{}, F. C., 2003, MNRAS, 341, 477
, M. A., [Quinet]{}, P., [Palmeri]{}, P., [Badnell]{}, N. R., [Dunn]{}, J., [Arav]{}, N., 2009, A&A, 508, 1527
, E. E., [Farihi]{}, J., [Jura]{}, M., [Song]{}, I., [Weinberger]{}, A. J., [Zuckerman]{}, B., 2005, ApJ Lett., 632, L119
, K. V., [Rafikov]{}, R. R., 2011, ApJ, 741, 36
, J. C., [O’Brien]{}, D. P., [Lauretta]{}, D. S., 2010, ApJ, 715, 1050
, A., [Mustill]{}, A. J., [Wyatt]{}, M. C., 2011, MNRAS, 414, 930
, C. S., [G[ä]{}nsicke]{}, B. T., [Marsh]{}, T. R., [Hoard]{}, D. W., [Tappert]{}, C., 2009, ApJ, 696, 1402
, C. S., [G[ä]{}nsicke]{}, B. T., [Girven]{}, J. M., [Hoard]{}, D. W., [Marsh]{}, T. R., [Parsons]{}, S. G., [Koester]{}, D., 2012, ApJ, 750, 86
, M. R., [Clarke]{}, F. J., [Hodgkin]{}, S. T., 2002, MNRAS, 331, L41
, J. C., [O’Brien]{}, D. P., [Delgado Mena]{}, E., [Israelian]{}, G., [Santos]{}, N. C., [Gonz[á]{}lez Hern[á]{}ndez]{}, J. I., 2012, ApJ Lett., 747, L2
, P., [Dupuis]{}, J., 2010, in [Werner]{}, K., [Rauch]{}, T., eds., 17$^\mathrm{th}$ European White Dwarf Workshop, no. 1273 in AIP Conf. Ser., AIP, p. 394
, P., [Fontaine]{}, G., [Wesemael]{}, F., 1995, ApJS, 99, 189
, J. H., [L[ó]{}pez-Morales]{}, M., 2008, ApJ Lett., 677, L43
, J. H., [Sigurdsson]{}, S., 2002, ApJ, 572, 556
, J. H., [Hoard]{}, D. W., [Kilic]{}, M., [Wachter]{}, S., [Leisawitz]{}, D. T., [Cohen]{}, M., [Kirkpatrick]{}, J. D., [Griffith]{}, R. L., 2011, ApJ, 729, 4
, J. H., [Walsh]{}, K. J., [Stark]{}, C., 2012, ApJ, 747, 148
, E., [Israelian]{}, G., [Gonz[á]{}lez Hern[á]{}ndez]{}, J. I., [Bond]{}, J. C., [Santos]{}, N. C., [Udry]{}, S., [Mayor]{}, M., 2010, ApJ, 725, 2349
, S., [Wesemael]{}, F., [Chayer]{}, P., [Kruk]{}, J. W., [Saffer]{}, R. A., 2008, ApJ, 672, 540
, R., [Howell]{}, S. B., [Kawaler]{}, S. D., 2010, ApJ, 712, 142
, N. J., [Barstow]{}, M. A., [Welsh]{}, B. Y., [Burleigh]{}, M., [Farihi]{}, J., [Redfield]{}, S., [Unglaub]{}, K., 2012, MNRAS, in press, arXiv:1203.5226
, G., [Palme]{}, H., 1996, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 60, 1125
, P., [Bergeron]{}, P., [Fontaine]{}, G., 2005, ApJ, 627, 404
, P., [Kilic]{}, M., [Fontaine]{}, G., [Bergeron]{}, P., [Melis]{}, C., [Bochanski]{}, J., 2012, ApJ, 749, 6
, J., [Fontaine]{}, G., [Wesemael]{}, F., 1993, ApJS, 87, 345
, D. J., et al., 2006, ApJS, 167, 40
, F., [West]{}, R. G., [Burleigh]{}, M. R., [Goad]{}, M. R., [Hebb]{}, L., 2011, MNRAS, 410, 899
, J., [Zuckerman]{}, B., [Becklin]{}, E. E., 2008, ApJ, 674, 431
, J., [Jura]{}, M., [Zuckerman]{}, B., 2009, ApJ, 694, 805
, J., [Barstow]{}, M. A., [Redfield]{}, S., [Dufour]{}, P., [Hambly]{}, N. C., 2010, MNRAS, 404, 2123
, J., [Hoard]{}, D. W., [Wachter]{}, S., 2010, ApJS, 190, 275
, J., [Brinkworth]{}, C. S., [G[ä]{}nsicke]{}, B. T., [Marsh]{}, T. R., [Girven]{}, J., [Hoard]{}, D. W., [Klein]{}, B., [Koester]{}, D., 2011, ApJ Lett., 728, L8
, J., [G[ä]{}nsicke]{}, B. T., [Steele]{}, P. R., [Girven]{}, J., [Burleigh]{}, M. R., [Breedt]{}, E., [Koester]{}, D., 2012, MNRAS, 421, 1635
, G., [Michaud]{}, G., 1979, ApJ, 231, 826
, G., [Villeneuve]{}, B., [Wesemael]{}, F., [Wegner]{}, G., 1984, ApJ Lett., 277, L61
, J. J., 2012, ApJ Lett., 747, L27
, S., [Jordan]{}, S., [Koester]{}, D., 2004, A&A, 424, 665
, B. T., [Marsh]{}, T. R., [Southworth]{}, J., [Rebassa-Mansergas]{}, A., 2006, Science, 314, 1908
, B. T., [Marsh]{}, T. R., [Southworth]{}, J., 2007, MNRAS, 380, L35
, B. T., [Koester]{}, D., [Marsh]{}, T. R., [Rebassa-Mansergas]{}, A., [Southworth]{}, J., 2008, MNRAS, 391, L103
, J., [Brinkworth]{}, C. S., [Farihi]{}, J., [G[ä]{}nsicke]{}, B. T., [Hoard]{}, D. W., [Marsh]{}, T. R., [Koester]{}, D., 2012, ApJ, 749, 154
, J. R., [Matthews]{}, K., [Neugebauer]{}, G., [Soifer]{}, B. T., 1990, ApJ, 357, 216
, R. F., [Schmidt]{}, M., [Liebert]{}, J., 1986, ApJS, 61, 305
, C. J., et al., 2008, Nat, 456, 767
, S., [Nagel]{}, T., [Rauch]{}, T., [Werner]{}, K., 2011, A&A, 530, A7
, E., [Burleigh]{}, M. R., [Clarke]{}, F. J., 2009, MNRAS, 396, 2074
, M., 2003, ApJ Lett., 584, L91
, M., 2006, ApJ, 653, 613
, M., [Xu]{}, S., 2010, AJ, 140, 1129
, M., [Xu]{}, S., 2012, AJ, 143, 6
, M., [Farihi]{}, J., [Zuckerman]{}, B., 2007, ApJ, 663, 1285
, M., [Xu]{}, S., [Klein]{}, B., [Koester]{}, D., [Zuckerman]{}, B., 2012, ApJ, 750, 69
, M., [von Hippel]{}, T., [Leggett]{}, S. K., [Winget]{}, D. E., 2005, ApJ Lett., 632, L115
, T., 2011, Irradiated Gaseous Discs Around White Dwarfs, Master’s thesis, University of Warwick
, B., [Jura]{}, M., [Koester]{}, D., [Zuckerman]{}, B., [Melis]{}, C., 2010, ApJ, 709, 950
, B., [Jura]{}, M., [Koester]{}, D., [Zuckerman]{}, B., 2011, ApJ, 741, 64
, D., 1976, A&A, 52, 415
, D., 2009, A&A, 498, 517
, D., 2010, Memorie della Societa Astronomica Italiana,, 81, 921
, D., [Knist]{}, S., 2006, A&A, 454, 951
, D., [Wilken]{}, D., 2006, A&A, 453, 1051
, D., [Weidemann]{}, V., [Zeidler]{}, E.-M., 1982, A&A, 116, 147
, D., [Provencal]{}, J., [Shipman]{}, H. L., 1997, A&A, 320, L57
, D., [Rollenhagen]{}, K., [Napiwotzki]{}, R., [Voss]{}, B., [Christlieb]{}, N., [Homeier]{}, D., [Reimers]{}, D., 2005, A&A, 432, 1025
, D., [Voss]{}, B., [Napiwotzki]{}, R., [Christlieb]{}, N., [Homeier]{}, D., [Lisker]{}, T., [Reimers]{}, D., [Heber]{}, U., 2009, A&A, 505, 441
, M. J., [Seager]{}, S., 2005, ApJ, in press, arXiv:1201.6252
, F., [Piskunov]{}, N., [Ryabchikova]{}, T. A., [Stempels]{}, H. C., [Weiss]{}, W. W., 1999, A&AS, 138, 119
, F. G., [Ryabchikova]{}, T. A., [Piskunov]{}, N. E., [Stempels]{}, H. C., [Weiss]{}, W. W., 2000, Baltic Astronomy, 9, 590
, C., [Bergeron]{}, P., 2007, ApJ, 667, 1126
, T., [Artru]{}, M.-C., 1985, Physica Scripta, 32, 115
, T., [Barstow]{}, M. A., [Hubeny]{}, I., [Holberg]{}, J. B., 1996, ApJ, 473, 1089
, J., [Bergeron]{}, P., [Holberg]{}, J. B., 2005, ApJS, 156, 47
, K., 2003, ApJ, 591, 1220
, K., [Fegley]{}, B., 2011, Chemistry of the Solar System, RSC Publishing, Cambrige
, K. S., [Gilliland]{}, R. L., 1999, ApJ, 511, 916
, K. S., [Brammer]{}, G., [Froning]{}, C. S., 2006, ApJ, 648, 541
, N., et al., 2011, Nat, 469, 64
, P. F. L., [Marsh]{}, T. R., [Moran]{}, C., [Dhillon]{}, V. S., [Hilditch]{}, R. W., 1998, MNRAS, 300, 1225
, W., 2000, in Teisseyre, R., Majewski, E., eds., Earthquake Thermodynamics and Phase Transformation in the Earth’s Interior, Elsevier Science Academic Press, p. 5
, C., [Jura]{}, M., [Albert]{}, L., [Klein]{}, B., [Zuckerman]{}, B., 2010, ApJ, 722, 1078
, C., [Farihi]{}, J., [Dufour]{}, P., [Zuckerman]{}, B., [Burgasser]{}, A. J., [Bergeron]{}, P., [Bochanski]{}, J., [Simcoe]{}, R., 2011, ApJ, 732, 90
, C., et al., 2012, ApJ Lett., in press, arXiv:1204.1132
, B. D., [Rafikov]{}, R. R., [Bochkarev]{}, K. V., 2012, ApJ, in press, arXiv:1202.0557
, F., [Yin]{}, Q.-Z., [Schauble]{}, E., 2011, Science, 331, 1417
, S. N., 1998, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, 68, 183
, R., et al., 2001, Astronomische Nachrichten, 322, 411
, L. R., [McCoy]{}, T. J., [Clark]{}, P. E., [Murphy]{}, M. E., [Trombka]{}, J. I., [Jarosewich]{}, E., 2004, Antarctic Meteorite Research, 17, 231
, J., [Spiegel]{}, D. S., [Ibgui]{}, L., [Goodman]{}, J., [Burrows]{}, A., 2010, MNRAS, 408, 631
, C., [Pelletier]{}, C., [Fontaine]{}, G., [Michaud]{}, G., 1986, ApJS, 61, 177
, E. A., [Marcy]{}, G. W., 2011, ApJ, 735, 41
, N. E., [Kupka]{}, F., [Ryabchikova]{}, T. A., [Weiss]{}, W. W., [Jeffery]{}, C. S., 1995, A&AS, 112, 525
, S., et al., 2012, MNRAS, 419, 817
, R. R., 2011, MNRAS, 416, L55
, T. A., [Piskunov]{}, N. E., [Kupka]{}, F., [Weiss]{}, W. W., 1997, Baltic Astronomy, 6, 244
, G. D., [Smith]{}, P. S., [Harvey]{}, D. A., [Grauer]{}, A. D., 1995, AJ, 110, 398
, M. R., [G[ä]{}nsicke]{}, B. T., 2003, A&A, 406, 305
, M. J., [Yan]{}, Y., [Mihalas]{}, D., [Pradhan]{}, A. K., 1994, MNRAS, 266, 805
, E. M., [Cheng]{}, F. H., [Szkody]{}, P., [Sparks]{}, W., [G[ä]{}nsicke]{}, B., [Huang]{}, M., [Mattei]{}, J., 1998, ApJ, 496, 449
, P.-E., [Bergeron]{}, P., 2009, ApJ, 696, 1755
, D., [Ikoma]{}, M., [Guillot]{}, T., [Nettelmann]{}, N., 2010, A&A, 516, A20
, A., 1917, PASP, 29, 258
, S., [Kawka]{}, A., [N[é]{}meth]{}, P., 2010, MNRAS, 404, L40
, S., [Kawka]{}, A., [N[é]{}meth]{}, P., 2011, in [Schuh]{}, S., [Drechsel]{}, H., [Heber]{}, U., eds., Planetary systems beyond the main sequence, no. 1331 in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, p. 246
, S., [Kawka]{}, A., [N[é]{}meth]{}, P., 2011, MNRAS, 413, 2545
, E., [Livio]{}, M., 2007, ApJ, 661, 1192
, E., [Livio]{}, M., 2009, ApJ Lett., 705, L81
, T., [Thompson]{}, S. E., 2007, ApJ, 661, 477
, T., [Kuchner]{}, M. J., [Kilic]{}, M., [Mullally]{}, F., [Reach]{}, W. T., 2007, ApJ, 662, 544
, S., [Hoard]{}, D. W., [Hansen]{}, K. H., [Wilcox]{}, R. E., [Taylor]{}, H. M., [Finkelstein]{}, S. L., 2003, ApJ, 586, 1356
, F., 1979, A&A, 72, 104
, M. A., 1995, in [Koester]{}, D., [Werner]{}, K., eds., White Dwarfs, no. 443 in LNP, Springer, Heidelberg, p. 41
, S., [Jura]{}, M., 2012, ApJ, 745, 88
, B., [Becklin]{}, E. E., 1987, Nat, 330, 138
, B., [Koester]{}, D., [Melis]{}, C., [Hansen]{}, B. M., [Jura]{}, M., 2007, ApJ, 671, 872
, B., [Koester]{}, D., [Dufour]{}, P., [Melis]{}, C., [Klein]{}, B., [Jura]{}, M., 2011, ApJ, 739, 101
\[lastpage\]
[^1]: @melisetal11-1 discuss the discrepancy between their model and the *GALEX* fluxes. From their Table1, it appears that they did not correct for the non-linearity of the *GALEX* detectors for bright targets. The corrected *GALEX* magnitudes given by @vennesetal10-1 are in good agreement with our best-fit model.
[^2]: A more detailed discussion of these binaries will be published elsewhere. Here, they merely serve as “abundance standard white dwarfs” which accrete material with abundance ratios that are expected to be close to solar, i.e. rich in volatiles.
[^3]: For completeness, we note that circumstellar high-ionisation absorption lines have also been found around a number of hot white dwarfs [@bannisteretal03-1; @dickinsonetal12-1]. However, the origin of the circumstellar material is not clear, and the detection of strong C lines suggests a different nature compared to the rocky debris found around the stars studied here.
|
---
author:
- 'Viktor G. Czinner'
- and Hideo Iguchi
title: 'Thermodynamics, stability and Hawking–Page transition of Kerr black holes from Rényi statistics'
---
Introduction
============
Gravitational phase transitions, in particular the ones connected to black hole thermodynamics, are essential constituents of many open problems in modern theoretical physics. The Hawking–Page phase transition [@Hawking:1982dh] of black holes in anti-de Sitter space is one of the most important ones due to its role in the AdS/CFT correspondence [@Maldacena:1997re; @Witten:1998qj] and also in related phenomena of confinement/deconfinement transitions at finite temperature in various gauge theories [@MMT1; @MMT2]. Because of the different background geometry, asymptotically flat black holes have different stability properties than AdS ones, and in the standard black hole thermodynamic picture [@Bekenstein:1973ur; @Bardeen:1973gs; @Hawking:1974sw; @Hawking:1976de], they mostly tend to be unstable for any large masses when surrounded by an infinite bath of thermal radiation. A Hawking–Page transition does not occur under these conditions, and a cosmic black hole nucleation is not present in asymptotically flat spacetimes. Apart from the gravity interest, the above phenomenon is interesting from a thermodynamic viewpoint as well, and for a clear understanding of the physics behind, the underlying theory of black hole thermodynamics is also necessary to be well understood. In the past 40 years, after the foundations of the standard thermodynamic theory of black holes [@Bekenstein:1973ur; @Bardeen:1973gs; @Hawking:1974sw; @Hawking:1976de], numerous achievements have been made in the field. In spite of the active research and successes however, there still are some unsettled and important issues which could not be resolved satisfactorily so far. From a classical thermodynamic perspective, one of the most interesting ones is the nonextensive nature of black holes and the corresponding problem of thermodynamic stability.
A basic group of physical quantities in classical thermodynamics is the group called extensive variables $X$ (like energy, entropy, etc.), where it is assumed that these quantities are *additive* for composition, i.e. $X_{12}=X_1+X_2$ when thermodynamic systems are joined together [@PhysRevE.83.061147]. On the other hand, it is also customary to assume that these quantities characterize the system down to the smallest scales [@Mackey], i.e. when working with finite densities: $$\varrho_X = \lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n X_i < \infty,$$ where the system is divided into $n$ different parts. This property is called *extensivity*. The two properties: additivity and extensivity are not equivalent. An additive quantity is extensive, but extensive quantities can be nonadditive too [@T2; @B1]. Black holes are very peculiar creatures in this respect because they cannot be described as the union of some constituent subsystems which are endowed with their own thermodynamics, and therefore black holes are nonextensive objects.
Looking from a different perspective, phenomenological thermodynamics of macroscopic objects has a well understood theory from statistical physics where the macroscopic properties of a given body (described by the thermodynamic parameters e.g. total energy, entropy, temperature, etc.) can be uniquely obtained from the microscopic description of the system. Standard statistical descriptions, on the other hand, usually assume that long-range type interactions are negligible, i.e. that the (linear) size of the system in question is much lager than the range of the relevant interaction between the elements of the system. Under these conditions the standard local notions of mass, energy and other extensive quantities are well defined, and by applying the additive (and therefore extensive) Boltzamann–Gibbs formula: $S_{BG}=-\sum p_i\ln p_i$, for defining the system’s entropy function, the classical thermodynamic description is recovered in the macroscopic limit.
In the presence of strong gravitational fields however, and in particular when black holes are considered, the assumption of negligible long-range type interactions can not be hold, and consequently the usual definition of mass and other extensive quantities is not possible locally. Nonlocality is indeed a fundamental feature of general relativity, and corresponding nonextesive thermodynamic phenomena have been known in cosmology and gravitation theory for a long time (see e.g. [@Landsberg1984; @cg1; @cg2; @cg3; @cg4; @cg5; @cg6; @cg7; @cg8; @cg9] and references therein). In fact, even as early as 1902, Gibbs already pointed out in his statistical mechanics book [@Gibbs], that systems with divergent partition function lie outside the validity of Boltzamann–Gibbs theory. He explicitly mentions gravitation as an example (see e.g. [@Tsallis:2012js] for more details). Therefore, the standard Boltzamann–Gibbs statistics may not be the best possible choice for defining the entropy function in strongly gravitating systems, and other statistical approaches, which could also take into account the long-range type property of the relevant interaction (i.e. gravitation) and the nonextensive nature of the problem, are also relevant and important to study.
The nonextensive nature of the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy of black hole event horizons has been noticed [@Davies:1978mf] very early on after the thermodynamic theory of black holes had been formulated [@Bekenstein:1973ur; @Bardeen:1973gs; @Hawking:1974sw; @Hawking:1976de], and the corresponding thermodynamic and stability problem has been investigated several times with various approaches (see e.g. [@landsberg1980entropies; @bishop1987thermodynamics; @Landsberg1984; @pavon1986some; @1993Natur.365..103M; @Gour:2003pd; @Oppenheim:2002kx; @Pesci:2006sb; @Aranha:2008ni; @Tsallis:2012js] and references therein). The general theory of nonadditive thermodynamics has also advanced significantly in the past few decades (see e.g. [@T2; @Landsberg] and references therein), and it has been shown, that by relaxing the additivity requirement in the axiomatic approach to the entropy definition (given by Shannon [@Shannon] and Khinchin [@Khinchin]) to the weaker *composability* requirement, new possible functional forms of the entropy may arise [@Tempesta]. As a consequence, there exist certain parametric extensions of the Boltzamann–Gibbs statistical entropy formula, which seem to be more appropriate to describe systems with long-range type interactions. One such statistical entropy definition has been proposed by Tsallis [@Tsallis:1987eu] as: $$\label{TsS}
S_T=\frac{1}{1-q}\sum_i(p^q_i-p_i),$$ where $p_i$ are the probabilities of the microscopic states of the system, and $q\in\mathbb{R}$ is the so-called nonextensivity parameter. In the limit of $q\rightarrow 1$, $S_T$ reproduces the standard Boltzamann–Gibbs result, however, in the case when $q\neq 0$, the Tsallis entropy is not additive, and the parameter can be attributed to measure the effects of non-localities in the system. The $q$-parameter is usually constant in different physical situations, and its explicit value is part of the problem to be solved.
The Tsallis statistics to the black hole problem has been investigated with various approaches (see e.g. [@Tsallis:2012js] and references therein), however it has been a long-standing problem in nonextensive thermodynamics that nonadditive entropy composition rules (in general) can not be compatible with the most natural requirement of thermal equilibrium in the system [@PhysRevE.83.061147]. They usually don’t satisfy the zeroth law of thermodynamics, which requires the existence of a well defined, unique, empirical temperature in thermal equilibrium which is constant all over the system. For resolving these issues, Biró and Ván developed a method [@PhysRevE.83.061147], called the “*formal logarithm approach*”, which maps the original, nonadditive entropy composition rule of a given system to an additive one by a simple transformation. This procedure results a new, but also well defined entropy function for the system, which in turn, also satisfies both the equilibrium and the zeroth law compatibility requirements of thermodynamics. In case of the nonextensive Tsallis statistics, this new entropy turns out to be the well known Rényi formula [@renyi1959dimension; @renyi1970probability], defined as $$\label{Srenyi}
S_R=\frac{1}{1-q}\ln\sum_ip^q_i,$$ which had been proposed earlier by the Hungarian mathematician Alfréd Rényi in 1959 [@renyi1959dimension].
Recently, motivated by the nonextensive and nonlocal nature of black hole thermodynamics, we proposed and studied an alternative approach to the black hole entropy problem [@Biro:2013cra]. In this model, in order to satisfy both the equilibrium the zeroth law compatibility, instead of the Tsallis description, we considered its formal logarithm, the Rényi statistics (\[TsS\]) to describe the thermodynamic entropy of black hole event horizons. The explicit details of this approach is presented in the next section, and by applying the Rényi model to Schwarzschild black holes [@Biro:2013cra], we found that the temperature-horizon radius relation of the black hole has the same form as the one obtained from a black hole in anti-de Sitter space by using the original Boltzamann-Gibbs statistics. In both cases the temperature has a minimum. By using a semi-classical estimate on the horizon radius at this minimum, we obtained a Bekenstein bound [@Bekenstein:1980jp] for the $q$-parameter value in the Rényi entropy of micro black holes ($q \geq 1 + 2/\pi^2$), which was surprisingly close to other $q$-parameter fits from very distant and unrelated physical phenomena, e.g. cosmic ray spectra [@Bek1; @Bek2], and power-law distribution of quarks coalescing to hadrons in high energy accelerator experiments [@BU].
Besides the statistical approach, another fundamental problem of applying standard thermodynamic methods to black holes arising from the question of stability. In ordinary thermodynamics of extensive systems, the local thermodynamic stability (defined as the Hessian of the entropy has no positive eigenvalues) is linked to the dynamical stability of the system. This stability criteria, however, strongly relies on the additivity of the entropy function, which is a property that clearly does not hold for black holes. The simplest example of this discrepancy is the Schwarzschild black hole which is known to be perturbatively stable but has a negative specific heat (positive Hessian). Black hole phase transitions are also strongly related to the stability properties of the system (in particular the Hawking–Page transition), and since the standard methods are not reliable in nonextensive thermodynamics, one has to be very careful when considering stability and phase transitions in strongly gravitating systems.
Avoiding the complications arising from the Hessian approach to the stability problem of black holes, an alternative technique was proposed in a series of paper by Kaburaki et al. [@Kaburaki:1993ah; @Katz:1993up; @kaburaki1996critical]. In these works the so-called “Poincaré turning point method of stability” [@poincare1885equilibre] has been applied to the problem, which is a topological approach and does not depend on the additivity of the entropy function. More recently this method has also been used to study critical phenomena of higher dimensional black holes and black rings [@Arcioni:2004ww] and to determine the conditions of stability for equilibrium configurations of charged black holes surrounded by quintessence [@AzregAinou:2012hy]. In section \[stab\] we present an overview of this method.
By considering the Rényi model in the black hole problem, we also investigated the thermodynamic stability question of Schwarzschild black holes [@Czinner:2015eyk]. First we considered the question of pure, isolated black holes in the microcanonical approach, and showed that these configurations are stable against spherically symmetric perturbations, just like in the Boltzmann picture. However, in considering the case when the black holes are surrounded by a heat bath in the canonical treatment, we found that – in contrast to the Boltzmann approach – Schwarzschild black holes can be in stable equilibrium with thermal radiation at a fixed temperature. This results a stability change at a certain value of the mass-energy parameter of the black hole which belongs to the minimum temperature solution. Black holes with smaller masses are unstable in this model, however larger black holes become stable. These findings are essentially identical to the ones obtained by Hawking and Page in AdS space within the standard Boltzmann entropy description [@Hawking:1982dh]. According to this similarity, we also analyzed the question of a possible phase transition in the canonical picture and found that a Hawking–Page black hole phase transition occurs in a very similar fashion as in AdS space in the Boltzamann statistics. We showed that the corresponding critical temperature depends only on the $q$-parameter of the Rényi formula, just like it depends only on the curvature parameter in AdS space. For the stability analysis we considered both the Poincaré and the Hessian methods. The latter one could also be applied since the Rényi entropy is additive for composition (see the next section), and therefore the standard stability analysis is also reliable in this case. Both approaches confirmed the same stability results.
These findings might have some relevant consequences in black hole physics. In particular, if an effective physical model could be constructed on how to compute the $q$-parameter value for the Rényi entropy of black holes (or other strongly gravitating systems) in order to parametrize the non-local effects of the gravitational field, the Rényi statistics can provide a well behaving and additive entropy description of the system which is also compatible with the requirements of equilibrium and the zeroth law of thermodynamics. Similar considerations have been applied recently to describe the relative information entropy measure inside compact domains of an inhomogeneous universe [@CzM], where an explicit geometric model has been proposed to compute the $q$-parameter of the Rényi entropy in order to measure the effects of the gravitational entanglement problem.
In the case of black hole thermodynamics, we showed that large, asymptotically flat, Schwarzschild black holes can be in stable equilibrium with a thermal heath bath in the Rényi picture, and a Hawking–Page phase transition can occur in the system. This result offers a possible explanation for the problem of cosmic black hole nucleation in the early universe, and this mechanism might be the origin of large or super massive black holes that can be found in most galaxy centers. Many other interesting consequences can be deduced from the Rényi approach, but in this work we aim to achieve a more modest goal. In the present paper, by extending our previous investigations in the problem, we study the thermodynamic, stability and phase transition properties of Kerr black holes within the Rényi model and analyze whether similar results can be obtained to what we have found in the Schwarzschild case. In this analysis the turning point method is applied to the stability problem in both the microcanonical and canonical ensembles, and we will show that stability changes appear in the latter case, which suggests that a Hawking–Page transition and a first order small black hole/large black hole phase transition occur in the system, similar to the one observed for charged and rotating black holes in AdS space [@Chamblin:1999tk; @Chamblin:1999hg; @Caldarelli:1999xj; @Tsai:2011gv; @Altamirano:2014tva]. This result provides a correspondence between the Kerr–Rényi and the Kerr-AdS–Boltzmann pictures, analogous to the one we reported in the Schwarzschild problem [@Biro:2013cra; @Czinner:2015eyk].
The plan of the paper is as follows. In Sec. \[sec:Renyi\] we discuss the foundations and motivation of the Rényi approach arising from nonextensive thermodynamics to the black hole problem. In Sec. \[sec:Kerr\] we introduce the Kerr solution and calculate its thermodynamic quantities within the Rényi statistics. In Sec. \[sec:Stability\] we investigate the thermodynamic stability problem of Kerr black holes in the Rényi model by the Poincaré turning point method both in the microcanonical and canonical treatments. We also discuss the question of possible phase transitions in this section. In Sec. \[sec:Kerr-AdS\] the thermodynamic stability problem of Kerr-AdS black holes in the standard Boltzmann case is also presented by the turning point method, and the correspondence between the Kerr–Rényi and the Kerr-AdS–Boltzmann approaches is discussed. In Sec. \[sec:summary\] we summarize our results and draw our conclusions. Throughout this paper we use units such as $c=G=\hbar=k_B=1$.
Rényi approach from nonadditive thermodynamics {#sec:Renyi}
==============================================
By replacing the additivity axiom to the weaker composability in the Shannon–Khinchin axiomatic definition of the entropy function, new type of entropy expressions arise. The composability axiom asserts, roughly speaking, that the entropy $S_{12}$ of a compound system consisting of two independent systems should be computable only in terms of the individual entropies $S_{1}$ and $S_{2}$. This means that there is a function $f(x,y)$ such that $$S_{12} = f (S_1, S_2),$$ for any independent systems. This property is of fundamental importance, since it implies that an entropic function is properly defined on macroscopic states of a given system, and it can be computed without having any information on the underlying microscopic dynamics. Composability is a key feature to ensure that the entropy function is physically meaningful. In a recent paper [@abe2001general], based on the concept of composability alone, Abe derived the most general functional form of those nonadditive entropy composition rules that are compatible with homogeneous equilibrium. Assuming that $f(S_1, S_2)$ is a $C^2$ class symmetric function, Abe showed that the most general, equilibrium compatible composition rule takes the form $$\label{eq:Abe}
H_{\lambda}(S_{12})=H_{\lambda}(S_1)+H_{\lambda}(S_2)+\lambda H_{\lambda}(S_1)H_{\lambda}(S_2),$$ where $H_{\lambda}$ is a differentiable function of $S$ and $\lambda\in\mathbb{R}$ is a constant parameter. Later on, this result has been extended to non-homogeneous systems as well [@PhysRevE.83.061147], where not only the entropy, but the energy function is also considered to be nonadditive.
The simplest and perhaps the most well-known nonadditive entropy composition rule can be obtained from (\[eq:Abe\]) by setting $H_{\lambda}(S)$ to be the identity function, i.e. $H_{\lambda}(S)=S$. In this case Abe’s equation becomes $$\label{eq:tsallis_composition}
S_{12}=S_1+S_2+\lambda S_1 S_2,$$ which results the familiar Tsallis composition rule with $\lambda=1-q$ [@Tsallis:1987eu], and the corresponding entropy definition is given in (\[TsS\]). The nonextensive Tsallis statistics is widely investigated in many research fields from natural to social sciences, an updated bibliography on the topic can be found in [@Tsallis-bib]. This approach has also been studied in the problem of black hole thermodynamics (see e.g. [@Tsallis:2012js] and references therein), and our starting point in considering a more general entropy definition for black holes than the one based on the Boltzamann-Gibbs statistics is also the Tsallis formula.
Generalized, nonadditive entropy definitions has been investigated in various problems from high energy physics [@B1] to DNA analysis [@DNA], and it has been a longstanding problem that the zeroth law of thermodynamics (i.e. the existence of a well defined temperature function in thermal equilibrium) cannot be compatible with nonadditive entropy composition rules. A possible resolution to this problem has been proposed recently by Biró and Ván in [@PhysRevE.83.061147], where they developed a formulation to determine the most general functional form of those nonadditive entropy composition rules that are compatible with the zeroth law of thermodynamics. They found that the general form is additive for the *formal logarithms* of the original quantities, which in turn, also satisfy the familiar relations of standard thermodynamics. In particular, for homogeneous systems, they showed that the most general, zeroth law compatible entropy function takes the form $$\label{eq:formallog}
L(S)=\frac{1}{\lambda}\ln[1+\lambda H_{\lambda}(S)],$$ which is additive for composition, i.e., $$L(S_{12})=L(S_{1})+L(S_{2}),$$ and the corresponding zeroth law compatible temperature function can be obtained as $$\frac{1}{T}=\frac{\partial L(S(E))}{\partial E},$$ where $E$ is the energy of the system.
In the case of the Tsallis statistics, it is easy to show that by taking the formal logarithm (\[eq:formallog\]) of the Tsallis entropy (\[TsS\]), i.e. $$L(S_T)=\frac{1}{1-q}\ln\left[1+(1-q)S_T\right] \equiv S_R,$$ the Rényi expression (\[Srenyi\]) is reproduced, which, unlike the Tsallis formula, is additive for composition. In the limit of $q\rightarrow 1$ ($\lambda \rightarrow 0$), both the Tsallis- and the Rényi entropies recovers the standard Boltzmann-Gibbs description.
According to these results, in the present paper, in order to describe the non-Boltzamannian nature of Kerr black holes, we consider the Tsallis statistics as the simplest, nonadditive, parametric but equilibrium compatible extension of the Boltzamann-Gibbs theory which also satisfies Abe’s formula. On the other hand, in order to satisfy the zeroth law of thermodynamics, we follow the formal logarithm method of Biró and Ván, and rather the Tsallis description, we consider the Rényi entropy for the thermodynamics of the problem. Since the Rényi definition is additive, it satisfies all laws of thermodynamics, and compared to the Boltzmann picture, it has the advantage of having a free parameter which can be accounted to describe the effects of nonlocality in our approach. The thermodynamics of Schwarzschild black holes in this model has been studied in [@Biro:2013cra], and the corresponding stability problem has been investigated in [@Czinner:2015eyk].
Kerr black holes {#sec:Kerr}
================
The spacetime metric that describes the geometry of a rotating black hole is given by the Kerr solution $$\begin{aligned}
ds^2 & = & -dt^2 + \frac{2 M r}{\Sigma} \left( dt -a \sin^2 \theta d \phi \right)^2
+ \frac{\Sigma}{\Delta} dr^2 + \Sigma d \theta^2 \nonumber \\
& &+ (r^2 +a^2) \sin \theta d \phi^2\ ,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\Sigma = r^2 + a^2 \cos^2 \theta , ~~~ \Delta = r^2 + a^2 - 2Mr .$$ Here, $M$ is the mass-energy parameter of the black hole and $a$ is its rotation parameter. The thermodynamic quantities of a Kerr black hole can be expressed in terms of its horizon radius $r_{+} = M + \sqrt{M^2 - a^2}$, which is defined by taking $\Delta = 0$. The Hawking temperature of the black hole horizon is $$T_H = \frac{1}{2\pi}\left[ \frac{r_{+}}{r_{+}^2 + a^2} - \frac{1}{2 r_{+}} \right],$$ the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy is $$S_{BH} = \pi (r_{+}^2 + a^2),$$ the angular momentum of the black hole is $$J = \frac{a}{2 r_{+}}(r_{+}^2 + a^2),$$ the angular velocity of the horizon is $$\Omega = \frac{a}{r_{+}^2 + a^2},$$ and the mass-energy parameter can also be written as $$M = \frac{r_{+}^2 + a^2}{2 r_{+}}.$$ The heat capacity at constant angular velocity is given by $$C_{\Omega} = T_H \left( \frac{\partial S_{BH}}{\partial T_H} \right)_\Omega
= \frac{2 \pi r_{+}^2(a^2 - r_{+}^2)}{r_{+}^2 +a^2},$$ and the heat capacity at constant angular momentum is $$C_J = T_H \left( \frac{\partial S_{BH}}{\partial T_H} \right)_J
= \frac{2 \pi (r_{+}^2 -a^2)(r_{+}^2 + a^2)^2}{3 a^4 + 6 r_{+}^2 a^2 - r_{+}^4}\ .$$ $C_\Omega$ and $C_J$ can be written in simpler forms if we normalize them by $r_{+}^2$, i.e. $$\frac{C_{\Omega}}{r_{+}^2} = - \frac{2 \pi (1 - h^2)}{h^2 + 1 }$$ and $$\frac{C_{J}}{r_{+}^2} = \frac{2 \pi (1 - h^2 )(h^2 + 1)^2}{3 h^4 + 6 h^2 - 1},$$ were we also introduced the normalized rotation parameter $h$ [[@okamoto1990thermodynamical]]{} as $$h \equiv \frac{|a|}{r_{+}} .$$ The $r_{+}$ horizon radius exists only for $|a| \le M$, which corresponds to $0 \le h \le 1$. The $h=0$ value describes a Schwarzschild black hole, while the limiting value $h=1$ belongs to the extreme Kerr black hole case. The heat capacities as functions of $h$ are plotted on Fig. \[fig:heat\_capacity\_Kerr\]. It can be seen that $C_\Omega$ is negative for $ 0\le h<1$ and $C_J$ diverges at $h_c = \sqrt{\frac{2}{3}\sqrt{3} - 1}$, where a pole occurs. $C_J$ is negative for $h<h_c$ and positive for $h>h_c$ values. The heat capacities coincide at the limit values $h=0$ and 1.
![Plots of the heat capacities $C_J$ (red solid line) and $C_\Omega$ (blue dotted line) against $h$. $C_J$ diverges at $h_c$ where a pole occurs.[]{data-label="fig:heat_capacity_Kerr"}](figure1.eps)
The Rényi entropy function of black holes can be obtained by taking the formal logarithm of the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy, which in our non-Boltzmannian approach follows the nonadditive Tsallis statistics. The physical meaning of the $\lambda$ parameter is connected to the nonextensive and nonlocal nature of the problem, and the Rényi entropy of a general black hole in this picture is given by $$S_R = \frac{1}{\lambda} \ln (1 + \lambda S_{BH}).$$ The zeroth law compatible Rényi temperature is then defined as $$T_R = \frac{1}{\partial S_R / \partial M} = T_H ( 1 + \lambda S_{BH} ).$$
For the case of a Kerr black hole, the Rényi entropy and the corresponding temperature take the forms $$\label{eq:Renyi_entropy}
S_R = \frac{1}{\lambda} \ln ( 1 + \pi \lambda (r_{+}^2 + a^2) )$$ and $$\label{eq:Renyi_temperature}
T_R = \frac{(1 + \pi \lambda (r_{+}^2 + a^2))(r_{+}^2 - a^2)}{4 \pi r_{+} (r_{+}^2 + a^2)}.$$ The heat capacities can be obtained as $$C_{R} = T_R \left( \frac{\partial S_R}{\partial T_R} \right)
= \frac{C_{BH}}{1 + \lambda(S_{BH} + C_{BH})},$$ where $C_{BH} = T_H \left( \frac{\partial S_{BH}}{\partial T_H} \right)$. The heat capacity at constant angular velocity is then $$C_{\Omega R} = \frac{2 \pi r_{+}^2(a^2 - r_{+}^2)}{r_{+}^2 + a^2
+ \pi \lambda (a^4 - r_{+}^4 + 4 a^2 r_{+}^2)},$$ while the heat capacity at constant angular momentum takes the form $$C_{JR} = \frac{2 \pi (r_{+}^2 - a^2)(a^2 + r_{+}^2)^2}{3 a^4 +6 a^2 r_{+}^2 - r_{+}^4
+ \pi \lambda (a^2 + r_{+}^2)(a^4 +6 r_{+}^2 a^2 +r_{+}^4)}.$$ $C_{\Omega R}$ and $C_{JR}$ can also be written in the simpler, normalized forms as before, i.e. $$\frac{C_{\Omega R}}{r_{+}^2} = \frac{2 \pi (h^2 -1)}{h^2 + 1 + \pi k (h^4+ 4 h^2 -1)},$$ and $$\frac{C_{JR}}{r_{+}^2} = - \frac{2 \pi (h^2 - 1)(h^2 + 1)^2}{3 h^4 + 6 h^2 - 1
+ \pi k (h^2 + 1)(h^4 + 6 h^2 + 1)},$$ where we also introduced the parameter $$k = \lambda r_{+}^2.$$ The heat capacities change their sign depending on the parameter values as plotted on Fig. \[fig:heat\_capacity\].
![Phase diagram of Kerr black holes with Rényi entropy. On the dashed curve $C_{JR}$ diverges while on the dotted curve $C_{\Omega R}$ diverges. In region I, $C_{\Omega R}<0$ and $C_{JR} <0$, in region II, $C_{\Omega R}<0$ and $C_{JR} >0$, while in region III, $C_{\Omega R}>0$ and $C_{JR} >0$.[]{data-label="fig:heat_capacity"}](figure2.eps)
For fixed angular momentum, both the Rényi and the Boltzmann entropies of a Kerr black hole are monotonically increasing functions of the mass parameter (Fig. \[fig:MS\_Kerr\]). An important difference however, is that while the [standard Boltzmann entropy is asymptotically convex]{} (being proportional to $M^2$ as approaching the static Schwarzschild solution in the large $M$ limit), [[the Rényi entropy is asymptotically concave, since it increases only logarithmically.]{}]{}
![Plots of the Rényi entropy as a function of the mass-energy parameter at fixed $J = J_0$ for the parameter values $\lambda J_0 = 0.05$, 0.04, 0.03, 0.02 and 0.01 starting from the bottom curve respectively. The top, bold curve belongs to the standard Boltzmann entropy of the Kerr black hole.[]{data-label="fig:MS_Kerr"}](figure3.eps)
On Fig. \[fig:MT\_Kerr\], we also plotted the temperature-energy relations for fixed angular momentum $J = J_0$. As it is well known, there is a maximum temperature in the case of the standard Boltzmann approach. In the smaller mass (low entropy) region of the $T_H(M)$ curve, the heat capacity $C_J$ is positive, while at larger masses (high entropy) region it is negative. The two regions correspond to the phases of $h>h_c$ and $h<h_c$ on Fig. \[fig:heat\_capacity\_Kerr\]. In the Rényi approach, the $T_R(M)$ curve has different behavior depending on the actual parameter values of the angular momentum and $\lambda$. It has a local maximum and a local minimum when $\lambda J_0$ is smaller than some critical value. In this case three black holes with different masses can coexist at a given temperature. The $C_{JR}$ heat capacity is negative in the phase between the two local extrema and positive otherwise (see also Fig. \[fig:hc\_J0\] in Sec. \[sec:Stability\]). Above the critical value of $\lambda J_0$, the local extrema disappear and the Rényi temperature becomes a monotonically increasing function of the energy. From these properties one can expect a stability change and a thermodynamic phase transition of Kerr black holes in the canonical ensemble. We will investigate this question in the next section.
![Plots of the Rényi temperature against the mass-energy parameter of Kerr black holes at fixed $J = J_0$ with $\lambda J_0 = 0.05$, 0.04, 0.03, 0.02 and 0.01 parameter values starting from the top respectively. The bottom, bold curve belongs to the standard Hawking temperature of the black hole in the Boltzmann model.[]{data-label="fig:MT_Kerr"}](figure4.eps)
Stability analysis {#stab}
==================
Kaburaki [*et al.*]{} [@Kaburaki:1993ah] have shown that isolated Kerr black holes are stable against axisymmetric perturbations in the standard picture of black hole thermodynamics. They also investigated the effects of thermal radiation around Kerr black holes from the standpoint of a canonical ensemble. They concluded that slowly rotating black holes (just like Schwarzschild black holes) are unstable in a heat bath, but rapidly rotating holes are less unstable and may even be stable.
\[sec:Stability\] As we pointed out, the standard thermodynamic stability criteria based on the Hessian analysis fails when it is applied to black holes because of the nonadditivity of the entropy function, and also of the impossibility to define extensive thermodynamic quantities (see e.g. [@Arcioni:2004ww]). These problems can be mainly avoided by the Poincaré turning point method [@poincare1885equilibre], which can divide a linear series of equilibrium into subspaces of unstable and less unstable states of equilibria solely from the properties of the equilibrium sequence without solving any eigenvalue equation. The method has been widely applied to problems in astrophysical and gravitating systems, in particular for the study of the thermodynamic stability of black holes in four and also in higher dimensions [@Kaburaki:1993ah; @Katz:1993up; @kaburaki1996critical; @Arcioni:2004ww; @AzregAinou:2012hy]. A well-organized review on the method has been given by Arcioni and Lozano-Tellechea in [@Arcioni:2004ww], which we will mainly follow in the next brief description. Formal proofs of the results can be found in the previous works of Katz [@1978MNRAS.183..765K; @1979MNRAS.189..817K] and Sorkin [@Sorkin:1981jc], and a more intuitive interpretation has also been given in [@1994PhLA..185...21K].
Suppose $\mathcal{M}$ is the space of possible configurations of a system in which a given configuration is specified by a point $X$. The set of independent thermodynamic variables ${\mu^i}$ specifies a given ensemble. Let $Z$ be the corresponding Massieu function. Both ${\mu^i}$ and $Z$ are functions on $\mathcal{M}$. Equilibrium states occur at points in $\mathcal{M}$ which are extrema of $Z$ under displacements $dX$ for which $d \mu^i = 0$. At equilibrium the Massieu function depends only on the values of the thermodynamic variables $\mu^i$. We can define conjugate variables $\beta_i$ such that $$dS = \beta_i d \mu^i
\label{eq:dS}$$ for all displacements $dX$. The set of equilibria is a submanifold $\mathcal{M}_{eq}$ of the configuration space. Points in $\mathcal{M}_{eq}$ can be labeled by the corresponding values of $\mu_i$ which are called control parameters. Usually all that we know is the explicit expression of the equilibrium Massieu function $$Z_{eq} = Z (\mu^i),$$ which is the integral of Eq. (\[eq:dS\]). The explicit expressions for the conjugate variables at equilibrium are calculated as $$\beta_i (\mu^i) = \frac{\partial Z_{eq}}{\partial \mu^i}.$$ The entropy maximum postulate is a statement about the behaviour of the entropy function along off-equilibrium curves in $\mathcal{M}$, not along equilibrium sequences $\mathcal{M}_{eq}$. Therefore we need an expression for an extended Massieu function $\hat{Z} = \hat{Z}(X^\rho, \mu^i)$ where $X^\rho$ denote a set of off-equilibrium variables. The equillibrium configurations occur at the values $X^\rho_{eq} = X^\rho_{eq}(\mu^i)$ which are solutions of $$\frac{\partial \hat{Z}}{\partial X^\rho} = 0.$$ A stable equilibrium takes place at the point $X^\rho_{eq}$ if and only if it is a local maximum of $\hat{Z}$ at fixed $\mu^i$. Therefore stable solutions have a matrix $$\left. \frac{\partial^2 \hat{Z}(X^\tau, \mu^i)}{\partial X^\rho \partial X^\sigma}\right|_{X^\tau = X^\tau_{eq}(\mu^i)}
\label{eq:matrix}$$ with a negative spectrum of eigenvalues. A change of stability takes place when one of these eigenvalues become zero and changes sign. It has been shown that we can obtain information about the sign of an eigenvalue near a point where it vanishes without computing the spectrum of the matrix (\[eq:matrix\]). What we have to do is to plot a conjugate variable $\beta_a (\mu^a) = \frac{\partial Z_{eq}}{\partial \mu^a}$ against a control parameter $\mu^a$ along an equilibrium sequence for some fixed $a$. When a change of stability occurs, called a turning point, the plot of the stability curve $\beta_a (\mu^a)$ has a vertical tangent. Figure \[fig:turning\] shows an example of stability curves with a turning point $A$. The branch with negative slope near this point is always unstable, since one can prove that at least one eigenvalue of the matrix (\[eq:matrix\]) is positive. The branch with positive slope near $A$ is more stable. If the spectrum of zero modes is nondegenerate, only one of the eigenvalues changes its sign at the turning point. Therefore the positive slope branch has one unstable mode less than the negative slope branch. Note that what we can see with this method is the existence of instabilities because there can be positive eigenvalues which do not change sign at the turning point. If there is a point in the equilibrium sequence which is fully stable, all equilibria in the sequence are fully stable until the first turning point is reached.
![Example of stability curves. A conjugate variable $\beta_a$ against a control parameter $\mu_a$ is plotted. The point $A$ is a turning point, where a stability change can occur. At point $B$ a stability change doesn’t occur even if the slope changes its sign there.[]{data-label="fig:turning"}](figure5.eps)
Pure black holes
----------------
The case of a black hole isolated from its surroundings can be described in the microcanonical emsemble. The Massieu function is the Rényi entropy (\[eq:Renyi\_entropy\]) and the control parameters are $M$ and $J$. The conjugate variables are $\beta$ and $-\alpha$, where $\beta$ is the inverse of the Rényi temperature (\[eq:Renyi\_temperature\]) and $\alpha = \frac{\Omega}{T_R}$. To study the stability of the black hole we need to plot the stability curves $\beta(M)$ at constant $J$ and $-\alpha(J)$ at constant $M$.
When $J=J_0$ is a constant, the variables $\beta/\sqrt{J_0}$ and $M/\sqrt{J_0}$ can be written as functions of the normalized parameter $h$ with constant $\lambda J_0$. On Fig. \[fig:micro\_bM\] we plotted the stability curves $\beta(M)$ for different values of $\lambda J_0$. For comparison, the stability curve of the standard Kerr black hole ($\lambda = 0$) is also plotted on the figure. It can be seen that no curves of the Kerr-Rényi case have a vertical tangent (similar to the standard Kerr result analyzed by Kaburaki, Okamoto and Katz in [@Kaburaki:1993ah]), and therefore there is no stability change for any $M$. Like in the $\lambda = 0$ case, the $\lambda>0$ curves also diverge asymptotically as we consider the extreme black hole limit $h\rightarrow 1$. In the large $M$ limit the black holes approach the static Schwarzschild solution ($h=0$). It can also be seen that the $\lambda > 0$ stability curves are similar to the Schwarzschild-Rényi case in the large $M$ region (see Fig. 3 of [@Czinner:2015eyk]).
For the standard case, it has been shown that isolated Kerr holes are thermodynamically stable with respect to axisymmetric perturbations. Also, the isolated Schwarzschild black holes have been found to be stable against spherically symmetric perturbations in the Rényi approach. Based on these results, since no turning point occurs on the stability curves in between these two extrema, we can conclude that isolated Kerr black holes are thermodynamically stable against axisymmetric perturbations in the Rényi approach as well.
![Curves of the conjugate variable $\beta(M)$ at fixed $J$ in the microcanonical treatment. The $\lambda = 0$ (black) curve represents the stability curve of the black hole in the standard thermodynamic approach, while the $\lambda J_0 = 0.01$ (green), $\lambda J_0 = 0.02$ (red) and $\lambda J_0 =0.1$ (blue) curves are the stability curves within the Rényi approach. No vertical tangent occurs in either case. By rotating the figure clockwise with $\frac{\pi}{2}$, the stability curves of the canonical treatment can be obtained, i.e. $-M(\beta)$ at fixed $J$. In this case, the $\lambda J_0 = 0.01$ (green) curve has two vertical tangents denoting the loss and the recovery of stability. In this scenario, up to three black holes with different mass-energy parameters can coexist at a given temperature.[]{data-label="fig:micro_bM"}](figure6.eps)
By looking at Fig. \[fig:micro\_bM\], we can also see that there are two points where the tangent of the stability curves with smaller $\lambda$ (or small angular momentum $J_0$) becomes horizontal. These correspond to the points where the heat capacity at constant $J$ changes its sign through an infinite discontinuity, similar to the Davies point [[@Davies:1978mf]]{} of the standard Kerr black hole case. On Fig. \[fig:hc\_J0\] we plotted the lines of constant $J$ in the normalized parameter space of $(h,k)$. Here the $\lambda J_0 = 0.01$ line crosses the line where $C_{JR}$ diverges. Along this line the heat capacity $C_{JR}$ changes its sign two times on the way from the $(h=0)$ Schwarzschild limit to $(h = 1)$ extremality.
![Plots of $J = \mbox{const.}$ curves for $\lambda J_0 = 0.01$ (green), $\lambda J_0 = 0.02$ (red) and $\lambda J_0 =0.1$ (blue) parameter values on the $(h,k)$ space.[]{data-label="fig:hc_J0"}](figure7.eps)
When $M=M_0$ is a constant, $\alpha$ and $J/M_0^2$ become functions of $h$ with a constant $\lambda M_0^2$. On Fig. \[fig:micro\_maJ\], we plotted the $-\alpha(J)$ stability curves for different values of $\lambda M_0^2$. There is no vertical tangent and hence no stability change occurs at any point for any $\lambda$. The $M=const.$ lines in the parameter space of $(h,k)$ are plotted on Fig. \[fig:hc\_M0\].
![Curves of the conjugate variable $-\alpha(J)$ at fixed $M$. The $\lambda = 0$ (black) curve represents the stability curve of a Kerr black hole in the standard approach within the microcanonical treatment. The $\lambda M_0^2 = 0.01$ (green), $\lambda M_0^2 = 0.08$ (red) and $\lambda M_0^2 =0.3$ (blue) curves are the stability curves of the Rényi approach. No vertical tangents occurs.[]{data-label="fig:micro_maJ"}](figure8.eps)
![Plots of $M = \mbox{const.}$ curves for $\lambda M_0^2 = 0.01$ (green), $\lambda M_0^2 = 0.08$ (red) and $\lambda M_0^2 =0.3$ (blue) parameter values on the $(h,k)$ space.[]{data-label="fig:hc_M0"}](figure9.eps)
Black holes in a heat bath {#sec:heat_bath}
--------------------------
Let us now consider the black hole in the canonical approach. The canonical ensemble describes the system of a black hole in equilibrium with an infinite reservoir of thermal radiation at constant temperature. The Massieu function in this case is $$\Psi(\beta,J) = S_R - \beta M = -\beta F,$$ where $F = M - T_R S_R$ is the Helmholtz free energy. The conjugate variables of the control parameters are $-M$ and $-\alpha$. To study the stability of the black hole we need to plot the stability curves $-M(\beta)$ at constant $J$ and $-\alpha(J)$ at constant $\beta$.
The stability curves of $-M(\beta)$ at constant $J$ are simply the $\frac{\pi}{2}$ clockwise rotated versions of Fig. \[fig:micro\_bM\]. We can see that there is a vertical tangent along the stability curve in the standard Boltzmann treatment ($\lambda = 0$). The heat capacity $C_J$ diverges at this turning point where $h=h_c$. The $0<h<h_c$ branch of this curve is less stable than the $h>h_c$ branch. As Kaburaki, Okamato and Katz have shown [@Kaburaki:1993ah], one can conclude from this result that [since Schwarzschild black holes ($h=0$) are unstable in an infinite bath, so are the slowly rotating holes until the $h_c$ turning point is reached. Rapidly rotating Kerr black holes, on the other hand, can become stable if the slowly rotating (unstable) holes have only one negative eigenmode, which changes sign at $h_c$.]{}
For the parametrized Rényi case, the behavior of the stability curves changes depending on the value of $\lambda J_0$. We can see that there are two turning points on the $\lambda J_0 = 0.01$ stability curve when we rotate the plots of Fig. \[fig:micro\_bM\] with $\pi/2$ clockwise. These turning points disappear when the value of $\lambda J_0$ is larger than a critical value. As a consequence, stability change occurs only when the parameter $\lambda$ and/or $J_0$ is sufficiently small. In this case, there are three phases of black holes; small, intermediate unstable and large black holes. The stability property of a rapidly rotating, small black hole is the same as of a slowly rotating, large black hole, which is expected to be stable from continuity requirements to the static solution in the Rényi approach [[@Czinner:2015eyk]]{}.
The stability curves of $-\alpha(J)$ at constant $\beta$ are plotted on Fig. \[fig:cano\_maJ\], while the lines of constant $\beta$ in the parameter space of $(h,k)$ are plotted on Fig. \[fig:hc\_beta0\]. One can see again that the stability curves have no vertical tangent when the $\lambda$ parameter is sufficiently large, similar to the case of $\beta(M)$ with constant $J$. Vertical tangents to the stability curves appear however when $\lambda$ and/or $\beta_0$ are smaller than some critical value. When a curve has two vertical tangents, there are two turning points where the heat capacity $C_{JR}$ diverges and changes its sign. The black hole changes its stability there in the order from [a less unstable state to unstable state and back to a less unstable state again, where the less unstable states may even be stable but not guaranteed.]{}
[When $\lambda \beta_0^2$ is less than some critical value, there are two branches of the stability curves $-\alpha(J)$ at constant $\beta_0$. This result is consistent with the fact that in the Schwarzschild-Rényi case there are two black holes with the same $\beta$, as it can be seen on Fig. 1 in [@Czinner:2015eyk]. The lower branch of the $\lambda \beta_0^2=9$ curve terminates at the $h = 0$ small, static black hole limit. The behavior of this branch is similar to the curve of the $\lambda = 0$ Kerr-Boltzmann case. According to these results, we can conclude that small, static or slowly rotating black holes in the Rényi approach are unstable in a heat bath, but fast rotation can stabilize them in a similar way as it is done in the Kerr-Boltzmann case, which has been shown by Kaburaki, Okamoto and Katz [@Kaburaki:1993ah]. The upper branch of the $\lambda \beta_0^2=9$ stability curve belongs to larger mass black holes and terminates at the large, static black hole limit when $h \rightarrow 0$. There is no vertical tangent in this branch so the corresponding rotating black holes have the same stability property as the large, static black holes in a heat bath, i.e. they are stable.]{}
![Curves of the conjugate variable $-\alpha(J)$ at fixed $\beta$ in the canonical approach. The $\lambda = 0$ (black) curve describes the standard thermodynamic approach. The $\lambda \beta_0^2 = 9$ (brown), $\lambda \beta_0^2 = 12.7$ (green), $\lambda \beta_0^2 = 13.4$ (red) and $\lambda \beta_0^2 = 20$ (blue) curves are the stability curves of the Rényi model. The $\lambda \beta_0^2 = 12.7$ (green) curve has two turning points, while the stability curve of $\lambda \beta_0^2 = 9$ (brown) exhibits two branches with a single turning point in the lower branch.[]{data-label="fig:cano_maJ"}](figure10.eps)
![Plots of $\beta = \mbox{const.}$ curves on the $(h,k)$ space for $\lambda \beta_0^2 = 9$ (brown), $\lambda \beta_0^2 = 12.7$ (green), $\lambda \beta_0^2 = 13.4$ (red) and $\lambda \beta_0^2 = 20$ (blue).[]{data-label="fig:hc_beta0"}](figure11.eps)
Phase Transitions {#sec:phase}
-----------------
We have shown in our earlier paper [@Czinner:2015eyk] that a Hawking–Page phase transition can be observed for static black holes in the Rényi approach. Previously, it had also been shown [@Caldarelli:1999xj; @Tsai:2011gv; @Altamirano:2014tva] that Kerr-AdS black holes exhibit a first order small black hole/large black hole (SBH/LBH) phase transition in the canonical ensemble. In this subsection we will study the question of possible phase transitions of Kerr black holes in the Rényi model.
The behavior of the free energy function $F = M - T_R S_R$ for $\lambda J_0 =$ 0.01, 0.02 and 0.1 at constant $J$ is displayed on Fig. \[fig:FT\_Jconst\]. We can see that all curves cross the horizontal axis. Small black holes with lower temperature possess positive free energy, while larger black holes with higher temperature possess negative free energy. One can, therefore, expect a Hawking–Page transition between the thermal gas phase with angular momentum, and the large black hole state, which would be locally stable according to our analysis in Sec. \[sec:heat\_bath\]. It is generally assumed that $F\approx 0$ for a thermal gas, so the phase transition occurs around the temperature where the free energy of the black hole becomes zero.
![Free energy of a Kerr black hole in the Rényi model against the temperature for various angular momenta $J_0$, $\lambda J_0 = 0.01$ (green), $\lambda J_0 = 0.02$ (red) and $\lambda J_0 = 0.1$ (blue). Characterristic swallowtail behaviour is observed for $\lambda J_0 = 0.01$ (green), which corresponds to a SBH/LBH phase transition.[]{data-label="fig:FT_Jconst"}](figure12.eps)
An SBH/LBH phase transition can also be observed for Kerr black holes in the Rényi model when we enlarge the $\lambda J_0 =$ 0.01 curve of Fig. \[fig:FT\_Jconst\] on Fig \[fig:FT\_swallow\]. The swallowtail behavior of the free energy function is a typical sign of a first order transition between the SBH and LBH phases. There are three branches on the picture: small, lower temperature holes; large, higher temperature holes; and also intermediate, unstable black holes. There is a coexistence point of small and large black holes where the SBH/LBH transition occurs. The mass and entropy functions are discontinuous at this point which indicates that the phase transition is a first order kind. By increasing $\lambda$, the swallowtail behavior disappears, as it can be seen on the $\lambda J_0 =$ 0.02 curve on Fig. \[fig:FT\_Jconst\]. This suggests the existence of a critical point where the phase transition becomes second order.
![Close up figure of the free energy of a Kerr black hole in the Rényi model for $\lambda J_0 = 0.01$ on Fig \[fig:FT\_Jconst\]. The intermediate, unstable branch is displayed with a dashed line.[]{data-label="fig:FT_swallow"}](figure13.eps)
Kerr-AdS black holes {#sec:Kerr-AdS}
====================
In order to compare the obtained stability results of the Kerr-Rényi model to the Kerr-AdS-Boltzamann case in the Poincaré approach (analogous to the Schwarzschild problem), in this section we present the Poincaré stability analysis of the Kerr-AdS-Boltzamann case as well. The Kerr-AdS black hole metric is described by $$\begin{aligned}
ds^2 & = & - \frac{\Delta_r}{\rho^2} \left( dt - \frac{a \sin^2 \theta}{\Xi} d \phi \right)^2
+ \frac{\rho^2}{\Delta_r} dr^2 + \frac{\rho^2}{\Delta_\theta} d \theta^2 \nonumber \\
& & + \frac{\Delta_\theta \sin^2 \theta}{\rho^2} \left( a dt - \frac{r^2 + a^2}{\Xi} d\phi \right)^2,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\Delta_r = (r^2 + a^2) \left( 1 + \frac{r^2}{l^2} \right) - 2 m r, ~~~ \Delta_\theta
= 1 - \frac{a^2 \cos^2 \theta}{l^2}, ~~~$$ $$\rho^2 = r^2 + a^2 \cos^2 \theta, ~~~ \Xi = 1 - \frac{a^2}{l^2}.$$ The thermodynamic quantities are written in terms of $a$, $l$ and the horizon radius $r_{+}$, which is obtained by solving $\Delta = 0$. The Hawking temperature of the horizon is given by $$T = \frac{1}{2 \pi r_{+}} \left( \frac{(a^2 +3 r_{+}^2)(r_{+}^2/l^2+1)}{2(a^2 + r_{+}^2)} -1\right),$$ while the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy of the black hole is $$S =\pi \frac{a^2 + r_{+}^2}{1 -a^2/l^2}.$$ The angular momentum of a Kerr-AdS black hole is $$J = \frac{(r_{+}^2 + a^2)(1 + r_{+}^2/l^2)}{2 r_{+}} \frac{a}{(1 - a^2/l^2)^2},$$ the angular velocity of the horizon is $$\Omega = \frac{a}{l^2} \frac{r_{+}^2 + l^2}{r_{+}^2 + a^2},$$ and the mass-energy parameter of the black hole can be re-expressed as $$M = \frac{(r_{+}^2 + a^2)(1 + r_{+}^2/l^2)}{2 r_{+}} \frac{1}{(1 - a^2/l^2)^2}.$$ The heat capacity at constant angular velocity can be computed as $$C_\Omega = \frac{2 \pi l^2 r_{+}^2( 3 r_{+}^4 +( a^2 + l^2) r_{+}^2
- a^2 l^2)}{(l^2 - a^2)(3 r_{+}^4 -(a^2 + l^2) r_{+}^2 - a^2 l^2)},$$ and the heat capacity at constant angular momentum takes the form $$C_J = \frac{2 \pi l^4 \left(a^2+r_{+}^2\right)^2 \left(-a^2 l^2+\left(a^2+l^2\right) r_{+}^2
+3 r_{+}^4\right)}{(l^2 -a^2) X},$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
X & = -l^4 r_{+}^4+3 l^2 r_{+}^6+a^6 \left(l^2+r_{+}^2\right) +a^4 \left(3 l^4+13 l^2 r_{+}^2+6 r_{+}^4\right) \\
& \quad +a^2 \left(6 l^4 r_{+}^2+23 l^2 r_{+}^4+9 r_{+}^6\right).\end{aligned}$$ Here we introduced the normalized parameters $$p \equiv \frac{|a|}{r_{+}}, ~\mbox{and}~~ s \equiv \frac{l}{r_{+}}.$$ The heat capacities $C_\Omega$ and $C_J$ change their signs depending on the values of $p$ and $s$. The parameter space of $(p,s)$ can be divided into 4 regions depending on the signs of $C_\Omega$ and $C_J$ as shown on Fig. \[fig:heat\_capacity\_AdS\].
![Phase diagram of Kerr-AdS black holes in the standard model. On the dashed curve $C_J$, while on the dotted curve $C_\Omega$ diverges. In region I, $C_{\Omega}<0$ and $C_{J} <0$, in region II, $C_{\Omega}<0$ and $C_{J} >0$, and in region III, $C_{\Omega}>0$ and $C_{J} >0$. In region IV, there is no physical solution because $|a| > l$.[]{data-label="fig:heat_capacity_AdS"}](figure14.eps)
Similarly to the Kerr-Rényi case in Sec. \[sec:Stability\], the thermodynamic stability problem of Kerr-AdS black holes can also be analyzed by the Poincaré turning point method. The stability curves of the two systems are qualitatively similar. For the study of the Kerr-AdS black hole problem we will use the following normalized variables, $$\tilde{\beta} = \frac{\beta}{l},~~
\tilde{J} = \frac{J}{l^2}, ~~
\tilde{M} = \frac{M}{l}.$$
First we consider the microcanonical ensemble. The stability curves $\beta(M)$ at constant $J$ are plotted on Fig. \[fig:micro\_bM\_ads\], while the curves of constant $J$ in the parameter space of $(p,s)$ are plotted on Fig. \[fig:hc\_J\_ads\]. Just like in the Kerr-Rényi case, we can see that there is no turning point of stability. The stability curves $-\alpha(J)$ at constant $M$ and the curves of constant $M$ in the $(p,s)$ space are depicted on Fig. \[fig:micro\_maJ\_ads\] and Fig. \[fig:hc\_M0\_ads\] respectively. The behavior of the stability curves is almost identical to the one of the Kerr-Rényi case.
![Stability curves of $\beta(M)$ at fixed $J$ for Kerr-AdS black holes in the microcanonical treatment. The curves of $\tilde{J} = 0.01$ (green), $\tilde{J} = 0.025$ (red), and $\tilde{J} =0.05$ (blue) are plotted. No vertical tangent occurs in either case. The figure rotated by $\frac{\pi}{2}$ clockwise represents the stability curves of $-M(\beta)$ at fixed $J$ for the canonical ensemble, in which case the $\tilde{J} = 0.01$ (green) curve has two vertical tangents.[]{data-label="fig:micro_bM_ads"}](figure15.eps)
![Plots of $J = \mbox{const.}$ curves for $\tilde{J} = 0.01$ (green), $\tilde{J} = 0.025$ (red) and $\tilde{J} =0.05$ (blue) on the $(p,s)$ space.[]{data-label="fig:hc_J_ads"}](figure16.eps)
![Curves of the conjugate variable $-\alpha(J)$ at fixed $\beta$ for Kerr-AdS black holes in the canonical treatment. The stability curves of $\tilde{M} = 0.3$ (green), $\tilde{M} = 0.4$ (red) and $\tilde{M} = 0.6$ (blue) are plotted. There are no turning points on the diagram.[]{data-label="fig:micro_maJ_ads"}](figure17.eps)
![Plots of $M = \mbox{const.}$ curves for $\tilde{M} = 0.3$ (green), $\tilde{M} = 0.4$ (red) and $\tilde{M} = 0.6$ (blue) on the $(p,s)$ plane.[]{data-label="fig:hc_M0_ads"}](figure18.eps)
For the canonical system, the stability curves of $-M(\beta)$ at constant $J$ can be seen on Fig. \[fig:micro\_bM\_ads\] if we rotate it by $\frac{\pi}{2}$ clockwise. The figure shows the existence of a critical temperature, above which the Kerr-AdS black holes allow a first order SBH/LBH phase transition in the canonical ensemble. On Fig. \[fig:cano\_maJ\_ads\] we plotted the stability curves of $-\alpha(J)$ at constant $\beta$. The curves of constant $\beta$ on the $(p,s)$ space are plotted on Fig. \[fig:hc\_beta0\_ads\]. There are no turning points on the lower temperature (larger $\beta$) curves, but higher temperature curves exhibit turning points. Therefore, a stability change of Kerr-AdS black holes occurs only when the temperature is higher than a certain critical value. Black holes with slightly higher temperature than the critical one have an unstable branch between two, more stable branches. There is another critical temperature above which a cusp appears on the stability curve at $(\tilde{J},-\alpha) = (0,0)$, where the Kerr-AdS black hole reduces to the Schwarzschild-AdS case. A vertical tangent occurs in the small black hole branch only, and no vertical tangent exists in the large black hole branch. From this result we can conclude that small and slowly rotating Kerr-AdS black holes are unstable in the canonical ensemble.
![Curves of the conjugate variable $-\alpha(J)$ at fixed $\beta$ for Kerr-AdS black holes in the canonical ensemble. The curves of $\tilde{\beta} = 3$ (brown), $\tilde{\beta} = 3.63$ (green), $\tilde{\beta} = 3.7$ (red) and $\tilde{\beta} = 4$ (blue) are plotted. The $\tilde{\beta} = 3.63$ (green) curve has two turning points, while the $\tilde{\beta} = 3$ (brown) curve has two branches and the lower branch has a turning point.[]{data-label="fig:cano_maJ_ads"}](figure19.eps)
![Plots of $\beta = \mbox{const.}$ curves on the $(p,s)$ space for $\tilde{\beta} = 3$ (brown), $\tilde{\beta} = 3.63$ (green), $\tilde{\beta} = 3.7$ (red) and $\tilde{\beta} = 4$ (blue).[]{data-label="fig:hc_beta0_ads"}](figure20.eps)
As it can be clearly seen from the analysis above, the thermodynamic properties of the Kerr-Rényi and the Kerr-AdS-Boltzmann models are very similar. In the static case, we have obtained a simple relation between the entropy parameter $\lambda$ and the AdS curvature parameter $l$ for black holes with identical horizon temperatures [@Biro:2013cra]. By assuming the same condition for stationary black holes augmented with the assumption of identical horizon angular velocity, we can derive analogous relations between the $(h,k)$ and $(p,s)$ parameters for rotating black holes by solving the following equations $$\hat{T}_R (h,k) = \hat{T}_{AdS} (p,s), ~~~ \hat{\Omega}_R (h,k) = \hat{\Omega}_{AdS} (p,s),$$ where we normalized the quantities by the horizon radius $r_{+}$ as $$\hat{T} = T r_{+}, ~~~ \hat{\Omega} = \Omega r_{+}.$$ As a result, a quantitative analogy between the Kerr-Rényi and Kerr-AdS-Boltzmann pictures of black hole thermodynamics can be given by the parameter equations $$\begin{aligned}
p & = & \frac{3+h^2+k \pi -h^4 k \pi -Y}{2 h}, \\
s & = & \sqrt{\frac{3(1+h^2)}{3-h^2+2 k \pi -2 h^4 k \pi
-Y}},\end{aligned}$$ where $$Y = \sqrt{\left(3-h^2\right)^2+2 \left(3+h^2-3 h^4-h^6\right) k \pi
+\left(1-h^4\right)^2 k^2 \pi ^2}.$$ These equations provide a very interesting correspondence between the two approaches.
Summary and Conclusions {#sec:summary}
=======================
In this paper we investigated the thermodynamic and stability properties of Kerr black holes described by the parametric, equilibrium- and zeroth law compatible Rényi entropy function. The corresponding problem of static Schwarzschild black holes has been analyzed in [@Biro:2013cra; @Czinner:2015eyk], where interesting similarities have been found to the picture of standard black hole thermodynamics in asymptotically AdS space. In particular, a stability change and a Hawking–Page transition have been identified, which motivated us to extend our investigations to the present (3+1)-dimensional, rotating problem as well.
The novel results of this work are the following. We derived the temperature and heat capacities of a Kerr black hole in the Rényi approach, and found that the global maximum of the temperature-energy curve at a fixed angular momentum in the standard description becomes only a local maximum in the Rényi model. In the thermodynamic stability analysis we investigated both the microcanonical and the canonical ensembles. We have plotted the stability curves of the Boltzmann-Gibbs and Rényi entropy models, and showed that no stability change occurs for isolated black holes in either case. From this result, we concluded that, similarly to the standard Boltzmann case, isolated Kerr black holes are thermodynamically stable with respect to axisymmetric perturbations in the Rényi approach.
In case when the black holes are surrounded by a bath of thermal radiation in the canonical picture, we found that, in contrast to the standard Boltzmann case, slowly rotating Kerr black holes can be in stable equilibrium with thermal radiation at a fixed temperature if the number of negative eigenmodes of the stability matrix is one. We showed that fast rotating black holes have similar stability properties to slowly rotating ones, and there may also exist intermediate size, unstable black holes. We also analyzed the question of possible phase transitions in the canonical picture, and found that, in addition to a Hawking–Page transition, a first order small black hole/large black hole phase transition occurs in a very similar fashion as in AdS space. These findings indicate that there is a similarity between the Kerr-Rényi and Kerr-AdS-Boltzamann models, analogous to the one that we found in the static case. Based on this result we also investigated the Poincaré stability curves of Kerr-AdS black holes in the standard Boltzmann picture, and confirmed this similarity by obtaining simple algebraic relations between the parameters of the two approaches with identical surface temperature and angular velocity.
The above results may be relevant in many aspects of black hole physics. Our main motivation in the first place was to consider a statistical model to the nonextensive and nonlocal nature of black hole thermodynamics, where we do not assume *a priori* that the classical, additive Boltzamann statistics can describe this strongly gravitating system. The Rényi form of the black hole entropy includes a parameter $\lambda$, which seems to be a good candidate to incorporate the effects of the long-range type behavior of the gravitational field, while also being additive and satisfying both the equilibrium compatibility and the zeroth law’s requirements. A specific model on how to compute the $\lambda$ parameter value for the black hole problem is yet to be developed, but a similar approach has been considered in [@CzM] to describe the mutual information between spatially separated, compact domains of an inhomogeneous universe that are entangled via the gravitational field equations. In that work, as an effective model, the $\lambda$ parameter of the Tsallis/Rényi relative entropy has been defined in a geometric way in order to describe the causal connection between the domain and its surroundings during the cosmic evolution. Since black holes are essentially the final states of cosmic structure formation, one can expect that the two directions might be connected somehow in the nonlinear regime of matter collapse.
As a different direction, it is also interesting to mention that by considering the Boltzamann picture in the standard description, the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy has a nontrivial nonadditive property which also satisfies Abe’s formula. In the case of Schwarzschild black holes this nonadditivity reads as $H_{\lambda}(S)=\sqrt{S}$ and for Kerr black holes $H_{\lambda}(S)=\frac{S}{\sqrt{S-a^2\pi}}$ with $\lambda = 0$. The corresponding thermodynamic and stability problems (by also applying the formal logarithm method) has been studied in [@czinner2015black] and [@CzIg], respectively.
In the present parametric approach however, the most important result is the confirmation of a stability change and the Hawking–Page transition of Kerr black holes in the Rényi model. As we discussed in the introduction, this phenomena has many interesting connections with other open problems in theoretical physics, e.g. the cosmic nucleation of matter into black holes in the early universe, or due to the similarity to the AdS-Boltzmann problem, it may also be connected to the AdS/CFT correspondence and related phenomena. A further motivation arises from a different possible interpretation of the parametric Rényi picture originating from finite size reservoir effects in the canonical ensemble. In a recent paper [@Biro:2012bka], Biró showed that from the requirement of zero mutual information between a finite subsystem and a finite reservoir in thermodynamic equilibrium, the Tsallis- and Rényi entropy formulas arise very naturally. Although we haven’t worked out the details of this approach yet, it provides a nice possible interpretation of our findings as placing a black hole into a finite heat bath in the canonical approach instead of an infinite reservoir (which is an idealistic model), and require zero mutual information between the black hole and the reservoir in thermal equilibrium. In this situation the system is dominated by the bath, and Biró showed that the entropy parameter in this case is proportional to the heat capacity of the bath as $\lambda=1/C_0$, where instead of the classical infinite approximation, the heat capacity of the bath is a large but finite constant $C_0$. This approach has been investigated e.g. for the case when a quark-gluon plasma system is connected to a finite heat bath in [@Biro:2013qea].
In conclusion, several interesting consequences can be deduced from the Rényi approach to black hole thermodynamics which is motivated by various physical considerations. Parametric corrections to the black hole entropy problem also arise from quantum considerations, e.g. from string theory, loop quantum gravity or other semi-classical theories (see e.g. [@Carlip:2014pma] and references therein), and we expect that other parametric situations are also possible which might be connected to the parametric Rényi description.
The research leading to this result was supported by JSPS via an Invitation Fellowship for Research in Japan (Long-term) (No. L14710) and a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C) (No. 23540319). V.G.Cz thanks to Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (FCT) Portugal, for financial support through Grant No. UID/FIS/00099/2013.
[99]{}
S.W. Hawking and D. Page, *Thermodynamics of Black Holes in anti-De Sitter Space*, *Commun. Math. Phys.* [**87**]{} (1983) 577. J.M. Maldacena, *The Large N limit of superconformal field theories and supergravity*, *Int. J. Theor. Phys.* [**38**]{} (1999) 1113. E. Witten, *Anti-de Sitter space and holography*, *Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.* [**2**]{} (1998) 253. D. Mateos, R.C. Myers and R.M. Thomson, *Holographic Phase Transitions with Fundamental Matter*, *Phys. Rev. Lett.* [**97**]{} (2006) 091601. D. Mateos, R.C. Myers and R.M. Thomson, *Thermodynamics of the brane*, *JHEP* [**05**]{} (2007) 067. J.D. Bekenstein, *Black holes and entropy*, *[Phys. Rev. D]{}* [**7**]{} (1973) 2333. J.M. Bardeen et al., *The Four laws of black hole mechanics*, *Commun. Math. Phys.* [**31**]{} (1973) 161. S.W. Hawking, *Particle Creation by Black Holes*, *Commun. Math. Phys.* [**43**]{} (1975) 199; S.W. Hawking, *Black Holes and Thermodynamics*, *[Phys. Rev. D]{}* [**13**]{} (1976) 191. T.S. Biró and P. Ván, *Zeroth law compatibility of nonadditive thermodynamics*, *[Phys. Rev. E]{}* [**83**]{} (2011) 061147. M.C. Mackey, *Time’s Arrow: The Origins of Thermodynamic Behaviour*, Springer, New York, (1992). C. Tsallis, *Introduction to Non-Extensive Statistical Mechanics: Approaching a Complex World*, Springer (2009). T.S. Biró, *Abstract composition rule for relativistic kinetic energy in the thermodynamical limit*, *Europhys. Lett.* [**84**]{} (2008) 56003. P.T. Landsberg, *Is equilibrium always an entropy maximum?*, *J. Stat. Phys.* [**35**]{} (1984) 159. A.M. Salzberg, *Exact Statistical Thermodynamics of Gravitational Interactions in One and Two Dimensions*, *J. Math. Phys.* [**6**]{} (1965) 158. M.E. Fisher and D. Ruelle, *The Stability of Many‐Particle Systems*, *J. Math. Phys.* [**7**]{} (1966) 260; L.G. Taff, *Celestia Mechanics*, Wiley, New York, (1985) p. 437. W.C. Saslaw, *Gravitational Physics of Stellar and Galactic Systems*, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, (1985) p. 217. D. Pavon,*Thermodynamics of superstrings*, *Gen. Rel. Grav.* [**19**]{} (1987) 375. J. Binney and S. Tremaine, *Galactic Dynamics*, Princeton University Press, Princeton, (1987) p. 267. H.E. Kandrup, *Mixing and “violent relaxation” for the one-dimensional gravitational Coulomb gas*, *Phys. Rev. A* [**40**]{} (1989) 7265. H.S. Robertson, *Statistical Thermophysics*, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, (1993) p. 96. H. Bacry, *The existence of dark matter in question*, *Phys. Lett. B* [**317**]{} (1993) 523. J.W. Gibbs, *Elementary Principles in Statistical Mechanics–Developed with Especial Reference to the Rational Foundation of Thermodynamics*, C. Scribner’s Sons, New York, (1902) (Yale University Press, New Haven, 1948; OX Bow Press, Woodbridge, Connecticut, 1981), p. 35. C. Tsallis and L.J.L. Cirto, *Black hole thermodynamical entropy*, *Eur. Phys. J. C* [**73**]{} (2013) 2487. P.C.W. Davies, *Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A*, *Thermodynamics of Black Holes* [**353**]{} (1977) 499. P.T. Landsberg and D. Tranah, *Entropies need not to be concave*, *Phys. Lett. A* [**78**]{} (1980) 219. N.T. Bishop and P.T. Landsberg, *The thermodynamics of a system containing two black holes and black-body radiation*, *Gen. Rel. Grav.* [**19**]{} (1987) 1083. D. Pavón and J.M. Rubí, *On some properties of the entropy of a system containing a black hole*, *Gen. Rel. Grav.* [**18**]{} (1986) 1245. J. Maddox, *When entropy does not seem extensive*, *Nature*, [**365**]{} (1993) 103. G. Gour, *Entropy bounds for charged and rotating systems*, *Class. Quant. Grav.* [**20**]{} (2003) 3403. J. Oppenheim, *Thermodynamics with long-range interactions: From Ising models to black holes*, *[Phys. Rev. E]{}* [**68**]{} (2003) 016108. A. Pesci, *Entropy of gravitating systems: Scaling laws versus radial profiles*, *Class. Quant. Grav.* [**24**]{} (2007) 2283. R.F. Aranha et al., *The Efficiency of Gravitational Bremsstrahlung Production in the Collision of Two Schwarzschild Black Holes*, *Int. J. Mod. Phys. D* [**17**]{} (2008) 2049. P.T. Landsberg, *Thermodynamics and Statistical Mechanics*, Dover, New York (1990). C.E. Shannon, *A mathematical theory of communication*, *Bell. Syst. Tech. J.* [**27**]{} (1948) 379; ibid. 623. A.I. Khinchin, *Mathematical Foundations of Information Theory*, Dover, New York (1957). P. Tempesta, *Beyond the Shannon-Khinchin Formulation: The Composability Axiom and the Universal Group Entropy*, *Ann. Phys.* [**365**]{} (2016) 180. C. Tsallis, *Possible Generalization of Boltzmann-Gibbs Statistics*, *J. Stat. Phys.* [**52**]{} (1988) 479. T.S. Biró and V.G. Czinner, *A $q$-parameter bound for particle spectra based on black hole thermodynamics with Rényi entropy*, *Phys. Lett. B* [**726**]{} (2013) 861. A. Rényi, *On the dimension and entropy of probability distributions*, *Acta. Math. Acad. Sci. Hung.* [**10**]{} (1959) 193. A. Renyi, *Probability Theory*, North Holland, Amsterdam (1970). J.D. Bekenstein, *A Universal Upper Bound on the Entropy to Energy Ratio for Bounded Systems*, *[Phys. Rev. D]{}* [**23**]{} (1981) 287. C. Beck, *Generalized statistical mechanics of cosmic rays*, *Physica A* [**331**]{} (2004) 173. C. Beck, *Superstatistics in high-energy physics. Application to cosmic ray energy spectra and $e^+e^-$ annihilation*, *Eur. Phys. J. A*[**40**]{} (2009) 267. T.S. Biró and K. Ürmössy, *Non-extensive equilibration in relativistic matter*, *J. Phys. G* [**36**]{} (2009) 064044. O. Kaburaki, I. Okamoto and J. Katz, *Thermodynamic stability of Kerr black holes*, *[Phys. Rev. D]{}* [**47**]{} (1993) 2234. J. Katz, I. Okamoto, and O. Kaburaki, *Thermodynamic stability of pure black holes*, *Class. Quant. Grav.* [**10**]{} (1993) 1323. O. Kaburaki, *Critical behavior of extremal Kerr-Newman black holes*, *Gen. Rel. Grav.* [**28**]{} (1996) 843. H. Poincaré, *Sur l’[é]{}quilibre d’une masse fluide anim[é]{}e d’un mouvement de rotation*, *Acta. Math.* [**7**]{} (1885) 259. G. Arcioni and E. Lozano-Tellechea, *Stability and critical phenomena of black holes and black rings*, *[Phys. Rev. D]{}* [**72**]{} (2005) 104021. M. Azreg-Aïnou and M. E. Rodrigues, *Thermodynamical, geometrical and Poincaré methods for charged black holes in presence of quintessence*, *JHEP* [**09**]{} (2013) 146. V.G. Czinner and H. Iguchi, *Rényi entropy and the thermodynamic stability of black holes*, *Phys. Lett. B* [**752**]{} (2016) 306. V.G. Czinner and F.C. Mena, *Relative information entropy in cosmology: The problem of information entanglement*, *Phys. Lett. B* [**758**]{} (2016) 9. A. Chamblin et al., *Charged AdS black holes and catastrophic holography*, *[Phys. Rev. D]{}* [**60**]{} (1999) 064018. A. Chamblin et al., *Holography, thermodynamics and fluctuations of charged AdS black holes*, *[Phys. Rev. D]{}* [**60**]{} (1999) 104026. M.M. Caldarelli, G. Cognola and D. Klemm, *Thermodynamics of Kerr-Newman-AdS black holes and conformal field theories*, *Class. Quant. Grav.* [**17**]{} (2000) 399. Y-D. Tsai, X.N. Wu and Y. Yang, *Phase Structure of Kerr-AdS Black Hole*, *[Phys. Rev. D]{}* [**85**]{} (2012) 044005. N. Altamirano et al., *Thermodynamics of rotating black holes and black rings: phase transitions and thermodynamic volume*, *Galaxies* [**2(1)**]{} (2014) 89. S. Abe, *General pseudoadditivity of composable entropy prescribed by the existence of equilibrium*, *[Phys. Rev. E]{}* [**63**]{} (2001) 061105. http://tsallis.cat.cbpf.br/TEMUCO.pdf. C.A.M. Valdés et al., *Nonextensivity and Tsallis entropy in DNA fragmentation patterns by ionizing radiation*, *Journal of Modern Physics* [**3**]{} (2012) 431. I. Okamoto and O. Kaburaki, *The third law of thermodynamics for Kerr black holes*, *Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.* [**250**]{} (1991) 300. J. Katz, *On the number of unstable modes of an equilibrium*, *Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.* [**183**]{} (1978) 765. J. Katz, *On the Number of Unstable Modes of an Equilibrium - Part Two*, *Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.* [**189**]{} (1979) 817. R. Sorkin, *A Criterion for the onset of instability at a turning point*, *Astrophys. J.* [**249**]{} (1981) 254. O. Kaburaki, *Should entropy be concave?*, *Physics Letters A* [**185**]{} (1994) 21. V.G. Czinner, *Black hole entropy and the zeroth law of thermodynamics*, *Int. J. Mod. Phys. D* [**24**]{} (2015) 1542015. V.G. Czinner and Hideo Iguchi, *A zeroth law compatible model to Kerr black hole thermodynamics*, *Universe* [**3**]{} (2017) 14. T.S. Biró, *Ideal gas provides q-entropy*, *Physica A* [**392**]{} (2013) 3132. T.S. Biró et al., *Quark-gluon plasma connected to finite heat bath*, *Eur. Phys. J. A* [**49**]{} (2013) 110. S. Carlip, *Black Hole Thermodynamics*, *Int. J. Mod. Phys. D* [**23**]{} (2014) 1430023.
|
---
abstract: 'We continue our study (Grechnev [*et al.*]{} (2013), doi:10.1007/s11207-013-0316-6; Paper I) on the 18 November 2003 geoffective event. To understand possible impact on geospace of coronal transients observed on that day, we investigated their properties from solar near-surface manifestations in extreme ultraviolet, LASCO white-light images, and dynamic radio spectra. We reconcile near-surface activity with the expansion of coronal mass ejections (CMEs) and determine their orientation relative to the earthward direction. The kinematic measurements, dynamic radio spectra, and microwave and X-ray light curves all contribute to the overall picture of the complex event and confirm an additional eruption at 08:07–08:20 UT close to the solar disk center presumed in Paper I. Unusual characteristics of the ejection appear to match those expected for a source of the 20 November superstorm but make its detection in LASCO images hopeless. On the other hand, none of the CMEs observed by LASCO seem to be a promising candidate for a source of the superstorm being able to produce, at most, a glancing blow on the Earth’s magnetosphere. Our analysis confirms free propagation of shock waves revealed in the event and reconciles their kinematics with “EUV waves” and dynamic radio spectra up to decameters.'
author:
- 'V.V. $^{1}$, A.M. $^{1}$, I.M. $^{2}$, V.A. $^{3}$, B.P. $^{2}$, Ya.I. $^{1}$, V.G. $^{1}$, A.N. $^{1}$, N.P. $^{4}$, M. $^{5}$'
date: 'Received ; accepted '
title: 'A Challenging Solar Eruptive Event of 18 November 2003 and the Causes of the 20 November Geomagnetic Superstorm. II. CMEs, Shock Waves, and Drifting Radio Bursts'
---
Introduction
============
The geomagnetic storm on 20 November 2003 with Dst $= -422$ nT was the strongest one after the destructive superstorm on 13–14 March 1989 (Dst $= -589$ nT) and has not been surpassed since. The causes of the extreme nature of the 20 November 2003 superstorm and its solar source remain unclear in spite of several attempts to understand them (*e.g.*, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , and others). The challenge of this superstorm urged us to investigate into various aspects of the 18 November solar eruptive event in active region (AR) 10501 that is considered to be its only possible source. Eruptions from AR 10501 have been addressed in Paper I [@Grechnev2013_I]. Its conclusions are: (i) eruption at 07:29 (all times are referred to UT) produced a missed M1.2 flare probably associated with onset of the first southeast coronal mass ejection, CME1; (ii) eruptions before 07:55 are unlikely to be responsible for the superstorm; (iii) the eruptive filament collided with a topological discontinuity, bifurcated, and transformed into a Y-shaped cloud, which had not left the Sun; thus, the filament should not be directly related to the magnetic cloud hitting the Earth; (iv) one more eruptive episode possibly occurred between 08:07 and 08:17 that could be related to the disintegration of the filament and led to other consequences open to question.
All of the listed studies assumed that the source of the superstorm was either the southeast CME1 observed by the *Large Angle and Spectroscopic Coronagraph* (LASCO; ) starting from 08:06 or, more probably, the second southwest halo CME (CME2), which appeared at 08:49. According to the model of the cone CME geometry (*e.g.*, ; ), the halo shape indicates the earthward (or the opposite) propagation of a CME. Therefore, CME2 has been considered as the major candidate for the source of the superstorm. On the other hand, it is possible that the outer halo of CME2 was a trace of a shock front. If so, then CME2 was not necessarily Earth-directed. Thus, it is necessary to find out the nature of the structural components of CME2 and its actual orientation.
One more challenge of this event is the mismatch between the right-handed helical magnetic cloud (MC) and the pre-eruption region of left-handed helicity established by . To resolve the problem, the authors proposed a right-handed helical ejection from a minor area of AR 10501. Based on this idea, related CME1 to a partial eruption at 07:41 from this area and proposed a merger of the magnetic structures of CME1 (presumably right-handed) and CME2. The authors supported the interaction between the CMEs by a drifting radio burst observed by *Wind*/WAVES around 09:00. Another attempt to understand the encounter of the MC with the Earth based on the conjecture of was made by who considered that the MC evolved from a single right-handed CME. Neither of these studies presented a quantitative confirmation of their conjectures, whilst attributing the superstorm to a partial eruption from a minor region seems to be questionable.
Paper I concluded that CME1 was probably initiated in the east, excessively left-handed, part of AR 10501 at 07:29 (consistent with an estimate of ) in association with an unreported M1.2 flare thus contradicting the interpretations of , , and . This is why the source region of CME1 is important.
The present paper (Paper II) is focused on CME1 and CME2 and the probable nature of their components. In order to understand their possible geoeffective implications, we in particular address the following questions: when and where was CME1 initiated, how was CME2 directed with respect to the Earth, and what erupted between 08:07 and 08:17 close to the solar disk center. We specify measurements of and confirm the results by comparing them to signatures of shock waves in dynamic radio spectra at metric and decametric wavelengths as well as their possible near-surface traces. White studying this particular event, we pursue a better understanding of CMEs and related phenomena.
Section \[S-kinematics\] describes our measurement techniques. Section \[S-overview\] outlines the pre-event situation and its overall evolution. Section \[S-observations\] analyzes the observations. The results are discussed in Section \[S-discussion\] and summarized in Section \[S-conclusion\].
Measurement Techniques {#S-kinematics}
======================
Two kinds of transients appear in LASCO images: magnetoplasma CME components (henceforth ‘mass ejections’ or ‘CMEs’) and traces of waves (; ; @Grechnev2011_I, [-@Grechnev2011_I; -@Grechnev2011_III]). The kinematics of the two kinds of transient are different. This section describes kinematics of non-wave and wavelike transients and methods of measurement.
We consider two kinds of wave signatures in LASCO images: faint non-structured (or structured by coronal rays) halo-like outermost envelopes of CMEs and deflections of coronal streamers. The brightness of the halos can be very low. Mass ejections are significantly brighter, with well pronounced loops or threads in their structure. It is difficult to reliably identify both wave signatures and CME structures in a single set of images. We therefore use two separate sets processed in different ways to measure wave traces and mass ejections. For CMEs we use ratios of current LASCO images $C(j)$ to a fixed pre-event image $C(0)$ and limit the values in the ratios from both above and below with thresholds $A_0 \lsim 1$ and $A_1 \gsim 1$, $A_0 < I_\mathrm{CME}(j)
= C(j)/C(0) < A_1$. For wave signatures we use ratios of running differences $C(j)-C(j-1)$ to preceding images $C(j-1)$ also with optimized contrast by adjusting the corresponding thresholds $B_0
\lsim 0$ and $B_1 \gsim 0$, $B_0 < I_\mathrm{wave}(j) =
[C(j)-C(j-1)]/C(j-1) < B_1$.
Mass Ejections {#S-cme_expansion}
--------------
The kinematics of coronal transients have been measured in several different ways. Height-time plots are obtained by measuring a characteristic CME feature. Then the measurements are differentiated (*e.g.*, ; @Temmer2008, [-@Temmer2008; -@Temmer2010]). Alternatively, the measurements are fit with an analytic function such as polynomial [@Yashiro2004; @Gopal2009], Gaussian [@WangZhangShen2009], or more sophisticated models [@KrallChenSantoro2000].
Both approaches should converge to similar results, but each method has its shortcomings. Differentiation of measurements is critical to temporal sampling, errors, and provides large uncertainties. The adequacy of an analytic fit might be questionable. For example, the polynomial fit used in the SOHO LASCO CME Catalog (; , <http://cdaw.gsfc.nasa.gov/CME_list/>) is probably the best way for approximately evaluating the kinematics of CMEs, but the underlying assumption of a constant (or zero) acceleration (*i.e.*, the constancy of the driving/retarding force) does not seem to be realistic. Employment of theoretical models like the flux rope model of @Chen1989 ([-@Chen1989; -@Chen1996]; *e.g.*, ) is complex, whereas its veracity has not been established.
Our way is based on self-similarity of CME expansion (see, *e.g.*, ; ). The theory of self-similar expansion of solar CMEs was developed by . A description of a self-similar expansion convenient for analysis of observations was proposed by . A self-similar expansion of an individual plasma packet under the frozen-field conditions and negligible drag of the medium is described by an equation $$\rho \frac{d{\bf v}}{dt}=\frac 1{4\pi }{\bf {rotB\times B}}-{\bf
{grad}}{p}- \rho \frac{GM_{\odot}}{r^2}{\bf {e}_{\bf {r}}} = \\
{\bf {F}}_B+{\bf {F}}_p+{\bf {F}}_g,
\label{E-momentum}$$ where $p$ and $\rho$ are the gas pressure and density; ${\bf B}$ the magnetic field vector, ${\bf v}$ the velocity, $M_{\odot}$ the mass of the Sun, and $G$ the gravitational constant. ${\bf F}_B$, ${\bf
F}_p$, and ${\bf F}_g$ are the total magnetic, plasma pressure, and gravitational forces affecting the unit volume. Let $R=R(t)$ be some spatial scale characterizing the size of the expanding region at the instant $t$. The forces in Equation (\[E-momentum\]) depend on the distance $R$ as $$\begin{aligned}
|{\bf F}_B| \propto \left( \frac{R_0}{R}\right)^4 \frac{1}{R}, \quad
|{\bf F}_p| \propto \left( \frac{R_0}{R}\right)^{3\gamma}
\frac{1}{R}, \quad |{\bf F}_g| \propto \left( \frac{R_0}{R}\right)^3
\frac{1}{R^2},
\label{E-f_dependence}\end{aligned}$$ where $R_0$ is the initial size of the self-similar expansion. Force ${\bf F}_B$ combines all magnetic forces affecting the expanding packet including propelling magnetic pressure and retarding magnetic tension. Force ${\bf F}_p$ due to plasma pressure is directed outward. The gravitational force ${\bf F}_g$ retards expansion. With a polytropic index $\gamma =4/3$, all the terms in Equation (\[E-f\_dependence\]) which appear in the right-hand-side of Equation (\[E-momentum\]) decrease synchronously with distance and time by the same scaling factor preserving orientation. This fact determines the self-similar expansion of the ejecta. From the expressions of , the instant velocity $v$ can be related to the distance from the expansion center $R$ [@Grechnev2008]: $$\begin{aligned}
v^2 = v_0^2+\left(v_\infty^2 - v_0^2\right)\left({1-R_0/R}\right),
\label{E-expansion_vel}\end{aligned}$$ where $v = dR/dt$ and $v_0$ and $v_\infty$ are the initial and asymptotic velocities of the self-similar expansion stage. Analysis of this expression shows the following [@Grechnev2011_I].
1. Acceleration of the ejecta in self-similar expansion can only decrease by the absolute value or be exactly zero. Therefore, *the self-similar approach does not apply to initial stages, when the acceleration increases.*
2. Acceleration $a$, if nonzero, goes at large distances ($R \approx r \gg
R_\odot$) as $|a| \propto r^{-2} \to 0$. Thus, *self-similar expansion cannot be fit with any polynomial.*
3. Three expansion regimes are possible:
(a) accelerating ejecta, $v_0 < v_\infty$;
(b) decelerating ejecta, $v_0 > v_\infty$ (‘explosive’ eruption);
(c) inertial expansion, $v_0 = v_\infty$.
The accelerating regime (a) probably applies to all non-flare-related CMEs and many flare-related ones. In cases (b) and (c), a strong initial impulsive acceleration occurs before the onset of the self-similar stage.
Integrating Equation (\[E-expansion\_vel\]), despite its simplicity, cannot provide an explicit distance *vs.* time dependence. The following expression allows one to calculate a self-similar expansion implicitly, as time $t$ *vs.* the heliocentric distance $r$, given the distance of the eruption center $r_\mathrm{c}$ and the CME velocity $v_1$ measured at time $t_1$ at a distance $r_1$: $$\begin{aligned}
t(r) = t_1 + 1/v_\infty^3 \times
\qquad \qquad \qquad \nonumber\\
\left\{
S v_\infty \sqrt{r-r_\mathrm{c}} - v_\infty v_1 r_1
+ (v_\infty^2-v_1^2) r_1 \ln \left[ \frac{ v_\infty \sqrt{r-r_\mathrm{c}} + S } {(v_\infty +
v_1) \sqrt{r_1}}\right]
\right\}
\label{E-self_sim_exp} \\
\mathrm{with} \quad S = \sqrt{v_\infty^2 (r-r_\mathrm{c}-r_1)+v_1^2 r_1}. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The initial estimates of $v_1$ and $v_\infty$ can be taken from the CME catalog and improved iteratively. The onset time $t_0$ of a self-similar expansion is: $$\begin{aligned}
t_0 = \left\{
\begin{array}{cc}
t(r_\mathrm{c}) \;\; & \mathrm{for} \quad v_1 > v_\infty, \\
t\left( \left[ {r_\mathrm{c} + r_1 \left( 1-
\frac{v_1^2}{v_\infty^2} \right) }
\right]
\right) \;\; & \mathrm{for} \quad v_1 < v_\infty.
\end{array}
\right.
\label{E-onset_time}\end{aligned}$$
Monotonically decreasing or zero acceleration is consistent with observations (see, *e.g.*, ; ; @Temmer2008, [-@Temmer2008; -@Temmer2010]). Although the self-similar approximation does not apply to the initial impulsive acceleration stage, it promises a better fit to the observed CME expansion and higher accuracy of the estimated onset time than the polynomial fit does.
In specifying the CME onset times we also employ the temporal closeness of the major CME acceleration with hard X-ray (HXR) or microwave bursts revealed in the mentioned series of the papers as well as the Neupert effect [@Neupert1968]. These circumstances indicate that the CME velocity profile is roughly reflected in the rising phase of the corresponding soft X-ray light curve recorded with GOES.
Waves {#S-wave_expansion}
-----
CME-associated waves are most likely excited by abrupt eruptions of magnetic ropes inside developing CMEs during rising hard X-ray and microwave bursts [@Grechnev2011_I]. The waves rapidly steepen into shocks, pass through the forming CME frontal structures, and freely propagate afterwards for some time like decelerating blast waves (*cf.* ). The corresponding quantitative description allows one to reconcile manifestations of shocks in different emissions including Moreton waves, ‘EUV waves’, metric type II bursts, and leading edges of CMEs. A narrowband harmonic type II burst appears if the shock front compresses the current sheet of a coronal streamer, producing a running flare-like process [@Uralova1994].
A simple model (@Grechnev2008 [-@Grechnev2008; -@Grechnev2011_I; -@Grechnev2011_III]) describes propagation of such a blast-like shock wave in plasma with a radial power-law density falloff $\delta$ from an eruption center, $n =
n_0(x/h_0)^{-\delta}$. Here $x$ is the distance and $n_0$ is the density at a distance of $h_0 \approx 100$ Mm, which is close to the scale height. The propagation of a shock wave in the self-similar approximation is determined by plasma density distribution, being almost insensitive to the magnetic fields. Such a wave decelerates if $\delta < 3$, due to a growing mass of swept-up plasma. Propagation of such a shock *vs.* time $t$ is described by an expression $x(t) \propto t^{2/(5-\delta)}$, which is more convenient for use in a form $$\begin{aligned}
x(t) = x_1[(t-t_0)/(t-t_1)]^{2/(5-\delta)},
\label{E-pl_fit}\end{aligned}$$ where $t$ and $x$ are the current time and distance, $t_0$ is the wave onset time, and $t_1$ and $x_1$ correspond to one of the measured fronts.
To fit the drift of a type II burst, we take an initial estimate of $\delta$ (typically $2 \leq \delta \leq 2.8$) and choose a reference point on a band with a harmonic number $N_\mathrm{ref}$ (1 or 2) at a frequency $f_\mathrm{ref}$ and time $t_1$. The corresponding plasma density is $n_1 = [f_\mathrm{ref}(t_1) N_\mathrm{ref}^{-1}/(9
\times 10^3 )]^{2}$, and the height is $x_1 =
h_0\,(n_0/n_1)^{1/\delta}$. Then the height–time plot of the shock tracer is calculated from Equation (\[E-pl\_fit\]); the corresponding density variation is $ n(t) =
n_0\,[x(t)/h_0]^{-\delta}$. The trajectory of the fundamental-emission type II band is $f_\mathrm{fund}(t) = 9 \times
10^3 [n(t)]^{1/2}$, and the trajectory of the harmonic-emission band is $f_\mathrm{harm}(t) = 2 f_\mathrm{fund}(t)$. By adjusting $\delta$ and $t_0$ in sequential attempts, we approach a best trajectory of the bands [@Grechnev2011_I]. The spectrum can be reconciled with measured heights by adjusting $n_0$, as usually done.
Presumed traces of shocks in coronagraph images are fitted similarly. Input parameters are starting estimates of $\delta$ and $t_0$, the heliocentric distances of the wave origin $r_0$ and the wave front $r_1$ measured at a time $t_1$. The initial approximation of the height–time plot is $r(t)=(r_1-r_0)\left[(t-t_0)/(t_1-t_0)\right]^{2/(5-\delta)} +
r_0$. Then a best fit is achieved in sequential attempts (@Grechnev2011_I [-@Grechnev2011_I; -@Grechnev2011_III]).
Resizing Representation {#S-resize}
-----------------------
CMEs are usually analyzed by using images in which the spatial resolution is fixed so that the Sun has the same size, while a CME expands. Self-similarity of CME expansion can be used to improve the accuracy of measurements. We adjust the spatial scale to fix the CME size. This way reveals properties of CME expansion that are difficult to notice in the usual representation.
We resize images according to a corresponding fit described in the preceding sections to compensate expansion of a transient and keep its visible size unchanged. In each of the resized images we outline the whole transient with an oval by changing its parameters according to an analytic fit and endeavor to catch the outer contour. Fitting the whole transient rather than single feature considerably improves the accuracy, and resizing all of the images by a single fit allows us to neglect minor irregular deviations between sequential images. Small systematic trends can be detected and compensated for in looking at a movie composed from resized images. Measurement accuracy can be farther improved in this way.
The resizing representation also (i) facilitates detection of deviations in expansion of CME components from a self-similar one providing indications of their nature and revealing internal motions in a CME, (ii) allows measurements from CME flanks when its leading edge departs from the field of view; (iii) simplifies identification of CME components visible in white light with structures observed in different emissions at earlier stages of an eruption.
From the kinematics of CMEs and shock waves it follows that a CME asymptotically approaches a fixed velocity, while a related shock wave continuously decelerates. The relative distance between a fast CME and the shock front decreases so that eventually it enters the bow-shock regime. This probably occurs beyond the field of view of LASCO-C3, while the approach of a CME to the leading wave front is sometimes visible in resized images. If a CME is not fast enough, then the shock decays to a weak fast-mode disturbance.
Overview of the Event {#S-overview}
=====================
Pre-event Situation
-------------------
The pre-event situation is presented in Figure \[F-pre-event\]. The H$\alpha$ image in Figure \[F-pre-event\]a (Kanzelh[ö]{}he Solar Observatory, KSO) shows a large U-shaped filament F1 rooted in AR 10501 and pointed southwest. The pre-eruption filament was inclined to the solar surface by $\approx 60^{\circ}$ ($\approx
23^{\circ}$ to the line of sight, see Paper I). The green contours show the neutral line of the line-of-sight magnetic component ($B_l$) at the photospheric level. The green contours are rather coarse tracers mainly corresponding to dark filaments F1, F2, and F3 in the H$\alpha$ image, but deviating considerably from a high-latitude southeast filament.
![Pre-event situation in a KSO H$\alpha$ image (a) and EIT images at 171 Å (b), 195 Å (c), and 284 Å(d). The green contours present the magnetic neutral line. F1 is the pre-eruption main filament, F2 an F3 are remote filaments. The light-blue oval marks region Rb where the eruptive filament bifurcated. The axes show the coordinates in arcsec from the solar disk center.[]{data-label="F-pre-event"}](pre_event.eps){width="\textwidth"}
Southwest neighbors of AR 10501 were AR 10503 and region ‘Rb’ (small light-blue oval) where eruptive filament F1 bifurcated. Long loops labeled in Figure \[F-pre-event\]c south from region Rb connected a western plage region with the south edge of AR 10501. Figures \[F-pre-event\]b and \[F-pre-event\]c show that filaments F2 and F3 visible in Figure \[F-pre-event\]a were arranged along an extended channel still farther southwest. The propagation of shock waves excited by eruptions could be affected by density inhomogeneities indicated by brighter regions by the sides of the filaments as well as a large coronal hole northeast of AR 10501 in Figure \[F-pre-event\]d (EIT 284 Å; ).
Time Profiles and Episodes of the Whole Event
---------------------------------------------
Figure \[F-timeprof\] presents time profiles of soft (a,b) and hard (c) X-ray emissions as well as microwaves (d) for the whole event. The GOES soft X-ray (SXR) light curves are supplied with comments on their importance, positions of the flares, and onset times of the CMEs estimated by and specified below. A detailed description is given in Paper I.
![Flare emissions throughout the whole event. (a) GOES SXR flux; (b) its extended part in the interval marked with dash-dotted lines in panel (a); (c) hard X-ray flux; (d) microwaves at 5 GHz (black) and 2.7 GHz (gray, magnified by a factor of 10).[]{data-label="F-timeprof"}](timeprofs2.eps){width="\textwidth"}
Table \[T-table1\] lists associations of the flare peaks E1–E4 with eruptive episodes according to Paper I. Episode E1 with strong impulsive HXR and microwave bursts increased the SXR flux up to $\approx\,$M1.2 level but was not reported as a separate event. After E1, H$\alpha$ flare ribbons, a flare arcade, and EUV dimmings have appeared. This episode is a candidate for the onset of CME1, but a related eruption was not observed (TRACE had a gap in observations). This caused confusion about the onset time of CME1 in some preceding studies.
----- ------------- --------------------------------------------------------------
E1 07:29 Eruption in the east part of AR 10501. Unreported M1.2 flare
E2 07:41 Impulsive jet-like ejection. Main filament F1 departs
E3 07:56 Main filament F1 accelerates
E4A 08:09 Eruptive filament F1 collides with region of bifurcation
E4B 08:12 Eruptive filament F1 bifurcates
E4C 08:16 Region of bifurcation dims and disconnects from AR 10501
E4D 08:24 Last flare episode (not considered in Paper I)
– 08:23–09:55 Remnants of filament F1 move toward the limb as Y-like cloud
----- ------------- --------------------------------------------------------------
: Episodes of eruption in AR 10501 revealed in Paper I.[]{data-label="T-table1"}
An impulsive jetlike ejection erupted at 07:41 (E2) along the southeast leg of filament F1 and then moved along the loops denoted in Figure \[F-pre-event\]c. Paper I concluded that development of a CME in episode E2 was unlikely, but the sharp ejection could have produced a shock. The latter conjecture is supported by a type II burst, which was reported by several observatories starting from 07:47.
Filament F1 slowly departed after episode E2 and additionally accelerated to 110 km s$^{-1}$ during a weak episode E3. At about 08:07 the eruptive filament collided with region Rb and bifurcated. The collision and subsequent phenomena were manifested in a four-component flare observed in the H$\alpha$ line in KSO, in EUV with TRACE, and in HXR with RHESSI (@Miklenic2007 [-@Miklenic2007; -@Miklenic2009]; ). The HXR peaks E4A and E4B (Figure \[F-timeprof\]c) had a response in the bifurcation region Rb, indicating its connection with the flare site in AR 10501 that later disappeared. Dimming developed in region Rb at that time.
Then the bifurcated filament inverted and transformed into a large dark Y-shaped cloud visible in the CORONAS-F/SPIRIT 304 Å images to move during 08:23–09:55 southwest toward the limb. The fastest part of the Y-darkening had a speed of $\approx
210$ km s$^{-1}$, and its main body which had an initial speed of 110 km s$^{-1}$ decelerated, suggesting an almost constant real speed nearly along the solar surface.
The transformation of the eruptive filament and disconnection of the bifurcation region Rb from AR 10501 suggest one more significant eruption during episodes E4A–E4C. Paper III (Uralov *et al.*, in preparation) will consider what occurred in this region at that time. A later eruption associated with an M4.5 SXR peak at 10:11 (Figure \[F-timeprof\]a) occurred at the east limb in a rising region 10508 (return of AR 10486). Most likely, this event was related to the third, large CME, whose extrapolated onset time was about 09:40 [@Gopal2005].
CMEs
----
Figures \[F-3cmes\]a and \[F-3cmes\]c show LASCO ratio images of three significant CMEs observed on that day (; ; ). The EIT 195 Å ratio images in the central insets are magnified by factors 1.45 (a) and 2.68 (b,c) to better show related surface activity. The EIT 195 Å ratio image in Figure \[F-3cmes\]d presents changes throughout the whole event in AR 10501. CME1 and CME2 were related to this event.
![Three major CMEs of 18 November (a–c) and summary of surface activity in the post-event/pre-event EIT 195 Åratio image (d). EIT ratio images inserted into the LASCO ratio images are magnified by factors 1.45 (a) and 2.68 (b,c) for better viewing. The solid circles denote the inner boundaries of the fields of view of the coronagraphs. The broken circles denote the solar limb in EIT images. The axes show distances from the solar disk center in solar radii (a–c) and in arcsec (d).[]{data-label="F-3cmes"}](3cmes_eit.eps){width="\textwidth"}
The southeast CME1 (Figure \[F-3cmes\]a) appeared at 08:06. Its linear-fit speed was 1223 km s$^{-1}$. The onset time estimated by was about 07:22. The volume of CME1 appears to be filled with enhanced-density diffuse material and loop-like structures. The CME structure approximately corresponds on the Sun to an elongated south dimming, a deeper central dimming adjacent to a bright arcade, and the arcade itself. The dimming and flare arcade started to develop before 07:35 according to EUV and H$\alpha$ data (Figure 4 of Paper I) suggesting that the onset time of CME1 was still earlier, most likely, corresponding to the flare episode E1 at 07:29. In addition to the relatively narrow south CME1, its faint partial-halo extension is detectable in the whole eastern half of the image suggesting an expanding wave disturbance.
The brighter, wider and faster southwest CME2 (Figure \[F-3cmes\]b) appeared at 08:49. Its east flank intruded into CME1 (the intrusion region IR in the figure). The linear-fit speed of the fastest feature of CME2 was 1660 km s$^{-1}$. detected the inner and outer components of CME2 and estimated their onset times of about 08:08 and 08:20, respectively. The structure of CME2 looks different from a three-part one: neither a bright core nor dark cavity separating it from the frontal structure were pronounced. The inner component consisted of radial threadlike features, suggesting that it was an expanding arcade. The faint outer halo component had a diffuse non-structured body and a pronounced leading edge. This halo edge crossed a distorted streamer 1 in Figure \[F-3cmes\]b well ahead of the inner structure, suggesting an expanding shock wave [@Sheeley2000; @Vourlidas2003; @Grechnev2011_I]. A large central dimming in regions Rb and AR 10503 in Figure \[F-3cmes\]b suggests location of a CME source region there.
A large southeast CME3 observed starting from 09:50 (Figure \[F-3cmes\]c) was not related to AR 10501 (; ; ). Most likely, CME3 was due to an eruption at the east limb from a rising AR 10508 (former 10486), as an EIT image in the inset shows, and corresponded to an M4.5 SXR flare, which peaked at 10:11 (Figure \[F-timeprof\]a). The three-part structure of CME3 was preceded by a fast faint halo (the average speed of 1824 km s$^{-1}$), which deflected the streamers suggesting one more shock wave. Magnetic structures of CME3 are not expected to have reached the Earth, as preceding studies concluded. The only possible implication of CME3 could be a lateral pressure from the associated shock front to constrain expansion of the magnetic cloud responsible for the 20 November superstorm.
The EIT 195 Å ratio image in Figure \[F-3cmes\]d shows a bright arcade in AR10501 (which looks saturated, because we show a narrow range of the brightness) and dimmed regions. Dimming D1 developed in association with CME1. Dimming D2 discussed in Paper I developed around region Rb, where the U-shaped filament bifurcated. A star-like dimming D3 also appeared in region 10503 thus indicating its involvement.
Coronal Transients Observed During the Event {#S-observations}
============================================
CME1 (08:05) and Wave 1
-----------------------
A wide, faint halo-like extension of CME1 suggestive of an expanding wave front is called hereafter wave 1. We fit the observed expansion of the halo by using Equation (\[E-pl\_fit\]) from Section \[S-wave\_expansion\] and expansion of the CME1 main structure by using Equations (\[E-self\_sim\_exp\]) and (\[E-onset\_time\]) from Section \[S-cme\_expansion\]. The measurement accuracy cannot be high because of the absence of observations of a related eruption, and therefore we limit our attempts by acceptable correspondence with available data. We use a simpler accelerating kinematics, because it is not possible to recognize whether CME1 accelerated or decelerated at large distances. We also employ the mentioned expectation of similarity between the rising parts of the SXR flux and the CME speed. The kinematical plots are shown in Figure \[F-cme1\_plot\]. The plots for both CME1 and wave 1 converge to event E1 ($\approx \,$M1.2) at about 07:29. A sharper rise of the SXR emission after 07:34 (the dotted part of the GOES light curve) is due to the next episode E2. The height-time plot of CME1 is close to the measurements in the CME catalog denoted by symbols.
![Kinematical plots of CME1 (solid) and associated wave 1 (dashed) visible in LASCO images in Figures \[F-lasco\_wave1\] and \[F-lasco\_cme1\]. The symbols in panel (a) present the measurements from the CME catalog. The dotted line in panel (b) presents the GOES SXR flux at 1–8 Å.[]{data-label="F-cme1_plot"}](cme1_plot.eps){width="60.00000%"}
Figures \[F-lasco\_wave1\] and \[F-lasco\_cme1\] allow one to evaluate the quality of the measurements presented in Figure \[F-cme1\_plot\]. Figure \[F-lasco\_wave1\] shows the propagation of the faint wave 1 in LASCO images with a highly enhanced contrast. All the images are progressively resized following the measured kinematics to keep the visible size of the dashed wave front constant. Propagation of wave 1 is solely revealed by deflections of coronal rays (most likely, located not far from the plane of the sky crossing the center of the Sun). The wave front is most pronounced at position angles $\psi \approx
100^{\circ}-150^{\circ}$ being fainter at $\psi < 90^{\circ}$ (*i.e.*, above the coronal hole—see Figure \[F-pre-event\]d), and is additionally manifested in the deflection of streamer 1. These properties correspond to an MHD shock wave: the higher fast-mode speed above a coronal hole reduces the Mach number, and therefore the shock front is not expected to be pronounced there (*cf*. ). The wave speed in Figure \[F-cme1\_plot\]b also supports its shock regime, but dynamic radio spectra do not show a type II burst. It seems that CME1 moves ahead of the associated wave front. Probably, this visual effect is due to their different parallaxes, *i.e.*, because CME1 was considerably closer to SOHO than the wave manifestations near the Sun’s center plane.
![The wave associated with CME1 in LASCO-C2 and C3 running-difference ratio images resized to compensate for the expansion of the wave front. The dashed oval outlines the outermost traces of wave 1. The circles denote the solar limb and the inner boundaries of the fields of view of the coronagraphs. The cross denotes the initial wave center. The axes show hereafter distances from the solar disk center in solar radii.[]{data-label="F-lasco_wave1"}](lasco_wave1.eps){width="\textwidth"}
Figure \[F-lasco\_cme1\] shows LASCO-C2 and C3 images of the main CME1 body (solid outline) resized according to the height-time plot in Figure \[F-cme1\_plot\]a. The dashed oval outlines wave 1 (same as in Figure \[F-lasco\_wave1\]). The structure of CME1 is not identical in C2 and C3 images partly due to internal motions in the CME and partly due to its changing visibility in the course of expansion. The shape of the outlining oval is not obvious. Different eccentricities of the ovals do not significantly change the orientation of CME1 estimated in Section \[S-ice-cream\]; the shape shown here is acceptable. Irrespective of the shape of the oval, the heading structure of expanding CME1 remained south from the ecliptic plane. Thus, its encounter with the Earth was unlikely (the solar disk center corresponds to the Sun–Earth line). CME1 was able to produce, at most, a glancing blow on the Earth’s magnetosphere.
![CME1 in LASCO-C2 and C3 fixed-base ratio images resized to compensate for the expansion of the CME. The solid white open oval outlines the outer boundary of CME1. The dashed oval outlines the traces of wave 1 (same as in Figure \[F-lasco\_wave1\]). The circles denote the solar limb and the inner boundaries of the fields of view of the coronagraphs.[]{data-label="F-lasco_cme1"}](lasco_cme1.eps){width="\textwidth"}
This analysis confirms the conclusion of Paper I that the CME1 onset was associated with the missed M1.2 flare at 07:29 in the east part of AR 10501 and contrary to the idea of about its association with episode E2 at 07:41. Thus, eruption E2 was a confined one. Nevertheless, this sharp impulsive eruption produced a shock wave.
Shock 1 Produced by Confined Eruption at 07:41
----------------------------------------------
Figure \[F-shock2\_images\] presents traces of a shock wave propagating near the solar surface in wide-band GOES/SXI images and SOHO/EIT 195 Å images produced with a lower imaging rate. The SXI\_spectrum.mpg movie in the electronic version of the paper shows the shock traces in GOES/SXI images (upper right corner) along with the dynamic radio spectrum. The outline of the shock front in the figure and the movie was calculated by using Equation (\[E-pl\_fit\]) for propagation of a shock front along the spherical solar surface with homogeneous distribution of plasma parameters (the ellipses are intersections of the spheroidal wave front with the spherical solar surface). We used $t_0 = $ 07:41:00 and $\delta = 2.55$. The wave epicenter (slanted cross) is fixed at slightly ahead of the visible edge of the ejection at $t_0$ (see Paper I). Traces of the expanding wave front are distinct in later EIT images in the southeast to southwest directions. Most likely, a fixed south brightening denoted ‘SB’ in Figure \[F-shock2\_images\]e was due to eruption of CME1.
![Near-surface traces of shock 1 in GOES/SXI and SOHO/EIT 195 Å running difference-ratio images. The solid ellipses calculated with $\delta = 2.55$, $t_0 = $ 07:41:00 outline the expanding shock front. The dashed ellipse in panel (e) corresponds to 08:07. The yellow contours outline filaments F2 and F3. The large dashed circles denote the solar limb.[]{data-label="F-shock2_images"}](shock2_img.eps){width="\textwidth"}
The near-surface portion of the shock front was distorted at a large-scale inhomogeneity above the long filament channel traced by filaments F2 and F3 (yellow in Figures \[F-shock2\_images\]d–\[F-shock2\_images\]f). The shock front entered this enhanced-density region above filament F2 at about 08:07. The filament started to ‘wink’ sequentially appearing and disappearing in the red and blue wings of the H$\alpha$ line. Figure \[F-winking\_filament\] shows variations of the average brightness of the whole filament F2 relative to its close environment (photometry was made by an automated method).
![Oscillations of filament F2 observed in the H$\alpha$ line center (black) and the red and blue wings (KSO). The symbols present the measurements. The curves show them smoothed over three neighbors. The shading marks the intervals of cloudy weather. The arrows indicate the changes of brightness corresponding to the sunward direction of the filament motion. The vertical broken line marks a probable onset time (08:07) of the anti-phase oscillations.[]{data-label="F-winking_filament"}](fil_osc_timeprof.eps){width="70.00000%"}
Distinct anti-phase oscillations in the blue and red wings started at about 08:07 (dash-dotted line) from the downward motion of the filament pushed by the tilted shock front. The oscillations with a period of 16 min probably reflect a self oscillation mode of the whole filament but might be affected by a wave trail and arrival of the second shock (discussed later) at about 08:15. A separate analysis of the east, middle, and west portions of filament F2 showed that all the three parts oscillated in-phase with each other.
The fastest motion of the filament occurred at 08:23 in an upwards direction, when it was darker in the blue wing than in the line center. This indicates that its Doppler shift was larger than the mid point between the blue wing and line center ($\approx
10$ km s$^{-1}$). On the other hand, the absence of an overturn in the blue-wing light curve in phase with the red wing near the valley at 08:23 suggests that the Doppler shift did not exceed the blue mid-wing wavelength ($\approx 20$ km s$^{-1}$). Thus, the highest line-of-sight velocity of the filament was $V_\mathrm{LOS} \approx
15$ km s$^{-1}$ (*cf.* ).
The dynamic spectrum in Figure \[F-shock2\_spectrum\]c composed from the Culgoora (until 08:00), Learmonth, and San Vito data shows a harmonic band-split type II burst. Its parameters are typical of type II bursts associated with shock waves propagating upward in the corona. The estimated shock speed was from 405 to 478 km s$^{-1}$.
![Kinematics of shock 1 (a,b) in comparison with the microwave burst E2 (green, b) and shock manifestations in the dynamic spectrum of the first type II burst (c). The vertical dashed line marks the shock onset time $t_0 = $ 07:41:00. The two pairs of white curves outline the split bands with the same $t_0$ and $\delta
= 2.60$. The black curves after 08:07 outline the N-like shift of the bands. The steep black dashed curves outline possible signatures of a quasi-parallel shock.[]{data-label="F-shock2_spectrum"}](shock2_spectrum.eps){width="80.00000%"}
The outline for both pairs of the split bands was calculated as described in Section \[S-wave\_expansion\] with $\delta = 2.60$ and the onset time $t_0 = $ 07:41:00 (dashed vertical line), the same as for the near-surface shock traces. The plots for the velocities and distances *vs.* time are shown in Figures \[F-shock2\_spectrum\]b and \[F-shock2\_spectrum\]c. Due to the model dependence of estimates from radio spectra, the plots for the type II tracer (red) are uncertain by a factor of $3.3
\times 10^8/n_0$, where $n_0$ is the actual plasma density at a characteristic distance $h_0 \approx 100$ Mm. Near-surface shock propagation and kinematics of the source of the type II burst closely correspond to each other.
Comparison with near-surface shock traces in Figure \[F-shock2\_images\] shows that the type II burst started when the shock front was located somewhere above regions 10501, 10503, and the bifurcation region. While the outline matches the overall evolution of the drift rate, both actual bands deviate from the outline like an inclined ‘S’ by 07:54. The band splitting disappears by 08:00. These properties disagree with a usual interpretation of band spitting due to emissions from the downstream and the upstream regions, implying instead emissions of split bands from two extended coronal structures located close to each other [@Grechnev2011_I]. The S-like deviation of the split bands and their merger afterwards suggests that the shock front encountered a high closed structure deflected by the shock.
At 08:07 the type II’s bands underwent an N-like shift to higher frequencies (black solid outline), suggesting that the shock front entered an enhanced-density region. Figure \[F-shock2\_images\]e and ‘winking’ filament F2 confirm that this really occurred at that time. These facts along with the properties of the band splitting indicate that the type II emission was most likely generated in a nearly radial structure stressed by a quasi-perpendicular shock (shock normal relative to the magnetic field). On the other hand, fast-drifting features at about 07:42–07:45, which were possibly harmonically related, hint at a possible much faster quasi-parallel shock passage. The black dashed curves outline possible harmonics.
A sketch in Figure \[F-shock\_cartoon\] outlines our model of a coronal wave excited in an active region (AR). The positions of the wave front in the corona at three consecutive times $t_1$, $t_2$, and $t_3$ are denoted by the dotted curves, and their corresponding near-surface traces are shown with the solid ellipses. The arrow $\mathbf{grad}\, V_\mathrm{fast}$ represents the conditions in the low corona above the active region favoring the wave amplification and formation of a discontinuity at $t_1$. The blast-like wave is expelled from the AR core into regions of weaker magnetic fields. The shock front crossing the current sheet inside a coronal streamer excites a type II burst.
![Fast MHD shock wave excited by an impulsive eruption in an active region (AR) and the appearance of type II emissions excited by the quasi-perpendicular shock in a remote streamer and by the quasi-parallel shock in the streamer above AR. The slanted crosses denote the rising wave center at three consecutive times $t_1$, $t_2$, and $t_3$.[]{data-label="F-shock_cartoon"}](wave_cartoon2.eps){width="60.00000%"}
A wide-band type IV burst, which appeared after 08:11 at 180 MHz and relatively rapidly drifted to lower frequencies, will be discussed in Section \[S-mosaic\_spectrum\].
CME2 at 08:49 and Shock 2
-------------------------
To find a possible relationship between the expansion of CME2 and radio signatures of the associated shock wave, the shock onset time should be estimated. The highest accuracy of the estimation can be achieved from the analysis of the radio spectrum in Figure \[F-shock3\_spectrum\]c, which was composed from the Learmonth and San Vito data (its low-frequency part below 35 MHz is suppressed due to interference).
![Kinematics of shock 2 (a,b) and its manifestations in the dynamic spectrum of the second type II burst (c). The red curve in panel (b) is the RHESSI HXR flux. The inset (d) shows screen dump of the type II onset in raw Learmonth file displayed by a standard viewer. The almost vertical thin dotted line outlines the type III burst. The nearly horizontal lines trace extensions of the first type II burst. The remaining paired curves outline different harmonic components of the second type II burst with $t_0 =
$ 08:14:12 (vertical dashed line).[]{data-label="F-shock3_spectrum"}](shock3_spectrum.eps){width="80.00000%"}
The drift rate of the type II burst was atypically high and started, in fact, from infinity. Its sharp C-like onset at about 08:15:35, also visible in the inset (d), suggests a flatwise encounter of the shock front with a nearly radial structure (see ). Just after this encounter, the contact region between the shock front and the streamer-like structure bifurcated, and one emission source moved up, while another one moved down thus producing the C-like feature.
Then both type II bands broadened considerably and underwent an N-like shift to higher frequencies, while the initial bands possibly continued. This behavior can be due to a portion of the shock front entering into a denser region similar to the corresponding feature of the first type II burst. The body of the second type II was crossed by the bands of the first type II burst, whose drift rate was much slower. They are outlined in Figure \[F-shock3\_spectrum\]c with a pair of dashed lines and a white line (its corresponding fundamental band was below 25 MHz at that time).
A probable onset time of the shock wave estimated from the drift of the second type II burst falls within a valley between peaks E4B and E4C in Figure \[F-shock3\_spectrum\]b. The valley is due to overlap of the decay of peak E4B and rise of peak E4C in the total HXR emission. A probable onset time of peak E4C is marked by a type III burst at 08:14:35 (crossed by the first type II). Type III bursts are considered as prompt indicators of non-thermal processes. By referring to this type III burst and extrapolating its drift to its probable highest frequency of 2 GHz, we estimate the shock 2 onset time $t_0 = $ 08:14:12, which reconciles all its considered manifestations. The drift of the type II burst can be fit with an uncertainty of $t_0$ as large as $\pm 30$ s, while a considerably wider uncertainty is allowable to fit expansion of the outer halo component of CME2.
To outline the complex features of the type II burst, we adopt the hypothesis of the shock front entering into a denser region. The initial bands outlined with the black-on-white curves correspond to $\delta = 2.65$. The black dotted curves outlining the high-frequency boundaries of the broadened bands were calculated with a considerably flatter density falloff $\delta = 2.1$. The outline of the N-like feature was calculated by assuming a wide Gaussian-shaped density enhancement in the way of the shock wave. The complex structure of the type II burst and insufficient quality of the dynamic spectrum does not allow us to understand the behavior of the bands after 08:20.
The outer non-structured halo of CME2 outlined with the white oval in Figure \[F-lasco\_cme\_wave2\] resembles traces of wave 1 in Figure \[F-lasco\_wave1\]. The shock-wave regime of the halo is supported by the type II burst and features discussed later. We therefore call the outer component ‘shock 2’ and the inner one ‘CME2’. Most likely, the eruption site of CME2 and source of shock 2 were within a region limited by AR 10501, 10503, dimming D2, and bifurcation region Rb (Figure \[F-3cmes\]d) rather close to the solar disk center, which we adopt for simplicity as the origin of the plots.
![Traces of shock 2 in resized LASCO-C2 and C3 running-ratio images. The circles denote the solar limb and the inner boundaries of the fields of view of the coronagraphs. The large white oval outlines the outermost halo envelope of CME2. The dashed oval outlines the outermost envelope of the arcade-like inner CME2 component (same as in Figure \[F-lasco\_cme2\]).[]{data-label="F-lasco_cme_wave2"}](lasco_cme_wave2.eps){width="\textwidth"}
The green kinematical plot in Figure \[F-cme2\_plot\]a calculated by using Equation (\[E-pl\_fit\]) with the onset time of $t_0
=$ 08:14:12 found from the dynamic spectrum agrees with the measurements in the CME catalog of the fastest feature related to CME2 (symbols). The white ovals outlining the halo envelope of CME2 in Figure \[F-lasco\_cme\_wave2\] (see also the CME2.mpg movie) correspond to this curve. Deviations of streamer 1 ahead of shock 2 (which make shock 2 visible) are due to preceding wave 1. The structure poleward from streamer 1 makes visible the streamer belt deflected by shock 2. Concavity of the halo above the north pole region is expected for a shock wave (Section \[S-cmes\_waves\]). These facts, as well as the high speed (green in Figure \[F-cme2\_plot\]b), strongly support the shock-wave nature of the halo ahead of the main CME2 body (the dashed oval).
![Measurements of CME expansion for both the wave (green) and arcade-like components (blue accelerating, black decelerating). (a) Height-time plot. The green curve fits the shock wave. The symbols represent the measurements from the CME catalog. (b) Velocity-time plots in comparison with the GOES 1–8 Å light curve (red). (c) Acceleration of the CME along with the HXR time profile (red) and the ratio of distances CME2 to shock 2 (green).[]{data-label="F-cme2_plot"}](cme2_plot.eps){width="80.00000%"}
To coordinate expansion of the halo with the second type II burst, we adjust the density model to bring the distances ($2.2R_\odot$) and speeds (2000 km s$^{-1}$) of the halo and the type II source into coincidence at 08:25 (the ending time of Figure \[F-shock3\_spectrum\]). In fact, this assumption means a spherical shock front propagating in an isotropic medium. Even with this idealization, the difference between the speeds over the plotted parts in Figures \[F-shock3\_spectrum\]a and \[F-cme2\_plot\]b does not exceed 20%. The corresponding reference density $n_0 = 6.4\times 10^8$ cm$^{-3}$ is close to the Saito model (see ). Figures \[F-shock3\_spectrum\]a and \[F-shock3\_spectrum\]b show the initial parts of the kinematical plots for the shock 2 front calculated with this density model. Comparison of the dynamic spectrum with the distance–time plot in Figure \[F-shock3\_spectrum\]b and images in Figure \[F-shock2\_images\] shows that the type II burst started at a distance of $\approx 0.4R_\odot$ (08:15:35) from the source region roughly corresponding to the position of filament F2, and the N-like deviation started at $\approx 0.7R_\odot$ (08:16:50) roughly corresponding to filament F3. The somewhat larger distance and the gradual shape of the N-like deviation of type II-2 suggest a larger height of its source relative to type II-1. This assumption is consistent with the absence of the initial parts of the bands in type II-2, which were split in type II-1; shock 2 probably developed above the structure, from which these bands of type II-1 were emitted.
The inner arcade-like component of CME2 had a pronounced spine outlined in Figure \[F-lasco\_cme2\] with the solid white oval. The dashed oval outlines the outermost envelope of the inner component including the intrusion region. Both ovals match the expanding CME2. The height-time plot used in compensating its expansion and plotting the ovals is shown in Figure \[F-cme2\_plot\]a.
![CME2 in LASCO-C2 and C3 fixed-base ratio images resized to compensate expansion of the CME. The white oval outlines the spine of the main arcade-like structure. The dashed oval outlines the outermost envelope of the arcade-like structure. The circles denote the solar limb and the inner boundaries of the fields of view of the coronagraphs.[]{data-label="F-lasco_cme2"}](lasco_cme2.eps){width="\textwidth"}
Expansion of CME2 was nearly self-similar with minor deviations. To keep the arcade spine within the white ovals, we slightly change their parameters with time. Figures \[F-lasco\_cme2\]a–\[F-lasco\_cme2\]f reveal a progressive displacement of the white oval southwest from the solar disk center, *i.e.*, from the Sun–Earth line. The main leading part of CME2 is not expected to encounter the Earth. On the other hand, the wide outermost part outlined with the dashed oval increasingly covered the solar disk. These properties of CME2 indicate that its arcade-like part was directed southwest from the Earth and, most likely, could only produce a glancing blow on the Earth’s magnetosphere. The intrusion region remained south of the Earth.
estimated the onset time for the inner CME2 component as $\approx$ 08:20 and its small acceleration. However, our measurements outlining the whole CME2 show that its expansion speed in the LASCO field of view was constant. LASCO images do not allow us to understand whether CME2 accelerated or decelerated. We compared plots for both kinematical types with X-ray light curves. The latest possible onset time achievable for accelerating kinematics corresponds to the blue curves in Figures \[F-cme2\_plot\]a and \[F-cme2\_plot\]b; later onset times produce infinite results in Equations (\[E-self\_sim\_exp\]) and (\[E-onset\_time\]). The velocity starts to rise too early with respect to the red SXR GOES plot. In this case it is difficult to reconcile the velocity plots for the CME, shock, and the type II burst.
By contrast, the decelerating type of kinematics (black curves) provides acceptable results. The CME velocity in Figure \[F-cme2\_plot\]b starts to rise simultaneously with the SXR emission. The decelerating self-similar part of the velocity plot shows reasonable correspondence with the green shock wave plot. A difficulty here is due to the fact that self-similar kinematics does not describe the initial stage of rising acceleration. We have described the impulsive acceleration stage with a Gaussian profile (as we did in Paper I; see also ), combined the increasing velocity with the decreasing self-similar one, and computed the distance and acceleration from the combined velocity. The resultant impulsive acceleration up to $\approx 12$ km s$^{-2}$ almost coincides with the HXR peak E4C, the deceleration peak of about $-1.5$ km s$^{-2}$ marks the onset of the self-similar stage, and then acceleration decreases by the absolute value. Kinematical plots with similar shapes and parameters have been previously presented by @Temmer2008 ([-@Temmer2008; -@Temmer2010]) and @Grechnev2008 ([-@Grechnev2008; -@Grechnev2011_I]).
The green curve in Figure \[F-cme2\_plot\]c presents the ratio of distances CME2 to shock 2 from the eruption site (right $y$-axis). The relative distance monotonically decreased for two reasons. Firstly, CME2 moved nearly earthward, while the halo corresponded to the lateral shock front, whose expansion was not facilitated by a trailing piston. Thus, the lateral and especially rear shock was closer to a freely propagating blast wave. Secondly, even the shock front ahead of the CME2 tip decelerated and eventually must transform to a pure bow shock.
Overall Dynamic Radio Spectrum and an Extra Ejection {#S-mosaic_spectrum}
----------------------------------------------------
Figure \[F-mosaic\_spectrum\] presents an overall picture of the whole event including microwave and hard X-ray bursts E1–E4 (same as in Figures \[F-timeprof\]c and \[F-timeprof\]d) and a dynamic radio spectrum composed as a mosaic from pieces provided by several observatories in different frequency ranges and time intervals. The combined spectrum uses data from the Culgoora Solar Observatory (18–1800 MHz) until 08:00 (b and c), Learmonth and San Vito stations at 25–180 MHz (c), three parts form Bleien Observatory (180–2000 MHz) at 08:00–08:43 (b), a set of fixed-frequency records from San Vito to fill the gaps in panel (b), and the *Wind*/WAVES spectrum from the RAD2 receiver at 1–14 MHz.
![Microwave (black and green) and HXR (red) time profiles (a) and an overall dynamic spectrum composed as a mosaic from observations of several instruments at decimeter, meter (b, c), and decameter (d, *Wind*/WAVES) wavelengths. The solid black, white, and dashed black-white curves outline the type II bursts (same as in Figures \[F-shock2\_spectrum\] and \[F-shock3\_spectrum\]). The blue curves outline the fast-drifting type IV burst. The leading blue low-frequency envelope of the type IV burst was calculated from the acceleration presented with the blue curve in panel (a). The dashed part of the acceleration plot shows the absolute value of deceleration. The left $y$-axis in panel (a) quantifies the microwave and HXR fluxes (see Figures \[F-timeprof\]c and d). The right $y$-axis quantifies the acceleration.[]{data-label="F-mosaic_spectrum"}](comb_spectrum.eps){width="\textwidth"}
The black and white curves of different line styles outline signatures of the two shock waves discussed in the preceding sections. The fast-drifting feature suggesting a quasi-parallel shock 1 has a pronounced continuation at decameters after 07:48 (the first pair of black lines) visible initially as a wide green band and later traced by disturbed type III bursts during 08:13–08:22 (see, *e.g.*, ). The second type II burst also continues at decameters as a wide green band between 1.5 and 3.5 MHz during 08:40–08:58 with earlier indication of drifting features between the pair of the white curves. Relating this drifting burst to interaction between two CMEs proposed by is not justified: this was a normal shock-associated type II burst. The type II emission at decameters is presumably produced by the shock front crossing a wide portion of the streamer belt with a relatively wide range of densities that determines its wide frequency band.
The gap between the *Wind*/WAVES spectrum and ground-based observations hinders identification of the harmonic number for the type II emissions at decameters. They are outlined assuming the dominant fundamental emission, although a stronger harmonic emission might be expected due to its weaker absorption. The alternative outline is possible but requires a density falloff of $\delta
\approx 2.9$, which seems to be too steep at moderate latitudes. Such an outline coordinated with the metric type II burst produces a slightly higher drift rate at decameters than the observed one. showed that the fundamental emission at decameters sometimes dominates, which possibly justifies our outline. Thus, we reproduce the drift rate of the decametric type IIs, while identification of their harmonic structure remains an open question.
Groups of type III bursts (especially clearly visible at decameters) provide further support to our identification of the eruptions. A dense type III group between 07:27 and 07:40 indicates the ongoing escape of non-thermal electrons into open magnetic structures probably associated with the CME1 liftoff, which started at E1. The situation is drastically different after confined eruption E2, when type IIIs rapidly terminate. Even the weak episode E3 produced a clear type III response. A series of type IIIs marks the fourfold event E4 suggesting a complex eruption, which has been partly studied in Paper I.
One more slowly drifting burst was reported as a type II by observers in Bleien to occur at 08:04–08:33. However, its evolution is opposite to the type IIs associated with shocks 1 and 2, and the bandwidth became quite broad. This burst is outlined with the blue curves in Figure \[F-mosaic\_spectrum\]. The solid curves outline the suggested fundamental band, and the dashed curve outlines a possible high-frequency envelope of the harmonic emission. The trailing edge of this burst is difficult to recognize and interpret.
The drift rate of this burst started from a near-zero value, which excludes its relation to a wave. The large bandwidth suggests that this was a type IV burst. It had an atypically high drift rate up to very low frequency (but not exceptional—see, *e.g.*, ). Relation of this burst to the body of CME2 is unlikely due to the gradual acceleration up to the maximum speed during 08:04–08:14 implied by the drift rate, whereas CME2 sharply accelerated during E4C at about 08:16. Relating its drift rate to the Saito or Newkirk density model has not resulted in anything matching the observed CMEs.
There is a different option. The lowest frequency of a radio burst is determined by the plasma frequency $f_\mathrm{P} = 9 \times 10^3
n^{1/2}$ in an emitting volume. Assuming the frequency drift to be due to the density decrease in an expanding spherical volume with radius $r$, $n \propto r^{-3}$, we have adjusted acceleration (blue in Figure \[F-mosaic\_spectrum\]a) to match the low-frequency envelope of the type IV burst. The initial density of $1.8 \times
10^{9}$ cm$^{-3}$ corresponds to 380 MHz. The spatial scale is uncertain. With $r_0 = 30$ Mm corresponding to the bifurcation region Rb, the initial part of the type IV burst’s envelope corresponds to the expanding motion visible in GOES/SXI images in Figure \[F-sxi\_exp\] (see also the SXI\_spectrum movie). Manifestations of the expansion are not expected to be observed later on, because the expanding feature moved away from the Sun. The velocity of the latter motion cannot be estimated from the radio spectrum.
![Expansion visible in GOES/SXI running difference ratios probably corresponding to the type IV burst. The radius of the circle was calculated from acceleration in Figure \[F-mosaic\_spectrum\]a and exactly corresponds to the blue outline of the leading low-frequency envelope of the type IV burst in Figures \[F-mosaic\_spectrum\]b–\[F-mosaic\_spectrum\]d.[]{data-label="F-sxi_exp"}](sxi_exp.eps){width="\textwidth"}
The radial expansion of the ejection responsible for the type IV burst accelerated up to $\approx 480$ m s$^{-2}$ at about 08:14:22 (the radial speed at that time was $V_r \approx 180$ km s$^{-1}$), reached a maximum speed $V_{r\, \max} \approx 300$ km s$^{-1}$, and then decelerated to $V_{r\, \mathrm{final} }\approx
100$ km s$^{-1}$. According to Paper IV (Grechnev *et al.*, in preparation), the average Sun–Earth transit speed of the ICME responsible for the geomagnetic superstorm was $\overline{V}
\approx 865$ km s$^{-1}$ (with an initial speed $V_0 \gsim
930$ km s$^{-1}$). Thus, this ejection probably expanded within a narrow cone with an angle of $2V_{r\, \mathrm{final}}/\overline{V} <
14^{\circ}$. Moving earthward almost exactly from the solar disk center and expanding within such a narrow cone, this ejection should appear in the LASCO-C2 field of view ($\ge 2R_{\odot}$) at a distance $> 16R_{\odot}$ so that the Thomson-scattered light would be meager. According to the estimates in Paper I, the mass of this ejection should be $\ll 5 \times 10^{15}$ g. The weak expansion and low mass have made this CME invisible for LASCO.
Discussion {#S-discussion}
==========
Shock Waves {#S-cmes_waves}
-----------
Analysis of the observations in the preceding section has revealed a complex chain of CMEs and waves. Table \[T-table2\] summarizes the results. The most noticeable fact is that the confined eruption E2 undoubtedly produced a shock wave. Its presence is confirmed by the type II-1 burst, a detailed correspondence between its drift and structure with the observed near-surface propagation of the ‘EUV wave’, the ‘winking’ filament F2, and a possible decametric type II burst due to the quasi-parallel shock. All of these manifestations are quantitatively coordinated with each other by the power-law description (\[E-pl\_fit\]) of an impulsively excited shock wave quasi-freely propagating like a decelerating blast wave.
------------- --------- --------------- ---------
07:29 E1 CME1 onset Wave 1
07:41 E2 No Shock 1
08:14–08:16 E4C CME2 onset Shock 2
08:07–08:30 E4A–E4D Invisible CME
------------- --------- --------------- ---------
: CMEs and waves revealed in the event.[]{data-label="T-table2"}
Paper I has revealed that a portion of filament F1 was impulsively heated between 07:39:59 and 07:41:27. The apparent speed of this portion sharply reached $\approx 300$ km s$^{-1}$ in the plane of the sky, suggesting that its real speed along the filament leg was $\approx 770$ km s$^{-1}$ (at an angle of $\approx 23^{\circ}$), which most likely produced considerable pressure pulse. This was followed by an impulsive jet-like ejection with acceleration up to 2 km s$^{-2}$ and a maximum speed of 450 km s$^{-1}$ (both in the plane of the sky). Each of these two impulsive phenomena could have played a role of an impulsive piston; contributions from both are possible. When the shock wave started, the related M3.2 flare only began to gradually rise being unable to produce a significant pressure pulse to excite the shock (*cf.* ). Eruption E2 had not produced any CME which excludes the usually assumed bow-shock excitation by the outer CME surface. This event presents a convincing pure case of shock wave excitation by an impulsive eruption.
Similarly, shock 2 was excited during the early rise phase of the E4C HXR burst in association with the onset of CME2. The velocity and acceleration plots of CME2 (black in Figures \[F-cme2\_plot\]b and \[F-cme2\_plot\]c) demonstrate its impulsive-piston behavior, while the propagation of shock 2 had the same decelerating pattern as shock 1 (green in Figures \[F-cme2\_plot\]a and \[F-cme2\_plot\]b) described by Equation (\[E-pl\_fit\]). The shock-wave nature of this disturbance is confirmed by the fast-drifting type II-2 burst traced up to decameters with its drift rate and uncommon structural features described by the same Equation (\[E-pl\_fit\]), its super-Alfv[' e]{}nic speed, and the non-structured faint spheroidal halo in LASCO images (Figure \[F-lasco\_cme\_wave2\]) both ahead of the arcade-like CME2 and well behind its rear part. There are additional features expected for propagation of a shock wave.
Figure \[F-streamer\] compares the halo envelope of CME2 observed by LASCO-C3 with an expected distortion of the shock front in the presence of the heliospheric current sheet (HCS) calculated by . The red arrow in Figure \[F-streamer\]a points at a coronal ray, which is a portion of the coronal streamer belt aligned along the line of sight. This orientation makes it distinctly visible. The streamer belt is the origin of the HCS.
![Propagation of the shock front (green) along the streamer belt: (a) the outer halo envelope of CME2 observed by LASCO; (b) the calculated picture adopted from Uralova and Uralov (1994). The arrow points at the streamer.[]{data-label="F-streamer"}](cme2_streamer.eps){width="\textwidth"}
addressed the propagation of a fast-mode MHD shock wave along the HCS in the WKB approximation. Figure \[F-streamer\]b presents Figure 5 of rotated to correspond to the orientation in Figure \[F-streamer\]a. The red arrow indicates the HCS inside a radially diverging slow wind flow of enhanced density bounded by the two long radial lines within $\pm 10^{\circ}$. A solar source of the shock wave was considered apart from the HCS base on the solar surface (not shown), which was located at the vertex of the ray trajectories. The thick polygonal chain is the calculated shock front far enough from the Sun (the polygonal shape was due to a limited number of rays in the calculations). Its outermost portions coincide with the green wave front calculated without the presence of the HCS. A portion of the front in the close vicinity of the HCS shown with the dashed arrow-like line represents the strongest shock. It is due to the effect of regular energy accumulation in the vicinity of the HCS. first suggested that a small velocity component towards the HCS was able to initiate a magnetic reconnection process accompanying a shock wave.
Comparison of Figures \[F-streamer\]a and \[F-streamer\]b shows an overall qualitative similarity of distortions of the wave front in the vicinity of the HCS that cause its concave shape. Unlike the calculated picture, the real HCS in Figure \[F-streamer\]a is not plane parallel to the line of sight. Its portion between the streamer under the arrow and the dip nearly above the north pole has been brought into view by the shock and corresponds to different distances and position angles.
Shock 2 developed 33 min after the slower shock 1 at nearly the same place in the plane of the sky and underwent the N-like shift of the bands about 10 min after shock 1. This approach indicates that the trailing shock 2 reached the leading shock 1 before its appearance from behind the occulting disk of LASCO-C2. The two shocks should combine into a single stronger one [@Grechnev2011_I]. Parameters of shock 2 have unlikely changed significantly, because shock 1 was much weaker. Due to probable coupling of the two shocks, manifestations of shock 1 in LASCO images are not expected.
Our knowledge of wave 1 and related CME1 is poorer relative to shocks 1 and 2. Its near-surface traces have not been detected, neither was there a type II burst. On the other hand, traces of wave 1 in LASCO images resembling a partial halo, the decelerating kinematics also described by Equation (\[E-pl\_fit\]), and its rather high speed of $> 850$ km s$^{-1}$ up to at least $10R_{\odot}$ indicate its shock-wave nature like shocks 1 and 2. The absence of a type II burst and an ‘EUV wave’ might be due to different propagation conditions with its relatively low speed.
The widely presumed scenario of bow-shock excitation by the outer surface of a CME is not confirmed. Ignition of a shock by a flare pressure pulse is also unlikely [@Grechnev2011_I]. This historically oldest scenario was based on an idea that the increase of the plasma beta in flare loops up to $\beta \approx 1$ could produce a significant disturbance. However, showed that the high-beta condition is a normal situation in a flare. The plasma pressure in flare loops increased due to chromospheric evaporation must be balanced by the dynamic pressure of reconnection outflow coming from above. Even with $\beta > 1$, the net effect is an increase of all sizes of a flare loop as low as $\sqrt[4]{1+\beta}$, so that the expected disturbance should be too small to produce a shock.
The major conclusion of this section related to the 20 November superstorm is that the outer halo component of CME2 was most likely a trace of a quasi-freely propagating shock wave and did not indicate the earthwards direction of CME2.
Consequences for a Problem of “EIT Waves”
-----------------------------------------
Our analysis in Section \[S-observations\] touched the long-standing challenging wave-like disturbances observed in EUV, usually called “EIT waves” or “EUV waves”. Debates over the nature of these transients have lasted 15 years and do not appear to have terminated so far (see, *e.g.*, @Warmuth2010 ([-@Warmuth2010; -@Warmuth2011]) for a review). Their different nature from the Moreton waves was prompted by their different observed velocities and other properties seemingly inconsistent with those of fast-mode MHD shock waves. A basic solution was initially proposed by and then developed by these authors in several studies (*e.g.*, @Warmuth2004a [-@Warmuth2004a; -@Warmuth2004b; -@Warmuth2005], and others). The idea is that both kinds of phenomena are due to propagation of decelerating fast-mode MHD shock waves. The Moreton waves are usually observed at shorter distances, where the wave speed is higher; EUV transients are observed at longer distances, where the speeds of decelerating waves are lower. @Grechnev2011_I ([-@Grechnev2011_I; -@Grechnev2011_III]) demonstrated that at least two kinds of EUV transients visible as ‘EUV waves’ did exist and could be observed simultaneously. One kind of EUV transient is due to plasma compression on top of a developing CME and by its sides \[basically consistent with the approach of @Chen2002 ([-@Chen2002; -@Chen2005])\]. Near-surface manifestations of such transients are of non-wave nature and remain not far from an eruption site. The second kind of EUV transient propagating over long distances is consistent with the initial interpretation of the Moreton waves as lower skirts of coronal waves proposed by . (Note in this respect the term ‘coronal counterpart of a Moreton wave’ used by some authors is confusing.) The apparent discrepancies between properties of propagating EUV transients and other shock signatures such as the Moreton waves, type II bursts, and outer CME halos thus have a simple explanation.
showed that the most probable source of an MHD shock wave is an impulsive eruption of a developing magnetic flux rope. This is also consistent with the event in question. The ends of an eruptive flux rope are fixed, while the velocity of the eruption is highest in the direction of its expansion (often non-radial, but mostly at a large angle with the solar surface). Thus, an MHD disturbance excited by an impulsive eruption is anisotropic, and the speed of its near-surface propagation is considerably less than the upward one. For this reason, the near-surface propagation velocity of an EUV transient is typically much less than that of a type II source.
The fact that the Moreton waves are typically considerably faster than EUV transients suggests that the Moreton waves are manifested at stronger shocks than ‘EUV waves’. This circumstance is also clear: to produce a Moreton wave, a shock wave has to penetrate to relatively denser layers of the solar atmosphere that significantly weakens the shock. By contrast, EUV signatures of a shock are observed in higher coronal levels of lower density, so that deceleration and damping of a shock does not prevent its observation at much larger distances.
These circumstances show that reports on ‘winking filaments’ driven by ‘EIT waves’, which were slower than type II burst sources, do not contradict their excitation by shocks, as conjectured. A similar phenomenon considered in Section \[S-observations\] present a confirmation. It should also be noted here that the oscillating filament on 4 November 1997 reported by , which was sometimes considered as an argument against the shock-wave nature of ‘EIT waves’, dealt with an EUV transient poorly observed by EIT. By using the difference ratios $-0.01 < I_\mathrm{wave} < 0.01$ (see Section \[S-kinematics\]) of EIT images observed during this event, one can detect faint but clear signatures of a propagating disturbance at 06:13:54 at a much longer distance from the eruption site than the authors found — almost near a coronal hole at the north pole.
Orientations of the CMEs {#S-ice-cream}
------------------------
To confirm and elaborate our preliminary conclusions about the orientations of CME1 and CME2, now we try to employ a model which allows one to estimate three-dimensional (3-D) geometric and kinematical parameters of a CME observed by LASCO coronagraphs in the plane of the sky. The so-called ice-cream cone model initially proposed by considers a CME as a cone with a vertex in the Sun’s center. This model underwent several elaborations. We use the model described by . The model allows one to estimate the radial velocity $|V|$ of a CME along its axis, the orientation of the axis with respect to the Earth, and the angular width $\alpha$ of the CME cone. For our purposes it is convenient to express the results provided by the model in an ecliptic longitude ($\lambda
>0$ west of the earthward direction) and latitude ($\phi >0$ north of the earthward direction).
To use the model of , an experimental dependence is evaluated of the plane-of-sky velocity $V_\mathrm{m}(\psi)$ of the CME envelope in LASCO images on the azimuthal position angle $\psi$. Then a set of parameters determining the orientation and axial speed of the CME is optimized by using the least-squares fit of the measured set $V_\mathrm{m}(\psi)$ to a calculated dependence $V_\mathrm{c}(\psi)$ (by minimizing the standard deviation $\sigma$). To expedite adjustment of parameters in the optimization process, we employed a genetic algorithm [@Mitchell1999]. Constraints on the fitting parameters should be applied for implementation of this algorithm. We used the following constraints: $1000 \leq |V| \leq 2000$ km s$^{-1}$, $10^{\circ} \leq \alpha \leq 70^{\circ}$, and $\lambda$ and $\phi$ within $\pm 40^{\circ}$ relative to the axis passing from the Sun’s center through the CME source region.
3-D parameters of CME1 and CME2 were estimated from eight sets of images observed with LASCO-C2 and C3. The contours of both main and wide envelopes of CME2 in Figure \[F-lasco\_cme2\] are well defined with small uncertainties. This is not the case for CME1; estimations of its 3-D parameters were additionally complicated by a narrower range of position angles (see Figure \[F-lasco\_cme1\]) which CME1 occupied, being far from the halo geometry. Therefore, extra attempts were required to obtain better results for CME1. In these attempts, we had to adjust velocity constraints for each iteration by monitoring $\sigma$. Overall, the estimated parameters were reasonably stable while input measurements were varied within the limited ranges. The final results are listed in Table \[T-table3\]. The corresponding sketch of the ice-cream cones of CME1 and CME2 is shown in Figure \[F-ice-cream\] with different viewing directions.
-------- ------------- ------------------------ --------------------- ----------------------- ----------------- --------------------------
Time Longitude$^{*}$ Latitude$^{*}$ Span$^{*}$ Speed $|V|^{*}$ Deviation
interval $\lambda \ [^{\circ}]$ $\phi \ [^{\circ}]$ $\alpha \ [^{\circ}]$ \[km s$^{-1}]$ $\sigma$ \[km s$^{-1}$\]
1 08:05–11:41 $-8 \pm 0.7$ $-26 \pm 1.8 $ $28 \pm 2.0 $ $1950 \pm 24$ 8.1–13.5
2 Main 08:49–12:17 $17 \pm 1.4 $ $-16 \pm 1.2 $ $50 \pm 2.4 $ $1778 \pm 9$ 1.0–1.8
2 Wide 08:49–12:17 $13 \pm 1.4 $ $-18 \pm 1.7 $ $66 \pm 2.5 $ $1718 \pm 55$ 3.2–4.9
-------- ------------- ------------------------ --------------------- ----------------------- ----------------- --------------------------
: Spatial parameters of CMEs estimated from the ice-cream cone model.[]{data-label="T-table3"}
$^{*}$Average and range of estimates from different images in the interval specified in column 2.
![Orientations of CME1 and CME2 estimated by means of the ice-cream cone model. The top and bottom panels represent different viewing directions.[]{data-label="F-ice-cream"}](ice_cream_model.eps){width="85.00000%"}
Table \[T-table3\] and Figure \[F-ice-cream\] confirm our preliminary conclusion that both CME1 and CME2 were not directed exactly earthwards. Each of the CMEs propagated mainly southward from the ecliptic plane, being only able to produce a glancing blow on the Earth’s magnetosphere. Ongoing expansion of an ICME suggests that the magnetic fields at its flanks were significantly weaker than at its nose. Due to magnetic flux conservation, the magnetic field strength at a fixed position of a self-similarly expanding ICME is inversely proportional to its instantaneous size squared (and the speed decreases linearly). For example, if an ICME flank hits the Earth at a distance of $1/\sqrt{2}$ of the heliocentric distance of the ICME nose, then the magnetic field at the flank should be reduced by a factor of 2 with respect to the central encounter. To our knowledge, the total magnetic field strength $|\mathbf{B}| \approx 56$ nT in the 20 November 2003 magnetic cloud was close to a record one. Still stronger fields were only observed in November 2001: on 6th, $|\mathbf{B}| \approx 66$ nT, and on 24th, $|\mathbf{B}| \approx 57$ nT (A. Belov, 2012, private communication). If the encounter of the 20 November 2003 MC with the Earth were a non-central encounter, one would have observed significantly stronger magnetic field; which is unlikely.
Thus, direct responsibility for the superstorm of magnetic structures of CME1 or CME2 appears to be doubtful. On the other hand, the mutual lateral pressure of CME1 and CME2 should considerably affect their expansion as well as any structures between them including the hypothetical invisible CME. This circumstance hints at possible causes of its weak expansion.
Eruption near the Solar Disk Center
-----------------------------------
Now we have sufficient information to assume what could have occurred near the solar disk center between 08:07 and 08:17. Paper I has established that the eruptive filament F1, which lifted off at an angle of $\approx 60^{\circ}$ to the solar surface, at about 08:07 collided with a topological discontinuity and bifurcated. The major mass of the filament moved nearly along the solar surface afterwards and had not left the Sun. At the same time and place, a nearly spherical structure developed and erupted with an initial speed of motion away from the Sun of $\gsim 930$ km s$^{-1}$. Its very slow expansion almost exactly from the solar disk center (the established radial expansion speed of $\approx 100$ km s$^{-1}$) and the earthward orientation have made it invisible for the LASCO coronagraphs. The only reasonable cause of its development was the anomalous collision of the eruptive filament F1 with a magnetic obstacle.
Most likely, one more product of this collision was the development of the coreless arcade-like CME2. Magnetic fields in a pre-eruption arcade are nearly potential (rot$\mathbf{B} \approx 0$), and therefore the arcade was unlikely to erupt by itself. Thus, CME2 was probably forced to erupt being hit from below. Its onset time of about 08:15 indicates that its probable cause was also the eruptive filament F1, whose active role was established in Paper I. This assumption is supported by decelerating kinematics of CME2 (see Figure \[F-cme2\_plot\]b). The observations lead therefore to the following picture. The *magnetic flux rope* developed *from filament F1* and moved southwest with an initial angle of $\approx 60^{\circ}$ to the solar surface ($\approx 23^{\circ}$ to the line of sight). When passing through the topological discontinuity near the solar disk center at a height of $\approx
100$ Mm, the eruptive filament (flux rope) caused an expansion of the arcade above it (in a normal case, the arcade would be a CME frontal structure), but failed to become its core. Instead, the filament disintegrated into two parts, one of which remained on the Sun, and the other one erupted as a ‘core’ (invisible CME), but apart from CME2. The initial velocity of the invisible CME $\gsim
930$ km s$^{-1}$ is comparable with the initial speed of CME2 ($\approx 1700$ km s$^{-1}$), confirming their association and the assumption that the eruption of CME2 was forced by the eruptive filament F1. Development of shock 2 at 08:14:12 was most likely related to this violent episode.
Separation of CME2 into the ‘coreless CME’ and ‘CMEless core’ (without the frontal structure) hints at a more complex relation between the CME parts than traditionally assumed. The core might be an active CME component responsible for its initiation and initial propagation, and the frontal structure might be a passive envelope arcade whose expansion is driven from inside. Note that the appearance of CME3 in Figure \[F-3cmes\]c supports this assumption: its core was pronouncedly twisted suggesting active motions followed by a kink instability, while the outer structures of CME3 consisted of steadily expanding closed long loops rooted on the Sun. After relaxation of the core, the whole CME expanded self-similarly. The difference between the loops in the structures of CME2 and CME3 was due to their orientations. Unlike CME2, in which the planes of the arcade loops were close to the line of sight, the planes of the frontal loops of CME3 were close to the plane of the sky.
The joint analysis of the dynamic radio spectrum and GOES/SXI images has shown that HXR peak E4D (the last one whose association was not revealed) corresponds to deceleration of the invisible CME. As discussed in Paper I, considerations and results of several researchers converge to the conclusion that HXR and microwave bursts presented a flare manifestation of magnetic reconnection responsible for acceleration of a developing flux rope, when the propelling toroidal force developed. Similarly, the deceleration reflected by the HXR peak E4D might be a response to another reconnection process. This process possibly destroyed magnetic structures providing the toroidal force so that only retarding magnetic tension responsible for deceleration persisted, and then the eruption probably disconnected completely, thus entering a free expansion stage. This speculation implies that HXR and microwave bursts indicate both acceleration and deceleration of CMEs, and that the self-similar expansion began, when the flare bursts ceased.
Conclusions {#S-conclusion}
===========
Our detailed analysis of the complex solar eruptive event carried out in this paper and Paper I has led to a number of results, which are not only important in pursuing causes of the 20 November 2003 geomagnetic superstorm, but also are promising for better general understanding of solar eruptions, CMEs, related shock waves, and their various manifestations. In particular, identification of an outer halo CME component with a shock trace promises better estimates of orientation and velocity of CMEs and higher accuracy in predicting the arrival time of a corresponding ICME.
The shock waves revealed in this event provide further support for the concept of early impulsive-piston shock excitation by an eruptive structure proposed by . A shock wave excited by a confined eruption at 07:41 presents a notable example confirming this scenario. On the other hand, the widely presumed bow-shock excitation scenario at the outer surface of a CME is not confirmed. Ignition of a shock by a flare pressure pulse is also unlikely.
Magnetic structures of neither CME1 nor CME2 appear to be appropriate candidates for the sources of the superstorm for the following reasons.
- CME1 erupted, most likely, at about 07:29 from the east part of AR 10501, where the helicity was excessively negative. CME1 was not earth-directed.
- The outer halo of CME2 was probably due to a spheroidal shock front and did not indicate the earthward direction of magnetic structures of CME2.
- Expansion of CME1 and CME2 close to each other probably caused their mutual compression, but there were no signs of reconnection between their magnetic structures.
- CME1 and CME2 were directed southward from the ecliptic plane, oblique with respect to the Sun–Earth line, being only able to produce a glancing blow on the Earth’s magnetosphere with a reduced geomagnetic effect.
These circumstances disfavor the idea of about a positive-helicity eruption from AR 10501. The suggestions of and related to the causes of the 20 November 2003 superstorm lose their basis. On the other hand, GOES/SXI and radio observations provide further support to the presumed additional CME which erupted close to the solar disk center. Its estimated characteristics confirm the assumption made in Paper I that its weak expansion within a narrow cone of $< 14^{\circ}$ could make it invisible for LASCO and preserve its very strong magnetic field due to magnetic flux conservation.
Our study demonstrates that even a case study of a single event can supply rich information about solar eruptions, associated phenomena, and their consequences. The major condition of success was a combined analysis of multi-spectral data. It has been recognized that significant suggestions and milestones are provided by bursts generated by accelerated electrons. They are observed as flare bursts in hard and soft X-rays and microwaves as well as drifting radio bursts at longer radio waves. Our results emphasize particularly the following.
- Type III bursts are well-known signatures of non-thermal electrons. Their appearance can be indicative of acceleration processes occurring during eruptive episodes. In particular, our event demonstrated dense trains of type III bursts accompanying the CME lift-off.
- The concept of predominant excitation of type II bursts by decelerating quasi-perpendicular shocks in remote streamers allowed us to reconcile their various features with other signatures of propagating shock waves. In particular, this concept accounts for the delay of the type II onset time relative to HXR and microwave flare bursts and the relatively low starting frequencies of type II bursts. The latter becomes clear if one considers the tilted shock front excited at a height of $\approx 100$ Mm to encounter a remote streamer at some distance from the eruption site.
- The type IV burst discussed here was possibly a moving type IV, but we cannot confirm this possibility due to the absence of meter-wave imaging observations. The approach used here promises diagnostics of developing CMEs from type IV bursts with relatively fast drift.
In summary, the combined analysis of the multi-spectral observations carried out in Paper I and this paper makes it possible to construct a consistent picture of several observational facts and suggestions, some of which seemed to have been questionable. The outlined scenario accounts for most of these circumstances. Unanswered questions still remain, however. It is unclear what occurred in the magnetic structures of the eruptive filament in the bifurcation region, how the ‘CMEless core’ was formed, and how to reconcile the right-handed magnetic cloud with the left-handed pre-eruption structure. These issues will be addressed in Paper III. One more question is specifically what kind of structure reached the Earth on November 20 and produced the superstorm. This will be a subject of Paper IV.
We thank Viktoria Kurt for the CORONAS-F/SONG data, L. Kashapova and S. Kalashnikov for the assistance in data processing, and I. Kuzmenko for useful discussions. We are grateful to an anonymous reviewer for useful remarks. We thank the instrumental teams of the Kanzelh[ö]{}he Solar Observatory; MDI, EIT, and LASCO on SOHO (ESA & NASA project); the USAF RSTN Radio Solar Telescope Network; RHESSI; and the GOES satellites for the data used here. We thank the team maintaining the CME Catalog at the CDAW Data Center by NASA and the Catholic University of America in cooperation with the Naval Research Laboratory. This study was supported by the Russian Foundation of Basic Research under grants 11-02-00757, 11-02-01079, 12-02-00008, 12-02-92692, and 12-02-00037, The Ministry of education and science of Russian Federation, projects 8407 and 14.518.11.7047. The research was also partly supported by the European Commission’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under the grant agreement eHeroes (project No. 284461), [www.eheroes.eu](www.eheroes.eu).
Brueckner, G.E., Howard, R.A., Koomen, M.J., Korendyke, C.M., Michels, D.J., Moses, J.D., *et al.*: 1995, [[*Solar Phys.*]{}]{}**162**, 357.
Cane, H.V., Erickson, W.C.: 2005, [ [*Astrophys. J.*]{}]{} [**623**]{}, 1180.
Cerrato, Y., Saiz, E., Cid, C., Gonzalez, W. D., Palacios, J.: 2012, [ [*J. Atmos. Solar-Terr. Phys.*]{}]{} [**80**]{}, 111.
Chandra R., Pariat, E., Schmieder, B., Mandrini, C.H., Uddin, W.: 2010, [[*Solar Phys.*]{}]{} **261**, 127.
Chen, J.: 1989, [ [*Astrophys. J.*]{}]{} [**338**]{}, 453.
Chen, J.: 1996, [ [*J. Geophys. Res.*]{}]{} [**1012**]{}, 27499.
Chen, P. F., Wu, S. T., Shibata, K., Fang, C.: 2002, [ [*Astrophys. J. Lett.*]{}]{}**572**, L99.
Chen, P. F., Fang, C., Shibata, K.: 2005, [ [*Astrophys. J.*]{}]{} **622**, 1202.
Chertok, I. M., Grechnev, V. V.: 2005, *Astron. Reports* **49**, 155.
Cremades, H., Bothmer, V.: 2004, [ [*Astron. Astrophys.*]{}]{} [**422**]{}, 307.
Delaboudinière, J.-P., Artzner, G. E., Brunaud, J., Gabriel, A. H., Hochedez, J. F., Millier, F., *et al.*: 1995, [[*Solar Phys.*]{}]{}**162**, 291.
Eto, S., Isobe, H., Narukage, N., Asai, A., Morimoto, T., Thompson, B., *et al.*: 2002, [ [*Publ. Astron. Soc. Japan*]{}]{} [**54**]{}, 481.
Fisher, R.R., Munro, R.H.: 1984, [ [*Astrophys. J.*]{}]{} **280**, 428.
Gopalswamy, N., Yashiro, S., Michalek, G., Xie, H., Lepping, R. P., Howard, R. A.: 2005, [ [*Geophys. Res. Lett.*]{}]{} **32**, L12S09.
Gopalswamy, N., Yashiro, S., Michalek, G., Stenborg, G., Vourlidas, A., Freeland, S., Howard, R.: 2009, [*Earth, Moon, Planets*]{} [**104**]{}, 295.
Grechnev, V.V., Chertok, I.M., Slemzin, V.A., Kuzin, S.V., Ignat’ev, A.P., Pertsov, A.A., Zhitnik, I.A., Delaboudinière, J.-P., Auchère, F.: 2005, [ [*J. Geophys. Res.*]{}]{} **110**, A09S07.
Grechnev, V.V., Uralov, A.M., Zandanov, V.G., Rudenko, G.V., Borovik, V.N., Grigorieva, I.Y., *et al.*: 2006, [ [*Publ. Astron. Soc. Japan*]{}]{} [**58**]{}, 55.
Grechnev, V.V., Uralov, A.M., Slemzin, V.A., Chertok, I.M., Kuzmenko, I.V., Shibasaki, K.: 2008, [[*Solar Phys.*]{}]{} **253**, 263.
Grechnev, V.V., Uralov, A.M., Chertok, I.M., Kuzmenko, I.V., Afanasyev, A.N., Meshalkina, N.S., Kalashnikov, S.S., Kubo, Y.: 2011a, [[*Solar Phys.*]{}]{} [**273**]{}, 433.
Grechnev, V.V., Afanasyev, A.N., Uralov, A.M., Chertok, I.M., Eselevich, M.V., Eselevich, V.G., Rudenko, G.V., Kubo, Y.: 2011b, [[*Solar Phys.*]{}]{} [**273**]{}, 461.
Grechnev, V.V., Uralov, A.M., Slemzin, V.A., Chertok, I.M., Filippov, B.P., Rudenko, G.V., Temmer, M.: 2013, [[*Solar Phys.*]{}]{} in press. doi: 10.1007/s11207-013-0316-6.
Howard, R.A., Michels, D.J., Sheeley, N.R., Jr., Koomen, M.J.: 1982, [ [*Astrophys. J. Lett.*]{}]{} [**263**]{}, L101.
Illing, R.M.E.: 1984, [ [*Astrophys. J.*]{}]{} [**280**]{}, 399.
Ivanov, K.G., Romashets, E.P., Kharshiladze, A.F.: 2006, [*Geomagn. Aeron.*]{} [**46**]{}, 275.
Krall, J., Chen, J., Santoro, R.: 2000, [ [*Astrophys. J.*]{}]{} [**539**]{}, 964.
Kumar, P., Manoharan, P.K., Uddin, W.: 2011, [[*Solar Phys.*]{}]{} [**271**]{}, 149.
Leblanc, Y., Dulk, G.A., Vourlidas, A., Bougeret, J.-L.: 2000, [ [*J. Geophys. Res.*]{}]{} [**105**]{}, 18225.
Low, B. C.: 1982, [ [*Astrophys. J.*]{}]{} **254**, 796.
Mari[č]{}i[ć]{}, D., Vr[š]{}nak, B., Stanger, A.L., Veronig, A.: 2004, [[*Solar Phys.*]{}]{} [**225**]{}, 337.
Marubashi, K., Cho, K.-S., Kim, Y.-H., Park, Y.-D., Park, S.-H.: 2012, [ [*J. Geophys. Res.*]{}]{} [**117**]{}, A01101.
Miklenic, C.H., Veronig, A.M., Vr[š]{}nak, B., Hanslmeier, A.: 2007, [ [*Astron. Astrophys.*]{}]{} **461**, 697.
Miklenic, C.H., Veronig, A.M., Vr[š]{}nak, B.: 2009, [ [*Astron. Astrophys.*]{}]{}**499**, 893.
Mitchell, M.: 1999. *An Introduction to Genetic Algorithms* The MIT Press. Cambridge, Massachusetts, 158.
M[" o]{}stl, C., Miklenic, C., Farrugia, C. J., Temmer, M., Veronig, A., Galvin, A. B., Vr[š]{}nak, B., Biernat, H. K.: 2008, [ [*Ann. Geophys.*]{}]{}**26**, 3139.
Pomoell, J., Vainio, R., Kissmann, R.: 2008, [[*Solar Phys.*]{}]{}**253**, 249.
Pohjolainen, S., Hori, K., Sakurai, T.: 2008, [[*Solar Phys.*]{}]{}**253**, 291.
Neupert, W. M.: 1968, [ [*Astrophys. J. Lett.*]{}]{} **153**, L59.
Sheeley, N.R., Jr., Hakala, W.N., Wang, Y.-M.: 2000, [ [*J. Geophys. Res.*]{}]{}**105**, A3, 5081.
Temmer, M., Veronig, A. M., Vr[š]{}nak, Ryb[' a]{}k, J., G[" o]{}m[" o]{}ry, J., Stoiser, S., Mari[č]{}i[' c]{}, D.: 2008, [ [*Astrophys. J. Lett.*]{}]{}**673**, L95.
Temmer M., Veronig A. M., Kontar E. P., Krucker S., Vr[š]{}nak B., 2010, [ [*Astrophys. J.*]{}]{} **712**, 1410.
Tripathi, D., Isobe, H., Jain, R.: 2009, [ [*Space Sci. Rev.*]{}]{} [**149**]{}, 283.
Uchida, Y.: 1968, [[*Solar Phys.*]{}]{} **4**, 30.
Uralova, S. V., Uralov, A. M.: 1994, [[*Solar Phys.*]{}]{} **152**, 457.
Uralov, A. M., Grechnev, V. V., Hudson, H. S.: 2005, [ [*J. Geophys. Res.*]{}]{}**110**, A05104.
Vourlidas, A., Wu, S.T., Wang, A.H., Subramanian, P., Howard, R.A.: 2003, [ [*Astrophys. J.*]{}]{} **598**, 1392.
Wang, Y., Zhang, J., Shen, C.: 2009, [ [*J. Geophys. Res.*]{}]{} [**114**]{}, 10104.
Warmuth, A.: 2010, [ [*Adv. Space Res.*]{}]{} [**45**]{}, 527.
Warmuth, A.: 2011, [*Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion*]{} [**53**]{}, 124023.
Warmuth, A., Vr[š]{}nak, B., Aurass, H., Hanslmeier, A.: 2001, [ [*Astrophys. J. Lett.*]{}]{} **560**, L105.
Warmuth, A., Vr[š]{}nak, B., Magdaleni[' c]{}, J., Hanslmeier, A., Otruba, W.: 2004a, [ [*Astron. Astrophys.*]{}]{} **418**, 1101.
Warmuth, A., Vr[š]{}nak, B., Magdaleni[' c]{}, J., Hanslmeier, A., Otruba, W.: 2004b, [ [*Astron. Astrophys.*]{}]{} **418**, 1117.
Warmuth, A., Mann, G., Aurass, H.: 2005, [ [*Astrophys. J. Lett.*]{}]{} **626**, L121.
Xue, X.H., Wang, C.B., Dou, X.K.: 2005, [ [*J. Geophys. Res.*]{}]{} **110**, A08103.
Yashiro, S., Gopalswamy, N., Michalek, G., St. Cyr, O. C., Plunkett, S. P., Rich, N. B., Howard, R. A.: 2004, [ [*J. Geophys. Res.*]{}]{} 109, A07105. Yermolaev Yu. I., Zelenyi, L. M., Zastenker, G. N., Petrukovich, A. A., Yermolaev, M. Yu., Nikolaeva, N. S., [*et al.*]{}: 2005, *Geomagn. Aeron.* **45**, 681.
Yurchyshyn, V., Hu, Q., Abramenko, V.: 2005, *Space Weather* **3**, S08C02. Zhang, J., Dere, K. P.: 2006, [ [*Astrophys. J.*]{}]{} **649**, 1100.
Zhang, J., Dere, K.P., Howard, R.A., Kundu, M.R., White, S.M.: 2001, [ [*Astrophys. J.*]{}]{} [**559**]{}, 452.
|
---
abstract: |
In the last decades there have been an increasing interest in improving the accuracy of spacecraft navigation and trajectory data. In the course of this plan some anomalies have been found that cannot, in principle, be explained in the context of the most accurate orbital models including all known effects from classical dynamics and general relativity. Of particular interest for its puzzling nature, and the lack of any accepted explanation for the moment, is the flyby anomaly discovered in some spacecraft flybys of the Earth over the course of twenty years. This anomaly manifest itself as the impossibility of matching the pre and post-encounter Doppler tracking and ranging data within a single orbit but, on the contrary, a difference of a few mm$/$s in the asymptotic velocities is required to perform the fitting.
Nevertheless, no dedicated missions have been carried out to elucidate the origin of this phenomenon with the objective either of revising our understanding of gravity or to improve the accuracy of spacecraft Doppler tracking by revealing a conventional origin.
With the occasion of the Juno mission arrival at Jupiter and the close flybys of this planet, that are currently been performed, we have developed an orbital model suited to the time window close to the perijove. This model shows that an anomalous acceleration of a few mm$/$s$^2$ is also present in this case. The chance for overlooked conventional or possible unconventional explanations is discussed.
author:
- |
L. Acedo[^1], P. Piqueras and J. A. Moraño\
Instituto Universitario de Matemática Multidisciplinar,\
Building 8G, $2^{\mathrm{o}}$ Floor, Camino de Vera,\
Universitat Polit$\grave{\mbox{e}}$cnica de Val$\grave{\mbox{e}}$ncia,\
Valencia, Spain\
bibliography:
- 'acedobiblio.bib'
title: A possible flyby anomaly for Juno at Jupiter
---
[**Keywords:**]{} Juno mission, Tidal perturbations, Jupiter’s gravity model, Flyby anomaly
Introduction {#intro}
============
A key step towards interplanetary space exploration was achieved by the theoretical work of Minovitch [@Minovitch1; @Minovitch2] and Flandro [@Flandro]. In the early sixties of the past century these authors proposed the use of the gravitational assist manoeuvre to increase the energy of spacecraft in the Solar System barycenter, allowing for fast reconnaissance missions to the outer planets from Jupiter to Neptune [@Butrica]. Since then, many gravity assist, flyby or slingshot manoeuvers (as this manoeuver can be equally be named) have been programmed in the course of missions to the inner planets (Mariner, Messenger), outer planets (Pioneer, Voyager, Galileo, Cassini, New Horizons, Juno) or asteroids (NEAR). The objective of many of these flybys is to obtain data from the planets as they flyby them and to take advantage of the energy transfer obtained during the flyby [@Transfer].
Apart from the obvious contribution to planetary science, these missions have provided an excellent framework to perform tests of General Relativity and to improve the accuracy of trajectory determination systems. As soon as 1976, the Viking mission allowed for the verification of Shapiro’s echo delay prediction of an increase in a time taken for a round-trip’s light signal to travel between the Earth and Mars as a consequence of the curvature of space-time by the Sun [@VikingExp]. More recently, Everitt et al. [@Everitt] have tested the geodetic and frame-dragging effects. Also, the analysis of the data from the Messenger mission to Mercury is now used for improving the accuracy of ephemeris as they also put a stringent test on the parameters in the post-newtonian formalism [@Messenger1; @Messenger2]. With such an ongoing interest in fundamental aspects of spacecraft dynamics and gravity it is, perhaps, not surprising that some anomalies have showed up in the years passed since the beginning of the space age. Among them, the so-called Pioneer anomaly stands out as a particularly interesting case. As it has become common lore within the space physics community, the Pioneer anomaly consist on a trend detected on the Doppler data for the Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11 spacecraft as they travel beyond Jupiter. This trend was consistent with an, almost constant, acceleration of $a_P=(8.74\pm 1.33) \times 10^{-8} $ cm$/$s$^2$ directed, approximately, towards the Sun [@LPDSolarSystem; @Anderson2002]. Despite the many suggestions for new physics [@TuryshevReview], the problem was finally settled, after the careful retrieval of the whole telemetry dataset, as originating from the anisotropic emission of heat from the radioactive sources on the thermoelectric generators [@Rievers2011; @PioneerPRL; @Bertolami2010].
Even more intriguing is the flyby anomaly, i. e., the unexplained difference among the post-encounter and the pre-encounter Doppler residuals of a spacecraft in a gravity assist manoeuver around the Earth [@Anderson2008]. The first detection of the effect occurred during the first Galileo flyby of the Earth on December, 8th, 1990. In this case the discrepancy was interpreted as an anomalous increase of $3.92$ mm$/$s in the post-encounter asymptotic velocity. It is important to emphasize that this anomaly is also observed in the ranging data and cannot be attributed to a conventional or unconventional issue related entirely to the Doppler tracking. A primary evaluation of the possible conventional physical effects with could be contributing to the anomaly was carried out by Lämmerzahl et al. [@LPDSolarSystem]. Ocean tides and a coupling of the spacecraft to the tesseral harmonic terms in the geopotential model have also recently been studied [@AcedoMNRAS]. Atmospheric friction can also be dismissed except for flybys at altitudes of $300$ km or lower [@Acedo2017one]. The same can be said of the corrections corresponding to General Relativity [@IorioSRE2009; @Hackmann], thermal effects [@Rievers2011] or other [@Atchison].
The absence of any convincing explanation have motivated many researchers to undertake the task of looking for models beyond standard physics. An early work by Adler [@Adler2010; @Adler2011] presented a model in which a halo of dark matter coalesces around the Earth and its interactions would explain away the flyby anomaly. Anaway, these interactions would verify very stringent conditions. We have also many models which refer to extensions of General Relativity or modifications of standard newtonian gravity: extensions of Whitehead’s theory of gravity [@Acedo2015; @Acedo2017three], topological torsion [@Pinheiro2014; @Pinheiro2016], retardation effects [@Hafele], motion in conformal gravity [@Varieschi2014] or some [*ad hoc*]{} modifications of the Newtonian potential [@Nyambuya2008; @Wilhelm2015; @Bertolami2016]. In the work of Bertolami et al. [@Bertolami2016] several ungravity inspired modifications of the Newtonian potential through couplings of the stress-energy tensor or the baryonic current with a rank-$2$ tensor are considered. However, the authors conclude that no modifications of the classical Newtonian potential of this kind can account for the anomalous energy changes detected during the flybys. Consequently, dissipative or velocity-dependent effects accounting for an energy transfer from the spacecraft to the planet should be considered in future studies if the anomalies persist after rigorous analysis. One of the objectives of the present paper is to develop a method from which, in principle, we can infer the form of the perturbation from the trajectory. This way we can test if the perturbation is compatible with a conservative force of takes another form as proposed by Bertolami et al. [@Bertolami2016] and other authors [@Acedo2015].
Another non-standard model has been developed by McCulloch who considers a modified inertia as a consequence of a Hubble Casimir effect (MiHsC model). This model predicts a qualitative agreement with the anomalous velocity change found in some missions [@McCulloch] and it has also been applied to the problem of the rotation of galaxies to predict the velocity curve profile in the absence of any dark matter [@McCulloch2017].
This top-down approach from new theoretical models to fit the data for the anomaly is unlikely to be successful at the present state of research in this area. Although the observations of the anomaly are clear in some cases, it is still on the threshold of detectability (or it is simply absent) from other flyby manoeuvers (such as the Juno flyby of the Earth on October, 2013 [@Jouannic; @Thompson]). It seems more reasonable to improve the analysis of the flyby trajectories performed around the Earth and to carry out more analysis of other flyby manoeuvers in the future. This would help to clarify the existence of such an anomaly, its relation to standard gravity and its manifestation in missions to other planets. The very nature of this anomaly, with its variations in sign and magnitude from flyby to flyby, has made very difficult to find a consistent pattern among them [@Anderson2008] in order to settle its characteristics and phenomenology.
This could have been done by a dedicated science mission such as the, now cancelled, Space-Time Explorer and Quantum Equivalence Principle Space Test (STE-QUEST) spacecraft [@STEQUEST]. But, as gravity assist manoeuvers are almost routine in every interplanetary mission, we can expect that the necessary data to establish the undeniable existence of the phenomenon and its anomalous nature, i.e., the lack of explanation within the current paradigm of physics. To achieve this objective, it would be highly useful to find that similar anomalies are found in the flybys of other planets. If these anomalies are revealed in this situation, and as Lämmerzahl et al. have already claimed [@LPDSolarSystem], we will have an important science case. Nowadays, the Juno spacecraft is orbiting around Jupiter in a highly elliptical orbit with perido $53.5$ days after the successful orbit insertion on past July, 4th, 2016. After a failed period reduction manoeuver in its second perijove, the spacecraft is now planned to complete a total of $12$ orbits of which six have now been completed. The interesting fact, in connection with out problem, is that Juno is achieving its periapsis at only $4200$ km over the planet top clouds [@JunoMissionI; @JunoMissionII; @JunoMissionIII] and it provides a new opportunity to test the accuracy of orbit determination and the presence of unexpected discrepancies.
One of the problems with the analysis of the flyby anomaly is the scarcity of the data and the absence of dedicated missions to study this phenomenological issue. On the other hand, this does not prevent us from defining a clear-cut research objective in experimental gravity and space research: Are highly elliptical and hyperbolic orbits with periapsis close to the main body well described by our current theories of gravity and spacecraft navigation models ?. Starting with Anderson et al. [@Anderson2008] there are many researchers who think that we face a problem in this case and that further research is necessary to obtain as accurate predictions as our current technology allows.
The objective of this paper is to develop an orbital model specially suited for the perijove time-frame. This model should take into account, at least, the tidal effects of Jupiter’s Galilean satellites and the known zonal harmonics of the planet. By comparing with the telemetry data we disclose a small, but significant, anomalous acceleration whose components in spherical coordinates are of the order of magnitude of a few mm$/$s$^2$ and decay below the measurement error bars after a period of $30$ minutes before or after the perijove. As we will see this is compatible with the expected order of magnitude from Anderson’s phenomenological formula [@Anderson2008] and some modified models of gravity [@Acedo2015; @Acedo2017three].
Orbital model {#sec:2}
=============
In this section we discuss the development of an orbital model optimized for the region around the perijove. Our problem is summarized in the set of Newtonian equations of motion: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqmotionr}
\displaystyle\frac{d {\bf r}}{d t}&=&{\bf v} \; ,\\
\noalign{\smallskip}
\label{eqmotionv}
\displaystyle\frac{d {\bf v}}{d t}&=&-\mu_J \displaystyle\frac{{\bf r}}{r^3}+\bm{\mathcal{F}}_{\mbox{tidal}}+\bm{\mathcal{F}}_{\mbox{zonal}} \; ,\end{aligned}$$ where ${\bf r}$ and ${\bf v}$ are the position and velocity vectors of the spacecraft, respectively, $\mu_J$ is Jupiter’s mass constant, ${\bm{\mathcal{F}}}_{\mbox{tidal}}$ is the perturbing tidal force exerted by the Sun and Jupiter’s satellites, and $\bm{\mathcal{F}}_{\mbox{zonal}}$ are the corrections arising from the known zonal harmonics of the planet. Concerning the mass constants of Jupiter, the Sun and the Galilean satellites we have the following values [@DE431; @Satellites]: $$\begin{array}{rcl}
\mu_J&=&126712764.800000 \; \mbox{km$^3/$s$^2$}\; , \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
\mu_{\mbox{Sun}}&=&132712440041.939400\; \mbox{km$^3/$s$^2$}\; , \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
\mu_{\mbox{Io}}&=&5959.916\; \mbox{km$^3/$s$^2$}\; , \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
\mu_{\mbox{Europa}}&=&3202.739\; \mbox{km$^3/$s$^2$}\; , \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
\mu_{\mbox{Callisto}}&=&7179.289\; \mbox{km$^3/$s$^2$}\; , \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
\mu_{\mbox{Ganymede}}&=&9887.834\; \mbox{km$^3/$s$^2$}\; .
\end{array}$$ The tidal force on the reference frame of Jupiter exerted by the Sun or any of Jupiter’s satellites is given by: $$\label{Ftid}
\bm{\mathcal{F}}_{\mbox{tidal}}=\mu \left(-\displaystyle\frac{{\bf R}}{R^3}+\displaystyle\frac{{\bf R}-{\bf r}}{\left(r^2+R^2-2 {\bf r}
\cdot {\bf R} \right)^{3/2}}\right)\; .$$ Here ${\bf R}$ is the position vector of the third body and ${\bf r}$ is the position vector of the spacecraft with respect to the mass center of Jupiter. The contribution to the gravitational potential of the quadrupole, octupole and higher order terms is given by: $$\label{Upot}
U(r,\theta)=-\displaystyle\frac{\mu_J}{r} \, \displaystyle\sum_{n=2}^N \, J_n \, \left( \displaystyle\frac{R_J}{r} \right)^n P_{n}(\cos \theta) \; ,$$ where $J_n$ are the zonal harmonics coefficients [@Vallado], $P_n(x)$ are the Legendre polynomials and $\theta$ is the colatitude of the spacecraft (the angle formed by the spacecraft’s position vector and the axis of the planet). The reference radius is $R_J=71492$ km and the known zonal harmonics [@Transfer] are given by: $$\label{Jcoeff}
\begin{array}{rcl}
J_2&=&0.01469645 \; , \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
J_4&=&-0.00058722\; , \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
J_6&=&0.00003508\; ,
\end{array}$$ so, we take $N=6$ in Eq. (\[Upot\]) and we consider also only the coefficients of even order. In spherical coordinates, the components of the perturbing force corresponding to the potential in Eq. (\[Upot\]) are: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Fgeor}
{\mathcal F}_r &=&-\displaystyle\frac{\mu_J}{r^2} \, \displaystyle\sum_{n=2}^N \,
J_n (n+1)\left( \displaystyle\frac{R_J}{r} \right)^n \, P_n(\cos \theta) \; ,\\
\noalign{\smallskip}
\label{Fgeot}
{\mathcal F}_\theta &=&-\displaystyle\frac{\mu_J}{r^2}\, \displaystyle\sum_{n=2}^N \, J_n \left(\displaystyle\frac{R_J}{r} \right)^n\, P^{'}_n(\cos \theta) \, \sin\theta\, \; .\end{aligned}$$ So the perturbing force arising from the zonal harmonics terms is $\bm{\mathcal{F}}_{\mbox{geo}}=
\mathcal{F}_r \, \hat{\bm{r}}+\mathcal{F}_\theta \, \hat{\bm{\theta}}$, with $\hat{\bm{r}}$ and $\hat{\bm{\theta}}$ as the unit radial and polar vectors. In order to calculate this force we must know the orientation of the axis of Jupiter in the ecliptic frame of reference. The right ascension, $\alpha_J$, and declination, $\delta_J$, of the unit vector pointing in the direction of this axis vary with time as a consequence of precession and nutation and it is given by [@Jupiterfacts]: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{EqaxisJ}
\alpha_J &=& 268.057 - 0.006\, T\; ,\\
\noalign{\smallskip}
\delta_J &=& 64.495 + 0.002\, T\; ,\end{aligned}$$ where $T$ is the time in Julian years from the J2000 reference date (Julian day $2451545.0$). For the first flyby of Jupiter on August 27th, 2016 we have $T=0.0166516$ Julian years and this allows for a determination of the axis orientation in the Earth’s equatorial frame of reference with an accuracy of $0.001$ sexagesimal degrees. The obliquity of the ecliptic is also known with high accuracy at a given Julian date in terms of the following polynomial in $T$ [@Almanac]: $$\label{oblq}
\begin{array}{rcl}
\chi&=& 23^\circ 26^{'} 21.406^{''}-46.836769^{''} T \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
&-&0.0001831^{''} T^2+0.00200340^{''} T^3 \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
&-&5.76^{''}\times 10^{-7} T^4-4.34^{''} \times 10^{-8} T^5\; .
\end{array}$$ From Eqs. (\[EqaxisJ\]) and (\[oblq\]) we have calculated the components of Jupiter’s axis in the ecliptic reference frame: $$\label{kaxis}
\begin{array}{rcl}
\hat{k}_x&=&-0.01460\; ,\\
\noalign{\smallskip}
\hat{k}_y&=&-0.03582\; ,\\
\noalign{\smallskip}
\hat{k}_z&=&0.99925\; .
\end{array}$$ Finally, from the vector in Eq. (\[kaxis\]) and the spacecraft’s position vector we can determine the colatitude angle in Eqs. (\[Fgeor\]) and (\[Fgeot\]) in order to compute the force arising from the zonal harmonics.
We will also point out that we have used an iterative procedure to solve the equations of motion in Eq. (\[eqmotionr\])-(\[eqmotionv\]) because its simplicity and stability in comparison with the alternative approach in which the unknown functions, ${\bf r}(t)$ and ${\bf v}(t)$, appear also in the perturbation terms. The algorithm proceeds as follows:
- We select a given timestep (in minutes in the ephemeris for Juno [@Horizons]) as close to the perijove as possible. This would be our initial condition. The fact that it does not coincide with the perijove is not relevant for our purpose.
The main reason for this backwards and forward integration procedure is to reduce the propagation of errors in the numerical method. Alternatively, we can start from an instant $180$ minutes before the perijove and integrate throughout the perijove to another instant $180$ minutes after the perijove but we have found that numerical errors are larger in this second method.
- The equations of motion are integrated backwards and forward in time for a period of, at least, $180$ minutes. In this first integration we ignore the perturbation forces.
- The tidal forces and the zonal contribution to the perturbation are evaluated at the positions given by the zeroth-order keplerian approximation (the ideal hyperbolic orbit).
- A new integration of the equations of motion is carried out with the perturbing forces evaluated in the previous step. This would be our first order approximation.
- Subsequently, we evaluate the perturbation forces with the positions obtained in the $n$th-order approximation to obtain the position and velocities of the spacecraft in the $(n+1)$th-order approximation.
- The algorithm stops when the differences among the $n$th-order and the $n+1$th-order approximation is below a given threshold.
We must also emphasize that computation was carried out with double precision to keep the accuracy of the model data throughout the evaluation of the predictions of the model. In the next section we will discuss the results obtained with the methods summarized here.
Evaluation of the residual acceleration at the perijove {#sec:3}
=======================================================
In this section we will discuss the analysis of the first, third and fourth orbits of Juno around Jupiter. Using the method described in the previous section we will focus on the region around the perijove in order to unveil any possible anomalies in the trajectory as they have already been found in close flybys of the Earth [@Anderson2008]. We have not considered the second flyby in which a period reduction manoeuver was planned but, later on, cancelled because the helium check valves were not operating properly [@Junovalve]. Consequently, the spacecraft was set into safe mode during that particular flyby.
We considered the telemetry data for the first flyby starting from August, 26th at $00\mbox{:}00.000$ Barycentric dynamical time (TDB). From such reference the minimum distance to the center of Jupiter was attained at minute $t_P=2212$. The spatial coordinates and velocity at that instant were taken as the initial conditions for our integration procedure.
![Comparison among the distance to the center of Jupiter of the Juno spacecraft during the first flyby (open circles) and the ideal hyperbolic approximation (solid line). Coordinate $r$ is measured in km and time in minutes since the initial condition close to the perijove.[]{data-label="fig1"}](Figure1.eps){width="\columnwidth"}
If we ignore the perturbation terms in Eqs. (\[eqmotionr\])-(\[eqmotionv\]) we obtain the ideal hyperbolic keplerian solution as a crude approximation to the real trajectory. As shown in Fig. \[fig1\] the difference seems small, in the distance scale of Jupiter’s radius, but it is critical in our analysis of the trajectories.
Tidal forces
------------
It is convenient to consider separately the effect of tidal forces to compare its impact on the trajectory perturbations with that of the zonal harmonics. We will see that in the vicinity of the perijove the tidal contribution is small in relation to the effect of the multipole terms in the gravitational model of Jupiter. To visualize the magnitude of the different tidal forces we have plotted in Fig. \[fig2\] the magnitude of the tidal forces exerted by any of the Galilean satellites and, also, by the Sun.
![Tidal acceleration exerted upon the Juno spacecraft by (from top to bottom): Io, Ganymede, Europa, Callisto and the Sun. The tidal force per unit mass is measured in km$/$s$^2$ and time is given in seconds from the perijove. []{data-label="fig2"}](Figure2.eps){width="\columnwidth"}
Notice that the distance to the planet and the spacecraft during the flyby seems the most important factor on the determination of the magnitude of these forces. At an average distance of $5.2$ Astronomical Units from the Sun, the tidal effect is less important than in the case of Earth flybys [@Anderson2008]. As Io is the closest satellite it also gives the larger tides, despite it is not as massive as Ganymede or Callisto.
![The difference among the distance of the Juno spacecraft to the center of Jupiter in the ideal hyperbolic approximation and the prediction of the orbital model (including only the effect of the tidal forces). This difference is measured in km and time in minutes since the perijove.[]{data-label="fig3"}](Figure3.eps){width="\columnwidth"}
In Fig. \[fig3\] we have plotted the results for the orbital model incorporating only the effect of the tides from Io, Europa, Ganymede, Callisto and the Sun. We show that there is a reduction, in the correct direction according to Fig. \[fig1\], for the prediction of the radial coordinate of the spacecraft. However, this is not sufficient to provide a good fit of the discrepancies.
Results for the complete orbital model
--------------------------------------
Our interest is now to implement the whole orbital model as defined in Sec. \[sec:2\]. In the first place, we have plotted the difference among the radial coordinate in the zeroth-order keplerian approximation and the data compared with the same difference for the prediction of the orbital model. This is shown in Fig. \[fig4\]. We see that the agreement is very good but the model systematically underestimates the altitude of the spacecraft as if some outwards anomalous radial acceleration were acting upon Juno during its approximation to the perijove.
![Difference among the radial coordinate (in the ideal keplerian approximation) and the data (solid line) compared with the same substraction evaluated for the orbital model (dashed line). Notice that the agreement among the data and the model is good except for small, but noticeable discrepancies, that build up before or after the perijove.[]{data-label="fig4"}](Figure4.eps){width="\columnwidth"}
This result requires further investigation so we have shown in Fig. \[fig5\] the difference of the model predictions directly with the data for the first and second iteration of the algorithm described in Sec. \[sec:2\]. As we will see later, the third and subsequent iterations yield only very small corrections to this picture.
![Difference among the data for the radial coordinate and the orbital model: first approximation (dashed line) and second approximation (solid line). Distances are measured in km and time in minutes from the perijove.[]{data-label="fig5"}](Figure5.eps){width="\columnwidth"}
The discrepancy is around several tens of kms and, consequently, it can be considered a very clear signal in the telemetry data that deserves further analysis. The difference among the model and the data is sufficiently accurate to allow for a determination of the components of the acceleration field responsible for this deviation of the spacecraft from the predicted trajectory. This is achieved by using a fourth-order central finite difference method [@Fornberg]: $$\label{deltaa}
\begin{array}{rcl}
\delta{\bf a}&=&\displaystyle\frac{1}{h^2} \,\left\{ -\displaystyle\frac{1}{12}\left( \delta {\bf r}(t - 2 h)+
\delta {\bf r}(t+2 h)\right)\right. \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
&+&\displaystyle\frac{4}{3}\left( \delta {\bf r}(t-h)+\delta {\bf r}(t+h) \right)-
\left. \displaystyle\frac{5}{2} \delta {\bf r}(t)\right\} \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
&-&\displaystyle\frac{1}{90} \displaystyle\frac{d^6 \delta {\bf r}}{d t^6} \, h^4+ {\mathcal O}\left(h^5\right) \; ,
\end{array}$$ where $h$ is the timestep and the error term can be estimated by using the corresponding approximation for the sixth-order derivative. As the data provided for the spacecraft tracking is separated by one minute intervals [@Horizons] we should also choose $h=1$ min to allow for the evaluation of Eq. (\[deltaa\]) with the same accuracy.
![Radial component of the anomalous acceleration acting upon the Juno spacecraft during the perijove manoeuvre. The solid line corresponds to the first flyby and the open circles to the third one.[]{data-label="fig6"}](Figure6.eps){width="\columnwidth"}
![The same as Fig. \[fig6\] but for the polar component.[]{data-label="fig7"}](Figure7.eps){width="\columnwidth"}
![The same as Figs. \[fig6\] and Fig. \[fig7\] but for the azimuthal component.[]{data-label="fig8"}](Figure8.eps){width="\columnwidth"}
By computing the extra acceleration in Eq. (\[deltaa\]) to match the two trajectories (the one in our orbital model and the one delivered by the Juno’s mission team to JPL fitted to the telemetry data) we find the discrepancies shown in Figs. \[fig6\]-\[fig8\] for the radial, polar and azimuthal components. In these figures we show the results for the first and third flyby of the Juno spacecraft which, essentially, followed the same trajectory in the two approximations to Jupiter. Notice that the results are similar for both flybys. In the case of the radial component, we find two sharp peaks of different amplitude as a manifestation of an oscillatory behaviour as a function of time. On the other hand, the analysis yields different behaviour for the polar and azimuthal components as shown in Fig. \[fig7\] and Fig. \[fig8\] but these are two or three orders of magnitude smaller than the radial component and we can think that this is not statistically significant as other sources of error may also be distorting these components.
Sources of error and interpretation of the results
--------------------------------------------------
In this section we will discuss some possible sources of error that could explain the discrepancy among the trajectory fitted by the Juno’s team and the orbital model proposed in this paper. And, in particular, the perturbing acceleration whose components in spherical coordinates are plotted in Figs. \[fig6\]-\[fig8\].
![The difference (in meters) between the radial coordinate for the second and the third iteration of the Picard’s method discussed in the text. Time is measured in minutes from the closes approach to Jupiter in the first Juno’s flyby.[]{data-label="fig9"}](Figure9.eps){width="\columnwidth"}
In Fig. \[fig9\] we have shown the difference among the second and the third iteration of the Picard’s method applied to the solution of the equations of motion Eq. (\[eqmotionr\])-(\[eqmotionv\]) that, for a period of fifty minutes around the perigee, is of the order of $10$ meters and, consequently, three orders of magnitude below the differences of the second iteration and the JPL’s fitting as shown in Fig. \[fig5\]. So, we can be confident that the convergence of the method is very fast for our problem and the results are reliable.
Another question is the accuracy of the ephemeris of the moons of Jupiter. Since the beginning of radar astronomy the precision of these measurements has improved very fast. As early as 1965 the features of Venus were tracked with a maximum uncertainty of $3$ km [@Tausworthe] by Deep-Space radars. Subsequent missions to Jupiter has allowed also a high-accuracy determination of the orbits of the moons of this planet. Starting from Eq. (\[Ftid\]) we get an estimation of the perturbation of the tidal forces as a function of the uncertainty in the position $\delta {\bf R}$:
$$\begin{array}{rcl}
\delta \bm{\mathcal{F}}_{\mbox{tidal}}&=&\mu \left(-\displaystyle\frac{\delta {\bf R}}{R^3}+3 \displaystyle\frac{{\bf R}}{R^5}{\bf R} \cdot \delta {\bf R}\right.\\
\noalign{\smallskip}
&+&\displaystyle\frac{\delta {\bf R}}{\left(r^2+R^2-2 {\bf r}
\cdot {\bf R} \right)^{3/2}} \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
&-&\left. 3 \displaystyle\frac{\left({\bf R}-{\bf r}\right) \cdot \delta {\bf R}}{\left(r^2+R^2-2 {\bf r}
\cdot {\bf R} \right)^{5/2}} \left( {\bf R}-{\bf r}\right) \right)\; .
\end{array}$$
Assuming an error of $3$ km in a random direction for the position of Io we get an uncertainty in the tidal acceleration exerted upon Juno of $10^{-13}$ km$/$s$^2$, which it is certainly very small and can be dismissed as the origin of the possible anomaly discussed in this paper.
Mismodelling of the zonal coefficients is also a source of error. For example, a variation of $J_2$ by $10^{-8}$ would imply, according to Eqs. (\[Fgeor\]) and (\[Fgeot\]), a perturbing force of magnitude $\vert \delta {\bf F} \vert
\simeq 2.92 \times 10^{-4}$ mm$/$s$^2$, which it is very small in comparison perturbing accelerations we have found in the previous section. However, a disregarded zonal coefficient with order $J_n \simeq 10^{-4}$ could explain the anomalies in the integration of our model. So, further research into the structure of Jupiter is necessary and this can be achieved in future analysis of the data provided by the Juno mission. Anyway, it seems unlikely that zonal coefficients of order eight and higher could be so large. As it happens in the case of the Earth, we expect that these coefficients would diminish with the order and from Eq. (\[Jcoeff\]) an upper bound $J_8 < 10^{-5}$ seems reasonable for the first ignored coefficient in our calculation. The Eqs. (\[Fgeor\]) and (\[Fgeot\]) then gives us an estimation of $1$ mm/s$^2$ for the magnitude of the component of the acceleration at perijove but this is only $10^{-3}$ mm/s$^2$ an hour before or after the perijove. So, a better modelling of the gravitational model of Jupiter is necessary for studying the orbit of Juno near the perigee but we cannot discard the anomaly because it persists even an hour after crossing the perigee as shown in Fig. \[fig6\] with a magnitude too large to be explained only in terms of mismodelled or ignored zonal coefficients.
Another source of mismodelling can arise from the estimation of Jupiter’s axis orientation in space. If we consider that the axis at J2000 instead of the correction for the date of Juno’s flybys, by taking $T=0$ in Eq. (\[EqaxisJ\]), a perturbation in the force term of the potential model of magnitude $\vert \delta {\bf F} \vert \simeq 5.63 \times 10^{-5}$ mm$/$s$^2$ is found.
One should also consider that the spacecraft is an extended object which rotates at three revolutions per minute. This would generate a small magnetic moment for Juno which could contribute to the equations of motion through interaction with the magnetic field of Jupiter but this has been estimated as negligible in other cases [@LPDSolarSystem]. It has also been shown that helicity of radio waves can exhibit a coupling with the rotation of the spacecraft and the rotation of the planet [@Helicity] but this only influences the two-way Doppler data and it can not explain the arising of the anomaly also in the ranging data [@LPDSolarSystem].
A remaining possibility is the connection among the discrepancies found and the flyby anomaly, which have been detected earlier in spacecraft flybys of the Earth. Some models have suggested that the Earth’s gravitational field is distorted by an unknown extra term, not taken into account in General Relativity, and that this can be interpreted as a force field with a range of a few hundred kms [@Acedo2017two]. In the model by Acedo and Bel [@Acedo2015; @Acedo2017three] an anomalous azimuthal component of the gravity acceleration is proposed. The magnitude of this extra acceleration is given by: $$\label{Bel}
\delta a=\displaystyle\frac{\mu}{r^2} \, \displaystyle\frac{\Omega R}{c} \; ,$$ where $\mu$, $R$ are the mass constant and radius of the planet, $\Omega$ is the angular velocity with respect to the fixed stars and $r$ the distance of the spacecraft to the center. It was shown that this model yields a qualitative agreement with the measured anomalies in several flybys of the Earth [@Acedo2015]. If we apply this expression to the case of Jupiter, by taking into account that $r \simeq R = 71492$ km at the perijove and that the Jupiter’s angular velocity is $\Omega=2 \pi/T$, $T=9.9259$ hours [@Jupiterfacts], we get $\delta a=1.0396$ mm$/$s$^2$. This agrees with the order of magnitude of the peaks in the radial component of the extra acceleration shown in Fig. \[fig6\]. If this is merely a numerical coincidence or we require a fundamental modification in our understanding of highly elliptical orbital dynamics could only be disclosed by further analysis of these trajectories in future missions.
Finally, some possible classical effects and the magnitude of the acceleration imparted upon the spacecraft are listed in Table \[tab1\] in order to compare with the anomaly. Some of these values are taken from Lämmerzahl et al. study for the Earth’s flyby anomaly [@LPDSolarSystem], but they can be extrapolated to the case of Juno at Jupiter.
------------------------------------ --------------------------------
\[tab1\] [*Non-modelled effect*]{} [*Acceleration’s magnitude*]{}
Solar wind $10^{-7}$ mm$/$s$^2$
Albedo’s pressure $10^{-6}$ mm$/$s$^2$
Magnetic moment $10^{-12}$ mm$/$s$^2$
Spacecraft’s charge $10^{-5}$ mm$/$s$^2$
Atmospheric’s friction $10^{-5}$ mm$/$s$^2$
Tides $10^{-2}$ mm$/$s$^2$
Ephemeris’ uncertainty $10^{-7}$ mm$/$s$^2$
Ignored zonal harmonics $1$ mm$/$s$^2$
Gravitomagnetism $0.1$ mm$/$s$^2$
------------------------------------ --------------------------------
: Non-modelled classical effects in our orbital model and the magnitude of the corresponding accelerations.
At this table we see that most effects contribute only a very small fraction to the putative anomalous acceleration disclosed in this work. Solar wind indeed is only around a factor $1/25$ of the contribution at Earth because it decreases with the square of the distance to the Sun. Additional zonal harmonics to those considered in our model are certainly an important issue to elucidate in future research about Jupiter’s interior as well as the gravitomagnetic effect [@Hackmann; @IorioSRE2009; @IorioJunoLT] but their contribution to the orbital model cannot explain the trajectory as modelled in this paper.
Conclusions
===========
Juno mission to Jupiter is becoming one of the most successful space missions of the XXIst century. It is also the first time in which a spacecraft performs close flybys of a giant planet to analyze its atmosphere, magnetic field and gravitational structure [@JunoMissionI; @JunoMissionII; @JunoMissionIII]. The Juno spacecraft is currently in a highly eccentric elliptical orbit around Jupiter. This orbit is perpendicular to Jupiter’s equatorial plane and crosses over the poles of the planet with a periapsis near to the equator. The altitude of the perijove over Jupiter’s top clouds is around $4200$ km for the first flyby and it is programmed to raise slowly throughout the planned $36$ orbits. A period reduction manoeuver from the $53.5$ days period orbit to an, approximately, $14$ days period orbit was also scheduled but finally cancelled because a failure in the opening of the helium check valves [@Junovalve].
The orbit is also being carefully monitored by the retrieval of telemetry data and the evaluation of the ephemeris from the mission team, these are then incorporated into the Horizons’ web system [@Horizons] which make them available to the whole scientific community. The resulting ephemeris are fits to radiometric tracking data which take into account all the modelling details taken into account by the navigation team of the particular mission including atmospheric friction, solar pressure and perturbations by the planets and satellites. Our objective in this paper has been to develop an independent orbital model for Juno’s trajectory in the vicinity of the perijove in order to compare with the orbit fitted by the Juno mission team to the telemetry data. In doing so, we should be able to disclose any possible discrepancies and to test the validity of orbital determination programs.
In our model we have taken into account the tidal forces exerted by the Sun and by Jupiter’s larger satellites, i. e., the Galilean satellites: Io, Europa, Ganymede and Callisto and also the contributions of the known zonal harmonics [@Transfer]. We have found that the multipolar field contributions due to Jupiter’s oblateness are far more important near the perijove than the tidal forces and that they provide a very good fit of the trajectory. Nevertheless the agreement is not perfect within the error bars for the models and small discrepancies persist after considering the aforementioned perturbations. We have interpreted this discrepancy as an anomalous extra acceleration whose component is mainly radial. This acceleration is in the range of a few mm$/$s$^2$ and exhibit two, almost symmetric, peaks around fifteen minutes before and after the perijove. In a period of $3$ hours after the crossing of the perigee it has decayed near to zero. At this moment, the spacecraft is located at a distance of $\simeq 4.75$ Jupiter’s radii. All this made the resulting anomaly consistent with an interaction which decays very fast with the distance to the planet as it have been suggested in connection with the flyby anomaly [@Acedo2017two]. On the other hand, there are other possible sources which require further investigation such as the mismodelling of zonal coefficients for the planet or the effect of its strong magnetic field. Anyway, in the case of the magnetic forces they should be directed mainly perpendicular to Juno’s trajectory as it flybys the planet in a polar orbit and, on the contrary, the anomaly is found mainly as a radial component of the acceleration.
Summarizing, we can say that in this paper: (i) We have found evidence that an anomaly could be operating also during the Juno flybys of Jupiter (ii) We have developed a theoretical model to compare with the orbital model fitted to telemetry data in order to disclose the form of the possible anomalous acceleration field acting upon the spacecraft. A significant radial component was found and this decays with the distance to the center of Jupiter as expected from an unknown physical interaction. (iii) The anomaly shows an asymmetry among the incoming and outgoing branches of the trajectory and this could be suggestive of a non-conservative interaction. The confirmation of these conclusions would require further independent analysis and we hope that our work will stimulate future research in this and other planetary flybys.
In the context of this discussion we should also mention that similar anomalous accelerations are also found in several spacecraft flybys of the Earth [@AcedoEarth]. In this case, they are only a $1.5$ % of those found in the case of the Juno’s flybys of Jupiter. This contributes to the interest of the problem of high-accuracy orbital dynamics in the particular case of close flybys of the planets. Only the interplay among physics, spacecraft navigation and engineering could finally solve this issue.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the Juno mission team are ackowledged for providing all the ephemerides of this work through the on-line Horizon system.
[^1]: E-mail: luiacrod@imm.upv.es
|
---
abstract: |
In this paper we continue the investigations initiated in [@LopLopstar] on ratio asymptotics of multiple orthogonal polynomials and functions of the second kind associated with Nikishin systems on star-like sets. We describe in detail the limiting functions found in [@LopLopstar], expressing them in terms of certain conformal mappings defined on a compact Riemann surface of genus zero. We also express the limiting values of the recurrence coefficients, which are shown to be strictly positive, in terms of certain values of the conformal mappings. As a consequence, the limits depend exclusively on the location of the intervals determined by the supports of the measures that generate the Nikishin system.
**Keywords:** Multiple orthogonal polynomial, Nikishin system, ratio asymptotics, conformal mapping.
**MSC 2010:** Primary $42C05$, $30E10$; Secondary $47B39$.
author:
- 'Abey López-GarcíaGuillermo López Lagomasino'
title: 'Nikishin systems on star-like sets: Ratio asymptotics of the associated multiple orthogonal polynomials, II'
---
Introduction and statement of main results
==========================================
Multiple orthogonal polynomials (MOP) and their asymptotic properties have received considerable attention in the last three decades, partly due to their applicability in different fields. The so called Nikishin systems of measures introduced in [@Nik] play a central role in many of these studies. Some of the basic questions involve uniqueness of the MOP [@FidLop], convergence of the corresponding Hermite-Padé approximants [@BusLop], $n$-th root [@GonRakSor], ratio [@AptLopRocha] (see also [@LopLopratio]), and strong [@Apt; @LopVan] asymptotics of sequences of MOP. We have limited to a short list of significant contributions, see also reference lists in [@LopLopstar; @LopMin].
This paper is devoted to the study of the ratio asymptotic behavior of MOP associated with Nikishin systems of measures on star-like sets and of the limit behavior of the coefficients in the recurrence relation they satisfy. It is a continuation of the investigations in [@LopLopstar; @LopMin]. We improve the results in [@LopLopstar] by giving a detailed expression of the limiting functions that describe the ratio asymptotics and the limiting values of the recurrence coefficients. See also [@Lop] for an account of corresponding results in the case $p=2$.
The interest in the study of MOP on star-like sets has its origin in the study of Faber polynomials associated with hypocycloidal domains [@EierVarga; @HeSaff] and the asymptotic and spectral properties of polynomials generated by high order three-term recurrence relations [@AptKalSaff; @AptKalIse; @DelLop]. Recently, MOP on star-like sets associated with Angelesco systems or classical type weights have been studied in [@LeuVan1; @LeuVan2; @LouVan].
Let $p\geq 2$ be an integer, and let $$S_{\pm}:=\{z\in\mathbb{C}: z^{p+1}\in\mathbb{R}_{\pm}\},\qquad \mathbb{R}_{+}=[0,+\infty),\quad \mathbb{R}_{-}=(-\infty,0].$$ We construct $p$ finite stars contained in $S_{\pm}$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma_{j} & :=\{z\in\mathbb{C}: z^{p+1}\in[a_{j},b_{j}]\},\qquad \quad 0\leq
j\leq p-1,\end{aligned}$$ where $$0\leq a_{j}<b_{j}<\infty,\quad j\equiv 0\mod 2,$$ $$-\infty< a_{j}<b_{j}\leq 0, \quad j\equiv 1\mod 2,$$ thus $\Gamma_{j}\subset S_{+}$ if $j$ is even, and $\Gamma_{j}\subset S_{-}$ if $j$ is odd. We assume throughout that $\Gamma_{j}\cap
\Gamma_{j+1}=\emptyset$ for all $0\leq j\leq p-2$.
We define now a Nikishin system on $(\Gamma_{0},\ldots,\Gamma_{p-1})$. For each $0\leq j\leq p-1$, let $\sigma_{j}$ denote a positive, rotationally invariant measure on $\Gamma_{j}$, with infinitely many points in its support. These will be the measures generating the Nikishin system. Let $$\widehat{\sigma}_j(z):=\int\frac{d\sigma_j(t)}{z-t}$$ denote the Cauchy transform of $\sigma_j$. We define the measure $\langle \sigma_{0},\ldots,\sigma_{N}\rangle$ by the following recursive procedure. For $N=0$, $\langle \sigma_{0}\rangle:= \sigma_{0}$, for $N=1$, $$d\langle \sigma_{0},\sigma_{1}\rangle (z):= \widehat{\sigma}_{1}(z)\,d\sigma_{0}(z),$$ and for $N>1$, $$\langle \sigma_{0},\ldots,\sigma_{N}\rangle := \langle \sigma_{0},\langle
\sigma_{1},\ldots,\sigma_{N}\rangle\rangle.$$
We define the Nikishin system $(s_{0},\ldots,s_{p-1})=\mathcal{N}(\sigma_0,\ldots,\sigma_{p-1})$ generated by the vector of $p$ measures $(\sigma_0,\ldots,\sigma_{p-1})$ by setting $$\label{def:sj}
s_{j}:=\langle \sigma_{0},\ldots, \sigma_{j}\rangle, \qquad 0\leq j\leq p-1.$$ Notice that the measures $s_{j}$ are all supported on the first star $\Gamma_{0}$.
\[def:MOP\] Let $(Q_{n})_{n=0}^\infty$ be the sequence of monic polynomials of lowest degree that satisfy the following non-hermitian orthogonality conditions: $$\label{orthog:Qn}
\int_{\Gamma_{0}} Q_{n}(z)\,z^{l}\,d s_{j}(z)=0,\qquad l=0,\ldots,\left\lfloor
\frac{n-j-1}{p}\right\rfloor,\qquad 0\leq j\leq p-1,$$ where the measures $s_{j}$ are those in , and $\lfloor\cdot\rfloor$ denotes the floor function.
In more detail, asserts that the polynomial $Q_{n}$, where $n= mp+r$, $0\leq r \leq p-1$, satisfies the orthogonality conditions $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{\Gamma_{0}} Q_{mp+r}(z)\,z^{l}\,ds_{j}(z) & =0,\qquad l=0,\ldots,m-1,\quad
0\leq j\leq p-1,\\
\int_{\Gamma_{0}} Q_{mp+r}(z)\,z^{m}\,ds_{j}(z) & =0,\qquad 0\leq j\leq
r-1.\end{aligned}$$
Some algebraic properties of these polynomials were proved in [@LopMin Propositions 2.16, 3.1, Theorem 3.5, Corollary 3.6]. For our purpose, the most significant are:
- For each $n\geq 0$, the polynomial $Q_{n}$ has maximal degree $n$.
- If $n\equiv \ell \mod (p+1)$, $0\leq \ell\leq p$, then there exists a monic polynomial $\mathcal{Q}_{d}$ of degree $d=\frac{n-\ell}{p+1}$ such that $$\label{eq:decompQn}
Q_{n}(z)=z^{\ell} \mathcal{Q}_{d}(z^{p+1}),$$ where the zeros of $\mathcal{Q}_{d}$ are all simple and located in $(a_{0},b_{0})$. In particular, the zeros of $Q_{n}$ are located in the star-like set $S_{+}$.
- The polynomials $Q_{n}$ satisfy the following three-term recurrence relation of order $p+1$: $$\label{threetermrec}
z\,Q_{n}(z)=Q_{n+1}(z)+a_{n}\,Q_{n-p}(z),\qquad n\geq p,\qquad
a_{n}>0,$$ where $$Q_{\ell}(z)=z^{\ell},\qquad \ell=0,\ldots,p.$$ (Here, there is an abuse of notation since above we denoted by $a_0,\ldots,a_{p-1}$ the left end points of some intervals on the real line. From the context, we are sure this will cause no confusion in the text.)
- For every $n\geq p+1$, the non-zero roots of the polynomials $Q_{n}$ and $Q_{n+1}$ interlace on $\Gamma_{0}$.
Recurrences of the form , with $a_n>0$ for all $n$, were studied in [@AptKalIse; @AptKalSaff; @Ben; @DelLop]. In [@AptKalIse; @AptKalSaff; @DelLop], Favard type theorems were obtained showing that the generated polynomials satisfy multiple orthogonality relations with respect to measures with common support on a star-like set.
\[definitionPsi\] The functions of the second kind are defined as follows. Set $\Psi_{n,0}:=Q_{n}$, and let $$\Psi_{n,k}(z):=\int_{\Gamma_{k-1}}\frac{\Psi_{n,k-1}(t)}{z-t}\,d\sigma_{k-1}(t),
\qquad k=1,\ldots,p.$$
These functions satisfy the same three-term recurrence relation and, therefore, they also play a central role in the asymptotic analysis.
In [@LopMin Theorem 5.3, Corollary 5.4], under appropriate assumptions on the generating measures, the asymptotic zero distribution and n-th root asymptotics of the sequences $(Q_n)_{n=0}^\infty$ and $(\Psi_{n,k})_{n=0}^{\infty}$, $k=1,\ldots,p$, were given in terms of the solution of a vector equilibrium problem for the logarithmic potential.
In [@LopLopstar], the goal was to obtain an extension of Rakhmanov’s theorem on ratio asymptotics of orthogonal polynomials [@Rak1; @Rak2] (for simplifications and alternative proofs of this classical result, see also [@MNT1; @MNT2; @Nev1; @Nev2; @Rak3]) similar to the one given in [@AptLopRocha] for Nikishin systems on the real line. Indeed, it was shown, see [@LopLopstar Corollary 3.3], that $\sigma_j' > 0$ a.e. on $\Gamma_j$, $j=0,\ldots,p-1,$ implies that for each $\rho$, $0\leq \rho \leq p(p+1) - 1,$ there exists $$\lim_{\lambda\to \infty} \frac{Q_{\lambda p(p+1) + \rho +1}}{Q_{\lambda p(p+1) + \rho}}$$ uniformly on compact subsets of $\mathbb{C} \setminus (\Gamma_0 \cup \{0\})$. Somewhat surprisingly, the limits exist over a period $p(p+1)$. In [@AptLopRocha], for Nikishin systems on the real line generated by $p$ measures, it was shown that ratio asymptotics holds with period $p$ and the limiting functions were described in terms of certain algebraic functions defined on a Riemann surface of genus zero with $p+1$ sheets; as shown in [@AKLR Corollary 1.3], this implies the $p$ periodic limits of the coefficients in the $(p+2)$-term recurrence relation satisfied by the Nikishin multiple orthogonal polynomials (see also [@DelLopLop Theorem 1.1], where algebraic relations between these limits are described). An analogous question in the star setting remained unanswered in [@LopLopstar]. In [@LopLopstar Corollary 3.3] it was also proved the existence of $$\label{eq:limarho}
\lim_{\lambda\to \infty} a_{\lambda p(p+1)+\rho}=a^{(\rho)}.$$ Here, we show that these limits are non-zero, we give different expressions for them, and describe some linear relations that they satisfy.
The asymptotic formulae that we obtain in this work can all be expressed in terms of certain conformal mappings defined on a compact Riemann surface of genus zero. These formulae show that under the general assumptions on the generating measures of the Nikishin system considered in our previous work [@LopLopstar], the ratio asymptotic quantities obtained only depend, as expected, on the underlying Riemann surface whose structure is determined by the supports of the generating measures.
Before we state our main results, we define the Riemann surface and conformal mappings we will work with.
Throughout the rest of the paper, we will occasionally write $\Delta_{k}:=[a_{k},b_{k}]$, $0\leq k\leq p-1$. Let $\mathcal{R}$ denote the compact Riemann surface $$\mathcal{R}=\overline{\bigcup_{k=0}^{p}\mathcal{R}_{k}}$$ formed by the $p+1$ consecutively “glued” sheets $$\mathcal{R}_{0}:=\overline{\mathbb{C}}\setminus\Delta_{0},\qquad \mathcal{R}_{k}:=\overline{\mathbb{C}}\setminus(\Delta_{k-1}\cup\Delta_{k}),\quad k=1,\ldots,p-1,\qquad \mathcal{R}_{p}:=\overline{\mathbb{C}}\setminus\Delta_{p-1},$$ where the upper and lower banks of the slits of two neighboring sheets are identified. This surface is of genus zero. For this and other notions of Riemann surfaces as well as meromorphic functions defined on them we recommend [@Mir].
Let $\pi: \mathcal{R} \longrightarrow \overline{\mathbb{C}}$ be the canonical projection from $\mathcal{R}$ to $\overline{\mathbb{C}}$ and denote by $z^{(k)}$ the point on $\mathcal{R}_k$ satisfying $\pi(z^{(k)}) = z$, $z \in \overline{\mathbb{C}}$. For a fixed $l\in\{1,\ldots,p\}$, let $\varphi^{(l)}:\mathcal{R}\longrightarrow\overline{\mathbb{C}}$ denote a conformal mapping whose divisor consists of one simple zero at the point $\infty^{(0)}\in\mathcal{R}_{0}$ and one simple pole at the point $\infty^{(l)}\in\mathcal{R}_{l}$. This mapping exists and is uniquely determined up to a multiplicative constant. Denote the branches of $\varphi^{(l)}$ by $$\varphi_k^{(l)}(z) := \varphi^{(l)}(z^{(k)}), \qquad k= 0,\ldots,p, \qquad z^{(k)} \in \mathcal{R}_{k}.$$ From the properties of $\varphi^{(l)}$, we have $$\label{divisorcond}
\varphi_0^{(l)}(z)=C_{1,l}/z+O(1/z^{2}),\,\,\,z\rightarrow\infty,\qquad \varphi_l^{(l)}(z)=C_{2,l}\,z+O(1),\,\,\,z\rightarrow\infty,$$ where $C_{1,l}$, $C_{2,l}$ are non-zero constants.
It is well known and easy to verify that the function $\prod_{k=0}^{p}\varphi_{k}^{(l)}$ admits an analytic continuation to the whole extended plane $\overline{\mathbb{C}}$ without singularities; therefore, it is constant. Multiplying $\varphi^{(l)}$ if necessary by a suitable non-zero constant, we may assume that $\varphi^{(l)}$ satisfies the conditions $$\prod_{k=0}^{p}\varphi_{k}^{(l)} = C, \qquad |C| = 1, \qquad C_{1,l} > 0.$$ Let us show that with this normalization, $C$ is either $+1$ or $-1$.
Indeed, for a point $z^{(k)} \in \mathcal{R}_k$ on the Riemann surface we define its conjugate $\overline{z^{(k)}} := \overline{z}^{(k)}$. Now, let $\overline{\varphi}^{(l)}: \mathcal{R} \longrightarrow \overline{\mathbb{C}}$ be the function defined by $\overline{\varphi}^{(l)}(\zeta):= \overline{\varphi^{(l)}(\overline{\zeta})}$. It is easy to verify that $\overline{\varphi}^{(l)}$ is a conformal mapping of $\mathcal{R}$ onto $\overline{\mathbb{C}}$ with the same divisor as $\varphi^{(l)}$. Therefore, there exists a constant $c$ such that $\overline{\varphi}^{(l)} = c \varphi^{(l)}$. The corresponding branches satisfy the relations $$\overline{\varphi}_k^{(l)}(z) = \overline{\varphi_k^{(l)}(\overline{z})} = c {\varphi}_k^{(l)}(z), \qquad k=0,\ldots,p.$$ Comparing the Laurent expansions at $\infty$ of $\overline{\varphi_0^{(l)}(\overline{z})}$ and $c {\varphi}_0^{(l)}(z)$, using the fact that $C_{1,l} >0$, it follows that $c = 1$. Then $${\varphi}_k^{(l)}(z) = \overline{\varphi_k^{(l)}(\overline{z})}, \qquad k=0,\ldots,p.$$ This in turn implies that for each $k=0,\ldots, p,$ all the coefficients, in particular the leading one, of the Laurent expansion at infinity of $ {\varphi}_k^{(l)}$ are real numbers. Obviously, $C$ is the product of these leading coefficients. Therefore, $C$ is real, and $|C|=1$ implies that $C$ equals $1$ or $-1$ as claimed. So, we can assume in the following that $$\label{normconfmap}
\prod_{k=0}^{p}\varphi_{k}^{(l)}\equiv \pm 1,\qquad C_{1,l}>0.$$ It is easy to see that conditions and determine $\varphi^{(l)}$ uniquely. In this paper, we will use the notation $$\label{def:omegal}
\omega_{l}:=C_{1,l}=\lim_{z\rightarrow\infty} z \varphi_{0}^{(l)}(z)$$ for the constant $C_{1,l}$ in .
We can now state the main results of this paper.
\[theo:main:1\] Assume that for each $k=0,\ldots,p-1$, the measure $\sigma_{k}$ has positive Radon-Nikodym derivative with respect to linear Lebesgue measure a.e. on $\Gamma_k$. The following formulas hold, uniformly on compact subsets of the indicated regions:
- For each fixed $0\leq \rho\leq p(p+1)-1$, $$\label{eq:ratioasympQ}
\lim_{\lambda\rightarrow\infty}\frac{Q_{\lambda p (p+1)+\rho+1}(z)}{Q_{\lambda p (p+1)+\rho}(z)}=\frac{z}{1+a^{(\rho)}\,\omega_{l}^{-1}\,\varphi_{0}^{(l)}(z^{p+1})},\qquad z\in\mathbb{C}\setminus(\Gamma_{0}\cup\{0\}),$$ where $l=l(\rho)$ is the integer satisfying the conditions $1\leq l\leq p$ and $(l-1)\equiv \rho \mod p$, and $\omega_{l}$ is defined in . Convergence takes place in $\mathbb{C}\setminus\Gamma_{0}$ if $\rho\not\equiv p \mod (p+1)$.
- For each fixed $0\leq \rho\leq p(p+1)-1$ and $1\leq k\leq p$, $$\label{eq:ratioasympPsink}
\lim_{\lambda\rightarrow\infty}\frac{\Psi_{\lambda p(p+1)+\rho+1,k}(z)}{\Psi_{\lambda p(p+1)+\rho,k}(z)}=\frac{z}{1+a^{(\rho)}\,\omega_{l}^{-1}\,\varphi_{k}^{(l)}(z^{p+1})},\qquad z\in\mathbb{C}\setminus(\Gamma_{k-1}\cup\Gamma_{k}\cup\{0\}),$$ with $\omega_{l}$ and $l=l(\rho)$ as in 1), and $\Gamma_{p}=\emptyset$.
The following result concerns properties of the limiting values $a^{(\rho)}$ in . In the statement of the result and throughout the rest of the paper, we understand that the values $(a^{(\rho)})_{\rho=0}^{p(p+1)-1}$ are continued periodically in $\mathbb{Z}$ with period $p(p+1)$, so that $a^{(\rho)}=a^{(\rho+p(p+1))}$ for all $\rho\in\mathbb{Z}$.
\[theo:main:2\] Assume that for each $k=0,\ldots,p-1$, the measure $\sigma_{k}$ has positive Radon-Nikodym derivative with respect to linear Lebesgue measure a.e. on $\Gamma_k$. The following properties stated in 1)–4) below hold for each $0\leq \rho\leq p(p+1)-1$:
- The limit in is non-zero, i.e., $a^{(\rho)}>0$.
- The set of $p$ values $\{a^{(\rho+m(p+1))}\}_{m=0}^{p-1}$ is formed by distinct quantities.
- The following relation holds: $$\sum_{i=\rho}^{\rho+p-1} a^{(i)}=\sum_{i=\rho+p+1}^{\rho+2p} a^{(i)}.$$
- We have $$\label{eq:descrip:arho}
a^{(\rho)}=-\frac{\omega_{l}}{\varphi_{k}^{(l)}(0)}$$ where $(k,l)=(k(\rho),l(\rho))$ is the unique pair of integers satisfying the conditions $0\leq k\leq p$, $\rho\equiv (k-1) \mod (p+1)$, and $1\leq l\leq p$, $\rho\equiv (l-1) \mod p$, and $\omega_{l}$ is the positive constant defined in .
- Assume that $0\in\Delta_{k}$ for some $0\leq k\leq p-1$. Then, for any $0\leq \rho\leq p(p+1)-1$ such that $\rho\equiv (k-1) \mod (p+1)$, we have $a^{(\rho-p)}=a^{(\rho)}$. If $0\notin\Delta_{k}$ for all $0\leq k\leq p-1,$ then for any $0\leq \rho\leq p(p+1)-1$, the set of $p+1$ values $\{a^{(\rho+mp)}\}_{m=0}^{p}$ is formed by distinct quantities.
Observe that the function $\eta^{(\rho)}:\mathcal{R}\longrightarrow \overline{\mathbb{C}}$ defined by $$\label{def:etarhoconf}
\eta^{(\rho)} :=\frac{1}{1+a^{(\rho)}\,\omega_{l(\rho)}^{-1}\,\varphi^{(l(\rho))} }$$ is conformal, as it is the composition of $\varphi^{(l(\rho))}$ with the fractional linear transformation $w\mapsto (1+a^{(\rho)}\,\omega_{l(\rho)}^{-1}\,w)^{-1}$. As a consequence of and the definition of $\varphi^{(l(\rho))}$, the function $\eta^{(\rho)}:\mathcal{R}\longrightarrow\overline{\mathbb{C}}$ is characterized as the unique conformal mapping with a simple zero at $\infty^{(l(\rho))}$, a simple pole at $0^{(k(\rho))}$, and satisfying $\eta^{(\rho)}(\infty^{(0)})=1$. Then, and take the simpler form $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{\lambda\rightarrow\infty}\frac{Q_{\lambda p(p+1)+\rho+1}(z)}{Q_{\lambda p(p+1)+\rho}(z)} & =z \eta_{0}^{(\rho)}(z^{p+1}),\\
\lim_{\lambda\rightarrow\infty}\frac{\Psi_{\lambda p(p+1)+\rho+1,k}(z)}{\Psi_{\lambda p(p+1)+\rho,k}(z)} & =z \eta_{k}^{(\rho)}(z^{p+1}),\quad 1\leq k\leq p,\end{aligned}$$ where $\eta^{(\rho)}_{k}(z):=\eta^{(\rho)}(z^{(k)})$.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we introduce some notions and auxiliary results needed for the solution of the problem. In Section 3 we prove some of the statements of Theorem \[theo:main:2\] and establish the connection between the limiting functions $\widetilde{F}_{k}^{(\rho)}$ in , used in [@LopLopstar] to express the ratio asymptotics of the MOP, and certain algebraic functions defined on $\mathcal{R}$. Section 4 is devoted to the proof of Theorem \[theo:main:1\], what remains of Theorem \[theo:main:2\], and the description of the functions $\widetilde{F}_{k}^{(\rho)}$.
Auxiliary results
=================
We briefly recall some results from [@LopLopstar] that will be needed. As in [@LopMin; @LopLopstar], in this paper we will frequently use the notation $$[n:n']=\{s\in\mathbb{Z}: n\leq s\leq n'\},$$ for any two integers $n\leq n'$. If $n'<n$, then $[n:n']$ indicates the empty set.
Reduction to the real line
--------------------------
For the study of multiple orthogonal polynomials on star-like sets, it is convenient to translate the problem to the real line.
Let $(s_0,\ldots,s_{p-1}) = \mathcal{N}(\sigma_0,\ldots,\sigma_{p-1})$ be a Nikishin system on the star-like sets defined above. Along with the measures $s_j$ we also use the measures $$\label{def:skj}
s_{k,j}=\langle \sigma_k,\ldots,\sigma_j\rangle,\quad 0\leq k\leq j\leq p-1.$$ Notice that $(s_{k,k},\ldots,s_{k,j}) = \mathcal{N}(\sigma_k,\ldots,\sigma_j)$.
For every $0\leq j\leq p-1$, we shall denote by $\sigma^*_j$ the push-forward of $\sigma_j$ under the map $z\mapsto z^{p+1}$; that is, $\sigma^*_j$ is the measure on $[a_j,b_j]$ such that for every Borel set $E\subset [a_j,b_j]$, $$\label{def:sigma:star}
\sigma^*_j(E):=\sigma_j\left(\{z:z^{p+1}\in E\}\right).$$ With the assumptions of Theorems \[theo:main:1\]-\[theo:main:2\], it follows that $\sigma^*_j$ has positive Radon-Nikodym derivative a.e. with respect to Lebesgue measure on $\Delta_j$. Set $$\mu_{k,k}:=\sigma^*_k, \quad 0\leq k\leq p-1,$$ $$d
\mu_{k,j}(\tau):=\left(\tau\int_{a_{k+1}}^{b_{k+1}}\frac{d\mu_{k+1,j}(s)}{\tau-s}
\right)d\sigma^*_{k}(\tau),\quad \tau \in [a_k,b_k],\quad 0\leq k < j\leq p-1.$$
The measures $s_{k,j}$ and $\mu_{k,j}$ are related through the formulas [@LopMin Prop. 2.2] $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{\Gamma_{k}}\frac{ds_{k,j}(t)}{z-t}={}&
z^{p+k-j}\int_{a_{k}}^{b_{k}}\frac{d\mu_{k,j}(\tau)}{z^{p+1}-\tau}, \qquad 0\leq k\leq j\leq p-1.\end{aligned}$$ That is, $$\widehat{s}_{k,j}(z)=z^{p+k-j}\widehat{\mu}_{k,j}(z^{p+1}).$$
Functions of the second kind
----------------------------
For the asymptotic analysis of the multiple orthogonal polynomials, the functions of the second kind play a crucial role.
Observe that $\Psi_{n,k}$ is analytic in $\overline{\mathbb{C}}\setminus\Gamma_{k-1}$. It is not hard to deduce that for each fixed $k = 0,\ldots,p-1$, the function $\Psi_{n,k}$ satisfies orthogonality conditions with respect to the measures $s_{k,j}$, $j=k,\ldots,p-1$, defined in . This and other interesting properties of the functions $\Psi_{n,k}$ may be found in [@LopMin Propositions 2.5–2.7]. The functions $\Psi_{n,k}$ are linked with other functions of the second kind $\psi_{n,k}$ that can be defined in terms of the push-forward measures introduced before on the real line.
\[definitionpsi\] Set $\psi_{n,0}:=\mathcal{Q}_d$, where $\mathcal{Q}_{d}$ is the polynomial that appears in the relation , and for $1\leq k\leq p$, let $\psi_{n,k}$ be the function analytic in $\mathbb{C}\setminus
[a_{k-1},b_{k-1}]$ defined as $$\psi_{n,k}(z):=\begin{cases}
z\int_{\Gamma_{k-1}}\frac{\Psi_{n,k-1}(t)\,t^{k-1-\ell}}{z-t^{p+1}}\,d\sigma_{
k-1}(t), & \ell< k,\\[1em]
\int_{\Gamma_{k-1}}\frac{\Psi_{n,k-1}(t)\,t^{p+k-\ell}}{z-t^{p+1}}\,d\sigma_{k-1
}(t), & k\leq \ell,
\end{cases}$$ where $n\equiv \ell \mod (p+1)$, $0\leq \ell\leq p$.
Let $n
\equiv \ell \mod (p+1)$ with $0\leq \ell\leq p$, and define $$\label{varymeas:sigma}
d\sigma_{n,k}(\tau):=\begin{cases}
d\sigma_{k}^{*}(\tau), & \ell\leq k,\\
\tau\,d\sigma_{k}^{*}(\tau), & k<\ell.
\end{cases}$$Then, $$z^{k-\ell}\,\Psi_{n,k}(z)=\psi_{n,k}(z^{p+1}), \quad 0\leq k\leq p,$$ and for all $1\leq k\leq p$, $$\psi_{n,k}(z)=\begin{cases}
z\int_{a_{k-1}}^{b_{k-1}}\frac{\psi_{n,k-1}(\tau)}{z-\tau}\,d\sigma_{n,k-1}
(\tau), & \ell< k,\\[1em]
\int_{a_{k-1}}^{b_{k-1}}\frac{\psi_{n,k-1}(\tau)}{z-\tau}\,d\sigma_{n,k-1}(\tau), & k\leq \ell.
\end{cases}$$
The functions of the second kind satisfy the following recurrence relations. For every $n\geq p$, $0\leq k\leq p$, we have [@LopMin Proposition 3.2] $$z\Psi_{n,k}(z)=\Psi_{n+1,k}(z)+a_n\Psi_{n-p,k}(z),$$ and if $n\equiv\ell\mod(p+1)$, $0\leq \ell \leq p-1$, then $$\label{threetermrecsecondkindpequena1}
\psi_{n,k}(z)=\psi_{n+1,k}(z)+a_n\psi_{n-p,k}(z),$$ while if $n\equiv p\mod(p+1)$, then $$\label{threetermrecsecondkindpequena2}
z\psi_{n,k}(z)=\psi_{n+1,k}(z)+a_n\psi_{n-p,k}(z).$$
For each $k=0,\ldots,p-1$, the function $\psi_{n,k}$ satisfies orthogonality conditions with respect to the measures $\mu_{k,j}, j=k\ldots,p-1$. We have [@LopMin Proposition 2.10]:
Let $0\leq k\leq p-1$ and assume that $n\equiv \ell \mod (p+1)$ with $0\leq
\ell\leq p$. Then the function $\psi_{n,k}$ satisfies the orthogonality conditions $$\label{orthogredPsink}
\int_{a_{k}}^{b_{k}}\psi_{n,k}(\tau)\,\tau^{s}\,d\mu_{k,j}(\tau)=0,\quad
\left\lceil\frac{\ell-j}{p+1}\right\rceil\leq s\leq \left\lfloor
\frac{n+p\ell-1-j(p+1)}{p(p+1)}\right\rfloor,\quad k\leq j\leq p-1.$$
Counting the number of orthogonality conditions {#counting}
-----------------------------------------------
For the asymptotic analysis of the multiple orthogonal polynomials and the functions of the second kind, it is crucial to have a control on the total number of orthogonality conditions in . We define this quantity next in the same way it was done in [@LopMin].
Let $n$ be a nonnegative integer and let $\ell=\ell(n)$ be the integer satisfying $n\equiv \ell\mod (p+1)$, $0\leq\ell\leq p$. For each $0\leq j\leq p-1$, let $M_j=M_j(n)$ be the number of integers $s$ satisfying the inequalities $$\label{countingcond}
\left\lceil\frac{\ell-j}{p+1}\right\rceil\leq s\leq \left\lfloor
\frac{n+p\ell-1-j(p+1)}{p(p+1)}\right\rfloor.$$ For each $0\leq k\leq p-1$, we define $$\label{def:Znk}
Z(n,k):=\sum_{j=k}^{p-1}M_j.$$ Also, by convention $Z(n,p):=0$.
The importance of the quantities $Z(n,k)$ resides in the following results [@LopMin Proposition 2.19], [@LopLopstar Theorem 3.1]:
For each $n\geq 0$ and $k=0,\ldots,p-1$, the function $\psi_{n,k}$ has exactly $Z(n,k)$ zeros in $\mathbb{C}\setminus([a_{k-1},b_{k-1}]\cup\{0\})$; they are all simple and lie in the open interval $(a_{k},b_{k})$. The function $\psi_{n,p}$ has no zeros in $\mathbb{C}\setminus([a_{p-1},b_{p-1}]\cup\{0\})$. The zeros of $\psi_{n+1,k}$ and $\psi_{n,k}$ on $(a_k,b_k)$ interlace.
In the study of ratio asymptotics in [@LopLopstar], the quantities $Z(n+1,k)-Z(n,k)$ played a key role. In [@LopLopstar Lemma 4.1] it was proved that for each fixed $0\leq k\leq p-1$, the expression $Z(n+1,k)-Z(n,k)$ is periodic in $n$ with period $p(p+1)$, and $Z(n+1,k)-Z(n,k)\in\{-1,0,1\}$ for all $n$.
The polynomials $P_{n,k}$
-------------------------
For any integers $n\geq 0$ and $k$ with $0\leq k\leq p-1$, let $P_{n,k}$ denote the monic polynomial whose roots are the zeros of $\psi_{n,k}$ in $(a_{k},b_{k})$. For convenience we also define the polynomials $P_{n,-1}\equiv
1$, $P_{n,p}\equiv 1$.
According to what was said in the previous subsection about the zeros of $\psi_{n,k}$, we know that $P_{n,k}$ has degree $Z(n,k)$, all its zeros are simple, and interlace those of $P_{n+1,k}$. Recall that by Definition \[definitionpsi\], $P_{n,0}=\psi_{n,0}$ is the polynomial $\mathcal{Q}_{d}$ that appears in and, therefore, $$\label{eq:formZn0}
Z(n,0)=\deg(P_{n,0})=\left\lfloor\frac{n}{p+1}\right\rfloor.$$
Taking into account , the ratio asymptotics of the polynomials $Q_n$ reduces to that of the polynomials $P_{n,0}$. What is curious is that in order to solve this problem we need to study simultaneously the ratio asymptotics of all the sequences of polynomials $(P_{n,k}), n \geq 0,$ for $k=0.\ldots,p-1$.
The starting point of the present paper is the following result proved in [@LopLopstar]. Note that the condition stated in Proposition \[prop:ratioP\] for the measures $\sigma_{k}^{*}$ is equivalent to the condition required for the measures $\sigma_{k}$ on Theorems \[theo:main:1\]-\[theo:main:2\], but we prefer to state Proposition \[prop:ratioP\] as it is presented in [@LopLopstar].
\[prop:ratioP\] Assume that for each $k=0,\ldots,p-1$, the measure $\sigma_{k}^{*}$ defined in has positive Radon-Nikodym derivative with respect to Lebesgue measure a.e. on $[a_{k},b_{k}]$. Let $0\leq \rho\leq p(p+1)-1$ be fixed. The following asymptotic properties hold:
- For each $k=0,\ldots,p-1,$ $$\label{limitP}
\lim_{\lambda \to \infty}\frac{P_{\lambda p(p+1)+\rho+1,k}(z)}{P_{\lambda p(p+1)+\rho,k}(z)}=\widetilde{F}_{k}^{(\rho)}(z),\qquad z\in\mathbb{C}\setminus[a_{k},b_{k}],$$ where $\widetilde{F}_k^{(\rho)}$ is holomorphic in $\mathbb{C}\setminus[a_{k},b_{k}]$.
- If $\rho\not\equiv p \mod (p+1)$, then $$\label{eq:ratioQn:1}
\lim_{\lambda\rightarrow\infty}\frac{Q_{\lambda p(p+1)+\rho+1}(z)}{Q_{\lambda p(p+1)+\rho}(z)}=z\,\widetilde{F}_{0}^{(\rho)}(z^{p+1}),\qquad z\in\mathbb{C}\setminus\Gamma_{0},$$ and if $\rho\equiv p\mod (p+1)$, then $$\label{eq:ratioQn:2}
\lim_{\lambda\rightarrow\infty}\frac{Q_{\lambda p(p+1)+\rho+1}(z)}{Q_{\lambda p(p+1)+\rho}(z)}=\frac{\widetilde{F}_{0}^{(\rho)}(z^{p+1})}{z^{p}},\qquad z\in\mathbb{C}\setminus(\Gamma_{0}\cup\{0\}).$$
- The sequence $(a_{n})$ of recurrence coefficients in satisfies $$\label{eq:limreccoeff}
\lim_{\lambda\rightarrow\infty}a_{\lambda p(p+1)+\rho}=a^{(\rho)},$$ where the limiting values $a^{(\rho)}$ appear in the Laurent expansion at infinity of $\widetilde{F}_{0}^{(\rho)}$ as follows: $$\label{eq:LaurentFexp}
\widetilde{F}_{0}^{(\rho)}(z)=\begin{cases}
1-a^{(\rho)} z^{-1}+O\left(z^{-2}\right), & \ \mbox{if} \ \rho\not\equiv p \mod (p+1),\\
z-a^{(\rho)}+O\left(z^{-1}\right), & \ \mbox{if} \ \rho\equiv p \mod (p+1).
\end{cases}$$
In [@LopLopstar Section 6.3] it was proved that for each $0\leq k\leq p-1$, $0\leq \rho\leq p(p+1)-1$, the function $\widetilde{F}_k^{(\rho)}$ is either a Szegő function in $\overline{\mathbb{C}}\setminus [a_{k},b_{k}]$, or it is the product or division of such a function by a conformal map of $\overline{\mathbb{C}} \setminus[a_{k},b_{k}]$ onto the exterior of the unit disk (for more details, see the second paragraph in the proof of Theorem \[lem:descfkrho\] below). From this it was shown that the limit $$\label{absolute}
|\widetilde{F}_k^{(\rho)}(x)| :=\lim_{z\rightarrow x}|\widetilde{F}_k^{(\rho)}(z)|, \qquad x \in [a_{k},b_{k}] \setminus \{0\},$$ exists for all the points $x$ specified, as $z\in\mathbb{C}\setminus[a_{k},b_{k}]$ approaches $x$. If $0\in[a_{k},b_{k}]$, then also holds for $x=0$ provided that the weight associated with the Szegő function is positive and continuous at that point.
In [@LopLopstar Lemma 6.4] it was shown that a normalization of the functions $(\widetilde{F}_k^{(\rho)})_{k=0}^{p-1}$ constitute the solution of a system of boundary value equations which we restate here for convenience of the reader.
\[prop:boundary\] Let $\rho\in[0:p(p+1)-1]$ be fixed, and let $\ell\in[0:p]$ be the remainder in the division of $\rho$ by $p+1$. Let ${\widetilde{F}_{k}^{(\rho)}}$, $0\leq k\leq p-1$, be the limiting functions in . Then there exist positive constants $c_{k}^{(\rho)}$ so that the collection of functions $F_{k}^{(\rho)}=c_{k}^{(\rho)} {\widetilde{F}_{k}^{(\rho)}}, 0\leq k \leq p-1,$ or more precisely their absolute values (taking account of ), satisfies the following systems of boundary value equations:
- When $\ell \in [0:p-1]$ (here, $[0:-1], [p:p-1]$ and $[p+1:p-1]$ denote the empty set for the corresponding values of $\ell$) $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{|{F_{k}^{(\rho)}}(\tau)|^{2}}{|{F_{k-1}^{(\rho)}}(\tau)||{F_{k+1}^{(\rho)}}(\tau)|}= & 1, \quad \tau\in[a_{k},b_{k}], \quad k \in [0:\ell -1] \cup [\ell +2:p-1], \label{eq:bv:lnp:1}\\
\frac{|{F_{k}^{(\rho)}}(\tau)|^{2}\,|\tau|}{|{F_{k-1}^{(\rho)}}(\tau)||{F_{k+1}^{(\rho)}}(\tau)|}= & 1, \quad \tau\in[a_{k},b_{k}] \setminus \{0\}, \quad k = \ell, \label{eq:bv:lnp:2}\\
\frac{|{F_{k}^{(\rho)}}(\tau)|^{2}}{|\tau||{F_{k-1}^{(\rho)}}(\tau)||{F_{k+1}^{(\rho)}}(\tau)|}= & 1, \quad \tau\in[a_{k},b_{k}] \setminus \{0\}, \quad k = \ell +1. \label{eq:bv:lnp:3}\end{aligned}$$ (The last equation is dropped if $\ell = p-1$.)
- For $\ell=p$, the system is $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{|F_{0}^{(\rho)}(\tau)|^{2}}{|\tau||F_{1}^{(\rho)}(\tau)|} = & 1, \quad \tau\in [a_{0},b_{0}] \setminus \{0\},\label{eq:bv:lp:1}\\
\frac{|{F_{k}^{(\rho)}}(\tau)|^{2}}{|{F_{k-1}^{(\rho)}}(\tau)||{F_{k+1}^{(\rho)}}(\tau)|} = & 1, \quad \tau\in[a_{k},b_{k}],\quad k\in [1:p-1].\label{eq:bv:lp:2}\end{aligned}$$ In the above equations –, we use the convention $F_{-1}^{(\rho)}\equiv F_{p}^{(\rho)}\equiv 1$.
Moreover, for each $\rho$ fixed, the functions $F_{k}^{(\rho)}(z), 0\leq k \leq p-1$ satisfy:
- $(F_k^{(\rho)})^{\pm 1} \in \mathcal{H}(\mathbb{C}\setminus [a_k,b_k])$ (holomorphic in the specified domain).
- The leading coefficient (corresponding to the highest power of $z$) of the Laurent expansion of $F_k^{(\rho)}$ at $\infty$ is positive.
- $F_k^{(\rho)}$ either has a simple pole, a simple zero, or takes a finite positive value at $\infty$. For a given $\rho \in [0:p(p+1)-1]$ and $k \in [0:p-1]$, only one of these situations occurs.
In this paper, we express the functions $(\widetilde{F}_k^{(\rho)})_{k=0}^{p-1}$ in terms of the conformal mappings on the Riemann surface $\mathcal{R}$ defined in the introduction, see Theorem \[theo:descFkrconf\].
Throughout the rest of the paper, we extend the $p$ sequences $\{\widetilde{F}_{k}^{(\rho)}\}_{\rho=0}^{p(p+1)-1}$, $0\leq k\leq p-1$, and their normalizations, periodically with period $p(p+1)$, to allow the super-index $\rho$ to take arbitrary integer values. So by definition we set $$\widetilde{F}^{(\rho+p(p+1))}_{k}\equiv \widetilde{F}^{(\rho)}_{k},\qquad \rho\in\mathbb{Z},\quad k\in[0:p-1].$$ Recall that we also extend the sequence $\{a^{(\rho)}\}_{\rho=0}^{p(p+1)-1}$ of limiting values in , periodically with period $p(p+1)$, so that $$a^{(\rho+p(p+1))}=a^{(\rho)},\qquad \rho\in\mathbb{Z}.$$
The boundary value problem and algebraic functions
==================================================
Some additional notation
------------------------
Let us define $\omega_{l,j}$ as the leading coefficient in the Laurent series expansion of $\varphi_{j}^{(l)}$ at $\infty$, i.e., $$\label{def:omegalj}
\omega_{l,j}:=\begin{cases}
\omega_{l} & j=0,\\[0.2em]
(\varphi_{l}^{(l)})'(\infty) & j=l,\\[0.2em]
\varphi_{j}^{(l)}(\infty) & 1\leq j\leq p,\,\,j\neq l.
\end{cases}$$ As was proved in the Introduction, the condition $\omega_{l}>0$ implies that $$\label{symmRS}
\varphi_k^{(l)}(z)=\overline{\varphi_k^{(l)}(\overline{z})}, \qquad k=0,\ldots,p.$$
Throughout the rest of the paper, we use the following notation, already employed for the functions $\widetilde{F}_{k}^{(\rho)}$. Given an arbitrary function $F(z)$ which has in a neighborhood of infinity a Laurent expansion of the form $F(z)= C z^{k}+O(z^{k-1})$, $C\neq 0$, $k\in\mathbb{Z}$, we denote $\widetilde{F}(z):=F(z)/C$. If $C$ is real, $\mathrm{sg}(F(\infty))$ will represent the sign of $C$.
The symmetry property implies that for each $k=0,\ldots,p,$ the function $\varphi_{k}^{(l)}$ is real-valued on $\mathbb{R}\setminus(\Delta_{k-1}\cup\Delta_{k})$, where $\Delta_{-1}=\Delta_{p}=\emptyset$. This, and the fact that $\varphi^{(l)}:\mathcal{R}\longrightarrow\overline{\mathbb{C}}$ is a bijection, easily imply the following statements, which are left to the reader to check: If $l\in\{1,\ldots,p\}$ is odd, then $$\label{eq:signphikl:1}
\mathrm{sg}(\varphi_{k}^{(l)}(\infty))=\begin{cases}
+1 & \mbox{for}\quad 0\leq k\leq l,\\
-1 & \mbox{for}\,\,l<k\leq p,
\end{cases}$$ and if $l\in\{1,\ldots,p\}$ is even, then $$\label{eq:signphikl:2}
\mathrm{sg}(\varphi_{k}^{(l)}(\infty))=\begin{cases}
+1 & \mbox{for}\,\,0\leq k< l,\\
-1 & \mbox{for}\,\,l\leq k\leq p.
\end{cases}$$
Proof of $1)$ in Theorem \[theo:main:2\]
----------------------------------------
We aim to prove that for each $0\leq \rho\leq p(p+1)-1$, the limiting value on the right-hand side of satisfies $a^{(\rho)}>0$.
The following relations were proved in [@LopLopstar], and are easily obtained applying and – in the case $k=0$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
a^{(\rho)} & =(z-\widetilde{F}_{0}^{(\rho)}(z)) \prod_{i=\rho-p}^{\rho-1}\widetilde{F}_{0}^{(i)}(z),\qquad z\in\mathbb{C}\setminus[a_{0},b_{0}],\quad \rho\equiv p \mod (p+1),\label{eq:relarhoF:1}\\
a^{(\rho)} & =(1-\widetilde{F}_{0}^{(\rho)}(z)) \prod_{i=\rho-p}^{\rho-1}\widetilde{F}_{0}^{(i)}(z),\qquad z\in\mathbb{C}\setminus[a_{0},b_{0}],\quad \rho\not\equiv p \mod (p+1).\label{eq:relarhoF:2}\end{aligned}$$
Assume that $a^{(\rho)}=0$ for some $\rho$ satisfying $\rho\equiv p \mod (p+1)$. Since none of the functions $\widetilde{F}_{0}^{(i)}$ vanish on $\mathbb{C}\setminus[a_{0}, b_{0}]$ (cf. Proposition \[prop:boundary\] i)), we deduce from that $\widetilde{F}_{0}^{(\rho)}(z)\equiv z$ on that domain. If $0\notin[a_{0},b_{0}]$, then $\widetilde{F}_{0}^{(\rho)}(z)$ has a zero at the origin, which contradicts Proposition \[prop:boundary\] i). Suppose that $a_{0}=0$. Then, $F_{0}^{(\rho)}(z)=c_{0}^{(\rho)}\widetilde{F}_{0}^{(\rho)}(z)=c_{0}^{(\rho)} z$ and imply that $F_{1}^{(\rho)}(z)=(c_{0}^{(\rho)})^2\,z$, which contradicts the fact that $F_{1}^{(\rho)}(z)$ does not vanish in the exterior of $[a_{1},b_{1}]$, which is disjoint from $[a_{0},b_{0}]=[0,b_{0}]$.
Now assume that $a^{(\rho)}=0$ for some $\rho\not\equiv p \mod (p+1)$. Then, from we deduce that $\widetilde{F}_{0}^{(\rho)}(z)\equiv 1$ on $\mathbb{C}\setminus[a_{0},b_{0}]$.
Suppose first that $\ell=0$ (see the statement of Proposition \[prop:boundary\] for the definition of $\ell$). Applying for $k=0$ we get $F_{1}^{(\rho)}(z)=(c_{0}^{(\rho)})^{2}\, z$. If $0\not\in[a_{1},b_{1}]$, then $F_{1}^{(\rho)}$ has a zero outside $[a_{1},b_{1}]$, which is contradictory with the non-vanishing property. Now assume $0\in[a_{1}, b_{1}]$, i.e., $b_{1}=0$. If $p\geq 3$, then applying for $k=1$ we obtain that the function $F_{2}^{(\rho)}$ must have a zero at the origin, contradiction. If $p=2$, then $F_{2}^{(\rho)}\equiv 1$ by definition, and reduces to $c |\tau|=1$, $\tau\in[a_{1},0)$, $c$ a constant, which is impossible.
Now suppose that $1\leq \ell\leq p-2$. Applying repeatedly for $k=0,\ldots,\ell-1,$ we obtain that the functions $F_{k}^{(\rho)}$, $0\leq k\leq \ell$, are all constant in their domains. Then from equation we deduce that $F_{\ell+1}^{(\rho)}(z)=c\,z$ for some constant $c$. If $0\not\in[a_{\ell+1},b_{\ell+1}]$, contradiction. So assume that $0\in[a_{\ell+1},b_{\ell+1}]$. From we now obtain that $F_{\ell+2}^{(\rho)}$ must have a zero at $0\in\mathbb{C}\setminus[a_{\ell+2},b_{\ell+2}]$, which is a contradiction.
Finally, assume that $\ell=p-1$ (we also assume that $p\geq 2$). Recall that by assumption $\widetilde{F}_{0}^{(\rho)}\equiv 1$. Applying repeatedly for $k=0,\ldots,\ell-1,$ we obtain that the functions $F_{k}^{(\rho)}$, $0\leq k\leq p-1$, are all constant in their domains. This contradicts , since $F_{p}^{(\rho)}\equiv 1$.
A fundamental relation
----------------------
We wish to express the functions that solve the system of boundary value equations in Proposition \[prop:boundary\] in terms of algebraic functions defined on the Riemann surface. A direct relation is hard to establish, but if one multiplies $p+1$ consecutive $F_k^{(\rho)}$ as it is done in , then such a product has a very nice representation (see below). In order to arrive to that formula we need to analyze the order of such products at infinity. For this purpose we introduce the following quantities.
For integers $n\geq 0$ and $k\in[0: p]$, let $$\label{def:Lambdank}
\Lambda(n,k):=Z(n+p+1,k)-Z(n,k).$$ Note also that $$\label{eq:altformL}
\Lambda(n,k)=\sum_{j=0}^{p}\left(Z(n+j+1,k)-Z(n+j,k)\right),$$ which will be used later.
For any integers $n\geq 0$ and $k\in[0: p]$, $$\label{eq:descLambda}
\Lambda(n,k)=\begin{cases}
0, & \mbox{if}\,\,\,\,n\equiv s\mod p,\,\,\,\, s\in[0:k-1],\\
1, & \mbox{if}\,\,\,\,n\equiv s\mod p,\,\,\,\, s\in[k:p-1].
\end{cases}$$ In particular, for each $k\in[0: p]$, $\Lambda(n,k)$ is periodic as a function of $n$ with period $p$.
For an integer $n\geq 0$, let $\ell = \ell(n)$ be the integer satisfying $n\equiv \ell\mod (p+1)$, $0\leq \ell\leq p$. According to and , $$Z(n,k)=\sum_{j=k}^{p-1}M_{j}(n),$$ where $$M_{j}(n)=\left\lfloor\frac{n+p\,\ell(n)-1-j (p+1)}{p(p+1)}\right\rfloor-\left\lceil\frac{\ell(n)-j}{p+1}\right\rceil+1.$$ Since $\ell(n)=\ell(n+p+1)=\ell$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\Lambda(n,k) & =\sum_{j=k}^{p-1}\left(M_{j}(n+p+1)-M_{j}(n)\right)\\
& =\sum_{j=k}^{p-1}\left(\left\lfloor\frac{n+p+1+p\,\ell-1-j (p+1)}{p(p+1)}\right\rfloor-\left\lfloor\frac{n+p\,\ell-1-j (p+1)}{p(p+1)}\right\rfloor\right)\\
& =\sum_{j=k}^{p-1}\left(\left\lfloor\frac{n+p\,\ell-1-j (p+1)}{p(p+1)}+\frac{1}{p}\right\rfloor-\left\lfloor\frac{n+p\,\ell-1-j (p+1)}{p(p+1)}\right\rfloor\right).\end{aligned}$$ We can write $$n=\lambda p(p+1)+\rho,\qquad \lambda\geq 0,\quad 0\leq \rho\leq p(p+1)-1,$$ and decompose $\rho$ as $$\rho=\eta (p+1)+\ell,\qquad 0\leq \eta\leq p-1.$$ Then $$\frac{n+p\, \ell-1-j(p+1)}{p(p+1)}=\lambda+\frac{\eta+\ell-j}{p}-\frac{1}{p(p+1)}.$$ Let $s\in[0:p-1]$ be the residue of $n$ modulo $p$. Note that $n\equiv (\eta+\ell) \mod p$, so if we write $\eta+\ell=s+mp$ for some integer $m$, we get $$\label{eq:decomp:1}
\frac{n+p\, \ell-1-j(p+1)}{p(p+1)}=\lambda+m+\frac{s-j}{p}-\frac{1}{p(p+1)}.$$
Assume first that $s\in[0:k-1]$. Then, from we obtain that for every $j\in[k:p-1]$, $$\left\lfloor\frac{n+p\, \ell-1-j(p+1)}{p(p+1)}\right\rfloor=\left\lfloor\frac{n+p \ell-1-j(p+1)}{p(p+1)}+\frac{1}{p}\right\rfloor=\lambda+m-1,$$ which implies that $\Lambda(n,k)=0$. If $s\in[k:p-1]$, then $$\left\lfloor\frac{n+p\, \ell-1-j(p+1)}{p(p+1)}\right\rfloor=\begin{cases}
\lambda+m & \mbox{if}\quad k\leq j\leq s-1,\\
\lambda+m-1 & \mbox{if}\quad s\leq j\leq p-1,
\end{cases}$$ and $$\left\lfloor\frac{n+p\, \ell-1-j(p+1)}{p(p+1)}+\frac{1}{p}\right\rfloor=\begin{cases}
\lambda+m & \mbox{if}\quad k\leq j\leq s,\\
\lambda+m-1 & \mbox{if}\quad s+1\leq j\leq p-1,
\end{cases}$$ which implies that in this case $\Lambda(n,k)=1$.
For each $k\in[0:p-1]$ and $\rho\in\mathbb{Z}$, we define $$\label{def:fkrho}
f_{k}^{(\rho)}(z):=\prod_{j=0}^{p} F_{k}^{(\rho+j)}(z), \qquad z \in \mathbb{C} \setminus [a_k,b_k].$$ We also set $f_{-1}^{(\rho)}\equiv f_{p}^{(\rho)}\equiv 1$.
\[lem:descfkrho\] The functions defined in satisfy the following properties for each $k\in[0:p-1]$ and $\rho\in[0:p(p+1)-1]$:
- $(f_{k}^{(\rho)})^{\pm 1}\in\mathcal{H}(\mathbb{C}\setminus\Delta_{k})$, and as $z\rightarrow\infty$, $$\label{eq:estfkrhoinf}
f_{k}^{(\rho)}(z)=c_{k,\rho}\,z^{\Lambda(\rho,k)}(1+O(z^{-1})),$$ where $c_{k,\rho}$ is a positive constant, and $\Lambda(\rho,k)$ is described in .
- The function $|f_{k}^{(\rho)}|$ has continuous and strictly positive boundary values on all $\Delta_{k}$ and we have $$\label{eq:boundvalfkr}
\frac{|f_{k}^{(\rho)}(\tau)|^{2}}{|f_{k-1}^{(\rho)}(\tau)||f_{k+1}^{(\rho)}(\tau)|}=1,\qquad \tau\in\Delta_{k}.$$
- Let $l=l(\rho)$ be the integer determined by the conditions $l-1\equiv \rho \mod p$ and $1\leq l\leq p$. Then $$\label{eq:expfkrho}
f_{k}^{(\rho)}(z)=\mathrm{sg}\left(\prod_{\nu=k+1}^{p}\varphi_{\nu}^{(l)}(\infty)\right)\prod_{\nu=k+1}^{p}\varphi_{\nu}^{(l)}(z),\qquad z\in\overline{\mathbb{C}}\setminus\Delta_{k},$$ where $$\label{eq:signfkrho}
\mathrm{sg}\left(\prod_{\nu=k+1}^{p}\varphi_{\nu}^{(l)}(\infty)\right)=\begin{cases}
(-1)^{p+1} & \mbox{if}\quad 0\leq k\leq l-1,\\[0.5em]
(-1)^{p+k} & \mbox{if}\quad l\leq k\leq p-1.
\end{cases}$$
Recall that the polynomial $P_{n,k}$ has degree $Z(n,k)$. Therefore, from and the fact that $Z(n+1,k)-Z(n,k)$ is periodic with respect to $n$ with period $p(p+1)$, it follows that $$\label{eq:estFkrhoinf}
\widetilde{F}_{k}^{(\rho+j)}(z)=z^{Z(\rho+j+1,k)-Z(\rho+j,k)}(1+O(z^{-1})),\qquad z\rightarrow\infty,\quad 0\leq j\leq p.$$ Since $F_{k}^{(\rho+j)}=\widetilde{c}_{k,j} \widetilde{F}_{k}^{(\rho+j)}(z)$, where $\widetilde{c}_{k,j}$ is a positive constant (cf. Proposition \[prop:boundary\]), multiplying the $p+1$ estimates in and applying and , we obtain . We have $(f_{k}^{(\rho)})^{\pm 1}\in\mathcal{H}(\mathbb{C}\setminus\Delta_{k})$ since none of the functions $F_{k}^{(\rho)}$ vanish on $\mathbb{C}\setminus\Delta_{k}$.
In [@LopLopstar Section 6.3] it was shown the following. Up to a multiplicative constant, each function $\widetilde{F}_{k}^{(\rho+j)}$, $0\leq j\leq p$, can be expressed either as a Szegő function, or as a Szegő function multiplied or divided by the conformal mapping $\phi_{k}$ from the exterior of $\Delta_{k}$ onto the exterior of the unit circle that satisfies $\phi_{k}(\infty)=\infty$ and $\phi_{k}'(\infty)>0$. The Szegő function in the expression of $\widetilde{F}_{k}^{(\rho+j)}$ is associated with a weight that takes one of the following three forms: $$\label{eq:Szegoweights}
\frac{1}{|\widetilde{F}_{k-1}^{(\rho+j)} (\tau)||\widetilde{F}_{k+1}^{(\rho+j)} (\tau)|}, \qquad \frac{|\tau|}{|\widetilde{F}_{k-1}^{(\rho+j)} (\tau)||\widetilde{F}_{k+1}^{(\rho+j)} (\tau)|},\qquad \frac{1}{|\tau||\widetilde{F}_{k-1}^{(\rho+j)} (\tau)||\widetilde{F}_{k+1}^{(\rho+j)}(\tau)|}.$$ A careful analysis of the different cases described in [@LopLopstar Section 6.3], shows that as $j$ varies in the range $[0:p]$, exactly one $j$ corresponds to a weight of the second type (the $j$ satisfying $\rho+j \equiv k \mod (p+1)$), exactly one $j$ corresponds to a weight of the third type (the $j$ satisfying $\rho+j \equiv (k-1) \mod (p+1)$), and all other $j$ correspond to a weight of the first type. By the multiplicative property of Szegő functions, the possible singularities that $|\tau|$ and $1/|\tau|$ in may cause at the origin will not be present in the product $f_{k}^{(\rho)}$. Hence, $|f_{k}^{(\rho)}|$ will have continuous and non-vanishing boundary values on all $\Delta_{k}$. Multiplying the different boundary value equations in Proposition \[prop:boundary\] for the different indices $\rho+j$, $0\leq j\leq p$, we obtain (the reader can also observe the cancellation between $|\tau|$ and $1/|\tau|$ after multiplying these equations).
Let $\rho\in[0:p(p+1)-1]$ be fixed, and let $l$ be the integer satisfying $l-1\equiv \rho \mod p$, $1\leq l\leq p$. Then we have shown that the system of functions $\{f_{k}^{(\rho)}\}_{k=0}^{p-1}$ satisfies the following conditions:
- $f_{k}^{(\rho)}, 1/f_{k}^{(\rho)}\in\mathcal{H}(\mathbb{C}\setminus\Delta_{k})$, $k=0,\ldots,p-1$.
- In virtue of and , as $z\rightarrow\infty$ we have $$f_{k}^{(\rho)}(z)=\begin{cases}
c_{k,\rho} z+O(1),\quad 0\leq k\leq l-1,\\
c_{k,\rho}+O(z^{-1}),\quad l\leq k\leq p-1,
\end{cases}$$ where $c_{k,\rho}>0$ for all $0\leq k\leq p-1$.
- The boundary value relation holds for each $0\leq k\leq p-1$.
In [@AptLopRocha Lemma 4.2] it was proved that the boundary value problem a)-b)-c) has a unique solution and it is precisely given by $$f_{k}^{(\rho)}(z)=\mathrm{sg}\left(\prod_{\nu=k+1}^{p}\varphi_{\nu}^{(l)}(\infty)\right)\prod_{\nu=k+1}^{p}\varphi_{\nu}^{(l)}(z),\qquad z\in\overline{\mathbb{C}}\setminus\Delta_{k}.$$ Formula follows immediately from and .
The following properties hold:
- For each $\rho\in[0:p(p+1)-1]$ and $k\in[0:p-1]$, $$\label{eq:perfkrho}
f_{k}^{(\rho)}\equiv f_{k}^{(\rho+p)}.$$
- For each $\rho\in[0:p(p+1)-1]$ and $k\in[0:p-1]$, $$\label{eq:idprodFkrho}
\prod_{i=\rho}^{\rho+p-1} F_{k}^{(i)}\equiv \prod_{i=\rho+p+1}^{\rho+2p} F_{k}^{(i)},\qquad \prod_{i=\rho}^{\rho+p-1} \widetilde{F}_{k}^{(i)}\equiv \prod_{i=\rho+p+1}^{\rho+2p} \widetilde{F}_{k}^{(i)}.$$
- For each $\rho\in[0:p(p+1)-1]$, $$\label{eq:idsumakrho}
\sum_{i=\rho}^{\rho+p-1}a^{(i)}=\sum_{i=\rho+p+1}^{\rho+2p} a^{(i)}.$$
- For each $\rho\in[0:p(p+1)-1]$ and $z\in\mathbb{C}\setminus\Delta_{0}$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{a^{(\rho+p+1)}}{a^{(\rho)}} & =\frac{z-\widetilde{F}_{0}^{(\rho+p+1)}(z)}{z-\widetilde{F}_{0}^{(\rho)}(z)}\qquad\mbox{if}\,\,\,\,\rho\equiv p \mod (p+1),\label{eq:idquotFkrho:1}\\
\frac{a^{(\rho+p+1)}}{a^{(\rho)}} & =\frac{1-\widetilde{F}_{0}^{(\rho+p+1)}(z)}{1-\widetilde{F}_{0}^{(\rho)}(z)}\qquad\mbox{if}\,\,\,\,\rho\not\equiv p \mod (p+1).\label{eq:idquotFkrho:2}\end{aligned}$$
The relation follows immediately from since $l(\rho)=l(\rho+p)$, and is obtained dividing both sides of by $F_{k}^{(\rho+p)}$.
Taking $k=0$ in we get $$\label{eq:relnormFkrho}
\prod_{i=\rho}^{\rho+p-1}\widetilde{F}_{0}^{(i)}\equiv \prod_{i=\rho+p+1}^{\rho+2p} \widetilde{F}_{0}^{(i)}.$$ In virtue of , as $z\rightarrow\infty$ we have $$\label{eq:relexpFkrho}
\prod_{i=\rho}^{\rho+p-1} \widetilde{F}_{0}^{(i)}(z)=
\begin{cases}
1-\left(\sum_{i=\rho}^{\rho+p-1}a^{(i)}\right) z^{-1}+O(z^{-2}),\quad \rho\equiv 0 \mod (p+1),\\[1em]
z-\sum_{i=\rho}^{\rho+p-1}a^{(i)}+O(z^{-1}),\quad \rho\not\equiv 0 \mod (p+1),
\end{cases}$$ hence is a consequence of and . Notice that is the statement $3)$ of Theorem \[theo:main:2\].
Assume that $\rho\equiv p \mod (p+1)$. According to , we have $$\begin{aligned}
a^{(\rho)} & =(z-\widetilde{F}_{0}^{(\rho)}(z)) \prod_{i=\rho-p}^{\rho-1} \widetilde{F}_{0}^{(i)}(z),\qquad z\in\mathbb{C}\setminus\Delta_{0},\\
a^{(\rho+p+1)} & =(z-\widetilde{F}_{0}^{(\rho+p+1)}(z)) \prod_{i=\rho+1}^{\rho+p} \widetilde{F}_{0}^{(i)}(z),\qquad z\in\mathbb{C}\setminus\Delta_{0}.\end{aligned}$$ Dividing the second identity by the first identity, and applying Theorem \[theo:main:2\].1 and , we obtain . Similarly one proves , using .
Proof of $2)$ in Theorem \[theo:main:2\]
----------------------------------------
First note that if $l_{1}, l_{2}\in[1:p]$ with $l_{1}\neq l_{2}$, then $\varphi^{(l_{1})}/\varphi^{(l_2)}:\mathcal{R}\longrightarrow\overline{\mathbb{C}}$ is conformal. Indeed, from the definition of $\varphi^{(l)}$ we deduce that $\varphi^{(l_{1})}/\varphi^{(l_{2})}$ is a meromorphic function on $\mathcal{R}$ with only one simple pole (the point $\infty^{(l_{1})}$) and only one simple zero (the point $\infty^{(l_{2})}$).
Let $m_1$, $m_2$ be indices such that $0\leq m_1<m_2\leq p-1$. In virtue of – we have $$\frac{a^{(\rho+m_2(p+1))}}{a^{(\rho+m_1(p+1))}}=\begin{cases}
\frac{z-\widetilde{F}_{0}^{(\rho+m_2(p+1))}(z)}{z-\widetilde{F}_{0}^{(\rho+m_1(p+1))}(z)}\quad\mbox{if}\,\,\rho\equiv p \mod (p+1),\\[1em]
\frac{1-\widetilde{F}_{0}^{(\rho+m_2(p+1))}(z)}{1-\widetilde{F}_{0}^{(\rho+m_1(p+1))}(z)}\quad\mbox{if}\,\,\rho\not\equiv p \mod (p+1).
\end{cases}$$ Let us assume that $a^{(\rho+m_1(p+1))}=a^{(\rho+m_2(p+1))}$. Then, from the above relation we deduce that $\widetilde{F}_{0}^{(\rho+m_1(p+1))}\equiv \widetilde{F}_{0}^{(\rho+m_2(p+1))}$.
In virtue of , we have $$\frac{\widetilde{f}_{0}^{(\rho+1)}}{\widetilde{f}_{0}^{(\rho)}}=\frac{\widetilde{F}_{0}^{(\rho+p+1)}}{\widetilde{F}_{0}^{(\rho)}},\quad \mbox{for any}\,\,\rho\in\mathbb{Z},$$ so a repeated application of this identity yields $$\label{eq:auxquotF}
\frac{\widetilde{F}_{0}^{(\rho+m_2(p+1))}}{\widetilde{F}_{0}^{(\rho+m_1(p+1))}}=\prod_{m=m_1}^{m_2-1}\frac{\widetilde{F}_{0}^{(\rho+(m+1)(p+1))}}{\widetilde{F}_{0}^{(\rho+m(p+1))}}=\prod_{m=m_1}^{m_2-1}\frac{\widetilde{f}_{0}^{(\rho+m(p+1)+1)}}{\widetilde{f}_{0}^{(\rho+m(p+1))}}.$$ On the other hand, by we have $$\label{eq:auxf}
\widetilde{f}_{0}^{(\rho)}=\prod_{\nu=1}^{p}\widetilde{\varphi}_{\nu}^{(l(\rho))}=\frac{1}{\widetilde{\varphi}_{0}^{(l(\rho))}},\quad\mbox{for any}\,\,\rho\in\mathbb{Z}.$$ We conclude from and that $$\label{eq:auxfinal}
\prod_{m=m_1}^{m_2-1}\frac{\widetilde{\varphi}_{0}^{(l(\rho+m(p+1)))}}{\widetilde{\varphi}_{0}^{(l(\rho+m(p+1)+1))}}\equiv 1.$$ The reader can easily check that for any $m$, $$l(\rho+m(p+1)+1)=l(\rho+(m+1)(p+1)),$$ hence reduces to $$\frac{\widetilde{\varphi}_{0}^{(l_1)}}{\widetilde{\varphi}_{0}^{(l_2)}}\equiv 1,\qquad l_1=l(\rho+m_1(p+1)),\quad l_2=l(\rho+(m_2-1)(p+1)+1).$$ It is easily seen that the values $l_{1}$ and $l_{2}$ above are different, which contradicts the property described at the beginning of the proof.
Formulae for $\widetilde{F}_{k}^{(\rho)}$ and $a^{(\rho)}$
==========================================================
The limits $a^{(\rho)}$ and the normalizing constants $c_{k}^{(\rho)}$
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Let $0\leq \rho\leq p(p+1)-1$. If $\rho \equiv k \mod p$, $0\leq k\leq p-1$, then $$\label{eq:relarhockr}
a^{(\rho)}=\prod_{j=1}^{p}\frac{c_{k+1}^{(\rho+j)}}{c_{0}^{(\rho+j)}\,c_{k}^{(\rho+j)}},\qquad c_{p}^{(\rho)}=1,$$ where the constants $\{c_{k}^{(\rho)}\}_{k=0}^{p-1}$ are the positive constants that appear in the relation $F_{k}^{(\rho)}=c_{k}^{(\rho)} \widetilde{F}_{k}^{(\rho)}$ (see Proposition \[prop:boundary\]), and they are obtained solving the system of equations (6.30) in [@LopLopstar].
Let $H_{n,k}=\frac{P_{n,k-1} \psi_{n,k}}{P_{n,k}}$, and let $\sigma_{n,k}$ be the measure defined in . Set $$K_{n,k}^{-2} := \int_{\Delta_{k}}P_{n,k}^2 \frac{|H_{n,k}|}{|P_{n,k-1} P_{n,k+1}|}\,d |\sigma_{n,k}|.$$ In [@LopMin Theorem 3.5] it was proved that for $n\equiv k \mod p$, $0\leq k\leq p-1$, $n\geq p$, the recurrence coefficient $a_{n}$ satisfies $$a_{n}=\frac{K_{n-p,k}^{2}}{K_{n,k}^{2}}.$$ As in [@LopLopstar], we define the constants $$\label{def:kappajrho}
\kappa_{j}^{(\rho)}:=\frac{c_{j}^{(\rho)}}{(c_{j-1}^{(\rho)} c_{j+1}^{(\rho)})^{1/2}},\qquad 0\leq j\leq p-1,$$ where by definition $c_{-1}^{(\rho)}=c_{p}^{(\rho)}=1$. Fix $\rho\in[0:p(p+1)-1]$ with $\rho\equiv k\mod p$. Using formulas (3.8) and (3.10) from [@LopLopstar], we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
a^{(\rho)} & =\lim_{\lambda\rightarrow\infty} a_{\lambda p(p+1)+\rho}=\lim_{\lambda\rightarrow\infty}\prod_{j=0}^{p-1} \frac{K_{\lambda p(p+1)+\rho-p+j,k}^2}{K_{\lambda p(p+1)+\rho-p+j+1,k}^2} \\
& = \prod_{j=0}^{p-1}\frac{1}{(\kappa_{0}^{(\rho-p+j)}\cdots \kappa_{k}^{(\rho-p+j)})^2}=\prod_{j=0}^{p-1}\frac{c_{k+1}^{(\rho-p+j)}}{c_{0}^{(\rho-p+j)} c_{k}^{(\rho-p+j)}}.\end{aligned}$$ (For each $k$, the values of $\kappa_{k}^{(\rho)}$ and $c_{k}^{(\rho)}$ are defined periodically with period $p(p+1)$ in the parameter $\rho$.) From we deduce that $$\prod_{j=0}^{p-1}\frac{c_{k+1}^{(\rho-p+j)}}{c_{0}^{(\rho-p+j)} c_{k}^{(\rho-p+j)}}=\prod_{j=1}^{p}\frac{c_{k+1}^{(\rho+j)}}{c_{0}^{(\rho+j)}\,c_{k}^{(\rho+j)}}$$ which concludes the proof of .
The quotients $\widetilde{F}_{k}^{(\rho)}/\widetilde{F}_{k-1}^{(\rho)}$
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\[lem:quotFkr\] For each $0\leq \rho\leq p(p+1)-1$ and $1\leq k\leq p$, we have for $z\in\mathbb{C}\setminus(\Delta_{k-1}\cup\Delta_{k})$, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{F_{k}^{(\rho)}(z)}{F_{k-1}^{(\rho)}(z)} & =\frac{\xi_{k}^{(\rho)}(z)\,c_0^{(\rho)}}{\varepsilon_k^{(\rho)}}\frac{1}{1 + a^{(\rho)}\, \omega_{l}^{-1}\,\varphi_{k}^{(l)}(z)}\label{eq:ratioFalg}\\
\frac{\widetilde{F}_{k}^{(\rho)}(z)}{\widetilde{F}_{k-1}^{(\rho)}(z)} & =\frac{\xi_{k}^{(\rho)}(z)}{\varepsilon_k^{(\rho)}}\frac{c_{0}^{(\rho)}c_{k-1}^{(\rho)}}{c_{k}^{(\rho)}}\frac{1}{1 + a^{(\rho)}\, \omega_{l}^{-1}\,\varphi_{k}^{(l)}(z)}\label{eq:ratioFalg:2}\end{aligned}$$ where $l=l(\rho)$ is the integer satisfying the conditions $l-1\equiv \rho\mod p$ and $1\leq l\leq p$, $\omega_l$ is defined in , $$\xi_{k}^{(\rho)}(z)=\begin{cases}
z & \mbox{if}\,\,\rho\equiv (k-1) \mod (p+1),\\
1 & \mbox{otherwise},
\end{cases}$$ the constants $c_{k}^{(\rho)}$ are those that appear in the relation $F_{k}^{(\rho)}=c_{k}^{(\rho)} \widetilde{F}_{k}^{(\rho)}$ (see Proposition \[prop:boundary\]), and $\varepsilon_{k}^{(\rho)}$ is the constant (taking only the values $1$ or $-1$) given in (see the Appendix).
Let $\rho\in[0:p(p+1)-1]$ be fixed. As indicated, $c_k^{(\rho)}$, $0\leq k\leq p-1$ are the positive constants for which $F_k^{(\rho)}= c_k^{(\rho)}\widetilde{F}_k^{(\rho)}$. We also define $c_{-1}^{(\rho)}=c_{p}^{(\rho)}=1$. Let $\kappa_{j}^{(\rho)}$ be the constant defined in . Note that $$\label{eq:prodkappa}
(\kappa_0^{(\rho)}\cdots\kappa_{k-1}^{(\rho)})^2 = \frac{c_0^{(\rho)}c_{k-1}^{(\rho)}}{c_k^{(\rho)}}, \qquad k=1,\ldots,p.$$
Combining and (3.11) in [@LopLopstar], for $k=1,\ldots,p$ and $z\in\mathbb{C}\setminus(\Delta_{k-1}\cup\Delta_{k}\cup\{0\})$ we obtain $$\label{eq:ratiopsifunc}
\lim_{\lambda \to \infty} \frac{\psi_{\lambda p(p+1) + \rho +1,k}(z)}{\psi_{\lambda p(p+1) + \rho,k}(z)} = \frac{\varepsilon_k^{(\rho)}h_k^{(\rho)}(z)}{(\kappa_0^{(\rho)}\cdots\kappa_{k-1}^{(\rho)})^2}\frac{\widetilde{F}_k^{(\rho)}(z)}{\widetilde{F}_{k-1}^{(\rho)}(z)} = \frac{\varepsilon_k^{(\rho)}h_k^{(\rho)}(z)}{c_0^{(\rho)}}\frac{ {F}_k^{(\rho)}(z)}{{F}_{k-1}^{(\rho)}(z)}$$ $(\widetilde{F}_{p}^{(\rho)}\equiv 1)$ where $$\label{eq:exphkrho}
h_k^{(\rho)}(z)=\begin{cases}
z & \mbox{if}\,\,\rho \equiv p \mod (p+1), \\
z^{-1} & \mbox{if}\,\,\rho \equiv (k-1) \mod (p+1), \\
1 & \mbox{otherwise}.
\end{cases}$$
Assume that $\rho\equiv p \mod (p+1)$. Taking $n=\lambda p(p+1)+\rho$ in and using , we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:chain:1}
\frac{c_0^{(\rho)}}{\varepsilon_k^{(\rho)}h_k^{(\rho)}(z)}\frac{z {F}_{k-1}^{(\rho)}(z)}{ {F}_k^{(\rho)}(z)} & = \lim_{\lambda \to \infty} \frac{z \psi_{\lambda p(p+1)+ \rho,k}(z)}{\psi_{\lambda p(p+1) + \rho +1,k}(z)}\notag\\
& =1 + \lim_{\lambda \to \infty}a_{\lambda p(p+1) + \rho} \frac{\psi_{\lambda p(p+1) + \rho-p,k}(z)}{\psi_{\lambda p(p+1) + \rho+1,k}(z)}\notag\\
& =1 + a^{(\rho)} \lim_{\lambda \to \infty} \prod_{j=0}^p \frac{\psi_{\lambda p(p+1) + \rho-p+j,k}(z)}{\psi_{\lambda p(p+1) + \rho-p + j +1,k}(z)}\notag\\
& =1 + a^{(\rho)}\prod_{j=0}^p\frac{c_0^{(\rho-p+j)}}{\varepsilon_k^{(\rho-p+j)}h_k^{(\rho-p+j)}(z)}
\frac{ {F}_{k-1}^{(\rho-p+j)}(z)}{ {F}_k^{(\rho-p+j)}(z)}\notag\\
& =1 + a^{(\rho)}\frac{ {f}_{k-1}^{(\rho)}(z)}{ {f}_k^{(\rho)}(z)}\prod_{j=0}^p\frac{c_0^{(\rho-p+j)}}{\varepsilon_k^{(\rho-p+j)}h_k^{(\rho-p+j)}(z)}.\end{aligned}$$ In the last equality we use the identity $f_{k}^{(\rho-p)}=f_{k}^{(\rho)}$. Taking account of in the case $\rho\equiv p \mod (p+1)$, from we obtain the relation $$\label{eq:caso1}
\frac{c_0^{(\rho)}}{\varepsilon_k^{(\rho)} }\frac{ {F}_{k-1}^{(\rho)}(z)}{ {F}_k^{(\rho)}(z)} = 1 + a^{(\rho)}\frac{ {f}_{k-1}^{(\rho)}(z)}{ {f}_k^{(\rho)}(z)}\prod_{j=0}^p\frac{c_0^{(\rho-p+j)}}{\varepsilon_k^{(\rho-p+j)}}.$$
If $\rho\not\equiv p \mod (p+1)$, proceeding in the same fashion but using instead of we obtain the formulas $$\label{eq:casos}
1 + a^{(\rho)}\frac{ {f}_{k-1}^{(\rho)}(z)}{ {f}_k^{(\rho)}(z)}\prod_{j=0}^p
\frac{c_0^{(\rho-p+j)}}{\varepsilon_k^{(\rho-p+j)}} =\begin{cases}
\frac{c_0^{(\rho)}}{\varepsilon_k^{(\rho)}}\frac{z {F}_{k-1}^{(\rho)}(z)}{ {F}_k^{(\rho)}(z)}& \mbox{if}\,\,\rho\equiv (k-1) \mod (p+1), \\[1em]
\frac{c_0^{(\rho)}}{\varepsilon_k^{(\rho)} }\frac{ {F}_{k-1}^{(\rho)}(z)}{ {F}_k^{(\rho)}(z)} & \mbox{otherwise}.
\end{cases}$$ In the second part of one can include . In virtue of , we have $f_{k-1}^{(\rho)}/f_{k}^{(\rho)}=\mathrm{sg}(\varphi_{k}^{(l)}(\infty))\,\varphi_{k}^{(l)}$. So is equivalent to the identity $$\label{eq:summary}
\frac{F_{k}^{(\rho)}(z)}{F_{k-1}^{(\rho)}(z)}=\frac{\xi_{k}^{(\rho)}(z)\,c_0^{(\rho)}}{\varepsilon_k^{(\rho)}}\left(1 + a^{(\rho)}\frac{ {\varphi}_{k}^{(l)}(z)}{\mathrm{sg}({\varphi}_{k}^{(l)}(\infty))}\prod_{j=0}^p
\frac{c_0^{(\rho-p+j)} }{\varepsilon_k^{(\rho-p+j)}}\right)^{-1}$$ which we shall simplify now.
First, we have the relation $$\label{eq:simpli1}
\omega_{l}^{-1}=\prod_{j=0}^{p}c_{0}^{(\rho-p+j)}$$ where $\omega_{l}$ is defined in . Indeed, in virtue of and , we have $$f_{0}^{(\rho-p)}=f_{0}^{(\rho)}=\mathrm{sg}\left(\prod_{\nu=1}^{p}\varphi_{\nu}^{(l)}(\infty)\right)\prod_{\nu=1}^{p}\varphi_{\nu}^{(l)}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{sg}(\varphi_{0}^{(l)}(\infty))}\frac{1}{\varphi_{0}^{(l)}}=\frac{1}{\varphi_{0}^{(l)}}$$ and identifying the leading coefficients in the Laurent expansion at infinity of the extreme functions in this identity, we obtain . We also have the identity $$\label{eq:simpli2}
\mathrm{sg}(\varphi_{k}^{(l)}(\infty)) \prod_{j=0}^{p}\varepsilon_{k}^{(\rho-p+j)}=1,$$ which is proved in the Appendix (see Lemma \[lem:propepsilon\]).
Now, and follow from , and , and the relation $F_{k}^{(\rho)}=c_{k}^{(\rho)} \widetilde{F}_{k}^{(\rho)}$.
Description of the functions $\widetilde{F}_{k}^{(\rho)}$
---------------------------------------------------------
\[theo:descFkrconf\] Let $0\leq \rho\leq p(p+1)-1$ be fixed, and let $(k(\rho),l(\rho))$ be the unique pair of integers satisfying the conditions $0\leq k(\rho)\leq p$, $\rho\equiv (k(\rho)-1) \mod (p+1)$, and $1\leq l(\rho)\leq p$, $\rho\equiv (l(\rho)-1) \mod p$. For each $k=0,\ldots,p-1,$ $$\label{eq:formFkrho}
\widetilde{F}_{k}^{(\rho)}(z)=\begin{cases}
C_{k}^{(\rho)} \prod_{j=0}^{k} (1+a^{(\rho)}\,\omega_{l(\rho)}^{-1}\,\varphi_{j}^{(l(\rho))}(z))^{-1} & \mbox{if}\,\,\,\,0\leq k<k(\rho),\\[1em]
z\,C_{k}^{(\rho)} \prod_{j=0}^{k}(1+a^{(\rho)}\,\omega_{l(\rho)}^{-1}\,\varphi_{j}^{(l(\rho))}(z))^{-1} & \mbox{if}\,\,\,\,k(\rho)\leq k\leq p-1,
\end{cases}$$ where $$\label{eq:normconstant}
C_{k}^{(\rho)}=\begin{cases}
1, & k=0,\\[0.5em]
\prod_{j=1}^{k}\left(1+a^{(\rho)}\,\frac{\omega_{l(\rho),j}}{\omega_{l(\rho)}}\right), & 1\leq k\leq l(\rho)-1,\\[0.5em]
a^{(\rho)}\,\frac{\omega_{l(\rho),l(\rho)}}{\omega_{l(\rho)}}\,\prod_{j=1, j\neq l(\rho)}^{k}\left(1+a^{(\rho)}\,\frac{\omega_{l(\rho),j}}{\omega_{l(\rho)}}\right), & l(\rho)\leq k\leq p-1,
\end{cases}$$ see . The constant $C_{k}^{(\rho)}$ has the following alternative expression: $$\label{eq:alt:Ckr}
C_{k}^{(\rho)}=\begin{cases}
1 & k=0,\\[0.2em]
(c_{k}^{(\rho)})^{-1} (c_{0}^{(\rho)})^{k+1} & 1\leq k\leq p-1,\,\,k\,\,\mbox{odd},\\[0.2em]
\varepsilon_{k}^{(\rho)}\,(c_{k}^{(\rho)})^{-1} (c_{0}^{(\rho)})^{k+1} & 1\leq k\leq p-1,\,\,k\,\,\mbox{even},
\end{cases}$$ where $\varepsilon_{k}^{(\rho)}$ is defined in .
In particular, we have $$\label{eq:descFzerorho}
\widetilde{F}_{0}^{(\rho)}(z)=\begin{cases}
(1+a^{(\rho)}\,\widetilde{\varphi}_{0}^{(l(\rho))}(z))^{-1} & \mbox{if}\,\,\,\,\rho\not\equiv p \mod (p+1),\\[1em]
z\,(1+a^{(\rho)}\,\widetilde{\varphi}_{0}^{(l(\rho))}(z))^{-1} & \mbox{if}\,\,\,\,\rho\equiv p \mod (p+1).
\end{cases}$$
Since $\widetilde{F}_{-1}^{(\rho)}\equiv 1$, formula can be viewed as a particular case of for $k=0$. Formula is quite straightforward so let us prove it first. Assume $\rho\equiv p \mod (p+1)$. Applying we obtain $$\widetilde{F}_{0}^{(\rho)}(z)=z-\frac{a^{(\rho)}}{\prod_{i=\rho-p}^{\rho-1}\widetilde{F}_{0}^{(i)}(z)}=z-\frac{a^{(\rho)} \widetilde{F}_{0}^{(\rho)}(z)}{\prod_{i=\rho-p}^{\rho}\widetilde{F}_{0}^{(i)}(z)}.$$ From and we deduce that $\widetilde{f}_{0}^{(\rho)}(z)=\widetilde{f}_{0}^{(\rho-p)}(z)=\prod_{i=\rho-p}^{\rho}\widetilde{F}_{0}^{(i)}(z)$, and therefore $$\widetilde{F}_{0}^{(\rho)}(z)=\frac{z}{1+\frac{a^{(\rho)}}{\widetilde{f}_{0}^{(\rho)}(z)}}=\frac{z}{1+a^{(\rho)}\,\widetilde{\varphi}_{0}^{(l)}(z)}=\frac{z}{1+a^{(\rho)}\,\omega_{l}^{-1}\,\varphi_{0}^{(l)}(z)},\qquad l=l(\rho),$$ where we have applied and in the second equality (note that $\prod_{\nu=0}^{p}\widetilde{\varphi}_{\nu}^{(l)}\equiv 1$.) The other identity in is obtained in the same manner, starting from the relation .
Formula for $k=0$ follows from and the first equality in . For the rest of the values of $k$, it suffices to observe that taking telescopic products from it follows that $\widetilde{F}_k^{(\rho)}$ is a constant multiple of the function $$\chi_{k}^{(\rho)}(z):=\prod_{j=0}^{k}(1+a^{(\rho)}\,\omega_{l(\rho)}^{-1}\,\varphi_{j}^{(l(\rho))}(z))^{-1}$$ when $0 \leq k<k(\rho)$, or a constant multiple of $z\chi_k^{(\rho)}(z)$ for $k(\rho) \leq k \leq p-1$, i.e., $$\label{eq:relFkrchikr}
\widetilde{F}_{k}^{(\rho)}(z)=\begin{cases}
C_{k}^{(\rho)}\chi_{k}^{(\rho)}(z), & 0\leq k<k(\rho),\\[0.5em]
z\,C_{k}^{(\rho)}\chi_{k}^{(\rho)}(z), & k(\rho)\leq k\leq p-1,
\end{cases}$$ for some constant $C_{k}^{(\rho)}$. This constant must be such that the leading coefficient of the Laurent expansion of $C_{k}^{(\rho)}\chi_{k}^{(\rho)}$ at $\infty$ is $1$.
Let us determine the constant $C_{k}^{(\rho)}$. Consider the conformal function $\eta^{(\rho)}:\mathcal{R}\longrightarrow\overline{\mathbb{C}}$ defined in . Recall that the unique pole of this function is located at $0^{(k(\rho))}$. Consequently, $$C_{k}^{(\rho)}=\begin{cases}
1, & k=0\\
\prod_{j=1}^{k}\left(1+a^{(\rho)}\,\omega_{l(\rho)}^{-1}\,\varphi_{j}^{(l(\rho))}(\infty)\right), & 1\leq k\leq l(\rho)-1,\\
a^{(\rho)}\,\omega_{l(\rho)}^{-1}\,\left(\varphi_{l(\rho)}^{(l(\rho))}\right)'(\infty) \prod_{j=1, j\neq l(\rho)}^{k}(1+a^{(\rho)} \omega_{l(\rho)}^{-1} \varphi_{j}^{(l(\rho))}(\infty)), & l(\rho)\leq k\leq p-1,
\end{cases}$$ which is . From and we obtain that for $1\leq k\leq p-1$, $$C_{k}^{(\rho)}=\prod_{j=1}^{k}\frac{\varepsilon_{j}^{(\rho)} c_{0}^{(\rho)} c_{j-1}^{(\rho)}}{c_{j}^{(\rho)}}=\frac{(c_{0}^{(\rho)})^{k+1}}{c_{k}^{(\rho)}}\,\prod_{j=1}^{k}\varepsilon_{j}^{(\rho)}$$ and applying we get .
In terms of the function $\eta^{(\rho)}$ defined in , formula admits the form $$\widetilde{F}_{k}^{(\rho)}(z)=\begin{cases}
\prod_{j=0}^{k}\widetilde{\eta}_{j}^{(\rho)}(z), & \mbox{if}\,\,\,\,0\leq k<k(\rho),\\[1em]
z\prod_{j=0}^{k}\widetilde{\eta}_{j}^{(\rho)}(z), & \mbox{if}\,\,\,\,k(\rho)\leq k\leq p-1,
\end{cases}$$ for $z \in \mathbb{C} \setminus \Delta_k$.
Proof of $4)$ in Theorem \[theo:main:2\]
----------------------------------------
Let $\rho\in[0:p(p+1)-1]$, and let $(k,l)$ be the pair of parameters indicated in the statement of the result we are proving. With these values, formula establishes that $$\label{relation}
\frac{F_{k}^{(\rho)}(z)}{F_{k-1}^{(\rho)}(z)} =\frac{z\,c_0^{(\rho)}}{\varepsilon_k^{(\rho)}}\frac{1}{1 + a^{(\rho)}\, \omega_{l}^{-1}\,\varphi_{k}^{(l)}(z)}, \qquad z \in \mathbb{C} \setminus (\Delta_{k-1} \cup \Delta_k).$$ Recall that $F_{-1}^{(\rho)}\equiv 1$, so if $k=0$, then is understood to be $$F_{0}^{(\rho)}(z)=\frac{c_{0}^{(\rho)}z}{1+a^{(\rho)}\,\omega_{l}^{-1}\,\varphi_{0}^{(l)}(z)},\qquad z\in\mathbb{C}\setminus\Delta_{0},$$ see the second relation in .
Assume first that $0 \not\in \Delta_{k-1} \cup \Delta_k$. Then follows immediately because the left side of must be different from zero when $z=0$ so the denominator in the right side of must vanish at the origin.
Now assume that $0\in\Delta_{k-1} \cup \Delta_k$. In this case, by definition of the intervals $\Delta_j$, $0$ must be an extreme point of either $\Delta_{k-1}$ or $\Delta_k$. In , take the square of the absolute value and make $z$ tend to $x \in \Delta_{k-1} \cup \Delta_k$. By continuity, we obtain $$\label{rel2}
\left|\frac{F_{k}^{(\rho)}(x_\pm)}{F_{k-1}^{(\rho)}(x_\pm)} \right|^2 = \frac{|x\,c_0^{(\rho)}|^2}{|1 + a^{(\rho)}\, \omega_{l}^{-1}\,\varphi_{k}^{(l)}(x_{\pm})|^2}, \qquad x \in \Delta_{k-1} \cup \Delta_k,$$ where $x_\pm$ is either the limiting point on $\Delta_{k-1} \cup \Delta_k$ from above or below. It does not matter which limit you take so we will simply write $x$.
Assume that $0 \in \Delta_k$. Then $0 \not\in \Delta_{k-1} \cup \Delta_{k+1}$ and, therefore, $F_{k+1}^{(\rho)}(0) \neq 0, F_{k-1}^{(\rho)}(0) \neq \infty$. When $k=0$ then $\Delta_{-1} = \emptyset$ and $F_{-1}^{(\rho)}\equiv 1$. Taking account of or (the latter in the case when $\rho\equiv -1 \mod (p+1)$, or what is the same $\rho\equiv p \mod (p+1)$) combined with it follows that $$\label{rel3} \frac{|F_{k}^{(\rho)}(x)|^2}{|x F_{k-1}^{(\rho)}(x)|} = |F_{k+1}^{(\rho)}(x)| = \frac{|xF_{k-1}^{(\rho)}(x)|\,(c_0^{(\rho)})^2}{|1 + a^{(\rho)}\, \omega_{l}^{-1}\,\varphi_{k}^{(l)}(x)|^2}, \qquad x \in \Delta_k\setminus\{0\}.$$ Now, making $x\to 0$ in we conclude that $1 + a^{(\rho)}\, \omega_{l}^{-1}\,\varphi_{k}^{(l)}(0) = 0$, which implies . If $k=0$ we have concluded.
Finally, suppose that $0 \in \Delta_{k-1}, k =1,\ldots, p$. Then $0 \not\in \Delta_{k-2} \cup \Delta_{k}$. Using with $k$ replaced with $k-1$ it follows that $$\frac{|x||F_{k-1}^{(\rho)}(x)|^2}{|F_{k-2}^{(\rho)}(x)F_{k}^{(\rho)}(x)|} = 1, \qquad x \in \Delta_{k-1} \setminus \{0\}.$$ where $F_{-1}^{(\rho)} \equiv 1$ when $k=1$. This relation combined with gives $$\frac{|x||F_{k}^{(\rho)}(x)|}{|F_{k-2}^{(\rho)}(x)|} = \frac{|F_{k}^{(\rho)}(x)|^2}{|F_{k-1}^{(\rho)}(x)|^2} = \frac{|x\,c_0^{(\rho)}|^2}{|1 + a^{(\rho)}\, \omega_{l}^{-1}\,\varphi_{k}^{(l)}(x)|^2}, \qquad x \in \Delta_{k-1} \setminus \{0\}.$$ Cancelling out the common factor $|x|$ and letting $x\to 0$ it follows that $1 + a^{(\rho)}\, \omega_{l}^{-1}\,\varphi_{k}^{(l)}(0) =0$ because $F_{k}^{(\rho)}(0)/F_{k-2}^{(\rho)}(0)\neq 0$. With this we conclude the proof.
Proof of Theorem \[theo:main:1\]
--------------------------------
Formula is a consequence of – and .
According to (3.13) in [@LopLopstar], we have $$\lim_{\lambda\rightarrow\infty}\frac{\Psi_{\lambda p(p+1)+\rho+1,k}(z)}{\Psi_{\lambda p(p+1)+\rho,k}(z)}=\frac{\varepsilon_{k}^{(\rho)}\,g_{k}^{(\rho)}(z)}{(\kappa_{0}^{(\rho)}\cdots \kappa_{k-1}^{(\rho)})^2}\,\frac{\widetilde{F}_{k}^{(\rho)}(z^{p+1})}{\widetilde{F}_{k-1}^{(\rho)}(z^{p+1})},\qquad z\in\mathbb{C}\setminus(\Gamma_{k-1}\cup\Gamma_{k}\cup\{0\}),$$ where $$g_{k}^{(\rho)}(z)=\begin{cases}
z^{-p} & \mbox{if}\,\,\rho\equiv (k-1) \mod (p+1),\\
z & \mbox{otherwise}.
\end{cases}$$ Applying now and , we have $$\frac{\varepsilon_{k}^{(\rho)}\,g_{k}^{(\rho)}(z)}{(\kappa_{0}^{(\rho)}\cdots \kappa_{k-1}^{(\rho)})^2}\,\frac{\widetilde{F}_{k}^{(\rho)}(z^{p+1})}{\widetilde{F}_{k-1}^{(\rho)}(z^{p+1})}=\frac{\xi_{k}^{(\rho)}(z^{p+1})\,g_{k}^{(\rho)}(z)}{1+a^{(\rho)}\,\omega_{l}^{-1}\,\varphi_{k}^{(l)}(z^{p+1})}=\frac{z}{1+a^{(\rho)}\,\omega_{l}^{-1}\,\varphi_{k}^{(l)}(z^{p+1})},$$ so is justified.
We also obtain a result similar to Theorem \[theo:main:1\] for the functions $\psi_{n,k}$.
Under the same assumptions as in Theorem \[theo:main:1\], for each $0\leq \rho\leq p(p+1)-1$ and $1\leq k\leq p$ we have $$\label{eq:ratiolittlepsink}
\lim_{\lambda\rightarrow\infty}\frac{\psi_{\lambda p(p+1)+\rho+1,k}(z)}{\psi_{\lambda p(p+1)+\rho,k}(z)}=\begin{cases}
\frac{z}{1+a^{(\rho)}\,\omega_{l}^{-1}\,\varphi_{k}^{(l)}(z)} & \mbox{if}\,\,\rho\equiv p \mod (p+1),\\[1em]
\frac{1}{1+a^{(\rho)}\,\omega_{l}^{-1}\,\varphi_{k}^{(l)}(z)} & \mbox{otherwise},
\end{cases}$$ uniformly on compact subsets of $\mathbb{C}\setminus(\Delta_{k-1}\cup\Delta_{k}\cup\{0\})$, where $l=l(\rho)$ is the integer satisfying the conditions $1\leq l\leq p$ and $l-1\equiv \rho\mod p$, and $\omega_{l}$ is the constant defined in .
Formula (3.11) in [@LopLopstar] asserts that $$\lim_{\lambda\rightarrow\infty}\frac{\psi_{\lambda p(p+1)+\rho+1,k}(z)}{\psi_{\lambda p(p+1)+\rho,k}(z)}=\frac{\varepsilon_{k}^{(\rho)}\,h_{k}^{(\rho)}(z)}{(\kappa_{0}^{(\rho)}\cdots \kappa_{k-1}^{(\rho)})^2}\,\frac{\widetilde{F}_{k}^{(\rho)}(z)}{\widetilde{F}_{k-1}^{(\rho)}(z)},$$ uniformly on compact subsets of $\mathbb{C}\setminus(\Delta_{k}\cup\Delta_{k-1}\cup\{0\})$, where $h_{k}^{(\rho)}(z)$ is indicated in . Applying now and , we obtain that the limiting function is $\xi_{k}^{(\rho)}(z)\,h_{k}^{(\rho)}(z)\,(1+a^{(\rho)}\,\omega_{l}^{-1}\,\varphi_{k}^{(l)}(z))^{-1}$. The expression $\xi_{k}^{(\rho)}(z)\,h_{k}^{(\rho)}(z)$ equals $z$ if $\rho\equiv p \mod (p+1)$ and it equals $1$ otherwise.
Proof of $5)$ in Theorem \[theo:main:2\]
----------------------------------------
We include statement $5)$ of Theorem \[theo:main:2\] as part of the following more general result:
Assume that $0\in\Delta_{\overline{k}}$ for some $0\leq \overline{k}\leq p-1$. Then, for any $0\leq \overline{\rho}\leq p(p+1)-1$ such that $\overline{\rho}\equiv (\overline{k}-1) \mod (p+1)$, we have $$\label{eq:relararmp}
a^{(\overline{\rho}-p)}=a^{(\overline{\rho})}.$$ Moreover, for any $0\leq k\leq p-1$, $$\label{eq:relFkrFkrmps}
\frac{\widetilde{F}_{k}^{(\overline{\rho})}(z)}{\widetilde{F}_{k}^{(\overline{\rho}-p)}(z)}\equiv\begin{cases}
1 & \mbox{if}\,\,\,\,k\neq \overline{k},\\
z & \mbox{if}\,\,\,\,k=\overline{k}.
\end{cases}$$ If $0\notin\Delta_{k}$ for all $0\leq k\leq p-1,$ then for any $0\leq \rho\leq p(p+1)-1$, the set of $p+1$ values $\{a^{(\rho+mp)}\}_{m=0}^{p}$ is formed by distinct quantities.
For any $0\leq \rho\leq p(p+1)-1$, let $(k(\rho),l(\rho))$ be the unique pair of integers satisfying the conditions stated in Theorem \[theo:main:2\].4.
Assume that $0\in\Delta_{\overline{k}}$ for some $0\leq \overline{k}\leq p-1$, and let $\overline{\rho}\in[0:p(p+1)-1]$ be such that $\overline{\rho}\equiv (\overline{k}-1) \mod (p+1)$. Since the sheets $\mathcal{R}_{\overline{k}}$ and $\mathcal{R}_{\overline{k}+1}$ of the Riemann surface are glued along the interval $\Delta_{\overline{k}}$, we have $$\label{eq:eqphis}
\varphi_{\overline{k}}^{(l)}(0)=\varphi_{\overline{k}+1}^{(l)}(0),\qquad \mbox{for all}\,\,1\leq l\leq p.$$ We also have $\overline{k}=k(\overline{\rho})$, $k(\overline{\rho}-p)=k(\overline{\rho})+1=\overline{k}+1$, and $l(\overline{\rho}-p)=l(\overline{\rho})=:l$. Therefore, applying and , we obtain $$a^{(\overline{\rho}-p)}=-\frac{\omega_{l(\overline{\rho}-p)}}{\varphi_{k(\overline{\rho}-p)}^{(l(\overline{\rho}-p))}(0)}=-\frac{\omega_{l}}{\varphi_{\overline{k}}^{(l)}(0)}=a^{(\overline{\rho})}.$$ This settles .
Now we prove . First, observe that and easily imply that $C_{k}^{(\overline{\rho})}=C_{k}^{(\overline{\rho}-p)}$ for any $0\leq k\leq p-1$, because $l(\overline{\rho})=l(\overline{\rho}-p)$. Therefore, comparing the expressions of $\widetilde{F}_{k}^{(\overline{\rho})}$ and $\widetilde{F}_{k}^{(\overline{\rho}-p)}$ that gives, and taking into account that $k(\overline{\rho}-p)=\overline{k}+1=k(\overline{\rho})+1$, we see that $\widetilde{F}_{k}^{(\overline{\rho})}\equiv \widetilde{F}_{k}^{(\overline{\rho}-p)}$ for all $k\neq \overline{k}$, $0\leq k\leq p-1$, and $\widetilde{F}_{k}^{(\overline{\rho})}\equiv z\widetilde{F}_{k}^{(\overline{\rho}-p)}$ if $k=\overline{k}$. This settles .
Assume that $0\notin\Delta_{k}$ for all $0\leq k\leq p-1$, and let $\rho\in[0:p(p+1)-1]$ be fixed. Let $l$ be the corresponding integer satisfying $1\leq l\leq p$ and $\rho\equiv (l-1)\mod p$. Applying , we find that $$\{a^{(\rho+mp)}: 0\leq m\leq p\}=\{-\omega_{l}/\varphi_{k}^{(l)}(0): 0\leq k\leq p\}$$ Now, $\varphi^{(l)}:\mathcal{R}\longrightarrow\overline{\mathbb{C}}$ is a bijection, and the assumption on the intervals $\Delta_{k}$ ensures that the points at the origin in the different sheets $\mathcal{R}_{k}$, $0\leq k\leq p,$ represent different points on $\mathcal{R}$. Therefore the values $-\omega_{l}/\varphi_{k}^{(l)}(0)$, $0\leq k\leq p,$ are distinct.
Appendix
========
The constants $\varepsilon_{k}^{(\rho)}$, $1\leq k\leq p$, taking the values $1$ or $-1$, arised first in our previous work [@LopLopstar]. They are defined in Remark 6.5 of [@LopLopstar], but here we shall use the identity $$\label{eq:identityekr}
\varepsilon_{k}^{(\rho)}=(-1)^{Z(\rho+1,2\lceil (k-1)/2\rceil)-Z(\rho,2\lceil (k-1)/2\rceil)+\theta(\rho,k-1)}, \qquad 1\leq k\leq p,\,\,\rho\in\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0},$$ where $\lceil x\rceil=\min\{m\in\mathbb{Z}: m\geq x\}$, and for integers $n\geq 0$ and $0\leq k\leq p-1$, $$\label{def:thetank}
\theta(n,k):=\begin{cases}
1 & \mbox{if}\,\,\ell(n)\in[0:k-1],\\
0 & \mbox{if}\,\,\ell(n)\in[k+1:p-1],\\
1 & \mbox{if}\,\,\ell(n)=k,\,\,k\,\,\mbox{odd},\\
0 & \mbox{if}\,\,\ell(n)=k,\,\,k\,\,\mbox{even},\\
1 & \mbox{if}\,\,\ell(n)=p,
\end{cases}$$ and $\ell(n)$ is the integer defined by the conditions $n\equiv \ell(n) \mod (p+1)$, $0\leq \ell(n)\leq p$. The identity is immediately obtained from formula (6.35) and Lemma 4.3 in [@LopLopstar].
\[lem:propepsilon\] With $\rho, k, l$ as in Theorem \[lem:quotFkr\], we have $$\label{eq:simpli2bis}
\mathrm{sg}(\varphi_{k}^{(l)}(\infty)) \prod_{j=0}^{p}\varepsilon_{k}^{(\rho-p+j)}=1.$$ We also have $$\label{eq:simpli3bis}
\prod_{j=1}^{k} \varepsilon_{j}^{(\rho)}=\begin{cases}
1 & \mbox{if}\,\,k\,\,\mbox{is odd},\\
\varepsilon_{k}^{(\rho)} & \mbox{if}\,\,k\,\,\mbox{is even}.
\end{cases}$$
Applying , we have $$\label{eq:firstfirst}
\prod_{j=0}^{p}\varepsilon_{k}^{(\rho-p+j)}=(-1)^{\sum_{j=0}^{p}\left(Z(\rho-p+j+1,2\lceil (k-1)/2\rceil)-Z(\rho-p+j,2\lceil (k-1)/2\rceil)+\theta(\rho-p+j,k-1)\right)}.$$ It follows from and the fact that $\Lambda(n,k)$ is periodic with period $p$ with respect to $n$, that $$\begin{aligned}
\Lambda(\rho,2\lceil (k-1)/2\rceil) & =\Lambda(\rho-p,2\lceil (k-1)/2\rceil)\notag\\
& =\sum_{j=0}^{p}\left(Z(\rho-p+j+1,2\lceil (k-1)/2\rceil)-Z(\rho-p+j,2\lceil (k-1)/2\rceil)\right).\label{eq:relLambda}\end{aligned}$$
Now we analyze the expression $(-1)^{\sum_{j=0}^{p}\theta(\rho-p+j,k-1)}$. For each fixed $k$, the function $\theta(n,k)$ is periodic with period $p+1$ with respect to $n$, i.e., $\theta(n,k)=\theta(n+p+1,k)$. Since $p+1$ is also the number of terms in the summation $\sum_{j=0}^{p}\theta(\rho-p+j,k-1)$ and the values $\rho-p+j$, $j=0,\ldots,p,$ are consecutive, we deduce that $$\sum_{j=0}^{p}\theta(\rho-p+j,k-1)=\sum_{n=0}^{p}\theta(n,k-1),\quad\mbox{for any}\,\,\rho.$$ In view of , we easily find that $\sum_{n=0}^{p}\theta(n,k-1)$ is always an odd integer (it equals $k$ if $k$ is odd and it equals $k+1$ if $k$ is even). Hence, $$\label{eq:summinus}
(-1)^{\sum_{j=0}^{p}\theta(\rho-p+j,k-1)}=-1.$$ We conclude from , and that $$\prod_{j=0}^{p}\varepsilon_{k}^{(\rho-p+j)}=(-1)^{\Lambda(\rho,2\lceil (k-1)/2\rceil)+1}.$$
To finish the proof of , we show now that $$\label{eq:prodepsilon:1}
\mathrm{sg}(\varphi_{k}^{(l)}(\infty)) (-1)^{\Lambda(\rho,2\lceil (k-1)/2\rceil)+1}=1,$$ where $l$ and $\rho$ are related as in Theorem \[lem:quotFkr\]. Assume first that $\rho\equiv s \mod p$, $0\leq s\leq 2\lceil(k-1)/2\rceil-1$. According to , in this case $\Lambda(\rho,2\lceil (k-1)/2\rceil)=0$. By definition of $l$, we have $l-1\equiv s \mod p$, hence $l-1=s$ and $l\leq 2\lceil(k-1)/2\rceil$. This inequality and – imply that $\mathrm{sg}(\varphi_{k}^{(l)}(\infty))=-1$, which proves in this case. Assume now that $\rho\equiv s \mod p$ and $2\lceil(k-1)/2\rceil\leq s\leq p-1$. Then gives $\Lambda(\rho,2\lceil (k-1)/2\rceil)=1$, and in this case $l\geq 2\lceil(k-1)/2\rceil+1$, so by – we get $\mathrm{sg}(\varphi_{k}^{(l)}(\infty))=1$. This proves .
To prove , it suffices to show that $\varepsilon_{1}^{(\rho)}=1$ and that for $3\leq k\leq p$ odd, we have $\varepsilon_{k-1}^{(\rho)}\varepsilon_{k}^{(\rho)}=1$. Indeed, applying , and , we obtain $$\varepsilon_{1}^{(\rho)}=(-1)^{Z(\rho+1,0)-Z(\rho,0)+\theta(\rho,0)}=1.$$ Let $3\leq k\leq p$ be odd. From we obtain that $\varepsilon_{k-1}^{(\rho)}\,\varepsilon_{k}^{(\rho)}$ equals $-1$ raised to the expression $$\label{eq:power}
2 Z(\rho+1,2\lceil(k-2)/2\rceil)-2 Z(\rho,2\lceil(k-2)/2\rceil)+\theta(\rho,k-2)+\theta(\rho,k-1)$$ where we used that $\lceil(k-2)/2\rceil=\lceil(k-1)/2\rceil=(k-1)/2$. The reader can easily check that because $k$ is odd, we also have $\theta(\rho,k-2)=\theta(\rho,k-1)$. Hence, is even.
**Acknowledgements:** We thank the anonymous referees for their valuable comments.
[99]{}
A. I. Aptekarev. Strong asymptotics of multiply orthogonal polynomials for Nikishin systems. Sb. Math. 190 (1999), 631–669.
A. I. Aptekarev, V. Kalyagin, G. López Lagomasino, and I. A. Rocha. On the limit behavior of recurrence coefficients for multiple orthogonal polynomials. J. Approx. Theory 139 (2006), 346-370.
A. I. Aptekarev, V. A. Kalyagin, and E. B. Saff. Higher order three-term recurrences and asymptotics of multiple orthogonal polynomials. Constr. Approx. 30 (2009), 175–223.
A. I. Aptekarev, V. A. Kaliaguine, and J. Van Iseghem. The genetic sum’s representation for the moments of a system of Stieltjes functions and its application. Constr. Approx. 16 (2000), 487-524.
A. I. Aptekarev, G. López Lagomasino, and I.A. Rocha. Ratio asymptotics of Hermite-Padé polynomials for Nikishin systems. Sb. Math. 196 (2005), 1089–1107.
N. Ben Romdhane. On the zeros of $d$-symmetric $d$-orthogonal polynomials. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 344 (2008), 888–897.
J. Bustamante and G. López Lagomasino. Hermite-Padé approximation for Nikishin systems of analytic functions. Sb. Math. 77 (1994), 367–384.
S. Delvaux and A. López-García. High order three-term recursions, Riemann-Hilbert minors and Nikishin systems on star-like sets. Constr. Approx. 37 (2013), 383–453.
S. Delvaux, A López, and G. López Lagomasino. A family of Nikishin systems with periodic recurrence coefficients. Sb. Math. 204 (2013), 43–74.
M. Eiermann and R. S. Varga. Zeros and local extreme points of Faber polynomials associated with hypocycloidal domains. ETNA 1 (1993), 49–71.
U. Fidalgo Prieto and G. López Lagomasino. Nikishin systems are perfect. Constr. Approx. 34 (2011), 297–356.
A. A. Gonchar, E. A. Rakhmanov, and V. N. Sorokin. Hermite-Padé approximants for systems of Markov-type functions. Sb. Math. 188 (1997), 33–58.
M. X. He and E. B. Saff. The zeros of Faber polynomials for an m-cusped hypocycloid. J. Approx. Theory 78 (1994), 410–432.
M. Leurs and W. Van Assche. Jacobi-Angelesco multiple orthogonal polynomials on an $r$-star, arXiv:1804.07512.
M. Leurs and W. Van Assche. Laguerre-Angelesco multiple orthogonal polynomials on an $r$-star, arXiv:1902.09540.
A. López-García. Asymptotics of multiple orthogonal polynomials for a system of two measures supported on a star-like set. J. Approx. Theory 163 (2011), 1146–1184.
A. López-García and G. López Lagomasino. Ratio asymptotic of Hermite-Padé orthogonal polynomials for Nikishin systems. II. Adv. Math. 218 (2008), 1081–1106.
A. López-García and G. López Lagomasino. Nikishin systems on star-like sets: Ratio asymptotics of the associated multiple orthogonal polynomials. J. Approx. Theory 225 (2018), 1–40.
A. López-García and E. Miña-Díaz. Nikishin systems on star-like sets: algebraic properties and weak asymptotics of the associated multiple orthogonal polynomials. Sb. Math. 209 (2018), 1051–1088.
G. López Lagomasino and W. Van Assche. Riemann-Hilbert analysis for a Nikishin system. Sb. Math. 209 (2018), 1019–1050.
A. F. Loureiro and W. Van Assche. Threefold symmetric Hahn-classical multiple orthogonal polynomials, arXiv:1901.01121.
A. Máté, P. Nevai, and V. Totik. Asymptotics for the ratio of leading coefficients of orthonormal polynomials on the unit circle. Constr. Approx. 1 (1985), 63–69.
A. Máté, P. Nevai, and V. Totik. Strong and weak convergence of orthogonal polynomials. Amer. J. Math. 109 (1987), 239–281.
R. Miranda. Algebraic Curves and Riemann Surfaces. Graduate Studies in Mathematics, Vol. 5. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, R. I., 1995.
P. Nevai. Characterization of measures associated with orthogonal polynomials on the unit circle. Rocky Mountain J. Math 19 (1989), 293–302.
P. Nevai. Weakly convergent sequences of functions and orthogonal polynomials. J. Approx. Theory 65 (1991), 322–340.
E. M. Nikishin. On simultaneous Padé approximants. Math. USSR Sb. 41 (1982), 409–425.
E. A. Rakhmanov. On the asymptotics of the ratio of orthogonal polynomials. Math. USSR Sb. 32 (1977), 199–213.
E. A. Rakhmanov. On the asymptotics of the ratio of orthogonal polynomials, II. Math. USSR Sb. 46 (1983), 105–117.
E. A. Rakhmanov. On asymptotic properties of polynomials orthogonal on the circle with weights not satisfying Szegő’s condition. Math. USSR Sb. 58 (1987), 149–167.
|
---
abstract: 'Let $\mathcal{A}_k$ be the set of permutations in the symmetric group $\SS_k$ with prefix 12. This paper concerns the enumeration of involutions which avoid the set of patterns $\mathcal{A}_k$. We present a bijection between symmetric Schröder paths of length $2n$ and involutions of length $n+1$ avoiding $\mathcal{A}_4$. Statistics such as the number of right-to-left maxima and fixed points of the involution correspond to the number of steps in the symmetric Schröder path of a particular type. For each $k\geq 3$ we determine the generating function for the number of involutions avoiding the subsequences in $\mathcal{A}_k$, according to length, first entry and number of fixed points.'
address:
- 'Department of Applied Mathematics, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian 116024, P.R. China.'
- 'Science Institute, University of Iceland, Reykjavík, Iceland.'
- 'Department of Mathematics, University of Haifa, Haifa 31905, Israel.'
- 'Department of Mathematics, Tianjin Normal University, Tianjin 300387, P.R. China.'
author:
- 'Eva Y. P. Deng, Mark Dukes, Toufik Mansour and Susan Y. J. Wu'
title: Symmetric Schröder paths and restricted involutions
---
Introduction
============
Let $\SS_n$ denote the set of permutations of $[n]=\{1,\ldots,n\}$, written in one-line notation. For two permutations $\pi\in\SS_n$ and $\tau\in\SS_k$, an [*occurrence*]{} of $\tau$ in $\pi$ is a subsequence $1\ls i_1<i_2<\dots<i_k\ls n$ such that $(\pi_{i_1},
\dots,\pi_{i_k})$ is order-isomorphic to $\tau$; in such a context $\tau$ is usually called a [*pattern*]{}. We say that $\pi$ [*avoids*]{} $\tau$, or is $\tau$-[*avoiding*]{}, if there is no occurrence of $\tau$ in $\pi$. A natural generalization of single pattern avoidance is [*subset avoidance*]{}, that is, we say that $\pi\in\SS_n$ avoids a subset $T\subseteq\SS_k$ if $\pi$ avoids all $\tau\in T$. The set of all $\tau$-avoiding (resp. $T$-avoiding) permutations of length $n$ is denoted $\SS_n(\tau)$ (resp. $\SS_n(T)$).
Several authors have considered the case of general $k$ in which $T$ enjoys various algebraic properties. Barcucci et al. [@BDPP] treat the case of permutations avoiding the collection of permutations in $\SS_k$ that have suffix $(k-1)k$. Adin and Roichman [@AR] look at the case where $T$ is a Kazhdan–Lusztig cell of $\SS_k$, or, equivalently, a Knuth equivalence class (see [@St Vol. 2, Ch. A1]). Mansour and Vainshtein [@MV] consider the situation where $T$ is a maximal parabolic subgroup of $\SS_k$.
In the current paper an analogous result is established for pattern-avoiding involutions. We say $\pi$ is an [*involution*]{} whenever $\pi_{\pi_i} = i$ for all $i\in[n]$. Let $\mathcal{I}_n$ denote the set of involutions of $[n]$. The set of all $\tau$-avoiding (resp. $T$-avoiding) involutions of length $n$ is denoted $\mathcal{I}_n(\tau)$ (resp. $\mathcal{I}_n(T)$).
Simion and Schmidt [@SS] considered the first cases of pattern-avoiding involutions, which was continued in Gouyou-Beauchamps [@G-B] and Gessel [@Ge] for increasing patterns, and subsequently in Guibert’s Ph.D. thesis [@Gu]. This paper concerns the enumeration of involutions which avoid the class of permutations in $\SS_k$ with prefix 12, that is, $$\mathcal{A}_k=\{\pi_1\pi_2\ldots\pi_k\in \SS_k\mid\pi_1=1,\pi_2=2\}.$$
We denote by $I_n$ the cardinality of the set $\mathcal{I}_n$. We say that $i$ is a fixed point of a permutation $\pi$ if $\pi_i=i$. Define $J_n(p)$ to be the polynomial $\sum_{j=0}^n I_{n;j}p^j$, where $I_{n;j}$ is the number of involutions in $\mathcal{I}_n$ with $j$ fixed points. For example $J_3(p)=3p+p^3$. It is not hard to see that the polynomials $J_n(p)$ satisfy the recurrence relation $J_n(p)=pJ_{n-1}(p)+(n-1)J_{n-2}(p)$, $n\geq2$, with the initial conditions $J_0(p)=1$ and $J_1(p)=p$. The exponential generating function for the sequence $\{J_n(p)\}_{n\geq 0}$ is given by $e^{px+x^2/2}$.
The main result of this paper can be formulated as follows.
\[thmain\] Let $k\geq2$. The generating function for the number of $\mathcal{A}_k$-avoiding involutions of length $n$ is given by\
$$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\displaystyle\sum\limits_{n\geq0}\sum\limits_{\pi\in{\mathcal{I}}_n (\mathcal{A}_k)}x^np^{\#\mbox{\scriptsize{fixed points}}(\pi)} \;=\;}\\[8pt]
&&\displaystyle\sum_{j=0}^{k-3}J_j(p)x^j-\dfrac{x^{k-3}}{2}\biggl(p+(p(k-3)x^2-2x-p)u_0(x)\biggr) J_{k-2}(p)\\[8pt]
&&-\;\dfrac{x^{k-4}}{2}\biggl(x+p-(x^3(k-3)-px^2(k-1)+x+p)u_0(x)\biggr)J_{k-3}(p),\\\end{aligned}$$ where $u_0(x)=1/{\sqrt{1-2(k-1)x^2+(k-3)^2x^4}}$.
The proof is given in Section 3. Theorem \[thmain\] with $k=3$ and $p=1$ shows the generating function for the number $123$-avoiding involutions of length $n$ to be $\frac{2x}{2x-1+\sqrt{1-4x^2}}=\sum_{n\geq0}\binom{n}{\lfloor n/2\rfloor}x^n$ (see [@SS]). Also, Theorem \[thmain\] with $k=3$ and $p=0$ gives the number of $123$-avoiding involutions of length $2n$ without fixed points to be $\frac{1}{2}\binom{n}{\lfloor n/2\rfloor}$. Moreover, Theorem \[thmain\] with $k=4$ and $p=1$ gives the generating function for the number $\{1234,1243\}$-avoiding involutions of length $n$ to be $\frac{1-x}{2}+\frac{1+x}{2}\sqrt{\frac{1+2x-x^2}{1-2x-x^2}}$. In Section 2 we present a bijection between symmetric Schröder paths of length $n-1$ and $\{1234,1243\}$-avoiding involutions of length $n$, thereby providing a combinatorial proof of the above result with $k=4$.
Symmetric Schröder paths and $\{1234,1243\}$-avoiding involutions
=================================================================
A [*[Schröder path]{}*]{} of length $2n$ is a lattice path from (0,0) to $(2n,0)$ consisting of double horizontal steps ${\mathsf{h}}=(2,0)$, up steps ${\mathsf{u}}=(1,1)$ and down steps ${\mathsf{d}}=(1,-1)$ that never goes below the $x$-axis. The set of all Schröder paths of length $2n$ is enumerated by the $n$-th Schröder number. Kremer [@Kr Corollary 9] showed that $\SS_n(1243, 2143)$ is also enumerated by the $n$-th Schröder number.
A Schröder path of length $2n$ is called [*[symmetric]{}*]{} if it is symmetric about the line $x=n$. Let ${\mathsf{Sh}}_n$ be the collection of all such paths. In this section we give a bijection between [*[symmetric Schröder paths]{}*]{} of length $2n$ and the class of involutions in ${\mathfrak{S}}_{n+1}$ that avoid the patterns $\{1234,1243\}$.
We will now describe a map $\phi: {\mathsf{Sh}}_n \to {\mathcal{I}}_{n+1}(1234,1243)$. Alongside this description will be an example of the map acting on the path $p={\mathsf{u}}{\mathsf{h}}{\mathsf{u}}{\mathsf{d}}{\mathsf{u}}{\mathsf{u}}{\mathsf{d}}{\mathsf{h}}{\mathsf{u}}{\mathsf{d}}{\mathsf{d}}{\mathsf{u}}{\mathsf{d}}{\mathsf{h}}{\mathsf{d}}\in {\mathsf{Sh}}_9$. Several points may at first appear extraneous, however these will be required in the proof of the Theorem which follows.
Given $p\in{\mathsf{Sh}}_n$, let $p'$ be the word of length $n+1$ obtained from $p$ by first appending a horizontal step ${\mathsf{h}}$ to the end, then replacing all occurrences of ${\mathsf{u}}{\mathsf{d}}$ in $p$ by ${\mathsf{r}}$, and finally deleting all remaining ${\mathsf{d}}$’s. This is equivalent to projecting the steps of the path onto the diagonal, and replacing any ${\mathsf{u}}$’s that are followed by a ${\mathsf{d}}$ by ${\mathsf{r}}$.
From the diagram the example path is $p'\,=\, {\mathsf{u}}{\mathsf{h}}{\mathsf{r}}{\mathsf{u}}{\mathsf{r}}{\mathsf{h}}{\mathsf{r}}{\mathsf{r}}{\mathsf{h}}{\mathsf{h}}$. In general, $p'=p_1\ldots p_{n+1} \in \{{\mathsf{u}},{\mathsf{r}},{\mathsf{h}}\}^{n+1}$. Now form the three sets $A_{{\mathsf{h}}},A_{{\mathsf{r}}},A_{{\mathsf{u}}}$ according to the rule $i \in A_{x}$ if $p_i = x$.
In the example, $A_{{\mathsf{h}}}\,=\, \{2,6,9,10\}$, $A_{{\mathsf{r}}}\,=\, \{3,5,7,8\}$ and $A_{{\mathsf{u}}} \, = \, \{1,4\}$.
Starting with the largest entry in $A_{{\mathsf{h}}}$, replace all ${\mathsf{h}}$’s in $p'$ (from left to right) with the entries from $A_{{\mathsf{h}}}$ so that this sequence is decreasing. This is equivalent to forming a sequence of transpositions (or a fixed point), the first of which will have as first entry the index of the first ${\mathsf{h}}$ in $p'$ and whose second entry is the index of the last ${\mathsf{h}}$ in $p'$. The second transposition (or fixed point) will have as first entry the index of the second ${\mathsf{h}}$ in $p'$ and whose second entry is the index of the second last ${\mathsf{h}}$ in $p'$, and so forth.
Since $A_{{\mathsf{h}}}\,=\, \{2,6,9,10\}$ in the example, we have the transpositions $(2,10)$ and $(6,9)$.
Do likewise for the sets $A_{{\mathsf{r}}}$ and $A_{{\mathsf{u}}}$. The [*[label]{}*]{} of a particular ${\mathsf{h}}$, ${\mathsf{r}}$ or ${\mathsf{u}}$ in $p'$ is the value that replaces it. Call the resulting permutation $\pi = \phi(p)$, i.e. the labels of $p'$ read from left to right.
The label of the first ${\mathsf{h}}$ in $p'$ above is 10 and the label of the third ${\mathsf{h}}$ in $p'$ above is 6. In the example, since $A_{{\mathsf{h}}}\,=\, \{2,6,9,10\}$, $A_{{\mathsf{r}}}\,=\, \{3,5,7,8\}$ and $A_{{\mathsf{u}}} \, = \, \{1,4\}$, $\pi=\phi(p)$ is the permutation (involution) with cycles $(2,10), (6,9), (3,8), (5,7)$ and $(1,4)$. Thus we have $\phi(p) \,=\, (4,10,8,1,7,9,5,3,6,2).$
Another way to see this construction is in terms of layers of right-to-left maxima. An element $\pi_i$ of a permutation $\pi$ is called a [*right-to-left maximum*]{} if it is greater than all elements that follow it, i.e. $\pi_i>\pi_j$ for all $j>i$. We define successively the $r$-right-to-left maxima for a permutation $\pi\in\SS_n$. Let $\pi^{(1)}$ be the word consisting of all elements of $\pi$. For $r\ge 1$, the right-to-left maxima of $\pi^{(r)}$ are called [*$r$-right-to-left maxima*]{} of $\pi$. Let $\pi^{(r+1)}$ be the subword obtained from $\pi^{(r)}$ by removing all $r$-right-to-left maxima. For example, the permutation $\pi= 674583912\in \SS_{9}$ has the 1-right-to-left maxima 9 and 2; the 2-right-to-left maxima 8, 3 and 1; the 3-right-to-left maxima 7 and 5; and the 4-right-to-left maxima 6 and 4. Note that the $r$-right-to-left maxima of $\pi$ form a decreasing subsequence for each $r$.
Let $\pi$ be the unique permutation (in fact, it will be an involution) in $\SS_{n+1}$ with 1 right-to-left maxima $A_{{\mathsf{h}}}$, 2 right-to-left maxima $A_{{\mathsf{r}}}$ and 3 right-to-left maxima $A_{{\mathsf{u}}}$. If $A_{{\mathsf{h}}}=\{x_1,\ldots , x_{\alpha}\}$, $A_{{\mathsf{r}}}=\{y_1,\ldots , y_{\beta}\}$ and $A_{{\mathsf{u}}}=\{z_1,\ldots , z_{\gamma}\}$ then the cycles of $\pi$ are $$(x_1\, x_{\alpha})\, (x_2 \, x_{\alpha -1})\, \cdots\, (y_1 \, y_{\beta}) \, (y_2 \, y_{\beta -1})\, \cdots \,(z_1 \, z_{\gamma}) \, (z_2\, z_{\gamma -1}) \, \cdots.$$ We point out that if $\gamma = 2m+1$ then $(x_{m+1})$ will be a fixed point. Consequently there will be at most three fixed points in the resulting involution.
The inverse map $\phi^{-1}$ is described by means of an example. Consider $$\pi\, =\,(10,5,8,7,2,6,4,3,9,1)\in{\mathcal{I}}_{10}(1234,1243).$$ The sets of 1, 2 and 3 right-to-left maxima are $A_{{\mathsf{h}}}=\{1,9,10\}$, $A_{{\mathsf{r}}}=\{3,4,6,7,8\}$ and $A_{{\mathsf{u}}}=\{2,5\}$, respectively. This gives $p'= {\mathsf{h}}{\mathsf{u}}{\mathsf{r}}{\mathsf{r}}{\mathsf{u}}{\mathsf{r}}{\mathsf{r}}{\mathsf{r}}{\mathsf{h}}{\mathsf{h}}$. After removing the final ${\mathsf{h}}$, we have
Beginning with the last step (at position 9), we push this down so that it is symmetric with the first entry. We then move the second step of $p'$ down to meet the path. It is ${\mathsf{u}}$ so there must be a ${\mathsf{d}}$ inserted at the opposite end so the path is symmetric.
Next we move the ${\mathsf{r}}$ at position 3 down to touch the evolving path, and move the ${\mathsf{r}}$ at position 8 down to meet the path above the ${\mathsf{d}}$ step.
The ${\mathsf{u}}$ at position 4 is moved next but we must insert a ${\mathsf{d}}$ step between positions 6 and 7 to ensure the path is symmetric.
Finally, move the remaining pieces down, inserting ${\mathsf{d}}$’s where appropriate.
Thus we have $p\;=\;\phi^{-1}(\pi)\;=\;{\mathsf{h}}{\mathsf{u}}{\mathsf{u}}{\mathsf{d}}{\mathsf{u}}{\mathsf{d}}{\mathsf{u}}{\mathsf{u}}{\mathsf{d}}{\mathsf{d}}{\mathsf{u}}{\mathsf{d}}{\mathsf{u}}{\mathsf{d}}{\mathsf{d}}{\mathsf{h}}.$
The map $\phi: {\mathsf{Sh}}_n \to {\mathcal{I}}_{n+1}(1234,1243)$ is a bijection.
We first show that for any $p \in {\mathsf{Sh}}_n$, the corresponding $\pi=\phi(p) \in
{\mathcal{I}}_{n+1}(1234,1243)$.
Let $p \in {\mathsf{Sh}}_n$ and $p'=p_1\cdots p_k$ be the corresponding word on the alphabet $\{{\mathsf{u}},{\mathsf{r}},{\mathsf{h}}\}$. Suppose that $A_{{\mathsf{h}}} = \{i_1,\ldots , i_\ell\}$. Then it is clear that $\pi_{i_j} = i_{\ell+1-j}$ for all $1\leq j \leq \ell$. The same is true for the sets $A_{{\mathsf{r}}}$ and $A_{{\mathsf{u}}}$ so $\pi$ is an involution.
From the labelling scheme above, the resulting permutation $\pi$ has, at most, three levels of right-to-left maxima. It is therefore 1234 avoiding. To show that $\pi$ is 1243-avoiding, suppose $\pi$ contains a 1243 pattern $\pi_i \pi_j \pi_k \pi_{\ell}$, where $\pi_i < \pi_j < \pi_{\ell} < \pi_k$ and $i<j<k<\ell$. The 4 and 3 of the pattern ($\pi_k$ and $\pi_{\ell}$) must be in the 1 right-to-left maxima $A_{{\mathsf{h}}}$. Similarly, the 2 (resp. 1) of the pattern must be in the 2 (resp. 3) right-to-left maxima $A_{{\mathsf{r}}}$ (resp. $A_{{\mathsf{u}}})$. Then $\pi_j\pi_k\pi_{\ell}$ is a 132-pattern with $\pi_j \in A_{{\mathsf{r}}}$ and $\pi_{k},\pi_{\ell} \in A_{{\mathsf{h}}}$. This is not possible for the following reason: Given ${\mathsf{r}}$ in $p'$ with label $r_1$, let $h_1,h_2,\ldots $ be the sequence of labels of ${\mathsf{h}}$’s to the right of ${\mathsf{r}}$. Then $h_1>r_1>h_2,h_3,\ldots$. This statement is easily seen by removing all ${\mathsf{u}}$’s and the suffix ${\mathsf{h}}$ from $p'$ and relabelling. (This relabelling always gives a monotone decreasing sequence.) The fact that the label of the first ${\mathsf{h}}$ after ${\mathsf{r}}$ is greater than the label of the ${\mathsf{r}}$ is due to the appended ${\mathsf{h}}$.
We now show how to construct the unique path $p$ corresponding to $\pi \in
{\mathcal{I}}_{n+1}(1234,1243)$. For such a permutation, let $A_{{\mathsf{h}}}$, $A_{{\mathsf{r}}}$ and $A_{{\mathsf{u}}}$ be the 1, 2 and 3 right-to-left maxima of $\pi$, respectively. Insert ${\mathsf{h}}$ at position $i$ of $p'$ if $i \in A_{{\mathsf{h}}}$ and do likewise for the sets $A_{{\mathsf{r}}}$ and $A_{{\mathsf{u}}}$. Remove the suffix ${\mathsf{h}}$ from $p'$ (it is a suffix since $(n+1)$ is one of the 1 right-to-left maxima). From right to left in $p'$, insert a ${\mathsf{d}}$ where there is a corresponding ${\mathsf{u}}$ and finish by replacing all occurrences of ${\mathsf{r}}$ with ${\mathsf{u}}{\mathsf{d}}$. (As was done in the example that preceded the Theorem.) We note that for each $p'$ there will be several Schröder paths to which it may correspond, however only one of these is symmetric.
From the construction, we also have the following statistics of $\{1234, 1243\}$-avoiding involutions:
Let $p \in {\mathsf{Sh}}_n$ with $h$ steps ${\mathsf{h}}$, $r$ steps ${\mathsf{u}}{\mathsf{d}}$, and $u$ steps ${\mathsf{u}}$ that are not directly followed by a ${\mathsf{d}}$ step. Let $\pi=\phi(p) \in \mathcal{I}_n(1234, 1243)$.
1. The number of right-to-left maxima of $\pi$ is $h+1$.
2. The number of 2 right-to-left maxima of $\pi$ is $r$.
3. The number of 3 right-to-left maxima of $\pi$ is $u$.
4. The number of fixed points of $\pi$ is $((1+h) \mbox{ mod } 2) \; +\;( r\mbox{ mod }2) \; + \; (u \mbox{ mod } 2)$.
What statistic on $\pi=\phi(p)$ corresponds to the height of the path $p$?
Proof of Theorem \[thmain\]
===========================
To present the proof of Theorem \[thmain\], we must first consider the enumeration problem for the number $\mathcal{F}_k$-avoiding involutions according to length and number of fixed points, where $\mathcal{F}_k$ is the set of all permutations $\sigma\in\SS_k$ with $\sigma_1=1$.
Involutions avoiding $\mathcal{F}_k$
------------------------------------
In this subsection we present an explicit formula for the number of involutions that avoid all the patterns in $\mathcal{F}_k$. To do so we require some new notation. Define $f_k(n)$ to be the number of involutions $\pi\in\mathcal{I}_n(\mathcal{F}_k)$. Given $t\in[n]$, we also define $$f_{k;m}(n;t)=\#\{\pi\in\mathcal{I}_n(\mathcal{F}_k)\mid
\pi_1=t\mbox{ and }\pi\mbox{ contains }m\mbox{ fixed points}\}.$$ Let $f_k(n;t)=f_k(n,p;t)$ and $f_k(n)=f_k(n,p)$ be the polynomials $\sum_{m=0}^nf_{k;m}(n;t)p^m$ and $\sum_{t=1}^nf_{k}(n;t)$, respectively. We denote by $F_k(x,p)$ the generating function for the sequence $f_k(n,p)$, that is $F_k(x,p)=\sum_{n\geq0} f_k(n,p)x^n$.
\[thmm1\] We have $$F_k(x,p)\;=\;\sum_{j=0}^{k-2}J_j(p)x^j+\frac{x^{k-1}}{1-(k-1)x^2}((k-1)J_{k-2}(p)x+J_{k-1}(p)).$$ Moreover, the number of involutions of length $k+2n$ (resp. $k+2n-1$) that avoid all the patterns in $\mathcal{F}_k$ is given by $(k-1)^{n+1}I_{k-2}$ (resp. $(k-1)^{n}I_{k-1}$), for all $n\geq0$.
Let $\pi\in\SS_n$ be a permutation that avoids all patterns in $\mathcal{F}_k$. We have $\pi_1\geq n+2-k$. Thus $\pi\in\mathcal{I}_n(\mathcal{F}_k)$ with $\pi_1=t\geq n+2-k$ if and only if $\pi_2\ldots\pi_{t-1}\pi_{t+1}\ldots\pi_n$ is an involution on the numbers $2,\ldots,t-1,t+1,\ldots,n$ that avoids all the patterns in $\mathcal{F}_k$. Hence, $f_k(n;j)=f_k(n-2)$ for all $j=n+2-k,n+3-k,\ldots,n$, and $f_k(n,j)=0$ for all $j=1,2,\ldots,n+1-k$, where $n\geq k$. Thus, for $n\geq k$, $$f_k(n)\;=\;(k-1)f_k(n-2).$$ Using the initial conditions $f_k(j)=J_{j}(p)$, $j=1,2,\ldots,k-1$, we find that $f_k(k+2j)=(k-1)^{j+1}J_{k-1}(p)$ and $f_k(k+2j-1)=(k-1)^jJ_{k-2}(p)$ for all $j\geq0$. Rewriting these formulas in terms of generating functions we obtain $$F_k(x,p)=\sum_{j=0}^{k-2}J_j(p)x^j+\frac{x^{k-1}}{1-(k-1)x^2}((k-1)J_{k-2}(p)x+J_{k-1}(p)),$$ as claimed.
Involutions avoiding $\mathcal{A}_k$
------------------------------------
In this subsection we prove Theorem \[thmain\]. In order to do this, define $g_k(n)$ to be the number of involutions $\pi\in\mathcal{I}_n(\mathcal{A}_k)$ and given $t_1,t_2,\ldots,t_m\in\mathbb{N}$, we also define $$g_k(n;t_1,t_2,\ldots,t_m) \;=\; \#\{\pi_1\ldots\pi_n\in\mathcal{I}_n(\mathcal{A}_k)\mid \pi_1\ldots\pi_m
=t_1\ldots t_m\}.$$
\[lem1\] Let $k\geq3$. For all $3\leq t\leq n+1-k$, $$g_k(n;t)\;=\;(k-2)g_k(n-2;t-1)+\sum_{j=1}^{t-2}g_k(n-2;j),$$ with the initial conditions $g_k(n;1)=f_{k-1}(n-1)$, $g_k(n;2)=f_{k-1}(n-2)$, and $g_k(n;t)=g_k(n-2)$ for all $t=n+2-k,n+3-k,\ldots,n$.
Let $\pi$ be any involution of length $n$ that avoids all patterns in $\mathcal{A}_k$ with $\pi_1=t$. Now let us consider all possible values of $t$. If $t=1$ then $\pi\in\mathcal{I}_n(\mathcal{A}_k)$ if and only if $(\pi_2-1)(\pi_3-1)\ldots(\pi_n-1)\in\mathcal{I}_{n-1}(\mathcal{F}_{k-1})$. If $t=2$ then $\pi\in\mathcal{I}_n(\mathcal{A}_k)$ if and only if $(\pi_3-2)(\pi_4-2)\ldots(\pi_n-2)\in\mathcal{I}_{n-2}(\mathcal{F}_{k-1})$. Now assume that $3\leq t\leq n+1-k$, then from the above definitions $$\begin{array}{l}
g_k(n;t) \;=\; g_k(n;t,1)+\ldots+g_k(n;t,t-1)+g_k(n;t,t+1)+\cdots+g_k(n;t,n).
\end{array}$$ But any involution $\pi$ satisfying $\pi_1<\pi_2\leq n+2-k$ contains a pattern from the set $\mathcal{A}_k$ (see the subsequence of the letters $\pi_1,\pi_2,
n+3-k,n+4-k,\ldots,n$ in $\pi$). Thus $g_k(n;t,r)=0$ for all $t<r\leq n+2-k$ and so $$\begin{array}{l}
g_k(n;t) \;=\; g_k(n;t,1)+\ldots+g_k(n;t,t-1)+g_k(n;t,n+3-k)+\cdots+g_k(n;t,n).
\end{array}$$ Also, if $\pi$ is an involution in $\mathcal{I}_n$ with $\pi_1=t$ and $\pi_2=r\geq
n+3-k$, then the entry $r$ does not appear in any occurrence of $\tau\in\mathcal{A}_k$ in $\pi$. Thus, there exists a bijection between the set of involutions $\pi\in\mathcal{I}_n(\mathcal{A}_k)$ with $\pi_1=t$ and $\pi_2=r\geq n+3-k$ and the set of involutions $\pi'\in\mathcal{I}_{n-2}(\mathcal{A}_k)$ with $\pi'=t-1$. Therefore $g_k(n;t,r)=g_k(n-2;t-1)$ which gives $$\begin{array}{l}
g_k(n;t) \;=\; g_k(n;t,1)+\ldots+g_k(n;t,t-1)+(k-2)g_k(n-2;t-1).
\end{array}$$ Also, if $\pi$ is an involution in $\mathcal{I}_n$ with $\pi_1=t$, $\pi_2=r<t$ and if $ta_2\ldots a_k$ is an occurrence of a pattern from the set $\mathcal{A}_k$ in $\pi$, then $ra_2\ldots a_k$ is an occurrence of a pattern from the set $\mathcal{A}_k$ in $\pi$. Thus, there exists a bijection between the set of involutions $\pi\in\mathcal{I}_n(\mathcal{A}_k)$ with $\pi_1=t$ and $\pi_2=r<t$ and the set of involutions $\pi'\in\mathcal{I}_{n-2}(\mathcal{A}_k)$ with $\pi'_1=r-1$. Therefore $g_k(n;t,r)=g_k(n-2;r-1)$ which gives $$\begin{array}{l}
g_k(n;t)\;=\;(k-2)g_k(n-2;t-1)+\displaystyle\sum_{j=1}^{t-2} g_k(n-2;j),
\end{array}$$ as required. Finally, if $\pi$ is an involution in $\mathcal{I}_n$ with $\pi_1=t\geq
n+2-k$, then the entry $t$ does not appear in any occurrence of $\tau\in\mathcal{A}_k$ in $\pi$. Thus, there exists a bijection between the set of involutions $\pi\in\mathcal{I}_n(\mathcal{A}_k)$ with $\pi_1=t\geq n+2-k$ and the set of involutions $\pi'\in\mathcal{I}_{n-2}(\mathcal{A}_k)$. Therefore $g_k(n;t)=g_k(n-2)$, as claimed.
Let $G_k(n;v)$ be the polynomial $\sum_{t=1}^ng_k(n;t)v^{t-1}$. Rewriting the above lemma in terms of the polynomials $G_k(n;v)$ we have the following recurrence relation.
\[lem2\] Let $k\geq3$. For all $n\geq k$, $$\begin{array}{lcl}
\lefteqn{G_k(n;v)}\\
&=&f_{k-1}(n-1)+vf_{k-1}(n-2)-v(k-2)f_{k-1}(n-3)+\left(\frac{v^2}{1-v}+(k-2)v\right)G_k(n-2;v)\\
&&-\frac{v^n}{1-v}G_k(n-2;1)+\frac{v^{n-1}}{1-v}\left(k-2+\frac{v-v^{3-k}}{1-v}\right)G_k(n-4;1),
\end{array}$$ where $G_k(n;v)=I_{n-1}+\frac{v-v^n}{1-v}I_{n-2}$ for all $n=0,1,\ldots,k-1$.
Lemma \[lem1\] gives $$\begin{array}{cl}
\lefteqn{G_k(n;v)}\\
=&f_{k-1}(n-1)+vf_{k-1}(n-2)+\displaystyle\sum_{t=2}^{n-k}v^t\left((k-2)G_k(n-2;t)+\displaystyle\sum_{j=1}^{t-1}G_k(n-2;j)\right)\\
&+ G_k(n-2;1) \displaystyle\sum_{t=n+1-k}^{n-1}v^t\\
=& f_{k-1}(n-1)+vf_{k-1}(n-2)+\frac{v^2}{1-v}\left(G_k(n-2;v)-G_k(n-4;1)\displaystyle\sum_{j=n-1-k}^{n-3}v^j\right)\\
&-\frac{v^{n+1-k}}{1-v}(G_k(n-2;1)-(k-1)G_k(n-4;1))+\frac{v^{n+1-k}-v^n}{1-v}G_k(n-2;1)\\
&+(k-2)v\left(G_k(n-2;v)-f_{k-1}(n-3)-G_k(n-4;1)\displaystyle\sum_{j=n-k}^{n-3}v^j\right),
\end{array}$$ which is equivalent to $$\begin{array}{ll}
\lefteqn{G_k(n;v)}\\
=&f_{k-1}(n-1)+vf_{k-1}(n-2)-v(k-2)f_{k-1}(n-3)+\left(\frac{v^2}{1-v}+(k-2)v\right)G_k(n-2;v)\\
&-\frac{v^n}{1-v}G_k(n-2;1)+\frac{v^{n-1}}{1-v}\left(k-2+\frac{v-v^{3-k}}{1-v}\right)G_k(n-4;1).
\end{array}$$ To find the value of $G_k(n;v)$ for $n\leq k-1$, let $\pi$ be any involution with $\pi_1=t$. If $t=1$ then there are $I_{n-1}$ involutions, whereas if $t>1$ there are $I_{n-2}$ involutions, hence $G_k(n;v)=v^0I_{n-1}+\sum_{t=2}^nv^{t-1}I_{n-2}=I_{n-1}+\frac{v-v^n}{1-v}I_{n-2}$, as required.
Lemma \[lem2\] can be generalised as follows; let $g_{k;m}(n;t)$ be the number of involutions $\pi\in\mathcal{I}_n(\mathcal{A}_k)$ such that $\pi_1=t$ and $\pi$ contains exactly $m$ fixed points. Define $G_k(n;t;p)=\sum_{m=0}^ng_{k;m}(n;t)p^m$ and $G_k(n;v,p)=\sum_{t=1}^nG_k(n;t;p)v^{t-1}$. Using the same arguments as those in the proofs of Lemma \[lem1\] and Lemma \[lem2\], while carefully considering the number of fixed points, we have the following result.
\[lem3\] Let $k\geq3$. For all $n\geq k$, $$\begin{array}{ll}
\lefteqn{G_k(n;v,p)}\\
=&pf_{k-1}(n-1)+vf_{k-1}(n-2)-pv(k-2)f_{k-1}(n-3)+\left(\frac{v^2}{1-v}+(k-2)v\right)G_k(n-2;v,p)\\
&-\frac{v^n}{1-v}G_k(n-2;1,p)+\frac{v^{n-1}}{1-v}\left(k-2+\frac{v-v^{3-k}}{1-v}\right)G_k(n-4;1,p),
\end{array}$$ where $G_k(n;v,p)=pJ_{n-1}(p)+\frac{v-v^n}{1-v}J_{n-2}(p)$ for all $n=0,1,\ldots,k-1$.
Let $G_k(x,v,p)=\sum_{n\geq0}G_k(n;v,p)x^n$ be the generating function for the sequence $G_k(n;v,p)$. Define $J_i(v,p)$ to be the polynomial $\sum d_{tr}v^tp^r$ where $d_{tr}$ is the number of involutions $\pi\in\mathcal{I}_i$ such that $\pi_1=t+1$ and $\pi$ contains exactly $r$ fixed points. Rewriting the recurrence relation in the statement of Lemma \[lem3\] in terms of generating functions we obtain $$\begin{array}{l}
\lefteqn{G_k(x,v,p)\;=\;}\\
\sum\limits_{j=0}^{k-1}J_j(v,p)x^j+px\left(F_{k-1}(x,p)-\sum\limits_{j=0}^{k-2}J_j(p)x^j\right)+vx^2\left(F_{k-1}(x,p)-\sum\limits_{j=0}^{k-3}J_j(p)x^j\right)\\
-(k-2)pvx^3\left(F_{k-1}(x,p)-\sum\limits_{j=0}^{k-4}J_j(p)x^j\right)-\frac{v^2x^2}{1-v}\left(G_k(xv,1,p)-\sum\limits_{j=0}^{k-3}J_j(p)(xv)^j\right)\\
+vx^2\left(\frac{v}{1-v}+k-2\right)\left(G_k(x,v,p)-\sum\limits_{j=0}^{k-3}J_j(v,p)x^j\right)\\
+\frac{(k-2)v^3x^4}{1-v}\left(G_k(xv,1,p)-\sum\limits_{j=0}^{k-5}J_j(p)(xv)^j\right)
-\frac{x^4(1-v^{k-2})}{v^{k-6}(1-v)^2}\left(G_k(xv,1,p)-\sum\limits_{j=0}^{k-5}J_j(p)(xv)^j\right),
\end{array}$$ which is equivalent to $$\begin{array}{l}
\left(1-\frac{x^2}{1-v}-(k-2)\frac{x^2}{v}\right)G_k(x/v,v,p) \; = \; \\
-\frac{x^2}{1-v}\left(1-(k-2)\frac{x^2}{v}+\frac{x^2(1-v^{k-2})}{v^{k-2}(1-v)}\right)G_k(x,1,p)\\
+\sum\limits_{j=0}^{k-1}J_j(v,p)\frac{x^j}{v^j}+\frac{px}{v}\left(F_{k-1}(x/v,p)-\sum\limits_{j=0}^{k-2}J_j(p)\frac{x^j}{v^j}\right)+\frac{x^2}{v}\left(F_{k-1}(x/v,p)-\sum\limits_{j=0}^{k-3}J_j(p)\frac{x^j}{v^j}\right)\\
-(k-2)p\frac{x^3}{v^2}\left(F_{k-1}(x/v,p)-\sum\limits_{j=0}^{k-4}J_j(p)\frac{x^j}{v^j}\right)+\frac{x^2}{1-v}\sum\limits_{j=0}^{k-3}J_j(p)x^j\\
-\frac{x^2}{v}\left(\frac{v}{1-v}+k-2\right)\sum\limits_{j=0}^{k-3}J_j(v,p)\frac{x^j}{v^j}
-\frac{(k-2)x^4}{v(1-v)}\sum\limits_{j=0}^{k-5}J_j(p)x^j+\frac{x^4(1-v^{k-2})}{v^{k-2}(1-v)^2}\sum\limits_{j=0}^{k-5}J_j(p)x^j.
\end{array}$$ To solve this functional equation, we substitute $$v:=v_0=\frac{1}{2}\left(1+(k-3)x^2+\sqrt{1-2(k-1)x^2+(k-3)^2x^4}\right),$$ where $v_0$ is the root of the coefficient of $G_k(x/v,v,p)$ above, into the above functional equation, that is, $1-\frac{x^2}{1-v_0}-(k-2)\frac{x^2}{v_0}=0$. Since $J_j(v,p)=pJ_{j-1}(p)+\frac{v-v^j}{1-v}J_{j-2}(p)$ for all $j=1,2,\ldots,k-1$ and $J_0(v,p)=1$, it is routine to show (via some rather tedious algebraic manipulation) that we obtain Theorem \[thmain\].
[99]{} R. Adin and Yu. Roichman, Shape avoiding permutations, [*[J. Combin. Theory Ser. A]{}*]{} [**[97]{}**]{}(1) (2002), 162–176.
E. Barcucci, A. Del Lungo, E. Pergola and R. Pinzani, Permutations avoiding an increasing number of length-increasing forbidden subsequences, [*Discrete Math. Theor. Comput. Sci.*]{} [**4**]{} (2000), 31–44.
Mireille Bousquet-Mélou and Einar Steingrímsson, Decreasing subsequences in permutations and Wilf equivalence for involutions, [*[J. Algeb. Comb.]{}*]{} [**[22]{}**]{} (2005), 383–409.
Eric S. Egge and Toufik Mansour, Permutations which Avoid 1243 and 2143, Continued Fractions, and Chebyshev Polynomials, [*Elec. J. Combin.*]{} [**[9]{}**]{}(2) (2003), \#R7.
D. Gouyou–Beauchamps, Standard Young tableaux of height $4$ and $5$, [*European J. Combin.*]{} [**10**]{} (1989), 69–82.
I.M. Gessel, Symmetric functions and P-recursiveness, [*J. Combin. Theory Ser. A*]{} [**53**]{} (1990), 257–285.
O. Guibert, Combinatoire des permutations à motifs exclus en liaison avec mots, cartes planaires et tableaux de Young, [*PHD-thesis, University Bordeaux 1, France*]{} (1995).
D. Kremer, Permutations with forbidden subsequences and a generalized Schröder number, [*Discrete Math.*]{} [**218**]{} (2000), 121–130.
T. Mansour, Avoiding and containing certain patterns, [*Proceeding’s 12th Conference on Formal Power Series and Algebraic Combinatorics*]{}, Moscow (2000), 706–708.
T. Mansour and A. Vainshtein, Avoiding maximal parabolic subgroups of $S_k$, [*Discrete Math. Theor. Comput. Sci.*]{} [**4**]{} (2000), 67–77.
R. Simion and F.W. Schmidt, Restricted Permutations, [*European J. Combin.*]{} [**6**]{} (1985), 383–406.
R. Stanley, Enumerative Combinatorics, Volume 1-2, 1997, 1999, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
|
---
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
---
[0.490]{}
[0.490]{}
Introduction
============
Bitcoin surprised scholars in distributed systems, as well as in security [@bonneau2015SoKResearch]. Authors have called the new composition of known concepts a “sweet spot” [@tschorsch2016BitcoinTechnical] in the design space for protocols, and praised the complex way the components are put together as a “true leap of insight” [@narayanan2017BitcoinAcademic] of Nakamoto [@nakamoto2008BitcoinPeertopeer]. Likely the most intriguing part is the way Bitcoin uses proof-of-work puzzles to secure a distributed log. The role of proof-of-work in Nakamoto consensus can be contemplated in several ways. First and most intuitively, the computational puzzles can be interpreted as a rate limit on new identities, which discourage Sybil attacks [@douceur2002SybilAttack] in a lottery for blocks and new coins. Second, proof-of-work can be conceived as a game-proof variant of a probabilistic back-off mechanism, as used in media access control in computer networks. It reduces the risk of collisions when many nodes concurrently seek write access to a shared medium, the ledger. Proof-of-work has been formalized in cryptographic security models of Nakamoto consensus [@garay2015BitcoinBackbone; @pass2017AnalysisBlockchain]. However, we are not aware of work pointing out the fundamental conflict between inclusiveness and security inherent to the way proof-of-work is used in the known distributed log protocols. This conflict precludes reliable and fast commits. Arguably, it is the reason why practical protocols trade finality for eventual consistency. But the lack of finality limits the applicability for high-value transactions [@bonneau2016WhyBuy; @gervais2016SecurityPerformance], a potential show-stopper discussed even beyond the technical community [@budish2018EconomicLimits; @auer2019DoomsdayEconomics].
We tackle this conflict directly, leading to a theory of proof-of-work quorums, which enables new ways of using proof-of-work in permissionless distributed log protocols. We propose one such protocol, , demonstrating that finality with reliable and short time to commit is possible. Specifically, we do not rely on sidechains, a tool used in the literature to stack Byzantine on top of Nakamoto consensus [@kogias2016EnhancingBitcoin; @pass2017HybridConsensus; @pass2018ThunderellaBlockchains]. Sidechains can add finality and increase throughput at the price of increased complexity, overhead, and tricky issues in the synchronization between layers [@kogias2016EnhancingBitcoin; @eyal2016BitcoinNGScalable].
The proposed protocol is inspired by two recent breakthroughs: Bobtail [@bissias2020BobtailImproved] and HotStuff [@yin2019HotStuffBFT]. The former optimizes stochastic properties of the block delay in Nakamoto consensus. The latter adapts principles of Byzantine fault tolerance to blockchains in a clever way. It has received attention after Facebook’s announcement to use it in LibraBFT [@calibra2019librabft].
We make the following contributions:
1. We draw attention to a fundamental conflict between inclusiveness and security in and propose a principled resolution (Section \[sec:intuition\]).
2. We develop a theory of proof-of-work quorums where quorums are formed over votes generated by stochastic processes. We show that sufficiently large quorums are practically unique (Section \[sec:pow\_quorum\]).
3. We propose , a protocol that finds consensus over a distributed log without requiring pre-defined identities. scales at least as well as practical blockchain protocols and much better than Byzantine fault tolerance protocols. It relies on proof-of-work, but, unlike deployed systems using the longest chain rule, our construction supports a three-phase commit logic. State updates (transactions) are final after a predictable amount of time, and the probability of inconsistency is bounded according to our theory (Section \[sec:protocol\]).
4. We simulate executions of as well as of variants with adversarial modifications. The results show that the protocol can tolerate network latency, churn, and targeted attacks on consistency and liveness at small overhead compared to the best deployed systems (Section \[sec:evaluation\]).
Section \[sec:discussion\] compares to related works and discusses its limitations. Section \[sec:conclusion\] concludes. For replicability and future research, we make the protocol implementation and the simulation code available online.
Intuition {#sec:intuition}
=========
The key conflict between inclusiveness and security faced by cryptocurrencies is as follows: *minorities should be encouraged to participate (inclusiveness), but they should not be able to make decisions alone (security).* achieves inclusiveness by sacrificing security for an uncertain period of time (eventual consistency). This becomes problematic when irreversible real-world actions are taken based on unsettled transactions in the distributed log (double spending). A short and reliable time to commit would mitigate this risk.
Recall that prioritizes inclusiveness by using a puzzle as gatekeeper to participation. The protocol specifies a repeated race for the first puzzle solution. Each winner proposes a state update and receives some reward. Most cryptocurrencies use puzzles—moderately hard functions—for which iterative trial and error is the best known solving algorithm. Such puzzles imply exponentially distributed solving time. Figure \[fig:min\_maj\_exp\] shows the probability distributions for the solving times of a $2/3$ majority of solving power compared to a $1/3$ minority. The expected time of the end of the race is marked with $\hat{t}_1$ (in Bitcoin $\hat{t}_1 \approx 10$ minutes). Consequently, the area under each curve represents the odds of winning the race. Observe that the minority has a fair chance. This makes the protocol inclusive, but also implies that minorities have a significant chance of directly writing state updates. For improved security, we would prefer a distribution such that the minority’s area under the curve is small (ideally negligible), as displayed in Figure \[fig:min\_maj\_gamma\].
Since the puzzle of behaves like in Figure \[fig:min\_maj\_exp\], a single state update is not reliable. As a result, users are recommended to wait for multiple consecutive blocks before acting upon a payment. The time needed for sequentially solving $k$ exponential puzzles is gamma distributed with shape parameter $k$. In fact, Figure \[fig:min\_maj\_gamma\] shows the gamma distribution for $k = 6$. Note the significant gap between minority and majority: it is unlikely that a minority can generate a sequence of $6$ state updates before the majority does so. In this sense, multiple puzzle solutions qualify a majority, while a single one does not.
In , security comes at the price of waiting for multiple solutions. Bitcoin’s convention of $k=6$ implies an expected waiting time of $\hat{t}_2 \approx 60$ minutes, which is arguably too slow for many applications. Besides, does not give a rationale on how to choose $k$.
A key idea for resolving this conflict is to break the one-to-one relationship between puzzle solutions and blocks. Instead of requiring a single $10$ minute puzzle per block, asks for $k$ easier puzzles each expected to take $10/k$ minutes. In other words, achieves security by appending puzzle solutions *in parallel* rather than sequentially, as illustrated in Figure \[fig:seq\_vs\_par\]. Since the puzzles are independent, we end up with the same block rate but $k$ times the number of solutions. The expected computational effort stays the same, but we accumulate a qualifying number of solutions for *every* block. This means we get the shape of Figure \[fig:min\_maj\_gamma\] much faster: $\hat{t}_2 \approx
\hat{t}_1$.
For a principled construction of , we reduce the payload “authenticated” [@back2014EnablingBlockchain] by proof-of-work to a minimum:
1. a reference to a recent point in time ( a hash link to the last seen block)
2. a reference to an identity (public key or commitment)
A triple of a puzzle solution and these two references forms a verifiable ephemeral identity. The puzzle solution binds resources in order to prevent Sybil attacks, the reference in time ensures freshness, and the identifier enables authorized actions, such as claiming a reward.
The main difference between proof-of-work systems and the well-studied class of Byzantine fault tolerant (BFT) systems [@lamport1982ByzantineGenerals; @dwork1988ConsensusPresence; @castro2002PracticalByzantine] is that the former do not rely on external identification of the participating nodes. Inspired by the early work of @aspnes2005Exposingcomputationallychallenged, uses proof-of-work to bootstrap ephemeral identities and plugs them into HotStuff [@yin2019HotStuffBFT], a state of the art blockchain-based BFT system. In HotStuff, each block carries a certificate about a qualified majority of nodes (quorum) confirming the last seen block. HotStuff’s proof of finality is based on the qualifying properties of each quorum. This motivates us to explore whether and to what extent a set of proof-of-work solutions can qualify a majority. In Section \[sec:pow\_quorum\], we will show that qualifying majorities are possible within a single block. This allows us to transfer HotStuff’s finality to the permissionless setting.
The recurse to HotStuff enables us to fix the number of blocks to wait before accepting a state update as final at the necessary number of phases to commit, thereby resolving a drawback of . As illustrated in Figure \[fig:pipeline\], HotStuff uses a three-phase commit, which can be pipelined for subsequent state updates on a blockchain. In a nutshell, the first phase locks a single proposal, the second phase confirms majority uptake of this lock, and the third phase ensures that the knowledge of this knowledge is propagated. We refer to [@yin2019HotStuffBFT] for the rationales and failure modes. In this sense, parallelizes not only puzzle solutions but also the phases of the commit logic.
(0,0) node \[draw\] (a1) ; (1,0) node \[draw\] (a2) ; (2,0) node \[draw\] (a3) ;
(1,-1) node \[draw\] (b1) ; (2,-1) node \[draw\] (b2) ; (3,-1) node \[draw\] (b3) ;
(2,-2) node \[draw\] (c1) ; (3,-2) node \[draw\] (c2) ; (4,-2) node \[draw\] (c3) ;
in [a,b,c]{} [ (2.west)–(1.east); (3.west)–(2.east); (1.west)–++(-4mm,0); ]{}
(-2, 0) node [Phase 1]{}; (-2,-1) node [Phase 2]{}; (-2,-2) node [Phase 3]{};
(2,.38) – (2,-2.2); (2,.35) – (2,-2.15); at (1.975,-0.7) [commit]{};
Another advantage of the gamma distribution per block is a reduction in the variance of block delays compared to the exponential distribution implied by the puzzle. While the commit pipeline gives us finality after three blocks, the reduced variance translates this into a reliable time to commit. The theory in the following section shows formally how all this is related to the quorum size, ’s new security parameter.
Proof-of-Work Quorums {#sec:pow_quorum}
=====================
Quorums are central to the design and analysis of BFT protocols. The typical Byzantine setting assumes a set of $n =
3f + 1$ identified nodes, of which at most $f$ deviate from the protocol. A set of $2f + 1$ votes for the same value is called a quorum. If correct nodes vote at most once, quorums imply a majority decision and thus are unique. The uniqueness may be violated in two situations.
1. More than $n$ nodes vote. \[bft-network\]
2. More than $f$ nodes vote more than once. \[bft-adversary\]
Practical systems avoid \[bft-network\] using preset identities for all nodes and rule out \[bft-adversary\] by assumption.
Proof-of-work enables systems where agents can join and leave at any time without obtaining permission from an identity provider or gatekeeper [@nakamoto2008BitcoinPeertopeer]. This difference is often implied in the terms “permissioned” and “permissionless”. In the permissionless case one must distinguish between *agents* and *nodes*. Agents are entities participating in a distributed system. An agent can operate any number of nodes. Colluding parties are interpreted as a single agent. We introduce the notion *proof-of-work quorum* for a set of votes where each vote requires a solution to a proof-of-work puzzle. Since the puzzle solving time is probabilistic, the uniqueness of quorums cannot be absolute. In contrast to the Byzantine setting, we have to consider three failure modes:
1. The total compute power of the network is higher than assumed. \[pow-network\]
2. The adversary controls more than the assumed fraction of compute power. \[pow-adversary\]
3. A random bad realization happens. \[pow-probability\]
The failure modes \[pow-network\] and \[pow-adversary\] correspond to the Byzantine failure modes \[bft-network\] and \[bft-adversary\]. Our goal is to understand the new failure mode \[pow-probability\] and how it affects the potential ambiguity (violation of uniqueness) of quorums.
\[def:process\] A proof-of-work process is a stochastic count process where each event assigns one *ability to vote* (ATV) to one agent. Each ATV can be used by the agent it is assigned to, to vote once for one value.
We adopt the notion of a quorum from the BFT literature [@malkhi1998ByzantineQuorum; @yin2019HotStuffBFT] except that we will apply it to votes from ATVs rather than identified nodes.
\[def:quorum\] A set of $\qsize$ votes for the same value $x$ is called a $\qsize$-quorum for $x$.
Observing a $\qsize$-quorum implies that at least $\qsize$ ATVs have been used, hence the proof-of-work process must have assigned at least $\qsize$ ATVs. This connects to time.
\[def:oqt\] The time at which the proof-of-work process assigns the $\qsize$-th ATV is called optimistic $\qsize$-quorum time. For a proof-of-work process $P$ and quorum size $\qsize$ it is formally defined by the random variable $$T_{P,\qsize} := \inf\{t \in \realsgez \mid P(t) \geq \qsize\} \,.$$
$T_{P,\qsize}$ is the earliest point in time at which a $\qsize$-quorum is feasible. A $\qsize$-quorum is only possible at exactly $T_{P,\qsize}$, if all assigned ATVs are used to vote for the same value.
A quorum for $x$ is ambiguous if there is another quorum for $y \neq x$. Since each ATV can be used for at most one value, ambiguous $\qsize$-quorums are only possible when the proof-of-work process has assigned at least $2\qsize$ ATVs.
\[def:poa\] For a proof-of-work process $P$ and quorum size we define the *probability of ambiguity* (POA) as $${\ensuremath{\operatorname{poa}}}_{P, \qsize}(t) := \prob{P(t) \geq 2 \qsize} \,.$$
For puzzles where the best known solving algorithm is independent trial and error, the stochastic process is instantiated by the Poisson process $P_\lambda$. This is because if each puzzle solution generates one ATV, the time between consecutive ATVs is exponentially distributed with rate $\lambda$.
\[lem:poa\_poisson\] The POA for the Poisson process $P_\lambda$ is given by $${\ensuremath{\operatorname{poa}}}_{P_\lambda, \qsize}(t) =
1 - e^{-\lambda t} \sum_{i=0}^{2\qsize -1}{\frac{(\lambda t)^i}{i!}} \,.$$
See Appendix \[apx:proofs\].
\[lem:qt\_possion\] The optimistic -quorum time for the Poisson process is Erlang distributed with shape parameter and rate parameter $\lambda$, in short $$T_{P_\lambda,\qsize} \drawn \distErlang(\qsize, \lambda) \,.$$
See Appendix \[apx:proofs\].
\[cor:tEv\] The expected optimistic $\qsize$-quorum time for the Poisson process is $${\ensuremath{\bar{t}_{\lambda, \qsize}}}:= \ev{T_{P_\lambda,\qsize}} = \qsize / \lambda\,.$$
The statement follows from Lemma \[lem:qt\_possion\] and the definition of the Erlang distribution [@stewart2009ProbabilityMarkov p. 146].
Figure \[fig:opt\_qtime\] illustrates the distribution of the optimistic $\qsize$-quorum time for $\qsize \in \{1,2,16\}$ based on the Poisson process. In order to compare quorum sizes greater than one to an ideal Bitcoin ($\qsize=1$, ${\ensuremath{\bar{t}_{\lambda, \qsize}}}{}=10$ minutes), we choose $\lambda = \qsize / 10$.
Figure \[fig:poa\_over\_time\] shows the POA for different quorum sizes as a function of time. Again, we adjust the rate such that the expected optimistic -quorum time is 10 minutes. Observe that the POA increases over time as the number of ATVs grows. More importantly, the POA at the expected optimistic quorum time decreases in the quorum size .
In order to isolate the effect of , we evaluate the POA at fixed time [$\bar{t}_{\lambda, \qsize}$]{}, which lends itself to a closed form.
\[cor:poa\_at\_ev\] For the Poisson process, the POA at expected optimistic -quorum time is given by $${\ensuremath{\operatorname{poa}}}_{P_\lambda, \qsize}({\ensuremath{\bar{t}_{\lambda, \qsize}}}) =
1 - e^{-\qsize} \sum_{i=0}^{2\qsize -1}{\frac{\qsize^i}{i!}} \,.$$
By inserting Corollary \[cor:tEv\] into Lemma \[lem:poa\_poisson\].
Observe that the POA at expected optimistic quorum time is independent of $\lambda$. This is useful as $\lambda$ may measure the total compute capacity in proof-of-work networks, which is not necessarily known to each agent.
Since ambiguity causes failure, and the probability of ambiguity vanishes as $\qsize$ grows, $\qsize$ becomes a security parameter. In order to relate it to other security parameters, such as the key size, we adopt the common definition of negligibility from cryptography ( asymptotic decline faster than any polynomial) and state the following theorem.
\[thm:negligible\] For the Poisson process, the probability of ambiguity at the expected quorum time is negligible in the quorum size $\qsize$.
See Appendix \[apx:proofs\].
For Bitcoin parameters ($\qsize=1, \lambda=0.1$), the POA at [$\bar{t}_{\lambda, \qsize}$]{} is $p
= 0.2642$. This part of the theory can be validated on historical data. We estimate the expected block delay by averaging the differences between consecutive block time stamps over 2017–2018.[^1] The estimated average block delay is $\hat{t}=9.52$ minutes. The ratio of cases with more than two blocks arriving within $\hat{t}$ is $\hat{p} = 0.2606$. This estimate should be slightly below $p$ because our historic data does not contain orphaned blocks. Since $p \approx \hat{p}$, we conclude that the theory applies to Bitcoin.
The implication of this theory for protocol design is that larger quorums reduce the probability of ambiguity. The (close to) exponential decay makes it conceivable to choose parameters such that quorums are practically unique. This allows us to use a notion of quorum uniqueness with ephemeral identities generated by proof-of-work.
{#sec:protocol}
Now we specify , a distributed log protocol secured by a proof-of-work process (Def. \[def:process\]) and $\qsize$-quorums (Def. \[def:quorum\]).
We present using pseudocode and a mixture of event-driven and imperative programming. A less ambiguous implementation in OCaml is provided online.
Prerequisites {#ssec:proto_prerequisites}
-------------
We assume interfaces to the network and application layers (Fig. \[fig:appstack\]), and the availability of cryptographic primitives.
### Broadcast Network {#sssec:method_net}
The proposed protocol requires a (potentially unreliable) network broadcast. We abstract from the exact implementation and assume that scheduling an event results in the message $m$ being sent to (most of) the other nodes. On the receiving side, the implementation delivers message $m'$ by scheduling .
### Application {#sssec:method_app}
implements a distributed log which may serve as a base for different applications [@lamport1978TimeClocks; @schneider1990ImplementingFaulttolerant; @abraham2017BlockchainConsensus]. For example, a simple cryptocurrency could append lists of transactions which jointly form a ledger. More advanced applications could add scalability layers that only record key decisions in the distributed log while handling other state updates separately [@eyal2016BitcoinNGScalable; @kogias2016EnhancingBitcoin; @pass2018ThunderellaBlockchains].
We abstract from the application logic using three procedures can call. takes an application state and a state update as arguments and returns true if the state update is valid. takes an application state and a state update and returns an updated state. takes an application state and returns a valid state update. We are agnostic about direct access of the application to the broadcast network. For example, cryptocurrencies share transactions provisionally before they are logged in blocks.
### Cryptography {#ssec:method_dsa}
\[ssec:method\_hash\] uses cryptographic hash functions for the hash-linked list and the proof-of-work process. We separate these two concerns and use two different hash functions, [$\mathcal{H}_{\text{list}}$]{} and [$\mathcal{H}_{\text{pow}}$]{}. While it is sufficient that [$\mathcal{H}_{\text{list}}$]{} is cryptographically secure, requires the same stronger assumptions for [$\mathcal{H}_{\text{pow}}$]{} as Bitcoin [@abraham2017BlockchainConsensus]. Since this difference is not central, the reader can safely assume ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}_{\text{list}}}}{} = {\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}_{\text{pow}}}}{} = \operatorname{SHA3}$.
also requires a digital signature scheme [@katz2014IntroductionModern Def. 12.1, p. 442]. We assume a secure implementation is given by the three procedures , , and . Every node holds an asymmetric key pair (me, secret).
Protocol
--------
### Local Block Store {#sssec:proto_global}
nodes maintain a local tree of hash-linked blocks and a reference to the preferred chain (head). They store blocks together with the associated application state, the block height, and a set of corresponding votes (see Listing \[lst:store\]). The block storage is indexed by [$\mathcal{H}_{\text{list}}$]{}.
h $\gets {\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}_{\text{list}}}}(\text{B})$ parent $\gets$ blocks\[B.parent\] blocks\[h\].parent $\gets$ parent blocks\[h\].state $\gets$ blocks\[h\].height $\gets$ parent.height + 1 blocks\[h\].votes $\gets \emptyset$ blocks\[h\].block $\gets$ B
### Votes {#sssec:proto_vote}
As mentioned in Section \[sec:intuition\], a vote in is a triple [$({\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{r}},{\ensuremath{p}},{\ensuremath{s}}}})$]{}, where [$r$]{} is a reference to a previous block, [$p$]{} is the public key of the voter, and [$s$]{} is a puzzle solution. A vote [$({\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{r}},{\ensuremath{p}},{\ensuremath{s}}}})$]{} is valid if ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}_{\text{pow}}}}{\ensuremath{({\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{r}},{\ensuremath{p}},{\ensuremath{s}}}})}}\leq \vthres$, where denotes the proof-of-work threshold and represents ’s difficulty parameter. nodes maintain a set of valid votes for each block. The procedure (Listing \[lst:collect\]) adds a valid vote [$({\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{r}},{\ensuremath{p}},{\ensuremath{s}}}})$]{} to the block referenced by [$r$]{} and, if necessary, updates the preferred chain (see Sect. \[sssec:proto\_preference\] below).
blocks\[[$r$]{}\].votes $\gets$ blocks\[[$r$]{}\].votes $\cup \{\text{({\ensuremath{p}}{}, {\ensuremath{s}}{})}\}$
### Quorums {#sssec:proto_quorum}
As defined in Section \[sec:pow\_quorum\], a -quorum is a set of votes for the same reference. We represent such quorums as lists. Since the reference is the same for all votes, we omit it from the list. A list $L = \{({\ensuremath{p}}_i, {\ensuremath{s}}_i)\}$ represents a valid -quorum for ${\ensuremath{r}}$, if the following conditions hold:
1. \[qcond\_size\]$|L| = \qsize$
2. \[qcond\_threshold\] $\forall\, 1 \leq i \leq \qsize \colon {{\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}_{\text{pow}}}}({\ensuremath{r}}, {\ensuremath{p}}_i, {\ensuremath{s}}_i)} \leq \vthres$
3. \[qcond\_order\] $\forall\, 1 \leq i < \qsize \colon {\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}_{\text{pow}}}}({\ensuremath{r}}, {\ensuremath{p}}_i, {\ensuremath{s}}_i) \leq {\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}_{\text{pow}}}}({\ensuremath{r}}, {\ensuremath{p}}_{i+1}, {\ensuremath{s}}_{i+1})$
The first condition enforces the quorum size. The second condition ensures that all votes are valid. The third condition imposes a canonical order which we use for leader election. We intentionally allow single nodes providing multiple votes. Sibyl attacks are mitigated by the scarcity of votes.
### Leader Election {#sssec:proto_leader}
A quorum can only be formed at optimistic quorum time (Def. \[def:oqt\]) if all nodes vote for the same block. We facilitate coordination by electing a leader who is responsible for proposing a new block. This election is based on the proof-of-work quorum: the leader is identified by the smallest vote. According to Section \[sssec:proto\_quorum\] Condition \[qcond\_order\], this vote is also the first element of the quorum. Leaders authenticate their proposals for the next block using and their private key. Everyone verifies proposals with the first public key in the quorum.
### Blockchain {#sssec:proto_block}
The global data structure of the protocol is a hash-linked list of blocks. Each block consists of a hash reference to its predecessor (parent), a proof-of-work quorum for this predecessor, a payload, and a proof of leadership (signature). The references to parent blocks are established by the collision-resistant hash function [$\mathcal{H}_{\text{list}}$]{}. The payload is a state update to the application implemented on top of the distributed log (see Sect. \[sssec:method\_app\]).
With quorums, leader election, and state updates defined, we are in the position to present ’s block validity rule in Listing \[lst:valid\_block\]. The loop iterates over the quorum, counts the votes, verifies them, and checks their canonical order. The boolean conjunction in line \[l:threecond\] verifies the remaining condition of the quorum, leadership, and the validity of the proposed state update.
$(c,h) \gets (0,0)$ $h' \gets {\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}_{\text{pow}}}}(\text{B.parent}, {\ensuremath{p}}, {\ensuremath{s}})$ \[l:predecessor\] false false $(c,h) \gets (c + 1, h')$ \[l:threecond\] $c = \qsize$ $\wedge$ $\wedge$
A key difference to is that the proof-of-work solutions in the quorum are bound to the previous block and not to the state update of the proposed block (see line \[l:predecessor\]). This implements the separation of puzzle solutions from block proposals and enables parallel puzzle solving (see Sect. \[sec:intuition\]).
### Proposing {#sssec:proto_propose}
Nodes assume leadership whenever possible. If so, the procedure (Listing \[lst:propose\]) obtains a state update from the application, integrates it into a new valid block, and shares it with the other nodes.
B.parent $\gets r$ B.quorum $\gets Q$ B.payload $\gets$ B.signature $\gets$ \[l:sendblock\] true false
### Commit {#sssec:proto_commit}
Proposals become final after the three-phase commit. Each subsequent block carries a quorum that completes one phase, like in HotStuff (see Sect. \[sec:intuition\]). Consequently, the most recent application state can be retrieved from the local block store as shown in Listing \[lst:read\_state\].
blocks\[head\].parent.parent.parent.state
### Conflict Resolution {#sssec:proto_progress}
The commit becomes effective after three blocks, but we have to consider conflicting block proposals at the uncommitted frontier. For example, when more than $\qsize$ votes exist, the leader election is not unique. Moreover, a malicious leader can send different proposals without solving additional proof-of-work puzzles. Nodes resolve such conflicts based on the progress towards the *next* quorum.
### Block Preference {#sssec:proto_preference}
When learning of a new block or vote, nodes update their preferred chain according to a modified version of Nakamoto’s longest chain rule. adapts it to include information on quorum progress (Sect. \[sssec:proto\_progress\]) and reject changes to already committed state (Sect. \[sssec:proto\_commit\]). Procedure (Listing \[lst:update\_head\]) takes a candidate block reference and updates the preferred chain if necessary.
H $\gets$ blocks\[head\] R $\gets$ blocks\[[$r$]{}\] $d \gets \text{R.height} - \text{H.height}$ $($R, $d) \gets ($R.parent, $d - 1)$ head $\gets {\ensuremath{r}}$ \[l:detectfork\]
### Main Program
Listing \[lst:hotpow\] shows the set of event handlers that tie everything together and define a node. The execution is initiated by scheduling the event. The listing shows how nodes assume leadership upon completing a suitable quorum with an ATV of their own (line \[l:leadershipa\]), or votes received from others, either directly (line \[l:leadershipb\]) or as part of a block proposal (line \[l:leadershipc\]). In the last case, if more than $\qsize$ votes exist, it can happen that a node replaces the leader. It proposes a block of its own by reusing votes contained in the received proposal. This is possible because votes in reference the previous block and not the current proposal. The possibility of reusing votes reduces wasted work compared to orphans in , a problem that has been studied separately [@sompolinsky2015SecureHighRate]. It also provides robustness against leader failure (see Sect. \[sssec:leader-failure\]).
Line \[l:onatv\] handles ATVs. If the node cannot lead a quorum, it broadcasts the vote. The last missing part is how ATVs can be scheduled, which we discuss next.
me, secret $\gets$ head $\gets$ genesis blocks\[genesis\].state $\gets$ [$S_0$]{} blocks\[genesis\].height $\gets$ 0
\[l:onatv\] \[l:leadershipa\] \[l:sendvote\]
\[l:leadershipb\]
\[l:leadershipc\]
### Work {#sssec:proto_work}
Agents can participate in the quorum finding process by computing ATVs on their nodes. For completeness, Listing \[lst:work\] shows the trial-and-error algorithm which schedules solutions suitable for votes ($\leq\vthres$). Alternatively, agents can search ATVs with the help of other machines, possibly in parallel and using specialized hardware. Figure \[fig:appstack\] reflects this by splitting the lower layer in network and work.
draw random number $n$
Figure \[fig:timeline\] in the appendix visualizes an execution of by correct nodes and compares it to .
Incentives {#ssec:incentives}
----------
It is possible to motivate participation in by rewarding puzzle solutions. This requires some kind of virtual asset that (at least partly) fulfills the functions of money [@hicks1967CriticalEssays p. 1] and can be transferred to a vote’s public key. Claiming the reward for $({\ensuremath{r}},
{\ensuremath{p}}, {\ensuremath{s}})$ depends on the corresponding secret key. could adopt Bobtails’s constant reward per vote [@bissias2020BobtailImproved]. Rewarding votes instead of blocks would ensure inclusiveness without compromising security (see Sect. \[sec:intuition\]). Votes occur $\qsize$ times more frequently than blocks. ’s mining income would thus be less volatile than in . This reduces the pressure to form mining pools. However, it is not trivial to establish if constant rewards are incentive compatible because the utility of the reward *outside* the system may affect the willingness to participate *in* the system and thereby make $\lambda$ endogenous [@dimitri2017BitcoinMining; @prat2018EquilibriumModel]. This implies that rewards must be treated jointly with the assumptions preventing the failure modes \[pow-network\] and \[pow-adversary\]. We are unaware of protocol analyses that solve this problem convincingly.
On a more general note, designing protocols like economic mechanisms by incentivizing desired behavior sounds attractive because there is some hope that the assumption of honest nodes can be replaced by a somewhat weaker assumption of rational agents [@garay2013RationalProtocol; @groce2012ByzantineAgreement]. In this spirit, @badertscher2018WhyDoes present positive results for Bitcoin in a discrete round execution model and under assumption of a constant exchange rate. However, many roadblocks remain. Agents’ actions are not fully observable ( information withholding) and preference orders are not fully knowable, hence rationality is not precisely defined. Side-payments (bribes), which cannot be ruled out, pose an insurmountable challenge for mechanism design [@bonneau2016WhyBuy; @judmayer2017MergedMining; @budish2018EconomicLimits]. For distributed logs, which work inherently sequential, this approach may even be thwarted by negative results on the existence of unique equilibria in repeated games [@friedman1971NoncooperativeEquilibrium]. For these reasons, we skip the mechanism design aspects and limit our contribution to transferring Byzantine consensus to proof-of-work scenarios. In other words, supports incentives for inclusiveness, but its security intentionally does not rely on incentives.
Evaluation {#sec:evaluation}
==========
We implement in OCaml and evaluate it in a network of nodes using a discrete event simulation. We average over independent executions of the first blocks. All results are reproducible with the code provided online.
The simulation maintains state for all simulated nodes separately. Events are stored in a priority queue, with keys representing points in time. Events are scheduled by inserting them into the queue. There are three types of simulation events: , and . The simulation’s main loop takes the first event from the queue and handles it by interacting with the nodes in the following way (also see Fig. \[fig:simulator\]).
#### Proof-of-Work
When taking an event from the queue, the simulation randomly and independently assigns an ATV to a node. The simulation executes the assignment by invoking the event handler on the receiving node. Then, it schedules the next ATV with a random, exponentially distributed time delta. This simulates a proof-of-work process according to Def. \[def:process\]. The simulation does not perform actual work by setting the vote threshold to the maximum; meaning puzzles are trivial to solve.
#### Broadcast
Nodes invoke the broadcast logic by scheduling local events. The simulation translates them to global events. For each broadcast event, the simulation schedules events for each node except the sender. During this step, the simulation injects latency and simulates churn and leader failure. Delivery events are handled by invoking the handler on the receiving node.
Robustness {#ssec:robustness}
----------
We evaluate the robustness in terms of latency, churn, and leader failure. In all simulation runs we check for inconsistent committed state, which did not occur.
### Latency {#sssec:latency}
We model the effect of latency by injecting a random time delay between broadcast send and message delivery. We draw delays from an exponential distribution with fixed expectation, independently for each node and delivery. Latency causes temporal state inconsistencies. In these periods, nodes spend their ATVs on extending superseded blocks, or even produce temporal forks. We observe that largely independent of the quorum size $\qsize$, expected latencies below 1% of the expected block time (Bitcoin: 6 seconds) have marginal impact, while latencies in the order of 10% of the expected block time (Bitcoin: 60 seconds) delay the commit by about 20%. Figure \[fig:latency\] visualizes these results.
Empirical measurements [@decker2013InformationPropagation; @croman2016ScalingDecentralized; @gervais2016SecurityPerformance] suggest that the propagation time of Bitcoin blocks ($\approx 500$ KB) is about 9 seconds on the Internet. If we take this as an upper bound, we can argue that tolerates practical latencies. Moreover, most of ’s messages are votes. They are multiple orders of magnitude smaller ($72$ B; see Sect. \[ssec:overhead\]), fit into a single packet, and are much easier to verify than Bitcoin blocks. Results of a simulation with different latencies for blocks ($10$s) and votes ($100$ms) suggest that can run at Internet scale with lower expected block time than 10 minutes.
### Churn
We simulate churn by muting a fraction (churn ratio) of random nodes for 10 times the expected block time. Muted nodes can receive ATVs but do not send or receive messages. Accordingly, the ATVs assigned to muted nodes represent lost work. We expect that the time to commit is inversely proportional to the churn ratio: if 50% of the nodes are muted, the time to commit is twice as long, independent of the quorum size. Figure \[fig:churn\] supports this claim.
### Leader Failure {#sssec:leader-failure}
Leaders may fail to propose blocks. We model such failures by dropping block proposals randomly with constant probability (leader failure rate).
In , lost proposals imply a full block worth of wasted work. can reuse votes for different proposals. Honest nodes reveal at most one new vote with their proposal. Accordingly, a lost proposal wastes at most the work of one vote. Therefore, with increasing quorum size the robustness to leader failure should improve. The results in Figure \[fig:failure\_real\] (with realistic 10s/100ms latency) and Figure \[fig:failure\] (without latency to isolate effects) support this claim. For perspective, the right end of the graph simulates a situation where an attacker can monitor all nodes’ network traffic and disconnect nodes at discretion with 50% success probability. Still, for large quorum sizes the time to commit is not longer than under the extreme latencies discussed in Section \[sssec:latency\].
The robustness against churn and leader failure emerges from ’s novel approach to form short-lived committees from ephemeral identities. This maintains liveness even under the threat of powerful network-level attacks. We move on to the discussion of attacks on the protocol layer.
Security {#ssec:security}
--------
The security evaluation draws on the framework by @zhang2019LayCommon. It distinguishes the security aspects proof-of-work blockchains should fulfill: chain quality, incentive compatibility, subversion gain, and censorship susceptibility.
The authors suggest Markov Decision Processes (MDP) as method and apply it to several variants of . However, state explosion prevented them from modeling Bobtail,[^2] because it ranks proof-of-work solutions by magnitude. Since adopts this ranking for the leader election (Sect. \[sssec:proto\_leader\]), it does not seem readily amenable to MDPs, either. We thus resort to informal reasoning and simulation. Following the convention in the literature, we assume two agents. Let $\lambda$ be the total compute power. The attacker has $\alpha\cdot\lambda$ compute power, the honest agent controls the rest. The honest agent operates correct nodes, while the attacker operates a single node that may deviate from the protocol specification.
### Subversion Gain
The canonical example for subversion gain in cryptocurrencies is double spending: the attacker wants at least one of the honest nodes (the merchant) to act on inconsistent state. supports commits, hence we neither need to consider the possibility of history rewriting nor the double spending of *un*committed transactions.[^3] suffers from these problems [@karame2012DoublespendingFast; @heilman2015EclipseAttacks; @gervais2016SecurityPerformance; @budish2018EconomicLimits; @apostolaki2017HijackingBitcoin]. The only remaining strategy is splitting the network so that the recipients of at least two different double-spend transactions commit to different states. This loss of consistency would materialize in permanent forks that require out-of-band resolutions (triggered by an else-branch after code line \[l:detectfork\]).
In order to understand how ensures consistency, it is instructive to recall the block preference rule in Sect. \[sssec:proto\_preference\]. Assume counterfactually that nodes never update their value according to received votes. Then, an attacker who becomes the leader could send different proposals to each node. This would fragment the honest nodes’ compute power and give the attacker time to form six quorums, three per conflicting state. The probability of the attacker becoming leader is at least $\alpha$ in each round. This would be a catastrophic attack.
The actual block preference rule selects the value with the highest progress among all known proposals. Therefore, as soon as the first vote is received from an honest node, all honest nodes converge to a single value. As a result, the attacker would have to form six complete quorums in the time the honest nodes get assigned a single ATV and broadcast the corresponding vote. Since $\frac{6 \qsize}{\alpha} \gg \frac1{1-\alpha}$, such an attack becomes infeasible for large quorum sizes and $\alpha<1/2$.
### Censoring {#sssec:censoring}
In the censoring scenario, the attacker wants to control the values on which consensus is achieved for some time. This means he has to be elected as leader in multiple ($m$) consecutive blocks.
We start with the probability of an attacker becoming the leader in a single round. Without deviating from the protocol, he leads with probability $\alpha$. This means he could successfully censor for $m$ consecutive blocks with probability $\alpha^m$.
However, naively following the protocol is not the best censoring strategy. Taking inspiration from the work on selfish mining [@eyal2014MajorityNot; @sapirshtein2016OptimalSelfish; @kiayias2016BlockchainMining], we argue that an attacker can do better by withholding information. A selfish miner in withholds complete blocks, such that other miners work on an irrelevant part of the chain. has a more granular type of information: an attacker might withhold his votes. A censoring attacker would release his votes only when the release implies leadership. In practice, this means that a censoring attacker does not share votes, he only proposes blocks. Using this strategy, the attacker can delay the next quorum until the honest nodes can form one without the attacker’s votes. This time window increases the attacker’s odds of becoming the leader.
We implement this *censor* strategy and instantiate it in a special attacker node of the simulation environment (see Fig. \[fig:simulator\]). We bias the assignment of ATVs towards this node such that it posesses computational power $\alpha$. We routinely check for forks, but do not find any. We count how many of the committed blocks are proposed by the attacker in order to estimate the probability of leadership per round. Figure \[fig:leadership\] shows this estimate as a function of the quorum size for different attacker strengths $\alpha$. Using the described withholding strategy, an $\alpha=1/3$ attacker contributes roughly 42% ($\alpha=1/2$: 64%) of the blocks. For comparison, the upper bound for block withholding strategies for the same attacker on is 50% ($\alpha=1/2$: 100%) [@sapirshtein2016OptimalSelfish].
We additionally validate the results on the censor strategy using an independent Monte Carlo (MC) simulation. (See Appendix \[apx:mcmc\] for details.) As depicted in Figure \[fig:leadership\], the MC analysis confirms the network simulation.
### Chain Quality and Incentive Compatibility
The prevalent strategy for increasing the own share of blocks and rewards is selfish mining [@eyal2014MajorityNot; @sapirshtein2016OptimalSelfish; @negy2020SelfishMining]. This attack is inherently connected with incentives. Its basic idea is to withhold and strategically release blocks in order to create an information asymmetry that allows to reap a disproportional amount of rewards for the invested share of work. This idea is not directly transferrable from to for three reasons. First, the finality after three blocks substantially limits the horizon of the selfish miner. Second, block proposals are less valuable. They are not significant sources of reward. Third, block proposals are less critical. In fact, block withholding reduces to the situation of leader failure. Since votes can be reused, honest nodes can replace missing proposals very fast (see Section \[sssec:leader-failure\]). This makes proposals less rare events than in , limiting the strategic advantage of withholding them.
However, as we have argued in Section \[sssec:censoring\], it is a valid strategy to *withhold votes*. Therefore, we analyze the effect of vote withholding on the distribution of rewards, assuming a constant reward per committed vote, like in Bobtail [@bissias2020BobtailImproved]. The naive strategy yields a share of $\alpha$ of the votes. The attacker’s goal is to maximize the number of votes he contributes to each quorum. Since only the leader can decide which votes are included in a proposed quorum, the first step of optimal vote withholding is to increase the odds of becoming the leader. This, in turn, can be achieved by withholding votes! The circularity indicates that the attack can be approximated with the censoring strategy discussed in Section \[sssec:censoring\]. Figure \[fig:votes\] shows simulation results on how the strategy, $\alpha$, and the quorum size affect the share of attacker votes committed to the chain. Interestingly, the censor receives fewer rewards than honest nodes and naive attackers, indicating a dilemma between paying for becoming the leader and capitalizing the power of leadership. The tradeoff is visible by comparing Figures \[fig:leadership\] and \[fig:votes\]. A similar tradeoff appears for the so-called “proof withholding” strategy in Bobtail [@bissias2020BobtailImproved], which resembles the censoring strategy in .
Again, we compare the protocol implementation in the network simulation with the idealized MC model described in Appendix \[apx:mcmc\].
Overhead {#ssec:overhead}
--------
requires one message broadcast per block, namely the block itself, independent of the number of participating nodes. adds $\qsize$ message broadcasts per block—one for each vote. Votes are much smaller than blocks. Under the conservative assumptions of 256 bits for block reference and public key, and 64 bits for the puzzle solution, a vote is 72B.[^4] The number of messages is constant in the number of nodes, like in Bitcoin. However, block headers grow. must store the complete quorum with $\qsize$ puzzle solutions. This overhead matters because the header is replicated in all nodes that want to verify the blockchain in the future.
Assuming the same vote size and the most robust case analyzed ($\qsize=256$), the storage overhead is about 10kB per block. This is less than 1% of Bitcoin’s average block size in 2019. With this choice of $\qsize$, falsely accepting a quorum as unique is much less likely than guessing a 128-bit key in one attempt. Table \[tab:overhead\] (in the appendix) shows the storage overhead per block and the associated probability of ambiguity at expected optimistic quorum time (Corollary \[cor:poa\_at\_ev\]) for different choices of $\qsize$. We argue that the benefits of the protocol outweigh its storage costs and leave the exploration of compression techniques to future work.
Discussion {#sec:discussion}
==========
Relation to Other Distributed Logs {#ssec:related}
----------------------------------
[max width=]{}
[lcccccccc]{} & & & & & & & &\
$\#$ nodes & 10 & $10^2$ & $10^3$ & $10^3$ & $10^3$ & $10^3$ & $10^3$ & $10^3$\
committee & & & & [()]{}& [()]{}& & &\
permissioned\
- network & &\
- committee & & &\
\
- BTP & & & & & & &\
- BTI & & & & & & & &\
sidechain & & & & & & & &\
finality & & & & & & & &\
\
New distributed log protocols are proposed almost every month. We do not claim to know all of them and we do not attempt to provide a complete map of the design space, since other researchers have specialized on this task [@bano2019SoKConsensus; @cachin2017BlockchainConsensus]. Instead, we compare to some of its closest relatives along selected dimensions (see Table \[tab:design-space\]).
### Number of Nodes {#sssec:table_size}
Early BFT protocols were designed for a small number of nodes. PBFT [@castro2002PracticalByzantine], for example, is proven secure under the Byzantine assumptions \[bft-network\] and \[bft-adversary\]. It requires multiple rounds of voting to reach consensus on a single value. The communication complexity of $O(n^2)$ renders it impractical for more than a dozen nodes $n$.
HotStuff [@yin2019HotStuffBFT] ensures safety under the same assumptions, but increases the rate of confirmed values to one per round of voting. Its key idea is to pipeline the commit phases of iterative consensus (recall Fig. \[fig:pipeline\]). Moreover, it reduces communication complexity to $O(n)$ by routing all communication through a leader. These two changes make HotStuff practical for larger networks. However, all correct nodes actively participate (send messages) for each block.
### Committee {#sssec:table_committee}
Protocols designed for even larger scale reduce communication complexity further by electing committees. Only committee members participate actively. All other nodes wait until they become part of a committee.
In , write-access to the ledger is controlled by a proof-of-work puzzle. In each round, one node – the finder of the block – broadcasts a message. Consequently, successful miners can be interpreted as single-node committees. In Bobtail [@bissias2020BobtailImproved] and , multiple proof-of-work puzzles are solved per block. Consequently the committee size is greater than one. The committee approach is also followed by proof-of-stake protocols. Here, committee membership is tied to the possession of transferable digital assets (stake).
### Permissioned {#sssec:table_permissioned}
As stated earlier (Sect. \[sec:pow\_quorum\]), assumption \[bft-network\] can only be satisfied by restricting access to the network based on identities assigned by an external identity provider or gatekeeper. Consequently, protocols relying on this assumption are permissioned on the network layer. Proof-of-stake internalizes the gatekeeping functionality by restricting access to the committee based on the distribution of stake. While participating as a node is possible without permission, access to the committee is still permissioned.
In proof-of-work systems any agent can join and leave the network and has a (fair) chance of becoming committee member without obtaining permission from a gatekeeper.[^5]
### Resource Binding {#sssec:table_binding}
Proof-of-work can be seen as a commitment of resources to a value. Typically, these values are chosen locally on each node. Freshness is guaranteed by including a reference to recent puzzle solutions in the value. We distinguish between resources bound to a proposal (BTP) for an upcoming state update and resources bound to an identifier (BTI) used for entering the committee.
Bound to proposal (BTP)\
(0,0) – (5.6,0); (5.6,0) – (8.4,0); (8.4,0) – (11,0) node \[below left\] [time]{}; [ (7, -3pt) node \[below, align=center\] [resource binding]{}; ]{} [ (10, 3pt) node \[above, align=center\] [publish]{} – (10, -3pt); ]{} [ (5.5, 3pt) node \[above, align=center\] [define\
proposal]{} – (5.5, -3pt); ]{} [ (8.5, 3pt) node \[above, align=center\] [find\
solution]{} – (8.5, -3pt); ]{}
Bound to identifier (BTI)\
(0,0) – (1.1,0); (1.1,0) – (3.9,0); (3.9,0) – (11,0) node \[below left\] [time]{}; [ (2.5, -3pt) node \[below, align=center\] [resource binding]{}; ]{} [ (10, 3pt) node \[above, align=center\] [publish]{} – (10, -3pt); ]{} [ (1, 3pt) node \[above, align=center\] [define\
identifier]{} – (1, -3pt); ]{} [ (4, 3pt) node \[above, align=center\] [find\
solution]{} – (4, -3pt); ]{} [ (5.5, 3pt) node \[above, align=center\] [define\
proposal]{} – (5.5, -3pt); ]{}
(0,0) – (1.5,0) node \[right\] [competition]{};
uses BTP. Nodes form a proposal for the next block locally and then start to solve a proof-of-work for this proposal. If they are successful in finding a puzzle solution, they share their proposal. This process is depicted in the upper half of Figure \[fig:btp\_vs\_bti\].
Bitcoin-NG [@eyal2016BitcoinNGScalable] innovated by translating the concept of leader election from the BFT literature ( [@dwork1988ConsensusPresence; @garciamolina1982ElectionsDistributed; @ongaro2014SearchUnderstandable]) to . The miner of a block (elected leader) becomes responsible for appending multiple consecutive (micro) blocks until the next leader emerges with the next mined block. In our framework, Bitcoin-NG adds throughput by switching from BTP to BTI in . A more elaborate BTI protocol is Byzcoin [@kogias2016EnhancingBitcoin]. It forms a committee over the last $\qsize$ successful miners. This rolling committee is then responsible for appending micro blocks. Byzcoin uses PBFT to reach final consensus within each committee, thereby shifting control over the micro blocks from a single node (Bitcoin-NG) to multiple nodes.
is a BTI protocol: nodes bind resources to identifiers by mining votes. If they happen to lead when the quorum is complete, they sign a block proposal with their secret key. The lower half of Figure \[fig:btp\_vs\_bti\] shows this order of events. Bobtail extends by binding a preliminary transaction list into the proof-of-work solution of each vote.[^6] This BTP aspect of Bobtail adds significant complexity to the voting logic in order to prevent the reuse of votes for different competing proposals. As described in Section \[sec:evaluation\], makes the reuse of votes a key feature.
### Sidechain {#sssec:table_sidechain}
The sequences of micro blocks in Bitcoin-NG, Byzcoin, and also Thunderella [@pass2018ThunderellaBlockchains] are often referred to as sidechains. Sidechains can serve several purposes, such as increasing throughput (Bitcoin-NG) or adding finality (Byzcoin). However, since different mechanisms are used to advance different chains, synchronization is a major problem. Bitcoin-NG tackles it with incentives, Thunderella focuses on an optimistic case, and Byzcoin leaves open which chain has priority. Sidechains often involve high protocol complexity because different consensus mechanisms are stacked onto each other: the protocols require a distributed log in order to provide a distributed log (with different properties). By contrast, provides an improved distributed log directly from a broadcast network and proof-of-work.
### Finality {#sssec:table_finality}
The lack of finality in exposes it to many attacks [@bonneau2016WhyBuy; @gervais2016SecurityPerformance; @budish2018EconomicLimits; @auer2019DoomsdayEconomics]. So far, according to conventional wisdom, eventual consistency has been accepted as the price of a truly permissionless system. Byzcoin challenged this view with a stacked solution involving sidechains. achieves the same at lower protocol complexity using proof-of-work quorums. Their stochastic uniqueness allows us to transfer the commit process from the permissioned world to the permissionless.
Other Related Protocols
-----------------------
Not included in Table \[tab:design-space\] are protocol proposals that replace the linear data structure of the distributed log with more general directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) [@sompolinsky2015SecureHighRate; @sompolinsky2016SPECTREFast]. This promises higher scalability and faster first confirmation in latent networks at the cost of additional complexity on the application layer, which cannot rely on the total order and uniqueness of state updates anymore. Also Fruitchain [@pass2017FruitChainsFair] can be interpreted as a DAG: it recognizes solutions to hard and easy puzzles but hides the DAG’s complexity from the application layer by not allowing ‘fruits’ to carry state updates.
An even more radical approach is to drop the distributed log completely and implement a digital asset directly on a secure (source-ordered) broadcast without consensus [@guerraoui2019ConsensusNumber]. However, this approach restricts the versatility of the application layer. For example, arbitrary smart contract logic is not supported.
Limitations and Future Work {#ssec:limits}
---------------------------
We have presented a protocol that achieves finality in a permissionless setting under axiomatic exclusion of the failure modes \[pow-network\] and \[pow-adversary\], and the acceptance of a negligible failure probability. The assumption on \[pow-network\] and \[pow-adversary\] are also made for security proofs of [@garay2015BitcoinBackbone; @pass2017AnalysisBlockchain]. Nevertheless, it is worth discussing their suitability.
Excluding \[pow-network\] corresponds to assuming a fixed, network-wide compute power $\lambda$. But agents can add and remove nodes at their willing. Even if the number of nodes is fixed, the computational power of each node is not. We observe in practice that a control loop, known as difficulty adjustment (DA), can compensate changes of $\lambda$ up to a certain degree. But ample literature shows that the deployed DA algorithms are not optimal [@kraft2016DifficultyControl; @meshkov2017ShortPaper; @fullmer2018AnalysisDifficulty; @hovland2017NonlinearFeedback], especially in case of sudden changes of $\lambda$. We argue that proof-of-work quorums can support more precise difficulty adjustment algorithms. A higher quorum size implies more votes and hence more data points to inform the algorithm about changes of $\lambda$.
The same effect can be exploited for detecting network-level attacks, such as eclipse and splits, more accurately. (Appendix \[apx:detect\] provides additional details.) This is relevant in the context of the CAP theorem [@gilbert2002BrewerConjecture], which tells us that every distributed system has to sacrifice one out of consistency, availability and partition tolerance. , as presented, favors availability over consistency. It does not implement a mechanism for detecting network splits, even though it is possible at high confidence for big quorum sizes. The trade-off could be changed in favor of consistency. If a split is detected, the protocol withholds commits (and may notify the application layer in order to trigger out-of-band resolutions).
The second failure mode, \[pow-adversary\], can be catastrophic and is hard to rule out. We are not aware of any argument that bounds $\alpha$ to a constant below 50% for any proof-of-work system. In fact, >50% attacks have been mounted against smaller instances of in practice [@cryptoslate2019percent51attacks].
Our network simulation in Section \[sec:evaluation\] models exponentially distributed message propagation times. This distribution puts the system under pressure, but it is not very realistic. Future work might put the simulation on a more structured network topology. However, since the literature reports a significant discrepancy between observed topologies and what cryptocurrencies are designed for [@delgadosegura2019TxProbeDiscovering; @mariem2020Allthat], it is not obvious what an appropriate topology would look like.
Similarly, we leave unexplored how to disseminate ’s smaller vote messages efficiently. Votes easily fit into single Internet packets and their verification requires only one hash evaluation. It might be possible to improve vote propagation times using UDP-based structured broadcast [@rohrer2019KadcastStructured] instead of the gossip broadcast used in many cryptocurrencies.
Finally, we refrain from designing an incentive mechanism for for the reasons stated in Section \[ssec:incentives\]. A principled approach would be to explore reward-optimizing strategies (combined withholding of votes and blocks) automatically using Markov Decision Processes [@sapirshtein2016OptimalSelfish; @zhang2019LayCommon] or even more sophisticated Reinforcement Learning techniques [@hou2019SquirRLAutomating].
Conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
==========
We understand as a positive example to support our claim that it is possible to build permissionless distributed logs *with* finality *directly* from proof-of-work. The claim is tentatively supported (with analysis and simulations) until is broken. We invite the community to prove our claim wrong, and provide running code online to facilitate this task. It is not safe to use this code in systems dealing with real values.
Regardless of whether our claim is true or false, the identified conflict between inclusiveness and security is instructive, and the associated theory of quorums on stochastic processes may find applications elsewhere. Since it comprises as a special case, it also contributes to a better understanding of the role of proof-of-work in known systems that “work in practice, but \[so far\] not in theory” [@bonneau2015SoKResearch].
If our claim holds, we have found a way to build permissionless distributed logs from proof-of-work that can serve many applications better than existing systems. However, proof-of-work is a very wasteful way of establishing consensus. It should be avoided whenever possible. Only if there is no alternative to proof-of-work, should be considered as a replacement for .
Proofs, Figures, and Visualizations
===================================
{width="\linewidth"}
{width="\linewidth"}
\[apx:proofs\]
#### Lemma \[lem:poa\_poisson\]
The POA for the Poisson process $P_\lambda$ is given by $${\ensuremath{\operatorname{poa}}}_{P_\lambda, \qsize}(t) =
1 - e^{-\lambda t} \sum_{i=0}^{2\qsize -1}{\frac{(\lambda t)^i}{i!}} \,.$$
$P_\lambda$ has the following properties [@stewart2009ProbabilityMarkov p. 389]:
1. $\prob{P_\lambda(0) = 0 } = 1$,
2. $P_\lambda(t) - P_\lambda(s) \drawn \distPoisson(\lambda
\cdot(t-s))$ for all $s < t$, and
3. for $n \in \nats$ and $0 < t_1 < \dots < t_n$, the family of random variables $$\{P_\lambda(t_i) - P_\lambda(t_{i-1})\mid 2 \leq i \leq
n\}$$ is stochastically independent.
According to Definition \[def:poa\], $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\operatorname{poa}}}_{P_\lambda, \qsize}(t)
= & \prob{P_\lambda(t) \geq 2 \qsize} \\
= & 1 - \prob{P_\lambda(t) \leq 2 \qsize - 1} \,.
\end{aligned}$$
By setting $s=0$ in property 2 of the Poisson process and using property 1, we conclude that $P_\lambda(t) \drawn \distPoisson(\lambda t)$. By evaluating the cumulative distribution function of the Poisson distribution $$\begin{aligned}
F_{\distPoisson}(n; \lambda') =
e^{-\lambda'} \sum_{i=0}^{\lfloor n \rfloor}{\frac{\lambda'^i}{i!}}
\end{aligned}$$ for $n = 2\qsize - 1$ and $\lambda' = \lambda t$, we obtain the stated result.
#### Lemma \[lem:qt\_possion\]
The optimistic $\qsize$-quorum time for the Poisson process is Erlang distributed with shape parameter $\qsize$ and rate parameter $\lambda$, in short $$T_{P_\lambda,\qsize} \drawn \distErlang(\qsize, \lambda) \,.$$
The time between two consecutive count events of $P_\lambda$ is exponentially distributed with rate parameter $\lambda$. The times between any two consecutive count events are stochastically independent. The sum of $\qsize$ independent and identically distributed exponential random variables is Erlang distributed [@stewart2009ProbabilityMarkov p. 146] with shape parameter $\qsize$ and rate parameter $\lambda$.
#### Theorem \[thm:negligible\]
For the Poisson process, the probability of ambiguity at the expected quorum time is negligible in the quorum size $\qsize$.
Let $$\begin{aligned}
f(k) :=
{\ensuremath{\operatorname{poa}}}_{P_\lambda, \qsize}({\ensuremath{\bar{t}_{\lambda, \qsize}}}) =
1 - e^{-\qsize} \sum_{i=0}^{2\qsize -1}{\frac{\qsize^i}{i!}} \,.
\end{aligned}$$ Our first observation is that $f(k)$ can be expressed in terms of the regularized incomplete Gamma function $P(\alpha, k)$. According to , $$\begin{aligned}
f(k) = P(2k,k) \,.
\end{aligned}$$ Following the definition of the regularized incomplete Gamma function (see ), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
f(k) = \frac{\gamma(2k,k)}{(2k-1)!} \,, \label{eq:gamma_frac}
\end{aligned}$$ with the incomplete Gamma function (see ) $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma(\alpha,k) = \int_{0}^{k}{t^{\alpha -1}e^{-t} dt}\,.
\end{aligned}$$ We will prove the theorem by providing an (asymptotic) upper bound for $f(k)$ that decreases exponentially in $k$. Stirling’s Approximation [@robbins1955RemarkStirling] provides a useful lower bound for the factorial in the denominator of Equation \[eq:gamma\_frac\]: $$\begin{aligned}
n! \geq \sqrt{2\pi}\,n^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\,e^{-n} \label{eq:stirling_lower}
\end{aligned}$$ We proceed with an upper bound for the enumerator as follows. Let $g(t) =
t^{2k-1}e^{-t}$ be the function to integrate for $\alpha = 2k$. Like for integrals in general, $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma(2k,k) = \int_{0}^{k}{g(t)\,dt} \leq k \cdot \max_{t \in [0,k]}{g(t)} \,.
\end{aligned}$$ The derivative of $g$ is $g'(t)=e^{-t}(2k-t-1) t^{2k-2}$. For $t \in [0,k]$ the derivative $g'$ is greater than zero. Hence the function $g$ is monotonically increasing, the maximum is reached at the end of the interval, and $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma(2k,k) \leq k^{2k}e^{-k} \,. \label{eq:enum}
\end{aligned}$$ Applying Approximations \[eq:stirling\_lower\] and \[eq:enum\] to Equation \[eq:gamma\_frac\], yields $$\begin{aligned}
f(k) &\leq \frac{k^{2k}e^{-k}}{\sqrt{2\pi}\,(2k-1)^{2k-\frac{1}{2}}\,e^{-2k+1}} \\
&= {\left(\frac{k\sqrt{e}}{2k-1}\right)}^{2k} \sqrt{\frac{2k-1}{2\pi e^2}}
\end{aligned}$$ Observe that $$\begin{aligned}
\limsup_{k\to\infty} \frac{\left(\frac{k\sqrt{e}}{2k-1}\right)^{2k}}{\left(\frac{\sqrt{e}}{2}\right)^{2k}}
= \limsup_{k\to\infty} \left(\frac{2k}{2k-1}\right)^{2k} = e < \infty\,.
\end{aligned}$$ Thus, $$\begin{aligned}
f(k) = O\left(\frac{e^k}{4^k}\sqrt{k}\right).
\end{aligned}$$ Since $\sqrt{k} < 1.25^k$ for $k>1$, we can conclude $$\begin{aligned}
f(k) &= O\left(\frac{e^k}{4^k} 1.25^k\right) \\
&= O\left(0.85^k\right)\,.
\end{aligned}$$
------------- -------------------------- --------------
quorum size probability of ambiguity block header
at expected quorum time (bytes)
1 $0.2642$ 72
2 $0.1429$ 112
16 $0.0003$ 672
64 $1.2\times 10^{-12}$ 2.6k
256 $4\times 10^{-45}$ 10k
------------- -------------------------- --------------
: Storage overhead of consensus.[]{data-label="tab:overhead"}
Monte Carlo Simulation {#apx:mcmc}
======================
=\[\] =\[->, draw, rounded corners=1em\] =\[anchor=south, font=, xshift=-0.5em\] =\[anchor=north, font=, xshift=-0.5em\] (top) at (0,1) [$a,d,\top$]{}; (ta) at (1,0) [$a+1,d,\top$]{}; (tb) at (1,1) [$a,d+1,\bot$]{}; (tc) at (1,2) [$a,d+1,\top$]{}; (top) |- (ta); (top) – (tb); (top) |- (tc); at (0.5, 0) [$\alpha$]{}; at (0.5, 1) [$(1 - \alpha)/(a + d + 1)$]{}; at (0.5, 2) [$(1 - \alpha)\cdot(a+d)/(a + d + 1)$]{}; at (0.5, 0) [attacker extends lead]{}; at (0.5, 1) [defender obtains lead]{}; at (0.5, 2) [following defender catches up]{};
=\[\] =\[->, draw, rounded corners=1em\] =\[anchor=south, font=, xshift=-0.5em\] =\[anchor=north, font=, xshift=-0.5em\] (top) at (0,1) [$a,d,\bot$]{}; (ta) at (1,0) [$a,d+1,\bot$]{}; (tb) at (1,1) [$a+1,d,\top$]{}; (tc) at (1,2) [$a+1,d,\bot$]{}; (top) |- (ta); (top) – (tb); (top) |- (tc); at (0.5, 0) [$1 - \alpha$]{}; at (0.5, 1) [$\alpha/(a + d + 1)$]{}; at (0.5, 2) [$\alpha\cdot(a+d)/(a + d + 1)$]{}; at (0.5, 0) [defender extends lead]{}; at (0.5, 1) [attacker obtains lead]{}; at (0.5, 2) [following attacker catches up]{};
We cross-check the implementation of the censor strategy and its behavior in the network simulation (see Sect. \[sssec:censoring\]) using an independent Monte Carlo simulation. We model the formation of individual quorums using an (Absorbing) Markov Chain, but omit higher-level concepts such as blocks and their chaining. The censor strategy is to generally withhold votes until either the attacker can form a quorum as leader, or the defender forms a quorum without any of the attacker’s (withheld) votes. In a protocol execution, the first case ([<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">success</span>]{}) applies when the attacker proposes a block which the honest nodes accept. The second case ([<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">fail</span>]{}) applies when the honest nodes propose a block.
#### State representation and initialization
We model the current state as a triple $(a, d, l)$, where $a \in \nats$ denotes the number of (withheld) attacker votes, $d \in \nats$ (for defender) denotes the number of votes of the honest nodes, and $l \in \bools$ is true if the attacker holds the currently smallest vote. The initial state is $(1, 0, \top)$ with probability $\alpha$ and $(0, 1, \bot)$ otherwise.
#### State transition
Figure \[fig:mcmc\] shows an annotated state transition diagram. If $l = \top$, the next state is $$\begin{aligned}
&(a + 1, d, l) && {\text{ with probability }}\alpha ,\\
&(a, d + 1, \bot) && {\text{ with probability }}\frac{1 - \alpha}{a + d + 1} \text{, and}\\
&(a, d + 1, l) && \text{ otherwise.}\end{aligned}$$ If $l = \bot$, the next state is $$\begin{aligned}
&(a, d + 1, l) && {\text{ with probability }}1 - \alpha ,\\
&(a + 1, d, \top) && {\text{ with probability }}\frac{\alpha}{a + d + 1} \text{, and}\\
&(a + 1, d, l) && \text{ otherwise.}\end{aligned}$$
#### Termination
If $l \wedge a + d \geq \qsize$, the simulation terminates in [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">success</span>]{}. If $\neg l \wedge d \geq \qsize$, it terminates in [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">fail</span>]{}. The simulation continues until one of these conditions is true.
#### Simulation
We run the model 1000000 times for each combinations of $\alpha \in \left\{\frac{1}{50}, \frac{1}{10}, \frac{1}{5}, \frac{1}{3},
\frac{1}{2}\right\}$ and $\qsize \in \left\{1,2,4,\dots,256\right\}$. Figure \[fig:leadership\] shows the fraction of cases where the simulation terminates in [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">success</span>]{}. Figure \[fig:votes\] shows the average number of attacker votes for the runs that end in [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">success</span>]{}.
Detecting Attacks {#apx:detect}
=================
Each vote is linked to one ATV. By assumption (Sect. \[sec:pow\_quorum\]), the time between two consecutive ATVs is exponentially distributed with rate $\lambda$. In an honest network, a node regularly receives votes (and own ATVs). A node can test the hypothesis of being eclipsed based on the arrival of votes. Table \[tab:detect\] shows after how much time (relative to the block time) of not receiving a single vote a node can rule out a natural course of events with confidence $p = 0.001$.
Observe that larger quorums sizes increase the detectability of eclipse attacks. For quorum sizes greater than 8, eclipse attacks can be detected with confidence within a single expected block time. For plain ($\qsize=1$), an equally powerful test requires an observation window of almost 7 times the expected block time.
[^1]: We choose this time range because the block time stamps were less accurate in the more distant past as the data field was used for other purposes.
[^2]: @zhang2019LayCommon were aware of Bobtail and chose not to model it. This is confirmed in private communication with the authors of Bobtail [@bissias2020BobtailImproved].
[^3]: Sound applications on a system with finality wait until the commit. can be parametrized to acceptable commit times for economic exchanges between humans. (High-frequency trading needs other architectures.)
[^4]: Bitcoin shortens public keys to 160 bits and uses solutions of 32 bits. Its blocks are in the order of 1MB.
[^5]: We ignore the role of the supply chain for puzzle solving equipment.
[^6]: Since Bobtail inspired , a better frame is to see as simplification of Bobtail rather than Bobtail as an extension to .
|
---
abstract: 'We present a multi-wavelength analysis of the history of star formation in the W3 complex. Using deep, near-infrared ground-based images, combined with images obtained with Spitzer and Chandra observatories, we identified and classified young embedded sources. We identified the principal clusters in the complex, and determined their structure and extension. We constructed extinction-limited samples for five principal clusters, and constructed K-band luminosity functions (KLF) that we compare with those of artificial clusters with varying ages. This analysis provided mean ages and possible age spreads for the clusters. We found that IC 1795, the centermost cluster of the complex, still hosts a large fraction of young sources with circumstellar disks. This indicates that star formation was active in IC 1795 as recently as 2 Myr ago, simultaneous to the star forming activity in the flanking embedded clusters, W3-Main and W3(OH). A comparison with carbon monoxide emission maps indicates strong velocity gradients in the gas clumps hosting W3-Main and W3(OH) and show small receding clumps of gas at IC 1795, suggestive of rapid gas removal (faster than the T Tauri timescale) in the cluster forming regions. We discuss one possible scenario for the progression of cluster formation in the W3 complex. We propose that early processes of gas collapse in the main structure of the complex could have defined the progression of cluster formation across the complex with relatively small age differences from one group to another. However, triggering effects could act as catalysts for enhanced efficiency of formation at a local level, in agreement with previous studies.'
author:
- 'Carlos G. Román-Zúñiga, Jason E. Ybarra, Guillermo D. Megias, Mauricio Tapia, Elizabeth A. Lada and João F. Alves'
title: Star Formation Across the W3 Complex
---
Introduction \[s:intro\]
========================
In the current picture of star formation, Giant Molecular Clouds (GMC) are highly inefficient factories, in which only a small fraction of the available gas is converted into stars. Moreover, star forming regions in GMC complexes are highly heterogeneous. There is a considerable diversity among the stellar aggregations they produce. Differences are evident even at the level of their basic properties, e.g. sizes, numbers and density structures.
Aggregations of young stars in molecular clouds are classified as Embedded Star Clusters. These clusters are born as bound systems of gas and stars. Once gas is removed, embedded clusters may or may not stay bound. They either survive (e.g. open clusters), or dissolve to become part of the field population. For a majority of clusters in the galaxy, the latter is the common outcome . However, recent discussions consider that cluster morphology is more heterogeneous [@Bressert:2010fk; @de-Grijs:2011rt]. Numerical studies suggest that small groups of stars may be abundant [@Adams:2001aa] and they may either merge to form clusters or disrupt rapidly into the field. According to studies like that of @Kruijssen:2012ve, star clusters may assemble from sub-clusters that merge into larger entities after the gas from which they formed is both disrupted by stellar feedback and torn apart by tidal shocks from the surrounding cloud (the so called “cruel cradle" effect).
Unfortunately, the dynamical picture of cluster evolution provided by numerical studies is difficult to directly compare with observations. On one hand, the initial conditions of cluster formation, a key requirement for realistic simulations, are still under debate. On the other hand, young cluster evolution from observations, would require of additional information on the kinematics of stars (e.g. radial velocities), and spectroscopic age estimations of individual sources to infer the progression of formation. Such studies are only beginning to arise from surveys like APOGEE[^1] [e.g. @cottaar:2014aa], and are limited to nearby ($d<1$ kpc) regions. Meanwhile, it is possible to partially reconstruct the history of star formation in a region from photometric information, which can provide evolutive classification and the spatial distribution of young sources, and from molecular gas emission maps, which can provide gas distribution and kinematics.
Surveys of GMCs show that embedded star clusters are rarely (if ever) born in isolation. Most embedded clusters form as part of “families" related to a particular complex, defining together a history of star formation from various levels of interaction. For instance, massive stars of one cluster may have influence on the efficiency of star formation of a neighboring cluster in the same cloud. Considering all this, it should be clear that star formation is highly dynamic; the embedded populations we observe are snapshots of a rather convoluted process of evolution and interaction, that changes significantly along the star forming history of a complex.
{width="6.0in"}
In order to investigate the progression of cluster formation under the influence of the local environment, we considered W3, a prominent cluster forming region in the “Heart and Soul" molecular complex. W3 is considered a clear example of sequential formation, where cluster formation was induced by the expansion of the giant HII region W4 [@Lada:1978aa; @Thronson:1985aa]. One of our goals is to trace the formation of distinct embedded clusters in this region and to attempt to reconstruct the star forming history of the cloud. The W3 Complex is located at a distance of 2.04$\pm$0.107 kpc [^2], and has hosted at least three major episodes of recent cluster formation. According to spectroscopic studies, IC 1795 formed first, about 3-5 Myr [@Oey:2005ly] ago, followed by the W3 “main" cluster located to its West edge, and the W3(OH) cluster group to the East, both with ages of 2-3 Myr [@Bik:2012aa; @Navarete:2011ys]. It has been suggested that IC 1795 triggered the other two episodes in a hierarchical progression [@Oey:2005ly]. The Chandra study by [@Feigelson:2008vn] suggested that the clusters in W3 extend widely and are highly structured, with sources located at relatively large distances from the dynamical centers, including a relatively isolated O star that might have escaped from the main cluster.
In two recent studies, @Rivera-Ingraham:2011yq [@Rivera-Ingraham:2013fj] made use of mid-infrared photometry and far-IR emission mapping from the Spitzer and Herschel[^3] space observatories, that comprise the entire W3 region. They were able to catalog hundreds of young stellar sources (YSOs) across the complex and determine their spatial distribution. They compiled important evidence that projected distances among YSOs are consistent with cluster forming clump scales, favoring the cluster forming mode. They also concluded that small aggregations and distributed populations, account for a significant fraction of the recent stellar production in the region. They suggest relative large age spreads from central to external regions in W3 and proposed a “convergent constructive feedback" scenario, where the gas flows from massive star formation clumps and collects into new dense regions, favoring a progression of formation and the age spread.
In this study we emphasize the relative importance of different young stellar groupings in and around IC 1795, W3-Main and W3(OH), augmenting the level of detail achieved in previous studies. We present a new set of deep, high resolution near-IR photometry that we combine with other available datasets, allowing us to increase the number of young star candidates in the complex. We use a K-band luminosity function analysis to investigate the presence of an age spread, and to help reconstruct the history of star formation in the cloud. Finally, we investigate gas kinematics near the clusters, providing additional information on the gas-star interaction during the early evolution of the complex.
Observations and Data Reduction \[s:observations\]
==================================================
Near-infrared imaging \[s:observations:ss:nir\]
-----------------------------------------------
We obtained near-infrared images of four fields in W3, covering a large area ($0.58\deg\times$$0.46\deg$). Images were obtained with the Omega 2000 camera at the 3.5m telescope in the Calar Alto Observatory of the Centro Astronómico Hispano Alemán (CAHA) in Almería, Spain. Omega 2000 provides a $15^\prime \times 15^\prime$ field of view (FOV). Observations were made in $J$, $H$ and $K$ (1.1, 1.6 and 2.2 $\mu$m, respectively). A list of all fields observed is listed Table \[tab:obs\], which gives the field identification, the center of field positions, observation date, filter, seeing (estimated from sigma-clipped average full width half-maximum (FWHM) of the stars in each field), and the peak values for the brightness distribution, which is a good estimate of the sensitivity limits achieved. The brightness distribution peaks are in all cases at or above $J=20.5$ mag, $H=19.75$ mag and $K=19.25$ mag.
### Image reduction \[s:observations:ss:nir:sss:reduction\]
The Omega 2000 images were reduced with modified versions of the FLAMINGOS near-infrared reduction and photometry/astrometry pipelines, which are built in the standard `IRAF` Command Language environment. One pipeline [see @Roman-Zuniga:2006aa] processes all raw frames by subtracting darks and dividing by flat fields, improving signal to noise ratios by means of a two pass sky subtraction method, and combining reduced frames with an optimized centroid offset calculation. We used dark frames and dome flats obtained within 48 hours of each observation. The final combined product images were then analyzed with a second pipeline, [see @Levine:2006ab], which identifies all possible sources from a given field using the `SExtractor` algorithm [@Bertin:1996aa]. We improved the `SExtractor` detection efficiency in the near-IR images by using a Gaussian convolution filter and maximum deblending [see @Bertin:1996aa]. The pipeline then performs `Daophot` PSF photometry [@Stetson:1987aa], calibrates observed magnitudes to a zero point and finds accurate astrometric solutions.
After astrometric solutions were found, individual field images were combined into mosaics using `Montage` [^4]. In Figure \[fig:JHKmosaic\] we show a RGB panorama constructed from a combination of the $J,\ H\mathrm{\ and\ }K$ mosaics. The image represents a complete spatial coverage of the IC 1795, W3-Main and W3-OH clusters. In the near-infrared the region is transparent to most of the prominent regions of nebulosity and obscuration observable in optical images [e.g. @Ogura:1976aa]. The near-IR images at W3(OH) are particularly interesting because they reveal, with unprecedented detail, several small, embedded stellar groups that lie in a small “chain" structure north and east of the W3(OH) cluster [these groups have been previously identified; e.g. @Feigelson:2008vn; @Navarete:2011ys]. In Figure \[fig:W3OH\] we show a close-up image of this region, where we now combine H and K images with the Spitzer IRAC 3.6 $\mu$m image to enhance illuminated nebulosity features and highlight the most reddened sources. We have labeled the W3(OH) cluster with the letter ‘A’. The two other most conspicuous groups in the ’chain’, both associated with B-type stars [@Navarete:2011ys] have been labeled with letters ‘B’ and ‘C’. The former group is not as prominent as an over-density but as it can be seen in the mosaic, it is associated with thick nebulosity, so it is possibly more deeply embedded. There is one more bright source sitting at the center of a cavity in between groups B and C, which we suspect could be an additional sub-group.
{width="6.0in"}
### Catalog preparation \[s:observations:ss:nir:sss:catalogs\]
The OMEGA 2000 photometry was calibrated relative to the Two-Micron All Sky Survey (2MASS), using catalogs retrieved from the All Sky Release Point Source databases. Final photometry catalogs were prepared with aid of `TOPCAT-STIL` [@Taylor:2005uq]. We combined individual photometry catalogs from each frame and filter and merged catalogs from all four fields into a master photometry list. In the overlapping areas, we selected the duplicates with the smaller total photometric error across the three bands in either field. Finally, we added 2MASS entries to replace failed measurements from saturated sources. Our final near-IR catalog contains a total of 72168 sources.
Mid-infrared Spitzer imaging \[s:observations:ss:mir\]
------------------------------------------------------
We performed a new reduction and photometric extraction of the W3 mosaics from project 1-127 available in the Spitzer Heritage Archive. Mosaics were constructed by processing both the short and long exposure (0.4 and 10.4 sec) Basic Calibrated Sets (BCD) from IRAC (all four bands) and the BCD set from MIPS (24 $\mu$m only) observations using the MOPEX package[^5]. We used the IRAC short exposure datasets to improve extraction of sources down the centers of W3-Main and W3(OH) regions, which present large areas of saturation (increasing with wavelength) due to bright nebulosities in the long exposure sets. However, even at the short exposure images, the bright nebulosity made it very difficult to obtain uniform quality from aperture photometry in the IRAC images, so we performed PSF photometry with `Daophot` on detection lists obtained with `SExtractor`. In this case, we improved the detection efficiency by using a “Mexican hat" convolution filter and reduced deblending [see @Bertin:1996aa] (compare to the near-IR, in section \[s:observations:ss:nir:sss:reduction\], above). Then, our pipeline selects a group of moderately bright and relatively isolated sources in order to make a PSF model for each `Daophot` run. In all cases we were able to fit the PSF model to a large majority of the detected sources. Final source detection lists were slightly cleaned with the aid of `PhotVis` [@Gutermuth:2004fr] to remove spurious detections.
The resultant photometry lists showed a net reduction of up to 12% in the photometric scatter to the aperture photometry obtained with the APEX software. For the MIPS 24 $\mu$m mosaic we used the APEX aperture photometry pipeline, which was good enough for non-saturated regions of the field. In heavily saturated regions, particularly near the centers of W3-Main and W3(OH), missing pixels impeded the ability to make good measurements, and we could not improve these measurements with PSF photometry. Zero points for our Spitzer photometry catalogs were checked by direct comparison of our photometry lists with values from the GLIMPSE 360 Legacy Project catalog[^6] and from the photometry tables of YSO candidates in [@Rivera-Ingraham:2011yq]. The agreement between both GLIMPSE and [@Rivera-Ingraham:2011yq] is excellent and zero point corrections were not required. The final photometry catalogs from the IRAC and MIPS 24 $\mu$m mosaics were then combined into a mid-IR catalog with 37267 sources, which we later merged with the near-IR catalog from our CAHA dataset to form a master source catalog.
Other datasets \[s:observations:ss:other\]
------------------------------------------
In this study we also make use of other datasets available in literature and public, web-based archives:
1. From the Chandra Source Catalog [CSC; @Evans:2010aa] the positions and X-ray photometry of a total of 611 sources in a box of 30$^\prime$ around the center of IC 1795[^7].
2. The $^{12}$CO(2-1) and $^{13}$CO(2-1) maps of the W3 region from the study of [@Bieging:2011kq].
3. The 2.5-level (science grade) SPIRE and PACS mosaics of the W3 region from the Herschel Space Telescope data archive.
4. The Bolocam 1.1 mm mosaic of W3 from the the Canadian Galactic Plane Survey [GPS; @Aguirre:2011aa].
Data Analysis and Results \[s:analysis\]
========================================
Identification of Young Stellar Sources \[s:analysis:ss:ysoid\]
---------------------------------------------------------------
Using our master infrared photometry catalog we identified Young Stellar Objects (YSOs) in the W3 complex. First, we identified Class I/0 and Class II sources from IRAC colors using the criteria applied by [@Ybarra:2013kh], which are in turn based in the IRAC color criteria of @Gutermuth:2008uc. Then, using the Chandra CSC catalogs we identified Class III sources as X-ray sources with infrared counterparts and no excess associated to circumstellar material. Finally, we identified additional Class I and Class II sources as X-ray CSC sources with infrared excess, by applying criteria that combine near-infrared and IRAC colors [see appendix of @Gutermuth:2008uc].
Figure \[fig:hardness\] shows a $H-K$ vs. $K-[4.5]$ color-color diagram for all infrared sources that coincide in position with X-ray CSC sources. The colors of the symbols are indicative of the Hardness ratio, calculated from the hard and soft X-ray fluxes, $H$ and $S$, estimated from aperture photometry measurements, as $(H-S)/(H+S)$. It is clear that most of the sources have large hardness ratios, which indicates that in most cases X-ray sources are obscured by large amounts of dust which reduces the soft X-ray emission.
![$H-K$ vs. $K-[4.5]$ color-color diagram for CSC X-ray sources coinciding with an source in our infrared master catalog. Open diamond symbols are sources without an infrared excess indicative of a disk. Open square symbols indicate sources classified as Class I. Open triangle symbols indicate sources classified as Class II. The colors of the symbols are coded to the hardness-to-soft X-ray ratio, as indicated in the color bar. \[fig:hardness\]](./f3.eps){width="5.5in"}
We identified a total of 1008 YSOs in W3, distributed as follows: 60 Class I/0 candidate sources, 780 Class II candidate sources and 167 Class III candidate sources. Our list contains a significantly larger number of YSO candidates compared to the list of [@Rivera-Ingraham:2011yq]. We suspect that the differences are mostly due to the addition of X-ray and near-infrared criteria which increased the number of candidates in each class. @Rivera-Ingraham:2011yq only list candidates with detections in all IRAC bands, which complicates a direct assessment of completeness.
In Figure \[fig:ysobd\] we show the K and \[3.6\] band brightness distributions of the three identified YSO classes in our sample. In the case of the \[3.6\] band, the three distributions show a sharp drop at a similar limit of about 15.5 mag. In contrast, for the $K$ band, the distribution for Class III sources drops at about 15.0 mag, while the distributions for Class I and Class II sources drop near 18.0 mag. These histograms show that, due to the high and non-uniform extinction, the brightness distributions for young sources are likely incomplete above the sensitivity limits. However, our near-IR observations are deep enough to detect young sources across the entire region. For this reason, analysis of the luminosity functions discussed in Section \[s:analysis:ss:klf\] were performed using extinction-limited samples.
![Above: K band brightness distribution for young stellar source candidates identified in the W3 region. Below: \[3.6\] brightness distribution. \[fig:ysobd\]](./f4a.eps "fig:"){width="5.5in"}\
![Above: K band brightness distribution for young stellar source candidates identified in the W3 region. Below: \[3.6\] brightness distribution. \[fig:ysobd\]](./f4b.eps "fig:"){width="5.5in"}
Spatial Distribution of Young Stellar Sources \[s:analysis:ss:ysodist\]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
In Figure \[fig:ysopos\] we illustrate the spatial distribution of YSO candidates in the W3 region, overlaid on an dust extinction map constructed with the optimized near-infrared excess method NICEST method of @Lombardi:2009aa. The YSO sources appear to be very well constrained to the three well known areas of the complex (namely IC 1795, W3-Main and W3(OH)).
Class I sources are mostly confined to the areas of high extinction: following the prescription of @Lada:2013aa, we found that over 80 percent of the Class I sources are located in high extinction regions ($A_V>7.0$ mag), and the surface density of Class I sources is linearly correlated with $A_V$ within $3<A_V<12$ mag. This is in very good agreement with other cluster forming regions like Orion A [@Lada:2013aa] and the Rosette Molecular Cloud [@Ybarra:2013kh].
Class II sources clearly permeate the entire complex, while Class III sources appear to have a slightly more centrally condensed distribution in the IC 1795 region but are also present in the western edge of W3-Main and surrounding the areas of low extinction to the East of W3(OH).
{width="6.0in"}
Two aspects are important to notice. First, cluster regions are not separated clearly in the layout of the complex, which suggest at least some partial overlap along the line of sight perpendicular to the field. Second, the spatial distribution of young sources suggest that clusters are not single, centrally condensed systems. Instead, they appear to have sub-structure.
In the following we a) make a consistent separation of the individual cluster populations and b) provide evidence of the presence of sub-structure in the cluster population by using a surface density analysis. We make the following two definitions:
1. We define a *Principal Cluster* as a surface density structure that can be associated to a single Gaussian peak with a FWHM of at least 1.0 pc (see $\S$\[s:analysis:ss:ysodist:sss:GMM\], below).
2. We define a *sub-structure* as a significant surface density peak, smaller than a principal cluster. We identified as significant, all those peaks with a surface density above 1.0 stars per sq. arcmin (see $\S$\[s:analysis:ss:ysodist:sss:gather\], below).
### Identification of Principal Clusters \[s:analysis:ss:ysodist:sss:GMM\]
In order to delimit individual clusters, we employed a Gaussian Mixture Model (GMM) analysis via the `mclust` package on the `R` code [@Banfield:1993xy; @Fraley:2002qf; @Raftery:2012nr]. The package provides a model-based clustering analysis of any population, based on covariance parametrization and an Expectation-Minimization (EM) algorithm. It can also divide a population in an optimized number of clusters by means of the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC). The BIC is the value of the maximized log-likelihood with a penalty on the number of model parameters, and allows comparison of models with different parameter sets as well as solutions with different numbers of clusters.
![Identification of principal clusters in the W3 region using a Gaussian Model Mixture (GMM). This five cluster model, applied to projected distribution of the population of Class II YSO candidates in the region provides the optimal mixture based on a Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC). The circles are placed at the cluster centers determined by the GMM analysis and have radii equal to the Gaussian $\sigma$. \[fig:GMM\]](./f6.eps){width="6.2in"}
We chose the Class II sample as it is the most complete and it is distributed more or less uniformly across the complex. RA,DEC positions were fed into the code as a sample of bivariate observations. We chose to use circular Gaussians to minimize the number of parameters required for the estimation. Given the complicated layout of the clusters in W3, we opted to run the GMM analysis including noise modeling and rejection of outliers[^8]. For our dataset, a model of five clusters provided the best fit for the sample. This is shown in Figure \[fig:GMM\]. While this finite mixture model shows less detail than –for instance– the nearest neighbor analysis, we see that it succeeds at identifying the three well known clusters in the region (W3-Main, W3(OH), IC 1795). It also adds two more principal clusters, one coinciding with NGC 896, the compact HII region located at the Western edge of the complex, and one more located at the Eastern edge. We labelled this group IC 1795-N. In Table \[tab:principal\_clusters\] we list the result of the GMM analysis, with the centers and radii of the five principal clusters identified (columns 1 to 4).
We emphasize that the purpose of this exercise is to define the principal clusters as consistent samples to study the history of star formation in the complex. The GMM analysis provides such consistent identification, which may differ with respect to other identification methods [e.g. @Rivera-Ingraham:2011yq].
### Cluster Substructure in W3. Nearest Neighbors. \[s:analysis:ss:ysodist:sss:gather\]
Estimating the surface density of young stellar sources is often done by applying a variant of the nearest neighbor method [formalized for star cluster detection by @Casertano:1985uq]. This method has been applied successfully in different studies [e.g. @Gutermuth:2010aa; @Roman-Zuniga:2008aa]. However, two very important issues regarding this method must be pointed out. First, when calculating distances to the $n$th neighbor in a distribution of points on a plane, there is a minimum value $n=6$ to avoid biasing the detection toward small structures formed purely by chance in a 2-dimensional distribution of points. Second, when mapping the surface density defined by such distances, the choice of an optimal smoothing kernel that would not dilute genuine substructures neither generate spurious ones, is not straightforward. These two issues were taken into consideration by [@Gladwin:1999id], who developed two nearest neighbor mapping methods, *gather* and *scatter*, both optimized to correctly detect small groups (in our case, possible cluster substructures) in source position maps. The *gather* algorithm is more adequate for determining hierarchical structure, while the *scatter* method is more adequate for defining the size of the smallest group in a distribution of points on a map.
{width="6.0in"}
The *gather* algorithm was better suited for the task of detecting and separating sub-structures. We applied *gather* to the distribution of all Class II YSO candidates in the W3 region, which is the most complete of our samples. Densities were calculated with a square kernel of 36$\arcsec$ over a Nyquist sampled RA-DEC grid. In Figure \[fig:gather\] we show the resultant map, in the form of surface density contours overlaid on an infrared emission image that combines data from the Spitzer MIPS 24$\mu$m, 70$\mu$m from Herschel PACS and 250 $\mu$m from Herschel SPIRE. If we compare the density map to the spatial distribution of sources in Figure \[fig:ysopos\] we see how *gather* highlights the three main regions (IC 1795, W3-Main and W3(OH)) as the principal clusters, but also shows a number of peaks that clearly define significant sub-structure in the spatial distribution of young sources.
The positions and equivalent sizes of sub-structure peaks in the *gather* map are listed in Table \[tab:substructures\]. Some of the sub-structure peaks in the map coincide in position with one or several Class I sources. Those peaks are likely related to the most recent episodes of formation in the complex. Notice how none of the peaks near the center, corresponding to IC 1795, are associated with Class I sources, possibly indicating an absence of current formation. We also show the positions of O and B type stars listed by @Ogura:1976aa, @Navarete:2011ys and @Bik:2012aa.
The largest concentration of massive stars (6 O-type stars, 7 B-type stars) is located at W3-Main, along with a noticeable concentration of protostars, associated with at least four YSO surface density sub-structures. In IC 1795 there are two O-type stars and one B-type star identified. The central O star in IC 1795 (No. 89 in the @Ogura:1976aa list) is associated with the highest surface density peak. In the W3(OH) region, two sub-structures define the positions of groups B and C in W3(OH), and both are associated with B type stars. It is interesting that the main cluster (group A) in W3(OH) is not associated with any identified massive source.
[lcccc]{}
1 & 02:27:33.29 & 61:56:24.2 & $\dots$ & $\dots$\
2 & 02:27:21.43 & 61:54:57.4 & $\dots$ & W3(OH)-C\
3 & 02:27:16.37 & 61:54:16.0 & $\dots$ & W3(OH)-B\
4 & 02:27:12.43 & 61:53:08.8 & 1 & $\dots$\
5 & 02:27:03.46 & 61:52:33.3 & 3 & W3(OH)-A\
6 & 02:27:18.20 & 62:00:04.1& 1 & R106\
7 & 02:27:08.58 & 61:56:30.6 & 1 & $\dots$\
8 & 02:26:58.74 & 61:54:53.8 & 4 & $\dots$\
9 & 02:26:49.52 & 61:57:46.0 & 1 & $\dots$\
10 & 02:26:48.17 & 62:03:28.3 & $\dots$ & $\dots$\
11 & 02:26:40.22 & 62:00:18.4 & $\dots$ & IC 1795 center\
12 & 02:26:41.14 & 62:04:33.6 & $\dots$ & R107\
13 & 02:26:38.87 & 62:02:01.3 & $\dots$ & $\dots$\
14 & 02:26:38.87 & 62:00:42.2 & $\dots$ & $\dots$\
15 & 02:26:35.50 & 61:59:15.1 & $\dots$ & $\dots$\
16 & 02:26:33.25 & 61:56:25.0 & $\dots$ & $\dots$\
17 & 02:26:20.01 & 62:05:01.3 & 1 & $\dots$\
18 & 02:26:16.96 & 61:59:48.7 & $\dots$ & $\dots$\
19 & 02:26:19.22 & 61:56:42.8 & $\dots$ & R101\
20 & 02:26:03.36 & 62:07:13.7 & $\dots$ & $\dots$\
21 & 02:25:59.28 & 61:58:37.3 & $\dots$ &$\dots$\
22 & 02:25:57.97 & 62:08:50.6 & 1 & $\dots$\
23 & 02:25:52.42 & 62:04:21.4 & 2 & R100\
24 & 02:25:51.10 & 62:00:20.0 & $\dots$ & $\dots$\
25 & 02:25:47.76 & 62:10:35.2 & $\dots$ & R104\
26 & 02:25:42.74 & 62:08:10.7 & $\dots$ & $\dots$\
27 & 02:25:43.36 & 62:06:18.0 & $\dots$ & W3-Main center\
28 & 02:25:32.91 & 62:06:49.4 & $\dots$ & $\dots$\
29 & 02:25:32.98 & 62:04:32.9 & 2 & $\dots$\
30 & 02:25:30.88 & 62:00:05.7 & 2 & NGC 896 center\
31 & 02:25:30.41 & 61:57:11.6 & 3 & R103\
32 & 02:25:21.90 & 62:07:06.8 & $\dots$ & $\dots$\
33 & 02:25:10.23 & 62:03:11.0 & $\dots$ & R105\
34 & 02:25:13.21 & 61:59:21.6 & $\dots$ & $\dots$\
35 & 02:25:00.93 & 62:09:08.7 & 3 & R102\
36 & 02:25:03.58 & 62:06:52.4 & 1 & $\dots$\
37 & 02:25:00.26 & 62:05:37.0 & 3 & $\dots$\
In Figure \[fig:gather\] we also placed labels (“RI") next to regions coinciding with “sub-clusters" identified by @Rivera-Ingraham:2011yq. It is worth noticing how the *gather* map highlights the groups $A,\ B,\ C$ that were identified by eye in Figure \[fig:W3OH\].
### YSO Ratio Maps \[s:analysis:ss:ysodist:sss:ratiomaps\]
It is possible to trace the evolution of a star-forming region through the construction of maps of YSO number ratios. Figure \[fig:ratiomaps\] shows maps for the Class II to Class III number ratio, $R_{\mathrm{II:III}}$, and the Class I/0 to Class II number ratio, $R_{\mathrm{I:II}}$, both constructed using the method described in @Ybarra:2013kh.
For the $R_{\mathrm{II:III}}$ map we limited the source candidates to a de-reddened brightness $H$=13.5 mag. This brightness cut avoids biasing the number counts from incompleteness due to patchy extinction. We used the Bayesian estimator described in @Ybarra:2013kh to calculate the ratios within circular projected regions with radius 3$^\prime$. The map only shows ratios for regions with sufficient number counts such that $N_{1}+N_{2}+1 < 0.25(N_{1}+1)(N_{2}-1)$, where $N_{1}$ is the number count of the numerator, and $N_{2}$ is the number count of the denominator.
We found that the whole complex has $R_{\mathrm{II:III}} \ge 1.0$ which suggests star formation was ubiquitous throughout the complex $\sim$ 2-3 Myr ago. We can also trace the most recent star formation by using the $R_{\mathrm{I:II}}$ ratio (Fig. \[fig:ratiomaps\], right). Regions with significant $R_{\mathrm{I:II}}$ are expected to have been actively forming stars within the last Myr. We found that the regions of high $R_{\mathrm{I:II}}$ appear to form an oblong ring around IC 1795. This mirrors the distribution of Class I/0 sources which also appear to surround IC 1795 (see Fig. \[fig:gather\]). Interestingly, the high $R_{\mathrm{II:III}}$ in IC 1795 suggests that stars were forming there up to 1 Myr ago. Therefore the absence of Class I/0 sources in IC 1795 suggests that star formation was recently and possibly abruptly terminated in that region.
It is important to notice that values for the $R_{\mathrm{II:III}}$ ratio in the map can be high (typically larger than 5), particularly because the Class III sources are more spatially scattered. However, the $R_{\mathrm{II:III}}$ is not the same as the circumstellar disk fraction in the cluster, because we are only measuring against weak disk sources and not the whole population (see also section \[s:analysis:ss:klf\], below).
{width="4.2in"}\
{width="4.2in"}
K band Luminosity Function of Clusters in the W3 Complex \[s:analysis:ss:klf\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We obtained the K band luminosity function (KLF) for each of the five principal clusters identified with our GMM analysis using the following procedure:
Each cluster sample is composed by all K-band sources detected within a “3-sigma" radius defined as $R_{3\sigma}=(3.0/\sqrt{8\ln 2})r_{cl}$, where $r_{cl}$ is defined from the GMM analysis as the half-width at half-maximum of the best fit 2-D Gaussian. Defining samples within $R_{3\sigma}$ minimizes effects of cluster overlapping, which could mislead in the estimation of age and age spreads in cluster forming regions [e.g. NGC 1980, @Alves:2012aa].
We obtained an extinction limited sample, defined as follows: 1) we projected a $A_V=$20 mag extinction vector from a 1 Myr isochrone [@DAntona:1997aa] until it reached the sensitivity limit of the observations. The $A_V$-limited sample is defined by all sources enclosed within the area defined by the extinction vector, the zero-age main sequence and the reddened isochrone (see Figure \[fig:avlimitedsample\], left). 2) we separated the possible foreground population from sources with colors coinciding with the locus of the dwarf and giant sequences in the $J-H$ vs $H-K$ color-color diagram.This defines a foreground contribution. In Figure \[fig:avlimitedsample\] (right panel) we show a color-magnitude diagram for W3-Main showing the $A_V$-limited sample selection.
We estimated the fraction of sources with circumstellar disks within $R_{3\sigma}$, for each principal cluster, as the total number of Class I plus Class II sources in the extinction limited sample, down to a de-reddened brightness $H$=13.5 mag. (see also section \[s:analysis:ss:ysodist:sss:ratiomaps\] above). The highest fractions of circumstellar disks, close to 30 percent, are in W3-Main, IC 1795 and W3(OH). Clusters NGC 896 and IC1795-N have smaller fractions, closer to 15 percent.
The total contribution from the field was estimated from a nearby control field with minimum extinction, observed in the same conditions and to the same depth as the cloud fields (see Appendix \[app:obs\]). We made a K-band histogram from the control field catalog and scaled it to the same area of the cluster sample. Then we subtracted the foreground contribution from the control field KLF, and applied artificial reddening to the remaining distribution down to the same level as the cloud sample. Artificial reddening is applied by constructing a normalized $A_V$ extinction distribution from the background stars in each cluster region using the NICER algorithm, and used it as a frequency distribution to convolve the control field K-band histogram, producing a final control field K band brightness distribution. The NICER algorithm provides estimates of extinction with average errors $\sigma_{A_V}<$0.1 mag below $A_V=$30 mag. These errors are way below the size of the K-band brightness bins used to construct the KLF. The final KLF of the cluster sample is obtained by subtracting the final $A_V$-convolved (reddened) control field distribution from the one constructed from the K-band limited sample.
The advantages of using a K-band limited sample to construct the KLF are: a) that all samples are cut at common maximum extinction; b) that the contribution of background extra-galactic sources is reduced to a minimum; c) that patchy extinction is less prone to bias the brightness distribution, specially at the most embedded regions –e.g. centers of W3-Main and W3(OH). Also, by convolving the raw control field KLF by the “on" field extinction distribution, we are able to obtain a fair estimation of the contribution from field stars on different lines of sight [@Muench:2003aa].
### Age Inference from Cluster Model Fits \[s:analysis:ss:klf:sss:ages\]
The KLF for each principal cluster sample was then compared to *artificial* K-band brightness distributions of embedded cluster populations of varying ages, constructed with the model interpolation code of @Muench:2000aa. The method is relatively easy to apply: using a set of pre-main sequence models, the code uses a Monte Carlo generator to draw an artificial population from an assumed initial Mass Function (IMF) with a total number of members input by the user, between a minimum and a maximum age, defined by model isochrones, properly shifted by the distance modulus of the complex[^9]. For this study, we chose the isochrone set of [@DAntona:1997aa], with a deuterium fraction $[D/H]=2\times 10^{-5}$. The user has the option to choose the form of the IMF and also has the option to fix or to sample values for a set of parameters that includes an extinction distribution, a binary fraction, and the infrared excess fraction as a function of color ($H-K$). The peak and the slopes of the KLF are particularly sensitive to age and age spread, which are the two parameters that were left to vary. We decided to leave the binary fraction as a fixed, value of 20%, based on estimations by [@Padgett:1997aa] suggesting that the binary fraction in the Orion B clusters may be about 15% in separations up to 1000 AU –the separations we are able to resolve in our near-IR images. Also, @Muench:2002aa in a similar experiment showed that, particularly, the mean age and spread estimates were not significantly different when changing the binary fraction within 40 percent. A smaller fraction is probably too optimistic, but a fraction that is significantly large (30-40%) tends to add dispersion in the histogram and “dilutes" the location of the KLF peak. For the IMF, we decided to use the the parameters of the 3-part broken power law obtained for the IC 348 cluster by @Muench:2003aa[^10]. Each of the fixed parameters will add its own error to the estimate of the best value for the running parameters, and there are also errors associated with the use of one or other isochrone model set. A full discussion of the method is out of the scope of this paper, however, the feasibility of this method has been properly discussed by @Muench:2002aa (chapter 5).
![ *Left*: Extinction ($A_V$) limited selected sample for W3-Main using $K$ vs $H-K$ color-magnitude diagram. The solid thick line is the zero-age main sequence. The two thick, dotted lines are a 3 Myr isochrone from the models of [@DAntona:1997aa], before and after adding an extinction of $A_V=20$ mag. This is also indicated by the extinction vector that runs from the lowest mass point (0.3 M$_\odot$). The dot-dashed line indicates the sensitivity limit of our Calar Alto data set. Solid symbols indicate sources selected out as possible foreground sources. The open circle symbols indicate sources selected as cluster members in the final sample. *Right*: An illustration of KLF fitting, for IC 1795. The solid, black histogram is the observed KLF, after subtraction of the field component; the red, green and blue lines are artificial KLFs modeled after the properties of the cluster, using the code of @Muench:2000aa, with reduced $\chi ^2$ probabilities of 0.95, 0.68 and 0.22, respectively.\[fig:avlimitedsample\]](./f9a.eps "fig:"){width="3.25in"} ![ *Left*: Extinction ($A_V$) limited selected sample for W3-Main using $K$ vs $H-K$ color-magnitude diagram. The solid thick line is the zero-age main sequence. The two thick, dotted lines are a 3 Myr isochrone from the models of [@DAntona:1997aa], before and after adding an extinction of $A_V=20$ mag. This is also indicated by the extinction vector that runs from the lowest mass point (0.3 M$_\odot$). The dot-dashed line indicates the sensitivity limit of our Calar Alto data set. Solid symbols indicate sources selected out as possible foreground sources. The open circle symbols indicate sources selected as cluster members in the final sample. *Right*: An illustration of KLF fitting, for IC 1795. The solid, black histogram is the observed KLF, after subtraction of the field component; the red, green and blue lines are artificial KLFs modeled after the properties of the cluster, using the code of @Muench:2000aa, with reduced $\chi ^2$ probabilities of 0.95, 0.68 and 0.22, respectively.\[fig:avlimitedsample\]](./f9b.eps "fig:"){width="3.25in"}
![ Age estimates for all principal clusters, illustrated with a contour map of the normalized $\chi^2$ values. We plot the mean age input for the artificial KLF models vs. the age spread used in each simulation set. Areas at and below purple color levels indicate the most likely values. The white contour lines trace the 68 and 95 percent confidence limits. The light line surrounding the contour areas indicates the limits of the model grid.\[fig:agespread\]](./f10a.eps "fig:"){width="2.5in"} ![ Age estimates for all principal clusters, illustrated with a contour map of the normalized $\chi^2$ values. We plot the mean age input for the artificial KLF models vs. the age spread used in each simulation set. Areas at and below purple color levels indicate the most likely values. The white contour lines trace the 68 and 95 percent confidence limits. The light line surrounding the contour areas indicates the limits of the model grid.\[fig:agespread\]](./f10b.eps "fig:"){width="2.5in"}\
![ Age estimates for all principal clusters, illustrated with a contour map of the normalized $\chi^2$ values. We plot the mean age input for the artificial KLF models vs. the age spread used in each simulation set. Areas at and below purple color levels indicate the most likely values. The white contour lines trace the 68 and 95 percent confidence limits. The light line surrounding the contour areas indicates the limits of the model grid.\[fig:agespread\]](./f10c.eps "fig:"){width="2.5in"} ![ Age estimates for all principal clusters, illustrated with a contour map of the normalized $\chi^2$ values. We plot the mean age input for the artificial KLF models vs. the age spread used in each simulation set. Areas at and below purple color levels indicate the most likely values. The white contour lines trace the 68 and 95 percent confidence limits. The light line surrounding the contour areas indicates the limits of the model grid.\[fig:agespread\]](./f10d.eps "fig:"){width="2.5in"}\
![ Age estimates for all principal clusters, illustrated with a contour map of the normalized $\chi^2$ values. We plot the mean age input for the artificial KLF models vs. the age spread used in each simulation set. Areas at and below purple color levels indicate the most likely values. The white contour lines trace the 68 and 95 percent confidence limits. The light line surrounding the contour areas indicates the limits of the model grid.\[fig:agespread\]](./f10e.eps "fig:"){width="2.5in"}
We made a grid of cluster models that varied the minimum age of the population between 0.5 and 10 Myr, in steps of 0.5 Myr, and having star formation age spreads of 1.0 to 5.0 Myr. For each minimum age and age spread value, we simulated 500 artificial KLFs and compared each of them with our observed KLF using a simple reduced $\chi^2$ scheme. Averaging over the simulations, we are able to determine which age or group of ages fits the observed KLF better (see Figure \[fig:avlimitedsample\]). Our estimate of the age and age spread is defined by those models for which the confidence limit is above 68% (2-sigma). In Figure \[fig:agespread\] we show two examples of the age estimation scheme: we plot the mean age used in the simulation versus the width of the age spread. The reduced $\chi ^2$ value contours indicate the grid values for which the age models fit better (25 percentile). In these examples, the W3-Main cluster shows a very clear fit for a population with an age spread of less than 2.5 Myr, and a mean age of around 2.0 Myr. The IC 1795, instead, is less well constrained: we see two local $\chi ^2$ minima in the contour map. The first one agrees with a mean cluster age of less than 2.5 Myr old and an age spread of less than 3 Myr. The second minimum suggests a mean age between 2.5 and 3.5 Myr and an age spread between 3 and 5 Myr. The second option agrees much better with spectroscopic studies of IC 1795, particularly the one by @Oey:2005ly. To be conservative, we consider a mean age between 2.0 and 4.0 Myr, and an age spread in the whole range of 1.0 to 5.0 Myr. The main reason for the discrepancy in IC 1795 is the large number of very young (Class II) sources still present in the IC 1795 region, which is indicative of a mixed age population. The analysis suggests a very similar age and spread for W3(OH), which is surprising given that it hosts more embedded populations. The analysis for clusters IC 1795-N and NGC 896 yield mean ages from 2.5 to 4.5 and from 3.5 to 5.0 Myr with possible spreads from 2.0 to 5.0 and from 1.0 to 5.0 Myr, respectively. Unfortunately, the upper limits in the age spread are not well constrained for most clusters, however, age spreads much larger than 5 Myr sound little plausible for embedded star cluster populations. In table \[tab:principal\_clusters\] we list the main results of the artificial KLF modeling analysis for the five principal clusters. The age and age spread for each of the principal cluster is listed as the center and width of the top contour in the age spread vs age $\chi ^2$ maps.
[llccccc]{}
W3-Main & 36.368671 & 62.097485 & 1.313 & 27$\pm$4 & 2.0 \[1.5,2.5\] & 1.5 \[1.0,2.5\]\
IC 1795 & 36.652903 & 61.990908 & 1.244 & 29$\pm$5 & 3.0 \[2.0,4.0\] & 4.0 \[1.0,5.0\]\
W3(OH) & 36.798850 & 61.895349 & 1.644 & 27$\pm$3 & 3.0 \[2.5,3.5\] & 3.5 \[3.0,5.0\]\
NGC 896 & 36.388061 & 61.996607 & 1.428 & 14$\pm$3 & 3.5 \[2.5,4.5\] & 4.0 \[2.0,5.0\]\
IC 1795-N & 36.569302 & 62.103874 & 1.618 & 12$\pm$2 & 4.0 \[3.5,5.0\] & 2.0 \[1.0,5.0\]\
The Context of the W3 Molecular Cloud \[s:analysis:ss:gas\]
-----------------------------------------------------------
The 1.1 mm Bolocam maps and the CO isotope radio emission maps of @Bieging:2011kq show that the IC 1795 is almost free of molecular gas emission, while most of the remaining cloud is concentrated on two large clump systems at W3-Main and W3(OH). The latter has a total mass of approximately $1.9\times 10^3\mathrm{\ M}_\odot$, while the former has a total mass of approximately $2.5\times 10^3\mathrm{\ M}_\odot$, divided in two main clumps named W3-East and W3-West [@Rivera-Ingraham:2013fj]. In such layout, IC 1795 is seen surrounded by an almost symmetric shell of star forming molecular material.
In Figures \[fig:gas-stars-w3main\] and \[fig:gas-stars-w3oh\] we show the locations of Class I and Class II source candidates in the context of the $^{13}$CO(1-0) first moment (average radial velocity) map of the cloud, as well as a map of 1.1 mm emission over infrared images at both the Eastern (W3(OH)) and Western (W3-Main) sides of the Cloud.
{width="7.0in"}
The W3-Main map shows a very notorious blue-shifted peak at the center of the principal cluster, that coincides in velocity with a filamentary structure that extends south toward NGC 896 and north toward IC 1795-N. The blue-purple colored peak corresponds to a velocity range centered around -42.5 km/s, and it has been suggested to indicate central massive outflow activity at the center of the cluster [@Bieging:2011kq]. The main $^{13}$CO(2-1) emission structure associated with W3-Main with velocity range centered around -40 km/s (green colored in the image), shows a clumpy structure suggestive of other local velocity gradients. A few small receding clumps associated with velocities in excess of -36 km/s (red colored in the image) possibly represents gas still being expelled from the central cluster, and confirms that gas removal in IC 1795 was very recent.
{width="7.0in"}
The W3(OH) map shows that the cluster formation activity at this side of the complex is associated with molecular emission with significant radial velocity gradients. This eastern side of the cloud has a filamentary morphology, with almost uniform radial velocity. There is a 2 km/s difference between the east and the west edges of the filament, suggestive of a “rolling" movement of gas in the north-south direction, but on the eastern side the peak velocity alternates several times from 46 to 48 km/s, indicating local gradients possibly linked to gas compression and expulsion at the W3(OH) groups. This is particularly evident at group W3(OH) A.
In Figure \[fig:velpos\] we show two position-velocity (p-v) plots corresponding to two cuts along the main structures of W3(OH) (cut $L1$) and W3-Main (cut $L2$) in the 1.1 mm map. We constructed these p-v plots from the $^{13}$CO(3-2) emission map of [@Bieging:2011kq].
The L1 plot shows a well defined bipolar structure at the location of cluster A with a peak to peak velocity difference of 15-20 km/s within less than 0.5 pc. The $^{13}$CO(3-2) map does not resolve the structure well enough to claim the presence of individual outflows, but the plot shows that the W3(OH) elongated clump may be associated with a structure coherent within (roughly) -50 and -45 km/s. The plot shows an opening flow of material associated with cluster A (offset$\approx 170\arcsec$), and a tighter blue-shifted flow associated with cluster B (offset$\approx 200\arcsec$). A third component may be present near offset$\approx 300\arcsec$, possibly associated with cluster C.
The L2 plot shows a very strong outflow feature associated with the main molecular gas clump in W3-Main, with a peak to peak velocity difference of 25-30 km/s within less than 0.7 pc. The red-shifted component is associated with the left lobe of the main molecular clump and vice versa. The two peaks of the red-shifted structure suggest a parabolic opening indicative of a widening outflow. The physical scales and velocity differences of these structures are very similar to those observed in other massive star forming regions like DR-21 [@schneider:2010aa], G240.31+0.07 [@qiu:2009aa] or W49A [@peng:2010aa].
We estimated the integrated intensity of $^{13}$CO(3-2) in two square areas of $120\arcsec \times 120\arcsec$ at the center of the double peaked clump in W3-Main, which correspond to the blue and red peaks of the outflow feature. We defined these square areas from a first moment (mean velocity) map. Using the prescription of @ginsburg:2011aa, we estimated the column density, $N(H_2)$ and the total mass of outflow gas, $M_{out}$ enclosed in each the two areas (17.6 and 40.7 M$_\odot$ for the red and the blue peak, respectively). Then, following @qiu:2009aa we estimated the dynamical age, $t_{dyn}$ of each component (6.5 and 9$\times 10^4$ yr, for the red and blue peaks, respectively) and the mass loss rate, $\dot{M}_{out}=M_{out}/t_{dyn}$. We estimated that the total mass loss rate is close to $7.2\times10^{-4} \mathrm{M}_\odot \mathrm{\ yr}^{-1}$. This is close to estimates in other massive star forming regions, which have mass loss rates of $\sim 10^{-3} \mathrm{M}_\odot \mathrm{\ yr}^{-1}$. A mass loss rate like this, if constant, could remove $10^3\mathrm{\ M}_\odot$ of gas in about 1.5 Myr.
![Top: Bolocam 1.1 mm emission map (grayscale, overlaid with same set of contours as in Fig. \[fig:gas-stars-w3main\]). Arrows indicate length and direction of two cuts used to create position-velocity maps. Middle and Bottom: Position-velocity plots, from the CO(3-2) emission maps of [@Bieging:2011kq]. The color table indicates line temperature in K. \[fig:velpos\]](./f13a.eps "fig:"){width="3.3in"}\
![Top: Bolocam 1.1 mm emission map (grayscale, overlaid with same set of contours as in Fig. \[fig:gas-stars-w3main\]). Arrows indicate length and direction of two cuts used to create position-velocity maps. Middle and Bottom: Position-velocity plots, from the CO(3-2) emission maps of [@Bieging:2011kq]. The color table indicates line temperature in K. \[fig:velpos\]](./f13b.eps "fig:"){width="3.5in"}\
![Top: Bolocam 1.1 mm emission map (grayscale, overlaid with same set of contours as in Fig. \[fig:gas-stars-w3main\]). Arrows indicate length and direction of two cuts used to create position-velocity maps. Middle and Bottom: Position-velocity plots, from the CO(3-2) emission maps of [@Bieging:2011kq]. The color table indicates line temperature in K. \[fig:velpos\]](./f13c.eps "fig:"){width="3.5in"}
Discussion \[s:discussion\]
===========================
Our KLF analysis suggests that episodes of cluster formation in W3 may have started over 4 Myr ago, without any well defined pause. Actually, our data also suggests that star formation has been ubiquitous across the whole complex within the last 1.0-2.0 Myr:
1. All of the principal clusters exhibit a significant fraction of sources with detectable circumstellar emission. This is evidence in favor of recent formation across the whole complex. Class I sources are distributed preferentially in high extinction regions, indicating the most recent episodes of formation. However, Class III sources are present also near these highly embedded regions: this could be indicative of age spreads comparable to the T Tauri timescale (and possibly longer, if we consider young sources that escape classification via our color and X-ray emission scheme) across the whole complex. However, this could also be the result of rapid dissipation of disks, particularly for intermediate to high mass sources.
2. The age spread of IC 1795 cluster may be at least 4 Myr. This cluster also has a slightly larger density of Class III sources (e.g. 7 vs 5 percent of all YSO candidates down to a de-reddened brightness of H=13.5 mag, estimated within $R_{3\sigma}$ in IC 1795 and W3-Main, respectively). This is in agreement with previous studies that suggest this is the more evolved population in the complex. Also, the lack of nebulosity or strong CO emission is indicative of gas dispersal, which agrees with a more evolved cluster. However, the mean age that we estimate for this cluster is not very different from that of the youngest clusters in the complex, W3-Main and W3(OH). Also, the $R_{II:III}$ ratio in IC 1795 is comparable to W3-Main and W3(OH) and so is the total fraction of circumstellar disk sources in this cluster (about 30 percent within $r_{3\sigma}$\[IC1795\]). Still, no Class I sources are longer present in IC 1795. These results are not contradictory. They all suggest that the forming gas dispersal timescale in IC1795 was rapid, comparable or faster than the T Tauri timescale.
3. The KLF analysis suggest that W3(OH) has an age and age spread not very different from IC 1795. Again, this is indicative of more than one episode of formation. The main groups A, B and C in W3(OH) are still embedded in bright nebulosity and the principal cluster has a large circumstellar disk fraction, comparable to IC 1795 and W3-Main. There is also a significant number of Class I sources in W3(OH). However, there may be slightly older groups toward the eastern edge of the complex, judging from the presence of Class II and Class III sources to the edge of the molecular clump and no nebulosity. The $R_{II:III}$ maps show an abrupt termination at the eastern side of the W3(OH) principal cluster which reinforces this idea. The structure in W3(OH) (specially if there is an older component) weakens the argument of a Gaussian cluster used for the GMM analysys. We need deeper photometric data in order to reconcile this problem.
4. The KLF modeling analysis shows that IC 1795-N and NGC 896 may host the oldest clusters in the complex with a mean age between 3.5 and 4 Myr. These two aggregations could have been formed in an external layer of the original molecular cloud, flanking IC 1795 from north and south.
5. Our analysis suggests that W3-Main hosts the most recent cluster formation episode, starting just over 2.0 Myr ago and having the shortest spread, with less than 2.5 Myr.
In Figure \[fig:cartoon\] we present a cartoon illustrating one possible scenario of the progression of cluster formation in W3 based on our KLF analysis. We suppose that the original molecular cloud might have been an area somewhat larger than the current span of the cluster complex, over 4 Myr ago. As shown by @Thronson:1985aa, the W3 complex formed in a ridge of swept up molecular gas in the western age of the giant HII region W4. The expansion of W4 may have triggered the collapse of the W3 molecular ridge. By then, the formation of IC 1795-N and NGC 896 might have started, while IC 1795 and an area of unknown extension near the eastern edge of W3(OH) (we indicate this region symbolically in the cartoon) started to collapse and form stars. Just over 3 Myr ago, the process of cluster formation continued with IC 1795 and the first episode in W3-Main and W3(OH), while clumps corresponding to the present W3(OH) cluster group would be collapsing. About 2-3 Myr ago, gas dispersal could have started in IC 1795, IC 1795-N, NGC 896 and the eastern edge of W3(OH). The most recent episodes in W3-Main and W3(OH) would have started. By then, gas would be dispersed away from the center of the complex and start concentrating at the W3(OH) and W3-Main regions. This would resemble the current layout of the complex, with most of the remnant molecular gas being at W3(OH) and W3-Main. In this scenario, cluster formation progressed first from north and south towards the center of the complex and then from the center towards east and west.It is important to notice that this scenario is based on our estimates of the mean ages of the clusters, but could only be supported by a better constrain of the age spreads of the clusters.
One important point to discuss here is whether or not induced formation plays a dominant role on the formation of clusters in the W3 complex, as suggested by previous studies. For instance, [@Ruch:2007fk] support the picture in which IC 1795 triggered the formation of W3 Main and W3(OH) episodes. The study by [@Rivera-Ingraham:2011yq] suggest that triggering processes were important in the formation of the clusters flanking IC 1795, but also that triggering processes work at local (sub-parsec) scales, with high mass stars acting to confine and compress material, enhancing the efficiency for the formation of new high mass stars by making convergent flows. This, in turn, would help to the progression of formation from the outer toward in the inner regions of the complex. The study by [@Feigelson:2008vn], pointed to significant gradient of ages between the central OB sources of the cluster and a widely distributed population of PMS stars.
What does our study tell about the global star forming history of the complex? On one hand, if gas removal in the central cluster IC 1795 contributed to collect gas in a shell like structure, it may have enhanced the efficiency of formation in W3-Main and W3(OH). This would be in agreement with the flow convergence scenario discussed by @Rivera-Ingraham:2013fj. According to that picture, IC 1795 could have been the major source of induction for star formation in the molecular shell.
{width="6.0in"}
Our KLF model analysis indicates large age spreads across the complex, with a progression that lead to cluster formation across the entire complex in a period of about 3 million years. This is in good agreement with our analysis of the YSO class surface density ratio across the complex. In that case, the progression is possibly related to primordial density structure of the cloud. This is in agreement with the scenario proposed for other complexes like the Rosette Molecular Cloud [@Roman-Zuniga:2008aa; @Wang:2009aa; @Ybarra:2013kh], where it has been shown that progression of cluster formation could rather follow the density structure of the cloud than a process of induction in a sequence from the older to the younger episodes.
Our YSO surface density analysis provides evidence of sub-structure in the principal cluster populations. Small aggregations of stars around the main cluster events (very evident in W3(OH), and groups like R102 and R103), revealed as significant peaks in the surface density of YSOs, in many cases coincident with the locations of Class 0/I candidates. This is suggestive of a complex scenario, in which stellar collections of different sizes may form with small age differences by the compression of gas in various locations within large clumps. Strong evidence of sub-clustering in W3-Main was also provided by the very deep near-IR KLF by [@Bik:2014aa]: they pointed out that an age gradient was evident from edge to center in W3-Main, judging from a higher fraction of circumstellar disks near the center. The large number of disk bearing sources in IC 1795 could be indicative of a similar process, where cluster formation occurs in sub-structures. If these sub-structures do not form simultaneously, they certainly may lead to a large age spread, as observed.
The projected separations between surface density peaks in the `gather` map range is 1.4$\pm$0.4 pc. These separations are comparable to the estimated radii of the principal clusters identified with our GMM model. This scale is shorter than the Jeans length (2.0 pc) for a mean density of $10^2 \mathrm{cm}^{−3}$ and $T_K = 10$ K, typical of the diffuse gas traced by $^{12}$CO and may be tracing the primordial fragmentation of the cloud. One possibility is that density peaks in the `gather` map are sub-clusters that eventually merge into larger groups, but that will depend on the dynamical stability of the aggregations and the gravitational potential of the corresponding principal cluster. Numerical simulations [@Bonnell:2011kx; @Allison:2010ca] suggest, that clusters are initially highly structured, but rapidly evolve by merging into large entities. On the other hand, small groups of stars may disperse rapidly or even remain stable depending crucially on the number of members and the star forming efficiency [@Lada:2003aa; @Adams:2001aa]. It is also expected that most small, embedded aggregations end up being disrupted early, as proposed by the “infant mortality" and “cruel cradle" models.
The formation of small groups that disperse rapidly and merge into a larger central structure could provide a simple explanation for the presence of larger age spreads in a lower surface density population in regions like IC 1795-N or NGC 896, and would be in agreement with age spreads and sub-structure in the younger principal clusters.
The strong outflows in the molecular gas shell at W3-Main and W3(OH) confirm a very rapid removal of gas in the complex. This removal may occur in a period comparable to the T Tauri timescale, as evidenced by Class II source candidates in IC 1795, where gas is mostly dispersed. However, it is important to stress that the mass loss rate cannot be constant, and will probably decline within a few $10^5$ Myr, if it has not already done so. The estimate we provided, however, may not be far from the average mass loss rate during the main gas dissipation period.
Conclusions \[s:conclusions\]
=============================
We obtained deep, high resolution ground-based near-IR images of the Eastern edge of the W3 region in the Perseus Arm. These data were combined with archive imaging data from the Spitzer and Chandra space telescopes to obtain a new catalog of young sources for the W3 Complex. We used our resultant catalog to:
1. Identify and classify young (Class I, II, III) embedded sources in the region.
2. Determine the locations and extension of the principal clusters in the complex.
3. Determine the spatial distribution of young sources across the complex. This distribution shows significant substructure.
4. Construct extinction limited samples that allowed us to obtain clean K-band luminosity functions of the principal clusters. We compared the resultant functions with those from artificial clusters of ages created from pre-main sequence models. This analysis permitted to estimate mean ages and possible age spreads for the principal clusters of the W3 Complex.
We found that IC 1795, the central cluster of the complex, still has a large fraction of Class II sources, despite not being embedded anymore, like clusters W3-Main and W3(OH). The $R_{II:III}$ ratio is large across IC 1795, just as it is in the flanking embedded clusters. The $^{13}$CO map shows some receding molecular gas clumps coincident with the center of IC 1795. This, along with the absence of Class I sources suggest that parental gas was removed quickly from IC 1795, in a period shorter than the T Tauri timescale. The high mass loss rate estimate at the center of W3-Main supports this strongly.
Our Gaussian Mixture Model analysis clearly identified the well known clusters IC 1795, W3-Main and W3(OH). In addition, two principal clusters could be identified, one associated with the compact HII region NGC 896 and one more located north of IC 1795.
We estimated the ages and age spreads of the principal clusters by comparing their K-band luminosity functions with those of artificial young clusters. The differences between the ages of the clusters are not significantly large. We also were able to constrain the age spread of the W3 cluster, but we could not constrain well the age spread of the other four clusters, so there might be overlaps in the formation periods of all clusters in the complex. This, is confirmed by a large number of Class II and Class III sources across the whole complex. This suggest a progression of cluster formation scenario in which formation proceeded as a result of primordial density structure of the cloud.
Using our list of Class II candidates, we constructed a surface density map that shows a significant amount of substructure in the principal clusters of the complex. The large age spread in the clusters may indicate that formation proceeds in episodes. If sub-structures observed do not form simultaneously, they certainly may lead to a large age spread, like we observe.
We propose a scenario in which star cluster formation progressed over 4 Myr ago from north and south (clusters NGC 896 and IC 1795-N) toward IC 1795. Later (about 2 to 3 Myr ago), the progression moved from center (IC 1795) towards East and West (W3(OH) and W3-Main). We also suggest that an undefined region East of W3(OH) could form groups of stars before the formation of the embedded multiple embedded groups we see today.
The formation of W3(OH) and W3 Main is still in progress at the edge of the giant molecular shell of the complex. Using molecular emission maps, we showed that the two main gas clumps associated with these clusters (which together contain more than 4.5$\times 10^3\mathrm{\ M}_\odot$) show strong velocity gradients and gas outflow activity, spatially coincident with clusters and sub-structures. This is in good agreement with the convergent flow scenario [@Rivera-Ingraham:2013fj] that contributes to a large massive star formation efficiency in W3. Our analysis suggest that both the progression of formation following the primordial structure of the original Giant Molecular Cloud, and the triggered formation caused by the compression and dispersal of gas (that is, within the cloud) are both important in W3.
The W3 Complex, presents a rather complicated layout. The principal clusters overlap partially along the line of sight and they may still interact with each other. Moreover, the clusters present a significant sub-structure. If the sub-structures are bonafide sub-clusters, they pose an interesting problem for future higher quality data. Particularly, space based mid-infrared imaging with high resolution and deeper photometric limits (e.g. the James Webb Space Telescope) will provide more complete samples of the sub-cluster population. Also, spectroscopic data for individual young candidate members, may refine age and age spread estimates.
**Acknowledgements:** We thank an anonymous referee for comprehensive and useful comments that greatly improved the content of our manuscript. CRZ acknowledges support from CONACYT project CB2010-152160, Mexico and program UNAM-DGAPA-PAPIIT IN103014. JY and MT acknowledge support from program UNAM-DGAPA-PAPIIT IN101813. GMV acknowledges support from an introduction to research scholarship from the Programa de Introducción a la Investigación de la Junta de Ampliación de Estudios (JAE INTRO) CSIC/Instituto de Astrofísica de Andalucía. EAL acknowledges support from the National Science Foundation through NSF Grant AST-1109679 to the University of Florida.
This study is based on observations collected at the Centro Astronómico Hispano Alemán (CAHA) at Calar Alto, operated jointly by the Max-Planck Institut für Astronomie and the Instituto de Astrofísica de Andalucía (CSIC). We acknowledge the staff at Calar Alto for top of the line queued observations at the 3.5m with OMEGA 2000. We acknowledge use of data products from the 2MASS, which is a joint project of the University of Massachusetts and the Infrared Processing and Analysis Centre/California Institute of Technology (funded by the USA National Aeronautics and Space Administration and National Science Foundation). This work is partly based on observations made with the Spitzer Space Telescope, which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology under a contract with NASA. The scientific results reported in this article are based to a significant degree on data obtained from the Chandra Data Archive; particularly, we made use of data obtained from the Chandra Source Catalog, provided by the Chandra X-ray Center (CXC) as part of the Chandra Data Archive. In this paper we discuss observations from the Bolocam Galactic Plane Survey (BGPS; PI John Bally); the BGPS project is supported by the National Science Foundation through NSF grant AST-0708403. In the present paper we discussed observations performed with the ESA Herschel Space Observatory [@Pilbratt:2010en], in particular employing Herschel’s large telescope and powerful science payload to do photometry using the PACS [@Poglitsch:2010bm] and SPIRE [@Griffin:2010hz] instruments. Herschel is an ESA space observatory with science instruments provided by European-led Principal Investigator consortia and with important participation from NASA. This research made use of Montage, funded by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Earth Science Technology Office, Computation Technologies Project, under Cooperative Agreement Number NCC5-626 between NASA and the California Institute of Technology. Montage is maintained by the NASA/IPAC Infrared Science Archive. We made use of the `pvextractor` tool by Adam Ginsburg, that is part of the Radio Astro Tools repository (http://github.com/radio-astro-tools).
[*Facilities:*]{} , , , , ,
, F. C. & [Myers]{}, P. C. 2001, , 553, 744
Aguirre, J. E., Ginsburg, A. G., Dunham, M. K., et al. 2011, , 192, 4
Allison, R. J., Goodwin, S. P., Parker, R. J., Portegies Zwart, S. F., & De Grijs, R. 2010, , 407, 1098
Alves, J., & Bouy, H. 2012, , 547, AA97
Banfield, J. D. & Raftery, A. E. 1993, Biometrics, 49, 803
, E. & [Arnouts]{}, S. 1996, , 117, 393
Bieging, J. H. & Peters, W. L. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement, 196, 18
Bik, A., Henning, T., Stolte, A., et al. 2012, , 744, 87
Bik, A., Stolte, A., Gennaro, M., et al. 2014, , 561, A12
, I. A., [Smith]{}, R. J., [Clark]{}, P. C., & [Bate]{}, M. R. 2011, , 410, 2339
Bressert, E., Bastian, N., Gutermuth, R., et al. 2010, , 409, L54
, S. & [Hut]{}, P. 1985, , 298, 80
Cottaar, M., Covey, K. R., Meyer, M. R., et al. 2014, , 794, 125
, F. & [Mazzitelli]{}, I. 1997, Memorie della Societa Astronomica Italiana, 68
, R. 2011, in Stellar Clusters & Associations: A RIA Workshop on Gaia, Ed. E. Alfaro, p. 331
Evans, I. N., Primini, F. A., Glotfelty, K. J., et al. 2010, , 189, 37
, E. D. & [Townsley]{}, L. K. 2008, , 673, 354
Fraley, C. & Raftery, A. E. 2002, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 97, 611
Ginsburg, A., Bally, J., & Williams, J. P. 2011, , 418, 2121
Gladwin, P. P., Kitsionas, S., Boffin, H. M. J., & Whitworth, A. P. 1999, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 302, 305
Griffin, M. J., Abergel, A., Abreu, et al. 2010, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 518, L3
Gutermuth, R. A., Megeath, S. T., Muzerolle, J. et al. 2004, , 154, 374
Gutermuth, R. A., Myers, P. C., Megeath, S. T. et al. 2008, , 674, 336
Gutermuth, R. A., Megeath, S. T., Myers, P. C., et al. 2010, , 189, 352
Hachisuka, K., Brunthaler, A., Menten, K. M. et al. 2006,, 645, 337
Kruijssen, J. M. D., Maschberger, T., Moeckel, N. et al. 2012, , 419, 841
Kuhn, M. A., Feigelson, E. D., Getman, K. V. et al. 2014, , 787, 107
Lada, C. J., Elmegreen, B. G., Cong, H.-I., & Thaddeus, P. 1978, , 226, L39
, C. J. & [Lada]{}, E. A. 2003, , 41, 57
Lada, C. J., Lombardi, M., Rom[á]{}n-Z[ú]{}[ñ]{}iga, C., Forbrich, J., & Alves, J. F. 2013, , 778, 133
, J. 2006, PhD thesis, University of Florida
, M. & [Alves]{}, J. 2001, , 377, 1023
Lombardi, M. 2009, , 493, 735
, G. R., [Heckman]{}, T. M., [Leitherer]{}, C. et al. 1995, , 110, 2665
, A. A., [Lada]{}, E. A., & [Lada]{}, C. J. 2000, , 533, 358
Muench, A., 2002, Ph. D thesis, University of Florida
, A. A., [Lada]{}, E. A., [Lada]{}, C. J. et al. 2003, , 125, 2029
, F., [Figueredo]{}, E., [Damineli]{}, A. et al. 2011, , 142, 67
, M. S., [Watson]{}, A. M., [Kern]{}, K., & [Walth]{}, G. L. 2005, , 129, 393 Ogura, K., & Ishida, K. 1976, , 28, 651
Padgett, D. L., Strom, S. E., & Ghez, A. 1997, , 477, 705
Peng, T.-C., Wyrowski, F., van der Tak, F. F. S., Menten, K. M., & Walmsley, C. M. 2010, , 520, AA84
Pilbratt, G. L., Riedinger, J. R., Passvogel, T., et al. 2010, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 518, L1
Poglitsch, A., Waelkens, C., Geis, N. et al. 2010,å, 518, L2
Qiu, K., Zhang, Q., Wu, J., & Chen, H.-R. 2009, , 696, 66
Raftery, A. E., Fraley, C., Murphy, T. B., & Scrucca, L. 2012, Tech. rep. No. 56, Department of Statistics, University of Washington
Rivera-Ingraham, A., Martin, P. G., Polychroni, D., & Moore, T. J. T. 2011, , 743, 39
Rivera-Ingraham, A., Martin, P. G., Polychroni, D. et al. 2013, , 766, 85
, C. G. 2006, PhD thesis, University of Florida
Rom[á]{}n-Z[ú]{}[ñ]{}iga, C. G., Elston, R., Ferreira, B., & Lada, E. A. 2008, , 672, 861
, G. T., [Jones]{}, T. J., [Woodward]{}, C. E., [Polomski]{}, E. F., [Gehrz]{}, R. D., & [Megeath]{}, S. T. 2007, , 654, 338
Schneider, N., Csengeri, T., Bontemps, S., et al. 2010, , 520, AA49
, P. B. 1987, , 99, 191
, M. B. 2005, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 347, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XIV, ed. [P. Shopbell, M. Britton, & R. Ebert]{}, 29
Thronson, H. A., Jr., Lada, C. J., & Hewagama, T. 1985, , 297, 662
Wang, J., Feigelson, E. D., Townsley, L. K., et al. 2009, , 696, 47
Ybarra, J. E., Lada, E. A., Roman-Z[ú]{}[ñ]{}iga, C. G. et al. 2013, , 769, 140
Near-IR Observations \[app:obs\]
================================
In Table \[tab:obs\] we list information corresponding to our near-IR Calar Alto 3.5m OMEGA 2000 observations.
[llcccccl]{}
\
\
CAHA-W301 & 2008-11-08 & 36.580583 & 62.135000 & $J$ & 1.00 & 21.00\
CAHA-W301 & 2008-11-08 & 36.580625 & 62.135000 & $H$ & 1.05 & 20.00\
CAHA-W301 & 2008-11-07 & 36.580625 & 62.135000 & $K$ & 1.07 & 19.50\
CAHA-W302 & 2008-11-09 & 37.100042 & 62.108056 & $J$ & 1.09 & 20.50\
CAHA-W302 & 2008-11-08 & 37.100042 & 62.108056 & $H$ & 0.98 & 20.25\
CAHA-W302 & 2008-11-09 & 37.100042 & 62.108056 & $K$ & 1.00 & 19.25\
CAHA-W303 & 2008-11-09 & 36.659000 & 61.985833 & $J$ & 1.08 & 20.75\
CAHA-W303 & 2008-11-09 & 36.659000 & 61.985833 & $H$ & 1.07 & 19.75\
CAHA-W303 & 2008-11-09 & 36.658958 & 61.985833 & $K$ & 1.16 & 19.25\
CAHA-W304 & 2008-11-09 & 37.056875 & 61.904167 & $J$ & 1.04 & 20.75\
CAHA-W304 & 2008-11-09 & 36.580583 & 62.135000 & $H$ & 0.96 & 20.50\
CAHA-W304 & 2008-11-09 & 37.056875 & 61.904167 & $K$ & 0.91 & 19.50\
CAHA-W3CF & 2008-11-09 & 33.924208 & 60.545000 & $J$ & 1.07 & 21.00\
CAHA-W3CF & 2008-11-09 & 33.924208 & 60.545000 & $H$ & 1.14 & 19.75\
CAHA-W3CF & 2008-11-09 & 33.924250 & 60.545000 & $K$ & 1.06 & 19.50\
[^1]: Sloan Digital Sky Survey, Apache Point Galactic Evolution Experiment
[^2]: based on Very Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI) parallaxes to H$_2$O masers in W3(OH) by @Hachisuka:2006dz
[^3]: Herschel is an ESA space observatory with science instruments provided by European-led Principal Investigator consortia and with important participation from NASA.
[^4]: http://montage.ipac.caltech.edu
[^5]: http://irsa.ipac.caltech.edu/data/SPITZER/docs/\
dataanalysistools/tools/mopex/
[^6]: only IRAC \[3.6\] and \[4.5\] bands are available as this is a warm mission extension of the original Galactic Legacy Infrared Midplane Survey Extraordinaire (GLIMPSE) project
[^7]: Observation ID numbers for W3 ACIS-I data are 446, 611, 7356, 5889, 5890, 5891, 6335 and 6348
[^8]: In our case, we chose to use a first order estimation of noise in the spatial distribution of the sources on the plane based on nearest-neighbors. This way the `mclust` package applies the hierarchical clustering algorithm to a denoised dataset, and finally,rejects from the final solution, those sources that do not belong any cluster in the final solution [@Raftery:2012nr].
[^9]: The 0.107 kpc distance error quoted by Hachisuka (2006) for their maser parallax distances, translates into an error of about 0.2 mag in the brightness estimates. This is smaller than the size of our KLF bins (0.5 mag.) In terms of mass, this translates into an uncertainty of about 0.05 in a log-mass scale.
[^10]: Notice that we cannot sample the whole mass spectrum at the distance of W3, specially given the high extinction. However, our $A_V$-limited samples are complete down to K=16.25 mag which at the distance of W3 (2.05 kpc) and given the estimated ages of the clusters, could range between 0.05 and 0.3 M$_\odot$, with an average around or below 0.1 M$_\odot$. This is below the expected peak of the IMF at 0.2 M$_\odot$ and that is why we consider necessary to use the three parts of the broken power-law parametrization. The interpolation code of @Muench:2000aa takes into consideration the minimum and maximum brightness of the cluster observations and samples the IMF within the proper ranges.
|
---
author:
- 'Hitoshi <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Seo</span>$^{1,2}$[^1], Shoji <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Ishibashi</span>$^{3}$, Yuichi <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Otsuka</span>$^{4}$, Hidetoshi <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Fukuyama</span>$^{5,6}$, and Kiyoyuki <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Terakura</span>$^{3,7}$'
title: ' Electronic States of Single-Component Molecular Conductors \[$M$(tmdt)$_2$\] '
---
Introduction {#sec1}
============
Molecular crystals composed of one molecular species showing electrical conduction, i.e., single-component molecular conductors (SCMC) [@Tanaka_2001Science; @Kobayashi_2004CR], have been revealed to bear novel electronic states. In particular, their multiorbital nature has been recognized, which is different from the situation in conventional charge transfer salts (CTS), where, in most cases, only one molecular orbital (MO) contributes to their electronic properties [@Seo_2004CR; @Review_2006JPSJ]. In fact, the involvement of different MO is a consequence of the molecular design [@Kobayashi_2001JMC] for realizing SCMC: to make the energy difference between the frontier MO small enough, so that their energy bands can overlap when inter-molecular transfer integrals become sufficiently large. Metal complex molecules of the form $M$($L$)$_2$ ($M$ = metal, $L$ = ligand) are suitable for this purpose. Their frontier MO are approximately bonding and antibonding combinations of the $p\pi$ wave functions from the two ligands. Large ligands lead to an effectively small transfer integral between them and result in a small energy difference. Such a situation indicates a two-MO system, which is also realized in some CTS as notably discussed in $M$(dmit)$_2$-based compounds. [@Canadell_1989JP; @RKato_2004CR] The first SCMC in which metallic conductivity was reported [@Tanaka_2001Science] is \[Ni(tmdt)$_2$\] (tmdt = trimethylene-tetrathiafulvalene-dithiolate), [@noteSqBr] whose resistivity decreases by cooling down to lowest temperatures ($T$). Direct evidence of its metallic feature was given by the observation of three-dimensional Fermi surfaces by de Haas-van Alphen oscillations [@Tanaka_2004JACS], whose results are consistent with first-principles band calculations [@Tanaka_2004JACS; @Rovira_2002PRB]. Near the Fermi energy $\epsilon_{\rm F}$, there exist two overlapping bands from different $p\pi$-type MO and $\epsilon_{\rm F}$ crosses the overlapping area. Electron and hole pockets appear, owing to the existence of an even number of electrons in the unit cell consisting of one Ni(tmdt)$_2$ molecule. This is the success of the molecular design mentioned above. It shows Pauli paramagnetic susceptibility, [@Tanaka_2001Science] while isotropic magnetoresistance suggesting the spin effect is observed [@Yasuzuka_2008JPSJ] whose origin remains unclear.
Since the discovery of \[Ni(tmdt)$_2$\], many related compounds have been synthesized. Among them, an isostructural analog but with an odd number of electrons per unit cell, \[Au(tmdt)$_2$\] [@Suzuki_2003JACS], has been attracting interest. It shows an antiferromagnetic (AF) phase transition with a transition temperature $=110$ K [@Zhou_2006JACS; @Hara_2008JPSJ], which is exceptionally high among molecular conductors. An intriguing point is that in the resistivity, showing a metallic $T$-dependence down to low $T$ as well, no anomaly at around is found [@Tanaka_2007CL]. Furthermore, the analysis of an NMR measurement [@Hara_2008JPSJ] suggests the magnetic moment in this AF state to be rather large, i.e., on the order of 1 $\mu_{\rm B}$. These features are distinct from the formation of a spin-density-wave state due to the nesting of Fermi surface, as frequently observed in CTS, where anomalies in transport properties appear and typical values of the magnetic moment are one order of magnitude smaller, or even less [@Review_2006JPSJ]. Such a magnetic solution attributed to the $p\pi$ bands is actually stabilized in first-principles calculations [@Ishibashi_2005JPSJ; @Ishibashi_2008JPSJ] as well as in a mean-field (MF) study of an effective Hubbard model [@Seo_2008JPSJ], which faces difficulties in explaining these experimental facts.
Recently, another isostructural member \[Cu(tmdt)$_2$\], having an odd number of electrons per unit cell, has been successfully synthesized [@Zhou_2010IC]. It shows a semiconductive behavior in contrast to the two compounds above, and exhibits an AF phase transition at $=13$ K, much lower than in \[Au(tmdt)$_2$\] [@Zhou_2010IC; @Takagi_2012PRB]. The $T$ dependence of magnetic susceptibility above is ascribed to the behavior of the one-dimensional (1D) spin-$1/2$ Heisenberg model with AF exchange coupling of about 150 meV [@Zhou_2010IC], which is consistent with the $^1$H-NMR nuclear spin-lattice relaxation rate ($T_1^{-1}$) indicating 1D spin dynamics [@Takagi_2012PRB]. In this compound, in contrast with the discussions above, a $pd\sigma$-type MO centered at the metal site is suggested to lie close to the two ligands $p\pi$ orbitals, and mix substantially. The charge transfer from the $p\pi$-MO results in a nearly half-filled $pd\sigma$-band [@Ishibashi_2012Crystals]. Then, the magnetic properties of \[Cu(tmdt)$_2$\] are attributed to localized spins appearing on the $pd\sigma$-MO [@Zhou_2010IC; @Takagi_2012PRB].
In fact, the possibility that more than the two $p\pi$-MO are involved in the electronic states of SCMC was first proposed for \[Au(tmdt)$_2$\] on the basis of first-principles band calculations [@Ishibashi_2005JPSJ; @Ishibashi_2008JPSJ]: The $pd\sigma$- and $p\pi$-MO mix slightly when forming the electronic band structure, whereas the latter plays the major role near $\epsilon_{\rm F}$. However, more recently, it has been inferred from experiments that the orbital energy difference between these MO is modified upon cooling by an unusual structural variation, enhancing the mixing [@Zhou_2009IC].
Such multi-MO characters in SCMC can be captured by the effective model approach based on tight-binding approximation, which has been successful in describing the electronic properties of CTS and is now widely used [@Seo_2004CR; @Review_2006JPSJ; @Seo_2006JPSJ]. The observed de Haas-van Alphen oscillations in \[Ni(tmdt)$_2$\] are consistent with the tight-binding picture [@Tanaka_2004JACS]. In ref. , we proposed that the basis sets for the effective models of \[Ni(tmdt)$_2$\] and \[Au(tmdt)$_2$\] can be taken as virtual orbitals whose wave functions are parts of the relevant MO near $\epsilon_{\rm F}$, rather than the MO themselves. In this paper, we extend our theoretical approach to the newly synthesized \[Cu(tmdt)$_2$\] and seek for a systematic view of the electronic states among the isostructural family of \[$M$(tmdt)$_2$\] ($M$ = Ni, Au, and Cu).
In § \[sec2\], we set up our effective multiorbital Hubbard model and derive tight-binding parameters by fitting the results of first-principles band calculations. By considering a common set of basis functions for the three materials, a systematic view of the electronic states is achieved. Essentially, the transfer integrals providing the structures of each band are similar among the members, and orbital mixing is mostly governed by the energy difference between the $p\pi$- and $pd\sigma$-type orbitals.
Then, in § \[sec3\], by treating the on-site Coulomb interactions within MF approximation, we investigate the ground-state properties of models for \[Au(tmdt)$_2$\] and \[Cu(tmdt)$_2$\]. We will see that orbital mixing brings about phase diagrams showing different magnetic states when Coulomb interactions on the two types of orbitals are independently varied. In particular, a slight enhancement of mixing in \[Au(tmdt)$_2$\] suggested by experiments [@Zhou_2009IC] results in marked changes from our previous results [@Seo_2008JPSJ]: The involvement of the $pd\sigma$ orbital is suggested.
Section \[sec4\] is devoted to discussions, especially on the magnetic transitions observed in the two compounds. Our results are consistent with the picture that, in \[Cu(tmdt)$_2$\], the $pd\sigma$-MO carries 1D $S$ = 1/2 localized spins, interpreted as a multiband Mott insulator. We discuss possible situations realized in \[Au(tmdt)$_2$\], from the viewpoint of doped Mott insulating systems due to orbital mixing. A summary is given in § \[sec5\].
Effective Model {#sec2}
===============
The wave functions that we chose as basis sets for the effective model of SCMC in our previous work [@Seo_2008JPSJ] are localized on some portions of the molecules. They can be considered as fragments of the MO, and then called the fragment MO (fMO) in refs. , which we follow in this paper as well.
The original motivation to consider such decomposition of MO was the results of first-principles calculations [@Ishibashi_2005JPSJ; @Ishibashi_2008JPSJ]. The spin-dependent calculation for \[Au(tmdt)$_2$\] indicates a stable AF pattern where spins align oppositely within each molecule. To understand this unusual situation, it was speculated that a ligand $p\pi$-$p\pi$ transfer integral is larger between adjacent molecules than that within a molecule, which is supported by the results of an analysis based on the fMO approach [@Seo_2008JPSJ]. These features are consistent with the molecular design [@Kobayashi_2001JMC] mentioned in § \[sec1\] and imply that the fMO approach gives an insightful picture of the electronic states of SCMC. Such discussions have recently been elaborated within quantum chemistry calculations [@Bonnet_2010JCP; @Tsuchiizu_2011JPSJ; @Tsuchiizu_2012JCP], for (TTM-TTP)I$_3$ and \[Au(tmdt)$_2$\]. It is shown that the two approaches, the use of the MO and fMO pictures, can be transformed from one to the other. We note that the fMO approach here and the so-called fragment molecular orbital method applied to huge molecules [@Kitaura_1999CPL; @Tsuneyuki_2009CPL] share common concepts.
In the following, all first-principles calculations, including those for MO of isolated molecules, are performed using the computational code QMAS (Quantum MAterials Simulator) [@QMAS] based on the projector augmented-wave method [@PAW] with the generalized gradient approximation [@GGA]. See refs. and for details.
![(Color online) Molecular orbitals for $M$(tmdt)$_2$ ($M$ = Ni, Au, and Cu) molecules, from which the energy bands in their crystals near the Fermi energy are formed [@Ishibashi_2005JPSJ; @Ishibashi_2008JPSJ; @Ishibashi_2012Crystals]. Nonmagnetic wave functions and energy eigenvalues together with the electron occupation for isolated molecules are shown. The rough spatial extensions of the M$\sigma$, L, and M$\pi$ orbitals explained in the text are indicated. []{data-label="fig1"}](fig1.eps){width="8.4truecm"}
Molecular orbitals and fragment model {#subsec2-1}
-------------------------------------
The band structures of isostructural SCMC near $\epsilon_{\rm F}$ are composed of several MO with similar characters upon chemical modifications [@Kobayashi_2004CR; @Ishibashi_2005JPSJ; @Ishibashi_2008JPSJ]; this applies to the family of \[$M$(tmdt)$_2$\] including the new member $M$ = Cu [@Zhou_2010IC; @Ishibashi_2012Crystals]. Four MO which mostly contribute to the electronic bands near $\epsilon_{\rm F}$ are shown in Fig. \[fig1\].
They can be approximately reconstructed using three kinds of fMO, which we call here M$\sigma$, L, and M$\pi$. The M$\sigma$ and M$\pi$ orbitals are the $p$-$d$ mixed wave functions, roughly being an anti-bonding combination of the metal site $d_{xy}$ and $d_{xz}$ orbitals, and the surrounding S $2p$ orbitals, respectively [@noteMnotation]. The relevant atomic $d$ orbitals are 3$d$ for $M$ = Ni and Cu, and 5$d$ for $M$ = Au. The L orbital is the $p\pi$ orbital which is similar to the HOMO of the TTF molecule embedded in the ligands (see ref. ). There are two of them in one molecule, i.e., L1 and L2, one for each ligand; they are equivalent due to the inversion center at the metal site.
In isolated molecules, the M$\sigma$ orbital does not mix with other orbitals from their symmetry; thus, it is a MO itself, i.e., the $pd\sigma$-MO mentioned in § \[sec1\]. As can be seen in Fig. \[fig1\], the other three MO can roughly be described as linear combinations of L and M$\pi$ orbitals [@Seo_2008JPSJ] as $\phi_{\rm L1}-\phi_{\rm L2}+c_1\phi_{\textrm{M}\pi}$, $\phi_{\rm L1}+\phi_{\rm L2}$, and $\phi_{\rm L1}-\phi_{\rm L2}-c_2\phi_{\textrm{M}\pi}$, where $c_1$ and $c_2$ are some coefficients [@Bonnet_2010JCP] (we omit renormalization factors).
In the fMO scheme, we consider these three kinds of orbitals as a basis set composing the band structures, and then for the low-energy effective model. The two-MO case mentioned in § 1 corresponds to the situation where only the L orbitals are considered. In ref. , we chose {L, M$\pi$} for \[Ni(tmdt)$_2$\] and {M$\sigma$, L} for \[Au(tmdt)$_2$\] to reproduce the first-principles band structures near $\epsilon_{\rm F}$. Here, all {M$\sigma$, L, M$\pi$} are taken into account as a common set, in order to provide a systematic view of the compounds. Our model Hamiltonian including local Coulomb interactions reads:$$\begin{aligned}
&{\cal H} = {\cal H}_0 + {\cal H}_{\rm int},\label{eq:H}\\
&{\cal H}_0 =\sum_{\langle l,m \rangle} \sum_s t_{lm} \left( c^\dagger_{ls} c_{ms}^{} + \mathrm{h.c.} \right) \nonumber\\
&\hspace{3em}
+ \sum_{i} \left( \Delta_{\textrm{M}\sigma} \ n_i^{\textrm{M}\sigma}
+ \Delta_{\textrm{M}\pi} \ n_i^{\textrm{M}\pi} \right),\label{eq:H0}\\
&{\cal H}_{\rm int} = \sum_{i} \left\{ U_{\textrm{L}}
\left( n_{i\uparrow}^\textrm{L1} n_{i\downarrow}^\textrm{L1} +n_{i\uparrow}^\textrm{L2} n_{i\downarrow}^\textrm{L2} \right) \right. + U_{\textrm{M}\sigma} \ n_{i\uparrow}^{\textrm{M}\sigma} n_{i\downarrow}^{\textrm{M}\sigma} \nonumber\\
&\hspace{3em}
+ U_{\textrm{M}\pi} \ n_{i\uparrow}^{\textrm{M}\pi} n_{i\downarrow}^{\textrm{M}\pi} + \left. U'_\textrm{M} \ n_i^{\textrm{M}\sigma} n_i^{\textrm{M}\pi} \right\},\label{eq:Hint}
$$ where ${\cal H}_0$ and ${\cal H}_{\rm int}$ represent the one-particle part, determining the band structure, and the on-site interaction, respectively. In the first term of eq. (\[eq:H0\]), $t_{lm}$ denotes the transfer integrals between fMO, where the sum is taken for inter-fMO pairs $\langle l,m \rangle$ including intra- and inter-molecular ones, and $c_{ls}$ ($c^\dagger_{ls}$) denotes the annihilation (creation) operator for all kinds of orbitals with fMO site index $l$ and spin $s=\uparrow$ or $\downarrow$. In the second term of eq. (\[eq:H0\]), $\Delta_{\textrm{M}\sigma}$ and $\Delta_{\textrm{M}\pi}$ are the orbital energies of the M$\sigma$ and M$\pi$ orbitals, with respect to the L level. The sum here, as well as in eq. (\[eq:Hint\]), is taken for the molecule index $i$, where the number operators are $n_{is}^\textrm{o}={c^{\textrm{o}}_{is}}^\dagger c^{\textrm{o}}_{is}$ and $n_{i}^\textrm{o}= n_{i\uparrow}^\textrm{o}+n_{i\downarrow}^\textrm{o}$ with an orbital index $\textrm{o}=$ M$\sigma$, L1, L2, or M$\pi$. The intraorbital on-site Coulomb interactions for the three kinds of fMO are denoted as $U_{\textrm{L}}$, $U_{\textrm{M}\sigma}$, and $U_{\textrm{M}\pi}$. As for the interorbital on-site interaction, we only include $U'_\textrm{M}$ between M$\sigma$ and M$\pi$ for simplicity, considering that these two orbitals share the spatial extent while they are separated from the L orbitals [@noteHund].
{width="7.5cm"} {width="7.5cm"}\
{width="7.5cm"} {width="7.5cm"}
\[fig2\]
bond site pair \[Ni(tmdt)$_2$\] \[Au(tmdt)$_2$\] \[Au(tmdt)$_2$\] (9 K) \[Cu(tmdt)$_2$\]
------------------------------- ---------------------------- ------------------ ------------------ ------------------------ ------------------
intra-mol. L1-L2 -61 meV -24 meV -27 meV -35 meV
A L1-L1, L2-L2 [**-86**]{} [**-99**]{} [**-98**]{} [**-90**]{}
B L1-L2 [**221**]{} [**207**]{} [**222**]{} [**250**]{}
Q L1-L2 [**131**]{} [**109**]{} [**129**]{} [**134**]{}
P L1-L2 33 41 46 37
A L1-M$\sigma$, M$\sigma$-L2 37 33 41 14
B L1-M$\sigma$, M$\sigma$-L2 27 27 33 29
C L1-M$\sigma$, M$\sigma$-L2 -50 -25 -29 -24
R L1-M$\sigma$, M$\sigma$-L2 21 22 27 14
intra-mol. L1-M$\pi$, M$\pi$-L2 [**-200**]{} [**-138**]{} [**-127**]{} [**-188**]{}
B L1-M$\pi$, M$\pi$-L2 0 30 35 20
C L1-M$\pi$, M$\pi$-L2 -22 -5 -22 -7
Q L1-M$\pi$, M$\pi$-L2 5 15 14 11
A M$\sigma$-M$\sigma$ [**82**]{} [**95**]{} [**98**]{} [**96**]{}
A M$\pi$-M$\pi$ -13 -23 -30 -19
B M$\pi$-M$\pi$ 24 37 44 50
A M$\pi$-M$\sigma$ 53 -34 -14 -1
orbital energies
$\Delta_{\textrm{M}\sigma}^0$ 879 meV 522 meV 476 meV 181 meV
$\Delta_{\textrm{M}\pi}^0$ -193 -612 -636 -377
orbital occupancies
$\bar{n}_{\textrm{M}\sigma}$ 0.02 0.03 0.09 0.86
$\bar{n}_{\textrm{L}}$ 1.16 1.50 1.47 1.15
$\bar{n}_{\textrm{M}\pi}$ 1.66 1.97 1.97 1.85
\[table1\]
Fitting to first-principles band calculations {#subsec2-2}
---------------------------------------------
The tight-binding parameters are obtained by a numerical fitting to first-principles band structures for the nonmagnetic state. In Fig. \[fig2\], we show the bands near $\epsilon_{\rm F}$, together with the fitted tight-binding dispersions. The four bands originate from the four MO, or equivalently, the four fMO; The unit cell consists of one molecule. As for \[Au(tmdt)$_2$\], calculations were performed for both room-$T$ and low-$T$ (9 K) structures determined experimentally, due to the indication of a structural variation upon cooling [@Zhou_2009IC], as noted above. In the calculations for \[Ni(tmdt)$_2$\] and \[Cu(tmdt)$_2$\], the room-$T$ structure parameters are used.
One can see that the top band in \[Ni(tmdt)$_2$\] and the bottom band in \[Au(tmdt)$_2$\] are separated from the others. This is the reason we previously used three-band fits (two kinds of fMO) [@Seo_2008JPSJ]. On the other hand, in \[Cu(tmdt)$_2$\], all four bands are overlapping, requiring a four-band fit for a reasonable agreement with the first-principles band structure. Note that the total band widths of the four bands are about 1.7 eV ($M=$ Ni) $>$ 1.6 eV (Au) $>$ 1.3 eV (Cu).
The fitted tight-binding parameters together with the orbital occupancies per site calculated from ${\cal H}_0$, i.e., $\langle n_i^{\textrm{o}} \rangle \equiv
\bar{n}_{\textrm{o}}$ ($\textrm{o}=$ M$\sigma$, L, M$\pi$), are listed in Table \[table1\]. The listed orbital energies, $\Delta_{\textrm{M}\sigma}^0$, and $\Delta_{\textrm{M}\pi}^0$, are obtained by fitting the energy dispersions of ${\cal H}_0$. By noting that the first-principles band structures are obtained self-consistently including the Hartree contributions within the interactions, we can make a correspondence between the fitted values and the orbital energies in eq. (\[eq:H\]) as [@Seo_2008JPSJ; @Tsuchiizu_2012JCP; @Misawa_2011JPSJ] $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta_{\textrm{M}\sigma}^0 &=
\Delta_{\textrm{M}\sigma}
+U_{\textrm{M}\sigma} \bar{n}_{\textrm{M}\sigma}/2
+U'_{\textrm{M}} \bar{n}_{\textrm{M}\pi}
-U_{\textrm{L}} \bar{n}_{\textrm{L}}/2,\label{eq:orbene1}\\
\Delta_{\textrm{M}\pi}^0 &=
\Delta_{\textrm{M}\pi}
+U_{\textrm{M}\pi} \bar{n}_{\textrm{M}\pi}/2
+U'_{\textrm{M}} \bar{n}_{\textrm{M}\sigma}
-U_{\textrm{L}} \bar{n}_{\textrm{L}}/2.\label{eq:orbene2}\end{aligned}$$
The transfer integrals $t_{lm}$ show more or less similar values for all three members [@noteTransvalue], which is due to the fact that they are isostructural, as noted in our previous work [@Seo_2008JPSJ]. The M$\sigma$ orbitals have a large $t_{lm}$ only for the A bonds along the \[100\] direction: they show a 1D structure. The L orbitals, on the other hand, possess a two-dimensional network, where the [*inter*]{}-molecular dimers are formed by B bonds. Their network is schematically shown in Figs. \[fig3\](b) and (c); in the unit cell, the two L sites from different molecules form L1-L2 dimers. The degree of dimerization, represented by the intradimer transfer integral, namely, that along the L1-L2 B bond, is largest in \[Cu(tmdt)$_2$\]. This dimerized structure resembles the situation commonly seen in typical CTS, e.g., in TM$_2X$ and polytypes of ET$_2X$ such as the $\kappa$ and $\beta$-types [@Review_2006JPSJ; @Seo_2004CR]. M$\pi$ orbitals, in contrast, do not have large $t_{lm}$ between them, but bridge L layers mainly along the intramolecular bonds. They are appreciable (0.1 - 0.2 eV) and then these two orbitals mix with each other. The main differences between the three compounds are in orbital energy, which we will discuss in the next subsection.
![(Color online) \[$M$(tmdt)$_2$\] viewed along the molecular long axis (a) and schematic views of fMO model with lattice sites represented as circles \[(b) and (c)\]. The unit cell containing one molecule with four orbitals is shown as gray lines, and notations for intermolecular bonds are indicated whose correspondences are A \[100\], B \[111\], C \[101\], P \[211\], Q \[001\], and R \[011\]. The two-dimensional network of L sites is shown in (b), perpendicular to the plane, and in (c); the sites connected by the largest transfer integral along the B bonds form dimers. See also Fig. 1 of ref. .[]{data-label="fig3"}](fig3.eps){width="6cm"}
Systematic view of electronic structures {#subsec2-3}
----------------------------------------
The orbital energies $\Delta_{\textrm{M}\sigma}^0$ and $\Delta_{\textrm{M}\pi}^0$ together with the transfer integrals determining the band structures, and the electron numbers, 4 ($M$ = Ni) or 5 ($M$ = Au, Cu) in the four orbitals, lead us to a systematic view of this family, as shown in Fig. \[fig4\].
The M$\pi$ level is low in energy but mixes with the L bands particularly in \[Ni(tmdt)$_2$\] and \[Cu(tmdt)$_2$\]; $\bar{n}_{\textrm{M}\pi}$ deviates from 2, as seen in Table \[table1\]. However, as far as the main characteristics of the electronic states near $\epsilon_{\rm F}$ are concerned, the M$\pi$ orbital does not play an important role. Then, $\Delta_{\textrm{M}\sigma}^0$ is the essential difference among the three members, controlling the orbital mixing between the M$\sigma$ and L orbitals. It becomes monotonically small as $M$ = Ni $\rightarrow$ Au (room-$T$) $\rightarrow$ Au (low-$T$) $\rightarrow$ Cu. This gives rise to a crucial difference in the magnetic states of the Au and Cu systems, as will be shown in § 3.
The M$\sigma$ level in \[Ni(tmdt)$_2$\] is high, and approximately 2 electrons enters the L level. The existence of two L sites in the unit cell, which show dimerization as discussed in the previous subsection, results in band splitting, but not large enough to generate a direct band gap. Then electron and hole pockets appear and compose the Fermi surface. This is how the first SCMC with a metallic character was realized.
Comparing the room-$T$ and low-$T$ structure parameters for \[Au(tmdt)$_2$\], the low-$T$ data show slightly larger transfer integrals than the room-$T$ data especially in L-L pairs; this is naturally expected from the thermal contraction. $\Delta_{\textrm{M}\sigma}^0$ is reduced by lowering $T$ by about 0.05 eV, which is consistent with the previous MO calculation [@Zhou_2009IC]. As a result, a fraction of electrons in the L sites, nearly 3/4-filled in the room-$T$ parameters, are transfered to the M$\sigma$ orbital in the low-$T$ parameters: {$\bar{n}_{\textrm{M}\sigma}$, $\bar{n}_{\textrm{L}}$} = {0.03, 1.5} (room-$T$) $\rightarrow$ {0.09, 1.47} (low-$T$).
As for \[Cu(tmdt)$_2$\], M$\sigma$ mixes more with L due to the further reduction in $\Delta_{\textrm{M}\sigma}^0$, by about 0.30 eV smaller than the low-$T$ parameter for \[Au(tmdt)$_2$\]. In particular, near $\epsilon_{\rm F}$, the contribution of M$\sigma$ is appreciable [@Ishibashi_2012Crystals], even though the orbital level scheme shows a positive $\Delta_{\textrm{M}\sigma}^0$. This is because L orbitals have larger $t_{lm}$ with a two-dimensional character, while the M$\sigma$ band is 1D; therefore, the former show wider bands. The orbital occupancies are {$\bar{n}_{\textrm{M}\sigma}$, $\bar{n}_{\textrm{L}}$} = {0.86, 1.15}, which are substantially varied from the cases above. These features are close to the situation in the MO scheme in Fig. \[fig1\]: In Cu(tmdt)$_2$, the M$\sigma$ ($pd\sigma$) orbital is occupied with nearly one electron.
{width="14cm"}
\[fig4\]
Let us comment on the relation between our level scheme and the nominal charges given as Ni$^{2+}$\[(tmdt)$^-$\]$_2$, Au$^{3+}$\[(tmdt)$^{1.5-}$\]$_2$, and Cu$^{2+}$\[(tmdt)$^-$\]$_2$. Their corresponding occupations of metal $d$ levels are Ni:(3$d$)$^8$, Au:(5$d$)$^8$, and Cu:(3$d$)$^9$, respectively. When one hypothesizes that the M$\sigma$ and M$\pi$ levels are ‘$d$’ levels of the metal atoms and the L orbitals for the full charge of the ligands (namely, omit $p$-$d$ mixing, which is actually large), these nominal charges correspond to, (M$\pi$)$^2$\[(L)$^1$\]$_2$, (M$\pi$)$^2$\[(L)$^{1.5}$\]$_2$, and (M$\pi$)$^2$(M$\sigma$)$^1$\[(L)$^1$\]$_2$, respectively, namely, a full-filled M$\pi$ in all compounds, and, (i) in $M$ = Ni, a 1/2-filled L band, (ii) in $M$ = Au, a 3/4-filled L band, and (iii) in $M$ = Cu, a 1/2-filled M$\sigma$ band and a 1/2-filled L band. These are close to the situations in Fig. \[fig4\].
Mean-Field Calculation {#sec3}
======================
As mentioned in § \[sec1\], \[Au(tmdt)$_2$\] and \[Cu(tmdt)$_2$\] show phase transitions to magnetically ordered states. Here, we study their ground-state ($T$ = 0) magnetic states where the interaction terms in ${\cal H}_{\rm int}$ \[eq. (\[eq:Hint\])\] are treated by MF approximation as $n_{is}^\textrm{o} n_{is'}^\textrm{o'} \rightarrow
\langle n_{is}^\textrm{o} \rangle n_{is'}^\textrm{o'}
+ n_{is}^\textrm{o} \langle n_{is'}^\textrm{o'} \rangle
- \langle n_{is}^\textrm{o} \rangle \langle n_{is'}^\textrm{o'}\rangle$. Such a MF treatment is suitable in seeking for possible different states, as in our model here with multiple degrees of freedom. In the calculations, we consider a supercell of $2a \times 2b \times 2c$, which includes {M$\sigma$, L (L1 and L2), M$\pi$} $\times$ 8 orbitals \[see Fig. \[fig5\](a)\].
\]. (b) L-AF: spin moments appear only on L sites \[dimer-AF pattern with spin ordering vector $q_\textrm{mag}[\textrm{L}]=(\pi,0,0)$\] seen for parameters of \[Au(tmdt)$_2$\] [@Ishibashi_2005JPSJ; @Seo_2008JPSJ]. (c) L&M$\sigma$-AF: spins align in staggered AF manner among L and M$\sigma$ sites for \[Cu(tmdt)$_2$\] with common ordering vector $q_\textrm{mag}[\textrm{L}]=q_\textrm{mag}[\textrm{M}\sigma]=(\pi,\pi,0)$. In (d), schematic representations of electron occupancies realized in parameters for \[Au(tmdt)$_2$\] and \[Cu(tmdt)$_2$\] are shown, respectively. ‘[*b*]{}.’ and ‘[*a*]{}. [*b*]{}.’ represent the bonding and antibonding orbitals for an L dimer, respectively. ](fig5.eps){width="7.2cm"}
\[fig5\]
We set the values of $t_{lm}$ to the fitted results in Table \[table1\], while $\Delta_{\textrm{M}\sigma}$ and $\Delta_{\textrm{M}\pi}$ are adjusted by the conditions in eqs. (\[eq:orbene1\]) and (\[eq:orbene2\]) when the interaction parameters are varied. Then the band dispersions are unchanged within the paramagnetic metallic (PM) solution. Namely, the orbital occupations in the PM state, $\langle n_{i\uparrow}^\textrm{o} \rangle = \langle n_{i\downarrow}^\textrm{o} \rangle =
\langle n_i^\textrm{o} \rangle/2$, are fixed at the values listed in Table \[table1\] as $ \langle n_i^\textrm{o} \rangle= \bar{n}_{\textrm{o}}$. As for the magnetic solutions, we relax the condition of fixed occupation and searched for self-consistent solutions of the lowest energy in an unrestricted manner within the periodicity of the supercell.
In the following, we set $U_{\textrm{M}\sigma} = U_{\textrm{M}\pi} = U'_{\textrm{M}} \equiv U_{\textrm{M}}$ for simplicity [@noteUparam] and vary $U_{\textrm{M}}$ and $U_{\textrm{L}}$ independently. In the whole parameter range we sought, the M$\pi$ orbital has a negligible spin moment, i.e., it is magnetically inactive. Then the parameters $U_{\textrm{M}}$ and $U_{\textrm{L}}$ control the correlation effect on the M$\sigma$ and L orbitals, respectively. One speculation we can make is the relation $U_{\textrm{M}} \gsim U_{\textrm{L}}$, considering the $d$ contribution to the M$\sigma$ orbital as well as its smaller spatial extent than the L orbital.
Before presenting the results, we remark about two typical AF solutions. The first is stabilized in the case of \[Au(tmdt)$_2$\] when $U_{\textrm{L}}$ is increased, whose nature was discussed in refs. and . As shown in Fig. \[fig5\](b), spin moments appear only on L sites; therefore, this state is represented as L-AF. The spins are parallel within L1-L2 dimers connected by B bonds \[see Fig. \[fig3\](c)\] and antiparallel between dimers along interdimer bonds denoted as A, P, and Q in Fig. 3(a). Their ordering vector is $q_\textrm{mag}[\textrm{L}]=(\pi,0,0)$. This pattern corresponds to the dimer-AF spin order frequently appearing in 1/4-filled CTS under dimerization [@Seo_2004CR]. When the on-site Coulomb repulsion is sufficiently large, their staggered pattern can open a gap at $\epsilon_{\rm F}$ when the system is 1/4-filled in terms of either electrons or holes, with each dimer carrying an effective $S=$ 1/2. Such a case is considered as the dimer-Mott insulating state. In the case of the room-$T$ parameters for \[Au(tmdt)$_2$\], L bands are 3/4-filled, without pronounced mixing with other orbitals. Dimers are formed by intermolecular fMO sites, and spins on two L sites in a molecule become antiparallel [@Ishibashi_2005JPSJ]. The results of the first-principles calculation [@Ishibashi_2005JPSJ] correspond to the case of relatively small $U_\textrm{L}$ , and the system remains metallic even in the L-AF state.
On the other hand, in the case of \[Cu(tmdt)$_2$\], a stable AF pattern shows spin moments on both L and M$\sigma$ sites when both $U_{\textrm{M}}$ and $U_{\textrm{L}}$ are large enough; it is then denoted as L&M$\sigma$-AF. As shown in Fig. \[fig5\](c), spins on L sites show a staggered AF state, in which those connected with A, B, and Q (see Fig. \[fig3\]) bonds are antiparallel; the $t_{lm}$ values are large along these L-L bonds, as shown in Table \[table1\]. Spins on M$\sigma$ sites are also staggered, with the common spin ordering vector $q_\textrm{mag}[\textrm{L}]=q_\textrm{mag}[\textrm{M}\sigma]=(\pi,\pi,0)$. This can open an insulating gap when both L and M$\sigma$ bands becomes nearly 1/2-filled; both orbitals provide effective $S=$ 1/2, and the AF pattern corresponds to the N[' e]{}el state configuration. Now, this can be considered as a multiband Mott insulator, due to the quasi-degeneracy of the two orbitals.
The two contrasting situations for large interactions are summarized in Fig. \[fig5\](d), where schematic representations of electron occupancies in the two cases are shown. In the case of \[Au(tmdt)$_2$\], localized spins appear on the antibonding orbital of dimerized L sites. In contrast, in the case of \[Cu(tmdt)$_2$\] spins appear on each of the L sites as well as of the M$\sigma$ sites as a result of orbital mixing.
![(Color) Mean field ground-state phase diagrams for \[Au(tmdt)$_2$\]. The parameters used are fitted results for (a) room-temperature ($T$) structure, (b) low-$T$ structure, and (c) room-$T$ structure but with reduced $\Delta_{\textrm{M}\sigma}^0 \rightarrow \Delta_{\textrm{M}\sigma}^0 - 0.1$ eV. Dashed lines are guides for the eyes. The legend symbols are shown in (d); colors are appointed for distinctions between orbitals showing spin moments as red (L), green (M$\sigma$), and blue (both L and M$\sigma$), while filled symbols represent insulating states. []{data-label="fig6"}](fig6a.eps "fig:"){width="5.8cm"}\
![(Color) Mean field ground-state phase diagrams for \[Au(tmdt)$_2$\]. The parameters used are fitted results for (a) room-temperature ($T$) structure, (b) low-$T$ structure, and (c) room-$T$ structure but with reduced $\Delta_{\textrm{M}\sigma}^0 \rightarrow \Delta_{\textrm{M}\sigma}^0 - 0.1$ eV. Dashed lines are guides for the eyes. The legend symbols are shown in (d); colors are appointed for distinctions between orbitals showing spin moments as red (L), green (M$\sigma$), and blue (both L and M$\sigma$), while filled symbols represent insulating states. []{data-label="fig6"}](fig6b.eps "fig:"){width="5cm"}
-6(c), respectively. The left (right) panels in (b) and (c) are for a fixed ratio of $U_{\textrm{M}}=U_{\textrm{L}}$ ($U_{\textrm{M}}=2U_{\textrm{L}}$). $q_\textrm{mag}[\textrm{M}\sigma]$ denotes the magnetic ordering vector for M$\sigma$ sites that changes at the parameters indicated by the broken lines. ($q_\textrm{mag}[\textrm{L}]$ is always $(\pi,0,0)$, as shown in Fig. \[fig6\](d).) ](fig7.eps){width="8.4cm"}
\[fig7\]
\[Au(tmdt)$_2$\] {#subsec31}
----------------
In Fig. \[fig6\], we show ground-state phase diagrams for three different parameter sets corresponding to \[Au(tmdt)$_2$\]. Figures \[fig6\](a) and \[fig6\](b) are those with fitted results for the room-$T$ and low-$T$ structures, respectively, in Table \[table1\]. Besides them, to see the effect of the reduction in $\Delta_{\textrm{M}\sigma}^0$ more explicitly, we artificially decrease it from its room-$T$ value as $\Delta_{\textrm{M}\sigma}^0 \rightarrow \Delta_{\textrm{M}\sigma}^0-0.1$ eV, while leaving the other room-$T$ parameters unchanged: This is shown in Fig. \[fig6\](c). The distinct states are indicated in the phase diagrams by different symbols summarized in Fig. \[fig6\](d), together with their magnetic ordering vectors. As can be seen there, the AF order on the L sites always has the pattern shown in Fig. \[fig5\](b) with $q_\textrm{mag}[\textrm{L}]=(\pi,0,0)$. By the reduction in $\Delta_{\textrm{M}\sigma}^0$, we indeed find a crucial difference: The dimer-type AF insulating (AFI) state within the L orbital discussed above \[filled symbol in Fig. \[fig6\](a)\] stabilized in the wide range of parameters in the room-$T$ case is not seen, and different AF metallic (AFM) states appear in Figs. \[fig6\](b) and \[fig6\](c), owing to the mixing between the L and M$\sigma$ orbitals.
In Fig. \[fig7\], we show the $U_{\textrm{L}}$ dependence of site occupation number for the three kinds of orbitals together with the spin moments on the L and M$\sigma$ orbitals. Figures \[fig7\](a)-7(c) correspond to the cases in Figs. \[fig6\](a)-6(c), respectively. The right and left panels in Figs. \[fig7\](b) and 7(c) are data along different traces in the ($U_{\textrm{M}}$, $U_{\textrm{L}}$) plane, i.e., for $U_{\textrm{M}}=U_{\textrm{L}}$ and $U_{\textrm{M}}=2U_{\textrm{L}}$, respectively.
### Room-temperature structure {#subsubsec311}
The phase diagram in Fig. \[fig6\](a) shows no dependence on $U_{\textrm{M}}$; this is because the M$\sigma$ orbital is always nearly unoccupied, as shown in Fig. \[fig7\](a). As $U_{\textrm{L}}$ is increased, the system varies as PM $\rightarrow$ AFM $\rightarrow$ AFI states. Since only L sites possess magnetic moments, the magnetic phases are represented as L-AFM and L-AFI in Fig. \[fig7\](a).
These results are almost identical to the results in ref. , where the MF calculations were carried out for the three-band model based on {M$\sigma$, L} and assuming $U_{\textrm{M}\sigma}=U_{\textrm{L}}$. This is consistent with the fact that the present results show an almost fully occupied M$\pi$ orbital playing no role and having no dependence on $U_{\textrm{M}}$. As discussed there, the properties are governed by L orbitals. Their occupation number of 1.5 together with the rather strong dimerization are consistent with the fact that our results are analogous to the MF calculations on two-dimensional 1/4-filled Hubbard models with dimerization, e.g., as firstly performed on the model of $\kappa$-ET$_2X$[@Kino_1995JPSJ]. The existence of the AFM phase in between the AFI and PM phases is due to the imperfect nesting property of the Fermi surface, where small magnetic moments cannot produce a band splitting large enough to open up a gap on the whole Fermi surface. As long as the system is in the AFM phase, the spin moment on each site is less than 0.2 $\mu_\textrm{B}$; this is also the same as that in the three-band model. [@Seo_2008JPSJ].
### Low-temperature structure and reduced $\Delta_{\textrm{M}\sigma}^0$ {#subsubsec312}
The phase diagrams in Fig. \[fig6\](b) for the fitted results for the low-$T$ structure and in Fig. \[fig6\](c) for the room-$T$ values but with reduced $\Delta_{\textrm{M}\sigma}^0$ share common features in their overall structure, but are very different from that in the room-$T$ case. Spin moments appear on M$\sigma$ orbitals when $U_\textrm{M}$ is enlarged, however insulating states are not stabilized, at least, for $(U_\textrm{L},U_\textrm{M}) \leq 0.8$ eV; the whole phase diagrams show metallic states. The phase diagrams are devided into four regions: PM, L-AFM, magnetic metallic states with moments on M$\sigma$ sites \[either antiferromagnetic (M$\sigma$-AFM) or ferromagnetic (M$\sigma$-FM)\], and those with moments on both orbitals \[L&M$\sigma$-AFM or L&M$\sigma$-FM\]. These are common for Figs. \[fig6\](b) and 6(c); therefore, the main variation from the room-$T$ structure to the low-$T$ structure can be captured by the reduction in $\Delta_{\textrm{M}\sigma}^0$. We note that the reduction in $\Delta_{\textrm{M}\sigma}^0$ when the room-$T$ and low-$T$ values are compared is about 0.05 eV, while other parameters only slightly change; the phase diagram shows a marked change.
The L-AFM phase stabilized in the large-$U_\textrm{L}$, small-$U_\textrm{M}$ region is the remnant of the L-AFI phase in the room-$T$ parameters. Its ordering vector is the same and the amplitude of magnetic moment is similar to that in the AFI phase in Fig. \[fig6\](a). For example, in the left panel of Figs. \[fig7\](b), it reaches 0.37$\mu_\textrm{B}$ per site at $U_\textrm{M}=U_\textrm{L}=0.8$ eV. Nevertheless, the system does not turn into an insulating phase, which is due to orbital mixing: The occupation numbers are $\langle n_{i}^{\textrm{M}\sigma} \rangle \simeq 0.1$ and $\langle n_{i}^\textrm{L} \rangle \simeq 1.45$ for the low-$T$ parameters, and $\langle n_{i}^{\textrm{M}\sigma} \rangle \simeq 0.2$ and $\langle n_{i}^\textrm{L} \rangle \simeq 1.4$ for the reduced-$\Delta_{\textrm{M}\sigma}^0$ case, which are noticeably shifted from the case of the room-$T$ parameters. Then this L-AFM state in the large-$U_\textrm{L}$ region can be considered as a ‘doped dimer-Mott insulator’ due to the mixing with the M$\sigma$ orbital.
On the other hand, in the small-$U_\textrm{L}$, large-$U_\textrm{M}$ region, the M$\sigma$-AFM or M$\sigma$-FM state is stabilized. L sites remain paramagnetic and the system is naturally metallic. The magnitude of the moment appearing on M$\sigma$ sites is limited by its occupation number, as shown in Figs. \[fig7\](b) and 7(c), i.e., about 0.1-0.2$\mu_\textrm{B}$. It is difficult to discuss the origin of each spin ordering vector for M$\sigma$ sites, $q_\textrm{mag}[\textrm{M}\sigma]$, within our limited supercell size, since its small filling factor would typically favor a longer periodicity. In fact, it takes different values delicately depending on the parameters. However, we consider that the region where spin moments appear is reasonable. Comparing the phase diagrams in Figs. \[fig6\](b) and (c), the latter has larger region of phases with moments on the M$\sigma$ orbital, owing to the smaller $\Delta_{\textrm{M}\sigma}^0$ and therefore the larger occupation number in M$\sigma$.
Even when we enter the region when both $U_\textrm{M}$ and $U_\textrm{L}$ are large where spin ordering on M$\sigma$ and L sites coexist, the system still remains metallic. Here, the spin moment on L sites can be large similarly to that in the case of the L-AFM phase. For example, in the left panel of Figs. \[fig7\](c), it reaches 0.35-0.4$\mu_\textrm{B}$ per site at $U_\textrm{M}=U_\textrm{L}=0.8$ eV. In this sense, this is also the remnant of the L-AFI phase in the room-$T$ parameters, stabilized at similar interaction parameters. As shown in Fig. \[fig7\](c), when the spin moment on L sites increases, that on the M$\sigma$ orbital decreases, owing to the mismatch of their ordering vectors. This is in contrast with the case of Cu(tmdt)$_2$, as we will see in the next subsection. We note that, in the case of the low-$T$ parameters, there is a wide region where the ordering vector is $q_\textrm{mag}[\textrm{M}\sigma]=(0,0,0)$, namely, the ferromagnetic (M$\sigma$-FM) or ferrimagnetic state when L sites also show spin moments (L&M$\sigma$-FM) is stabilized. This can be ascribed to the large density of state at $\epsilon_{\rm F}$, due to the lower edge of the 1D band from the M$\sigma$ orbital [@Ishibashi_2005JPSJ]. In the room-$T$ structure, this edge situates just above $\epsilon_{\rm F}$, which becomes near it for the low-$T$ parameters. The states with $q_\textrm{mag}[\textrm{M}\sigma]=(0,0,0)$ also appears in the reduced-$\Delta_{\textrm{M}\sigma}^0$ case \[see Figs. \[fig6\](c) and \[fig7\](c)\].
\[Cu(tmdt)$_2$\] {#subsec32}
----------------
The MF ground-state phase diagram for \[Cu(tmdt)$_2$\] is shown in Fig. \[fig8\], while the parameter dependences of orbital occupations and magnetic moments are shown in Fig. \[fig9\]. Although the M$\pi$ orbital is off from the full occupation compared with those in the other cases (see Table \[table1\]), we find no contribution of it to the magnetic properties; therefore, we can set them aside again. The occupation numbers of the other two orbitals are now rather close to 1, i.e., 1/2-filling. Then, as discussed above, an AF insulating state with both M$\sigma$ and L showing magnetic ordering (L&M$\sigma$-AFI) is seen to be stabilized in the region where both $U_\textrm{L}$ and $U_\textrm{M}$ are large. Its spin pattern is the staggered one as is shown in Fig. \[fig5\](c). As shown in Fig. \[fig9\](c), the spin moments on the L and M$\sigma$ orbitals develop cooperatively as the interaction is enhanced.
![(Color) (a) Mean field ground-state phase diagram for \[Cu(tmdt)$_2$\]. The parameters used are the fitted results in Table \[table1\]. Dotted lines are guides for the eyes. The legend symbols are shown in (b); colors are appointed for distinguishing between orbitals showing spin moments as red (L), green (M$\sigma$), and blue (both L and M$\sigma$), while filled symbols represent insulating states. ](fig8.eps){width="6cm"}
\[fig8\]
![(Color) Parameter dependences of expectation values of electron density, $\langle n_i \rangle$, and spin density, $|\langle n_{i\uparrow} \rangle - \langle n_{i\downarrow} \rangle|$, for each orbital site in the MF solutions for \[Cu(tmdt)$_2$\]. The left (right) panel is for fixed ratio of $U_{\textrm{M}}=U_{\textrm{L}}$ ($U_{\textrm{M}}=2U_{\textrm{L}}$). ](fig9.eps){width="8.6cm"}
\[fig9\]
In the large-$U_\textrm{L}$, small-$U_\textrm{M}$ region, on the other hand, the L-AFM state is stabilized, and vise versa, i.e., the M$\sigma$-AFM state is realized for the small-$U_\textrm{L}$, large-$U_\textrm{M}$ region In these states, the spin ordering vector is the same as that in the L&M$\sigma$-AFI phase \[$q_\textrm{mag}=(\pi,\pi,0)$\]; these states are continuously connected. However, they cannot open an insulating gap since, although the AF ordering provides a band splitting at $\epsilon_{\rm F}$ in the magnetic orbital sector, the remaining orbital is paramagnetic with a Fermi surface. In other words, the spin ordering and band gap opening are orbital-selective. The critical value for the magnetic states is smaller for the M$\sigma$-AFM, consistent with the fact that M$\sigma$ sites have smaller transfer integrals with a 1D structure than the L sites. As shown in Fig. \[fig9\], the magnetic moment on each site can be large, owing to the large filling factor near 1. In fact, the calculations show a jump in the charge density on each site across the PM $\leftrightarrow$ AFM boundary (first order phase transition), which results in the occupation number for M$\sigma$ and L to be closer to 1 in the magnetic phases, that is, 0.99 for M$\sigma$ and 1.08 for L, than in the PM phase.
One point to note is that, although the phase diagram is mostly dominated by the $q_\textrm{mag}=(\pi,\pi,0)$ state, we find many self-consistent solutions with very close MF energies in the region where M$\sigma$ orbitals are magnetic. In these quasi-degenerate states, spin ordering vectors are of the form $q_\textrm{mag}[\textrm{M}\sigma]=(\pi,*,*)$ with $*=0$ or $\pi$, namely, only the 2$a$ periodicity is robust. This suggests that the spin exchange coupling between moments on M$\sigma$ sites is essentially 1D, which is consistent with the fitted results in Table \[table1\] where the A bond along \[100\] has the largest M$\sigma$-M$\sigma$ transfer integral. This is also consistent with the first-principles calculations that compare different magnetic orderings [@Ishibashi_2012Crystals]. On the other hand, the L orbital always orders with $q_\textrm{mag}[\textrm{L}]=(\pi,\pi,0)$: the two-dimensional AF is stable at the MF level.
Discussion {#sec4}
==========
In this section, we compare our MF results with experiments on magnetic ordering in this family, keeping in mind that, in the calculations, quantum fluctuations are neglected; additional effects of such fluctuations as well as the possible strong correlation effect can be speculated on top of the MF results. Discussions on \[Cu(tmdt)$_2$\] is followed by that on \[Au(tmdt)$_2$\], since in the former we can have a consistent explanation of the experiments. As for the latter, we present several possible scenarios for the magnetic phase transition in this compound, in light of considerations of its Cu analog.
\[Cu(tmdt)$_2$\] {#cutmdt_2}
----------------
Let us give an explanation of the experimental results in \[Cu(tmdt)$_2$\] based on our calculations, in association with the discussions in the literature [@Zhou_2010IC; @Takagi_2012PRB; @Ishibashi_2012Crystals]. The experiments show an insulating behavior in the resistivity, and the magnetic properties of a 1D Heisenberg spin $S=1/2$ system likely due to $pd\sigma$-MO, namely, the M$\sigma$ orbital.
The insulating state in our MF calculations is realized for the L&M$\sigma$-AFI phase (Fig. \[fig8\]) when both $U_\textrm{L}$ and $U_\textrm{M}$ are large. We can consider this state as a multiband Mott insulator where both L and M$\sigma$ orbitals possess localized spins of effective $S=1/2$ each. In the MF calculation, this state is accompanied by a three-dimensional AF ordering. We can deduce the additional quantum effect as a spin singlet formation in the L network: the rather strong dimerization on B bonds can bring about a nonmagnetic ground state in the L subunit, as long as the other $t_{lm}$ values are small enough. Then the active spin degree of freedom arises only in the M$\sigma$ sector. It has a 1D character as discussed above, and therefore consistent with the Mott insulating behavior with 1D $S=1/2$ chains. This situation is schematically shown in Fig. \[fig10\](a).
Another scenario is that the system corresponds to the M$\sigma$-AFM phase in our MF phase diagram in the small-$U_\textrm{L}$ and large-$U_\textrm{M}$ region (considering the relation $U_{\textrm{M}} \gsim U_{\textrm{L}}$), while other effects beyond our calculation bring about the insulating behavior. In this MF solution, roughly speaking, the magnetic ordering brings about a gap at $\epsilon_\textrm{F}$ for the M$\sigma$ band, but the L bands remains metallic. This corresponds to the state found in the first-principles band calculation [@Ishibashi_2012Crystals]. One possibility is that, since, in this state, $\epsilon_\textrm{F}$ locates in the middle of L bands, where the band overlap is small, a small perturbation might bring about a band gap. This is now a band insulator due to the dimerization in the L sector. Then the spin degree of freedom is only from the M$\sigma$ orbital, again considered as a Mott insulator, showing the same magnetic behavior as above. The largest degree of dimerization in L sites among the cases listed in Table \[table1\] is consistent with both pictures.
![(Color online) Schematic density of states (DOS) for possible situations for (a) \[Cu(tmdt)$_2$\] and (b) \[Au(tmdt)$_2$\]. The M$\pi$ orbital is omitted. The band splittings compared with the situations in Fig. \[fig4\] are due to the formation of Mott gaps, driven by $U_{\textrm{M}\sigma}$ for M$\sigma$ orbitals, while for L orbitals driven by (a) $U_\textrm{L}$ and (b) the effective on-dimer Coulomb repulsion indicated by $U_\textrm{L}^\textrm{eff}$. Coherent peaks expected in such doped Mott insulating systems are omitted as well. ](fig10.eps){width="8.4cm"}
\[fig10\]
\[Au(tmdt)$_2$\] {#autmdt_2}
----------------
There have been puzzling experimental data for \[Au(tmdt)$_2$\], as mentioned in § \[sec1\]. Our MF results for the room-$T$ structure in § \[subsubsec311\], which suggest that only L orbitals are magnetically active, lead to the same conclusion that we discussed previously [@Ishibashi_2005JPSJ; @Ishibashi_2008JPSJ; @Seo_2008JPSJ], facing difficulties in explaining the experimental results. The main problems were as follows: (1) The AFM (spin-density-wave) state in the calculations shows a small magnetic moment, whereas when $U_{\textrm{L}}$ is increased to achieve a large moment state the system enters the AFI phase, i.e., the dimer-Mott insulator. The experimentally observed metallic ground state with a large magnetic moment could not be reconciled. (2) Discussions only involving the L sector are incompatible with the absence of a sign of phase transition in the resistivity at $T_\textrm{AF}$. Spin-density-wave states due to the nesting of the Fermi surface should result in a change in transport properties.
In clear contrast, on the other hand, the results of MF calculations in § \[subsubsec312\], using the low-$T$ parameters \[Figs. \[fig6\](b) and \[fig7\](b)\] as well as the reduced $\Delta_{\textrm{M}\sigma}^0$ values \[Figs. \[fig6\](c) and \[fig7\](c)\], show possible AFM states with larger magnetic moments. In these states, owing to the orbital mixing between L and M$\sigma$, AF ordering cannot open a gap at $\epsilon_\textrm{F}$; therefore, the system remains metallic. Such an involvement of multiorbitals also leads to possible explanations for the absence of anomaly at $T_\textrm{AF}$ in the resistivity, suggesting that the magnetic and transport properties are carried by different degrees of freedom. Below, let us propose two possibilities on the basis of our results, considering the strong correlation effect in addition. We ascribe the regions where magnetic moments arise in our calculations as doped Mott insulating states, as discussed in § \[subsubsec312\].
\(i) {L: doped Mott insulator, M$\sigma$: PM}. This corresponds to the L-AFM state in our calculations. The L orbital forms a dimer-Mott insulating state but doped with holes, which are provided from the M$\sigma$ orbital remaining in a PM state. The Mott gap is due to the effective on-dimer Coulomb interaction, as indicated by $U_\textrm{L}^\textrm{eff}$ in Fig. \[fig10\](b) \[case (i)\].
\(ii) {L: PM, M$\sigma$: doped Mott insulator}. In the MF calculation, in the large-$U_\textrm{M}$, small $U_\textrm{L}$ region, M$\sigma$-AFM/FM states are stabilized. If a similar picture of the Mott insulating nature in scenario (i) is applied, this results in a situation shown in Fig. \[fig10\](b) \[case (ii)\]. The Mott gap formation in the M$\sigma$ sector is adopted from the discussions on \[Cu(tmdt)$_2$\]. In both cases, the doped Mott insulating character will generate magnetism, while there exist carriers unchanged upon magnetic ordering. In the MF phases corresponding to case (i), large spin moments appear on L sites, whereas its ordering is expected to affect the transport properties since L bands are mainly responsible for the conduction. On the other hand, case (ii) is favorable in the sense that L bands are paramagnetic and carries the charge transport, and then M$\sigma$ sites are responsible for magnetism; such a picture has been proposed on the basis of experimental considerations [@Takagi_private]. The weaker dimerization in L sites than in the Cu analog obtained in our estimated transfer integrals may be a factor for stabilizing such a metallic L system. However, in our calculation the magnetic moment on M$\sigma$ is small, limited by its occupation, i.e., the small electron-doping level. This is not in agreement with the argument. With enhanced mixing between the two levels, approaching the situation in \[Cu(tmdt)$_2$\] is expected to bring about a possible reconciliation with the experimental results, although within our estimation of parameters such a prominent mixing is not achieved. Future works including that on the strong correlation effect are needed for further investigating this possibility.
Finally, the observed peculiarly high $T_\textrm{AF}$ is difficult to discuss from our calculation only for the ground state, and the evaluation of transition temperature at the MF level is usually not reliable for comparison with experiments, especially when the strong correlation is involved. The low dimensionality in both L and M$\sigma$ orbitals when considering intraorbital transfer integrals is apparently incompatible with such a high $T_\textrm{AF}$, considering the fact that the energy scale is similar to those of other molecular conductors showing lower transition temperatures for magnetic ordering in general. One possibility is that doped carriers in mixed orbitals effectively make the spin-spin interaction large, especially even in the $c$-direction where the original parameters $t_{lm}$ among the L and M$\sigma$ orbitals are small, making the system three-dimensionally coupled. Then the low-dimensionality embedded in each orbital can be released to increase the critical temperature.
Summary {#sec5}
=======
We have constructed effective models of single-component molecular conductors \[$M$(tmdt)$_2$\] ($M$ = Ni, Au, and Cu) showing a multiorbital nature. Tight-binding parameters are obtained by a fitting to first-principles band structures. The fragment molecular orbital picture leads us to a systematic view of this family: the interplay between a characteristic anisotropic electronic network and the orbital energy difference can tune electronic states using a different choice of $M$, particularly that between the $pd\sigma$-type and $p\pi$-type orbitals. By taking into account the Coulomb interaction, we discussed, for \[Au(tmdt)$_2$\] and \[Cu(tmdt)$_2$\], the mean-field phase diagrams and magnetic solutions of our effective model. In the former compound, we suggest that the mixing between the two orbitals can play a key role in resolving their puzzling experimental results. On the other hand, in the latter, the existence of a multiorbital Mott insulator is suggested, which is consistent with the experimental results. Both of these cases are distinctive examples of molecular systems.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We thank K. Kanoda, A. Kobayashi, H. Kobayashi, R. Takagi, and M. Tsuchiizu for discussions and suggestions. This work was supported by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (Nos. 20110003, 20110004, and 24108511) from MEXT.
[99]{} H. Tanaka, Y. Okano, H. Kobayashi, W. Suzuki, and A. Kobayashi: Science **291** (2001) 285. A. Kobayashi, E. Fujiwara, and H. Kobayashi: . H. Seo, C. Hotta, and H. Fukuyama: . , . A. Kobayashi, H. Tanaka, and H. Kobayashi: . E. Canadell, I. E. I. Rachidi, S. Ravy, J. P. Pouget, L. Brossard, and J. P. Legros: . R. Kato: . In this paper, \[$M$(tmdt)$_2$\] and $M$(tmdt)$_2$ are used to express the crystals and molecules, respectively. H. Tanaka, M. Tokumoto, S. Ishibashi, D. Graf, E. S. Choi, J. S. Brooks, S. Yasuzuka, Y. Okano, H. Kobayashi, and A. Kobayashi: . C. Rovira, J. J. Novoa, J.-L. Mozos, P. Ordej[ó]{}n, and E. Canadell: . S. Yasuzuka, H. Tanaka, M. Tokumoto, D. Graf, E. S. Choi, J. S. Brooks, H. Kobayashi, and A. Kobayashi: . W. Suzuki, E. Fujiwara, A. Kobayashi, Y. Fujishiro, E. Nishibori, M. Takata, M. Sakata, H. Fujiwara, and H. Kobayashi: . B. Zhou, M. Shimamura, E. Fujiwara, A. Kobayashi, T. Higashi, E. Nishibori, M. Sakata, H. B. Cui, K. Takahashi, and H. Kobayashi: . Y. Hara, K. Miyagawa, K. Kanoda, M. Shimamura, B. Zhou, A. Kobayashi, and H. Kobayashi: . H. Tanaka, S. Hara, M. Tokumoto, A. Kobayashi, and H. Kobayashi: . S. Ishibashi, H. Tanaka, M. Kohyama, M. Tokumoto, A. Kobayashi, H. Kobayashi, and K. Terakura: . S. Ishibashi, K. Terakura, and A. Kobayashi: . H. Seo, S. Ishibashi, Y. Okano, H. Kobayashi, A. Kobayashi, H. Fukuyama, and K. Terakura: . B. Zhou, H. Yajima, A. Kobayashi, Y. Okano, H. Tanaka, T. Kumashiro, E. Nishibori, H. Sawa, and H. Kobayashi: . R. Takagi, K. Miyagawa, K. Kanoda, B. Zhou, A. Kobayashi, and H. Kobayashi: . S. Ishibashi and K. Terakura: Crystals [**2**]{} (2012), 1210. B. Zhou, A. Kobayashi, Y. Okano, H. B. Cui, D. Graf, J. S. Brooks, T. Nakashima, S. Aoyagi, E. Nishibori, M. Sakata, and H. Kobayashi: . H. Seo, J. Merino, H. Yoshioka, and M. Ogata: . M.-L. Bonnet, V. Robert, M. Tsuchiizu, Y. Omori, and Y. Suzumura: . M. Tsuchiizu, Y. Omori, Y. Suzumura, M.-L. Bonnet, V. Robert, S. Ishibashi, and H. Seo: . M. Tsuchiizu, Y. Omori, Y. Suzumura, M.-L. Bonnet, and V. Robert, . K. Kitaura, E. Ikeo, T. Asada, T. Nakano, and M. Uebayasi: . S. Tsuneyuki, T. Kobori, K. Akagi, K. Sodeyama, K. Terakura, and H. Fukuyama: . http://www.qmas.jp. P. E. Bl$\ddot{\rm o}$chl: Phys. Rev. B [**50**]{} (1994) 17953. J. P. Predew, K. Burke, and M. Ernzerhof: Phys. Rev. Lett [**77**]{} (1996) 3865. In ref. , we called the M$\sigma$ and M$\pi$ orbitals the M orbitals; when needed, they were distinguished as M($pd\sigma$) and M($pd\pi$), respectively. We have considered the effect of Hund coupling in the MF calculations, but did not find any qualitative difference in the parameter range we investigated ($\le 0.2 U'_{\rm M}$), and therefore omitted it in this paper. T. Misawa, K. Nakamura, and M. Imada: . The results for the Ni and Au compounds are consistent with the three-band fits [@Seo_2008JPSJ]; however, some differences are seen in their values, partly because of the inclusion of one more orbital for each compound, and also because of our reduction of the number of finite $t_{lm}$ in the fitting, to obtain numerically reliable results. For example, the intramolecular L1-L2 transfer integral for Au(tmdt)$_2$ in this work is noticeably smaller than that in ref. ; this can be understood as the value in ref. effectively including the L1-M$\pi$-L2 process; we independently treat these parameters here. However, the small values can vary depending on the details of the fitting process. An analysis using Wannier functions is now under way. We have investigated different parameter sets such as $U_{\textrm{M}\sigma} = U_{\textrm{M}\pi}=1.25 U'_{\textrm{M}}$, but we did not find any qualitative difference. The M$\pi$ orbital is always nearly occupied, and the $U'_{\textrm{M}}$-term does not play a role in stabilizing different states. H. Kino and H. Fukuyama: . R. Takagi and K. Kanoda: private communications.
[^1]: E-mail address: seo@riken.jp
|
---
author:
- |
$^{,a}$, Josefa Becerra González$^{b,c}$, Vandad Fallah Ramazani$^{d}$, Elina Lindfors$^{d}$, Giovanna Pedaletti$^{e}$, Fabrizio Tavecchio$^{f}$, Monica Vazquez Acosta$^{b,c}$, Stefan Larsson$^{g}$ for the MAGIC and Fermi-LAT Collaborations, Kiran Baliyan$^{h}$, Navpreet Kaur$^{h,i}$, Sameer$^{h,j}$, Svetlana Jorstad$^{k,l}$, Claudia Raiteri$^{m}$\
a) University of Łódź, PL-90236 Lodz, Poland (E-mail: )\
b) Inst. de Astrofísica de Canarias, E-38200 La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain\
c) Universidad de La Laguna, Dpto. Astrofísica, E-38206 La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain\
d) Tuorla Observatory, University of Turku and Astronomy Division, University of Oulu, Finland\
e) Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron (DESY), D-15738 Zeuthen, Germany\
f) INAF National Institute for Astrophysics, I-00136 Rome, Italy\
g) KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Department of Physics and Oskar Klein Centre for Cosmoparticle Physics, AlbaNova, SE-10691 Stockholm, Sweden\
h) Physical Research Laboratory, Ahmedabad 380009, Gujrat, India\
i) Indian Institute of Technology, Gandhinagar 382355, Gujrat, India\
j) Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, The Pennsylvania State University, 532-D, Davey Laboratory, University Park, PA 16802, USA\
k) IAR, Boston University, 725 Commonwealth Ave, Boston, 02215, USA;\
l) St.Petersburg State University, Universitetsky prospekt, 28, St. Petersburg, 198504, Russia\
m) INAF, Osservatorio Astrofisico di Torino, via Osservatorio 20, I-10025 Pino Torinese, Italy
title: 'MAGIC observations of variable very-high-energy gamma-ray emission from PKS1510-089 during May 2015 outburst'
---
Introduction
============
is a bright flat spectrum radio quasar (FSRQ) located at a redshift of $z=0.36$ [@ta96]. The source is one of only six blazars firmly classified as a FSRQ from which gamma-ray emission has been detected in the very-high-energy (VHE, $>100$GeV) range [@ab13]. The GeV gamma-ray emission of is strongly variable with the doubling time of flares as short as 1h [@sa13]. Until 2015, the source was detected only twice in the VHE gamma ray band, both during long periods of enhanced optical and GeV gamma-ray activity [@ab13; @al14]. Interestingly, no variability could be claimed from those detections.
Since 2013, the Major Atmospheric Gamma Imaging Cherenkov (MAGIC) telescopes are performing regular monitoring of . In May 2015, a strong flare of was observed in GeV gamma rays by the Large Area Telescope (LAT) on board the *Fermi* satellite, accompanied by high activity in the optical and IR bands. The high state triggered further MAGIC observations, which led to the detection of an enhanced VHE gamma-ray activity from the source. We report on the observations of during the May 2015 flare, discussed in more detail in [@ah16a].
Instruments and data analysis
=============================
During the May 2015 outburst was observed by multiple instruments in a broad range of frequencies from radio up to VHE gamma rays.
VHE gamma-ray data were collected using the MAGIC telescopes. MAGIC is a system of two 17m diameter, imaging atmospheric Cherenkov telescopes located on La Palma, Canary Islands [@al16a]. The MAGIC telescopes observed for 5.4 hours between MJD 57160–57166. The data were analyzed using MARS, the standard analysis package of MAGIC [@za13; @al16b] using an additional LIDAR-based correction for the atmospheric transmission [@fg15]. The source has been observed in GeV range by during its all-sky monitoring program [@Atwood09]. Details of the data analysis are described in [@ah16a].
X-ray observations were performed with X-ray Telescope (*XRT*) [@2004SPIE.5165..201B] on board the *Swift* satellite. During the period from MJD 57153 to 57167 the source was observed 16 times for total time of 26.6ks. Details of the X-ray data analysis are described in [@ah16a]. The state of the source in optical-UV range was monitored by the Ultraviolet/Optical Telescope (UVOT, [@po08]), also on board the *Swift* satellite. Those data were analyzed following the method described in [@ra10].
The source was also monitored in the optical R range by a 35cm Celestron telescope attached to the KVA (Kunglinga Vetenskapsakademi) telescope located at La Palma. The analysis of those data was performed as described in [@ni17]. The optical polarization observations were performed with a number of instruments: Nordic Optical Telescope (NOT), Steward Observatory, Perkins Telescopes, RINGO3, AZT-8, and LX-200 (see [@ah16a] for details). We also use infrared observations obtained with SMARTS, TCS and MIRO (see [@ah16a] for details).
is also monitored at 37 GHz frequency with Metsähovi Radio Telescope (see [@te98]). High resolution radio images of the jet were obtained at the frequency of 43 GHz with the Very Long Baseline Array (VLBA). The VLBA data were reduced following [@jo05].
Results
=======
In Fig. \[fig:mwllc\] we show the multiwavelength light curve of during the period of MJD 57151–57174.
{width="55.00000%"}
The VHE gamma-ray flux measured by MAGIC shows clear variability, with a chance probability of constant flux of just $7.7\times10^{-8}$. During MJD 57160–57161 the VHE gamma-ray flux was $\sim$ 5 times higher than detected during 2012 [@al14]. Afterwards (MJD 57164–57166) the source returned to the flux level compatible with the 2012 detection. Following those two states of the source we define two periods: A and B respectively, in which multiwavelength SED is investigated. Despite the difference in the flux level, the spectral shape measured by MAGIC in both periods is consistent with each other and with previous measurements, however statistical uncertainties are rather large (see [@ah16a] for details).
The GeV gamma-ray flux of measured by is highly variable in the whole investigated period (MJD 57150-57175). A few individual flares are visible, with time scales of a few days. A major GeV flare from also occured $\sim$60 days after Period A (see [@ah16a]). We reconstructed GeV spectrum in periods A and B. Similarly to the VHE gamma-ray case, while the flux level is different, no significant change of shape is observed.
The X-ray flux, measured by *Swift*-XRT, shows a gradual decrease during the period MJD 57156–57165. The X-ray emission also became significantly softer between Period A and B.
The optical emission of during the period MJD 57150–57175 shows variability, which however does not strictly follow the gamma-ray one. Similar behaviour is also seen in IR range.
Throughout the investigated period, a smooth rotation of optical EVPA by $\sim 100^\circ$ occurred. The rotations of optical polarization angle has also been observed in the 2009 and 2012 gamma-ray flaring states [@ma10; @al14]. Nevertheless, the rotations of the EVPA are a common phenomenon in , therefore, further data are needed to firmly associate them with the emission of VHE gamma rays. The low percentage of polarization, observed also during Period A, is typical for this source [@je16]. The percentage of the polarization is three times higher both during Period B, and also a few days before Period A. The polarization rotation during the 2015 flaring period agrees with what is expected from a knot following a spiral path through a mainly toroidal magnetic field [@ma10]. Alternatively, it can be also explained by the light travel time effects within an axisymmetric emission region pervaded by a predominately helical magnetic field [@zh15].
The radio flux of shows moderate variability in the Metsähovi observations performed at 37GHz. It does not show any clear correlation with other bands, however, the sampling is rather sparse.
VLBA observations of performed a few months after the flaring period revealed an occurrence of a new knot, K15, emerging from the core (see Fig. \[fig:1510t\]).
![ Total intensity images of the PKS1510-089 core region at 43 GHz, with a global peak intensity of $I_{peak}=3.566$Jy/beam and 0.15 mas FWHM circular Gaussian restoring beam (top right circle). The solid and dashed lines follow the positions of the VLBI core and $K15$, respectively, across the epochs. Figure reproduced from [@ah16a]. []{data-label="fig:1510t"}](1510t_vlba15_v2.eps){width="98.00000%"}
The new knot is bright and relatively slow, with an apparent speed $\beta_{app}$=(5.3$\pm$1.4) c. Extrapolation shows that its separation from the core happened on MJD $T_0=57230\pm52$. A similar behavior has also been observed during a high gamma-ray state in Feb-Apr 2012, when the emergence of a new radio knot, K12, from the core was associated with a VHE outburst [@al14]. K15 core separation epoch is marginally consistent with the time during which MAGIC has observed VHE gamma-ray emission from . It should be noted however that due to large uncertainty of $T_0$ it could be also associated with one of a few GeV flares in this period (see [@ah16a]).
SED modeling
============
The gamma-ray emission of FSRQs is typically explained in terms of the inverse Compton scattering of electrons on a radiation field external to the jet (see, e.g. [@sbr94; @gh10]), the so-called external Compton (EC) scenario. The type of the radiation field is determined by the location of the emission region. The observation of VHE gamma rays escaping from the emission region suggests that the emission region is located outside the Broad Line Region (BLR) (see also [@ab13; @al14]).
In Fig. \[fig:sed\] we present the SED of constructed from the data covering Periods A and B, corresponding to high and low gamma-ray flux, respectively.
{width="55.00000%"}
Most of the flux variation (by $\approx$ a factor of 2–3) is visible in GeV and sub-TeV bands. The low-energy flux (optical, X-rays) is almost constant between the two periods. It is interesting to note that the high-energy peak during the period B is at a very similar level to the 2012 high state [@al14], despite the IR–UV emission being a factor of $\sim3$ higher.
We model these SEDs of in the framework of a one-zone EC scenario, like the one used for the explanation of 2012 data [@al14]. In order to allow escape of VHE emission (observed by MAGIC) we assume that the emission region is located beyond the BLR radius. Therefore, the external photon field seen by relativistic electrons is dominated by the thermal IR radiation of the dust torus (DT).
To estimate the size and the radiation field of the BLR and DT we assume the scaling laws and the prescriptions given in [@gt09]. Assuming the disk luminosity of $L_{\rm disk}=6.7\times 10^{45}$ erg s$^{-1}$ [@al14] we obtain BLR and DT radii of $R_{\rm BLR}=2.6\times 10^{17}$ cm and $R_{\rm IR}=6.5\times 10^{18}$ cm respectively. In calculations we assume that fractions $f_{\rm BLR}=0.1$ and $f_{\rm IR}=0.6$) of the disk radiation are intercepted and reprocessed by the BLR and by DT respectively. The DT is heated to 1000K.
We fix the distance of the emission region from the base of the jet to $r=6\times 10^{17}$ cm. If the emission region is filling the whole cross section of the jet, for an assumed jet semi-aperture angle $\theta_{\rm j}=0.047$rad we obtain the radius of the emission region $R=2.8\times 10^{16}$ cm. Such a size of the emission region is consistent, even for moderate values of the Doppler factor, with the variability observed by MAGIC with the time scale of a few days. We apply in the modeling the same values of the jet bulk Lorentz factor $\Gamma=20$ and Doppler factor $\delta=25$ as used in [@al14]. The remaining free parameters of the model are the intensity of the magnetic field $B$ and the electron energy distribution. Hence, we model the observed variability as the effect of the changes in the conditions of the plasma flowing through the shock region. To reproduce the SEDs we assume that the electron energy distribution can be described by a double broken power law. The first break, $\gamma_c$, is caused by the cooling, and a second break, $\gamma_b$, can be an effect of the acceleration process (see [@ah16a] for details). The used model can describe the data relatively well. The difference in the broadband emission of Period A and B can be explained with a relatively small change in the fit parameters, namely a slightly stronger magnetic field and lower maximum and break energies of the electrons during Period B.
Discussion and conclusions
==========================
The observations performed by the MAGIC telescopes revealed enhanced VHE gamma-ray emission from the direction of during the high optical and GeV state of the source in May 2015, showing for the first time VHE gamma-ray variability in this source. During May 2015 the IR, optical and UV data showed a gradual increase in flux, while the flux in the X-ray range was slowly decreasing.
The May 2015 multiwavelength data are another example of the enhanced VHE gamma-ray emission occurring during the rotation of the optical polarization angle. Also, similarly to other gamma-ray flares, an ejection of a new radio component was observed, however with a large uncertainty on the zero separation epoch, which makes it difficult to associate it to a particular peak in the GeV LC. Hence, May 2015 data suggests that the association of VHE gamma-ray emission with the rotation of EVPA and ejection of a new radio component might be a common feature of .
The source was modeled with the external Compton scenario. The evolution of the state of the source from the VHE gamma-ray flare to a weaker emission at the level of the 2012 detection can be explained by relatively small changes in the conditions of the plasma flowing through the emission region.
Other scenarios might be also able to explain the observed emission. In particular, if we assume that the VHE flaring is indeed connected to the ejection of the new component (in the case of 2015 flare, $K15$) from the VLBA core and the rotation of the optical polarization angle, it would be natural to assume a single emission region located far outside the dusty torus. The seed photons for EC process could then originate from the slower sheath of the jet. Such a scenario has been shown to provide a feasible description of the previous flaring epochs of (see [@al14; @md15]).
The VHE gamma-ray variability with time scale $\tau$ seen during the 2015 outburst puts constraints on the size, and therefore also on the location of the emission region. Assuming that the spine of the jet fills a significant fraction of the jet (as in [@al14]), the location of the emission region cannot be farther than $d=\tau \delta c / \left( (1+z)\theta_{\rm j}\right) = 2.7 (\tau/3\,\mathrm{days})(\delta/25)(\theta_{\rm j}/ 1^\circ)^{-1}$pc. Therefore, a high Doppler factor and a narrow jet would allow us to place the emission region at the radio core. Such low values of the jet extension, $(0.2\pm0.2)^\circ$ [@jo05] and $0.9^\circ$ [@pu09] at the radio core are reported by the radio observations. Intranight variability observed during the 2016 flare [@za17] will put even stronger constraints on the size and thus also location of the emission region.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We would like to thank the IAC for the excellent working conditions at the ORM in La Palma. We acknowledge the financial support of the German BMBF, DFG and MPG, the Italian INFN and INAF, the Swiss National Fund SNF, the European ERDF, the Spanish MINECO, the Japanese JSPS and MEXT, the Croatian CSF, and the Polish Narodowe Centrum Nauki. The *Fermi*-LAT Collaboration acknowledges support for LAT development, operation and data analysis from NASA and DOE (United States), CEA/Irfu and IN2P3/CNRS (France), ASI and INFN (Italy), MEXT, KEK, and JAXA (Japan), and the K.A. Wallenberg Foundation, the Swedish Research Council and the National Space Board (Sweden). Science analysis support in the operations phase from INAF (Italy) and CNES (France) is also gratefully acknowledged. This work performed in part under DOE Contract DE-AC02-76SF00515.
[99]{} Tanner, A. M., Bechtold, J., Walker, C. E., Black, J. H., & Cutri, R. M. 1996, , 112, 62 H.E.S.S. Collaboration, Abramowski, A., Acero, F., et al. 2013, , 554, A107 Saito, S., Stawarz, [Ł]{}., Tanaka, Y. T., et al. 2013, , 766, L11 Aleksi[ć]{}, J., Ansoldi, S., Antonelli, L. A., et al. 2014, , 569, A46 MAGIC Collaboration, Ahnen, M. L., Ansoldi, S., et al. 2016, Accepted for publication in A&A, arXiv:1610.09416 Aleksi[ć]{}, J., Ansoldi, S., Antonelli, L. A., et al. 2016, Astroparticle Physics, 72, 61 Zanin, R., Carmona, E., Sitarek, J., et al., 2013, Proc of 33rd ICRC, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Id. 773 Aleksi[ć]{}, J., Ansoldi, S., Antonelli, L. A., et al. 2016, Astroparticle Physics, 72, 76 Fruck, C., & Gaug, M. 2015, European Physical Journal Web of Conferences, 89, 02003 Atwood, W. B., Abdo, A. A., Ackermann, M., et al. 2009, ApJ, 697, 1071 Burrows, D. N., Hill, J. E., Nousek, J. A., et al. 2004, , 5165, 201 Poole, T. S., Breeveld, A. A., Page, M. J., et al. 2008, , 383, 627 Raiteri, C. M., Villata, M., Bruschini, L., et al. 2010, , 524, A43 Nilsson et al., submitted Teraësranta, H., Tornikoski, M., Mujunen, A., et al. 1998, , 132, 305 Jorstad, S. G., Marscher, A. P., Lister, M. L., et al. 2005, , 130, 1418 Acero, F., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M. et al. 2015, ApJS, 218, 23 Marscher, A. P., Jorstad, S. G., Larionov, V. M., et al. 2010, , 710, L126 Jermak, H., Steele, I. A., Lindfors, E., et al. 2016, , 462, 4267 Zhang, H., Chen, X., B[ö]{}ttcher, M., Guo, F., & Li, H. 2015, , 804, 58 Sikora, M., Begelman, M. C., & Rees, M. J. 1994, , 421, 153 Ghisellini, G., Tavecchio, F., Foschini, L., et al. 2010, , 402, 497 Ghisellini, G., & Tavecchio, F. 2009, , 397, 985 MacDonald, N. R., Marscher, A. P., Jorstad, S. G., & Joshi, M. 2015, , 804, 111 Pushkarev, A. B., Kovalev, Y. Y., Lister, M. L., & Savolainen, T. 2009, , 507, L33 Zacharias, M. et al., in this conference
|
---
abstract: 'This paper explores the use of language models to predict 20 human traits from users’ Facebook status updates. The data was collected by the myPersonality project, and includes user statuses along with their personality, gender, political identification, religion, race, satisfaction with life, IQ, self-disclosure, fair-mindedness, and belief in astrology. A single interpretable model meets state of the art results for well-studied tasks such as predicting gender and personality; and sets the standard on other traits such as IQ, sensational interests, political identity, and satisfaction with life. Additionally, highly weighted words are published for each trait. These lists are valuable for creating hypotheses about human behavior, as well as for understanding what information a model is extracting. Using performance and extracted features we analyze models built on social media. The real world problems we explore include gendered classification bias and Cambridge Analytica’s use of psychographic models.'
author:
- Andrew Cutler
- Brian Kulis
bibliography:
- 'big5.bib'
title: Inferring Human Traits From Facebook Statuses
---
Introduction
============
Facebook’s 2 billion users spend an average of 50 minutes a day on Facebook, Messenger, or Instagram [@stewart2016facebook]. Industry seeks to obtain, model and actualize this mountain of data in a variety of ways. For example, social media can be used to establish creditworthiness [@suncorp; @khandani2010consumer], persuade voters [@cogburn2011networked; @gonzalez2017hacking], or seek cognitive behavioral therapy from a chatbot [@fitzpatrick2017delivering]. Many of these tasks depend on knowing something about the personal life of the user. When determining the risk of default, a creditor may be interested in a debtor’s impulsiveness or strength of support network. A user’s home town could disambiguate a search term. Or—reflecting society’s values—a social media company may be less willing to flag inflammatory language when the speaker is criticizing their own [@AllanHateSpeach].
Social media’s endlessly logged interactions have also been a boon to understanding human behavior. Researchers have used various social networks to model bullying [@cheng2015antisocial], urban mobility [@noulas2012tale], and the interplay of friendship and shared interests [@yang2011like]. Such studies do not have the benefit of a controlled setting where a single variable can be isolated. However, orders of magnitude more observations in participants’ natural habitat offer more fidelity to lived experience [@kosinski2015facebook]. Additionally subjects can be sampled from countries not so singularly Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic—or WEIRD, in the parlance of Henrick et al [@henrich_heine_norenzayan_2010].
In this paper we show how readily different personality and demographic information can be extracted from Facebook statuses. Our reported performance is useful to learn how traits are related to online behavior. For example, sensational interests as measured by the Sensational Interest Questionnaire (SIQ) have been studied for internal reliability [@egan1999sensational], relationship to physical aggression [@egan2009sensational], and role in intrasexual competition [@weiss2004sensational]. Yet work connecting SIQ with social media use relies on individually labeling sensational interests in statuses and is only predictive among males [@hagger2011social]. Our model performs well for both males and females without hand-labeling statuses. Similarly, other research found no relationship between satisfaction with life (SWL) and status updates [@wang2014can]; we show modest test set performance. Finally, although Facebook Likes have been shown to be highly predictive of many personal traits [@kosinski2013private], language models with good performance on this dataset have been limited to predicting personality, age, and gender [@schwartz2013personality; @farnadi2016computational; @sap2014developing].
The benchmark also helps assess the efficacy of services that explicitly or implicitly rely on inferring these traits. This is valuable to those developing new services as well as to users concerned about privacy. Of particular interest is the role of psychographic models in Cambridge Analytica’s (CA) marketing strategy. From leaked internal communications, in 2014 CA amassed a dataset of Facebook profiles and traits almost identical to those in the myPersonality dataset [@nyt]. The week after CA’s project became public, Facebook’s stock plummeted \$75 billion [@marketwatch]. One factor in that drop was the belief that Facebook had allowed a third party to create a powerful marketing tool that could manipulate elections [@guardianBannon; @nyt]. There are dozens of publications on the myPersonality dataset. However, this is the first to predict SIQ, fair-mindedness, and self-disclosure, which CA discussed in relation to building user models [@nyt]. Besides performance benchmarks, the other major contribution of this paper are the most highly weighted words to predict each trait. The weights also say something about human behavior. The interpretation here is more complex: regression on tens of thousands of features is fraught with over-fitting and colinearity. Despite those problems, in Section \[interpret\] we argue that the weights can still be treated as a data exploration tool similar to clustering. We provide examples of previously studied relationships that are borne out in the word lists, and believe the lists are a useful tool to develop yet unstudied hypotheses.
Highly weighted features are also an important way to analyze models. We argue in section \[CA\] that a militarism predictor CA may have built is accurate, but extracts obvious features. Additionally, by inspecting the features in an Atheist vs. Agnostic classifier we find many gendered words. We demonstrate the bias empirically, then fix the classifier to be more fair. This approach is instructive for interrogating more critical models built on social media data.
This paper includes many contributions that could stand alone. We show that the text of Facebook statuses can predict user SWL and SIQ. We expand the prediction of political identity from a single spectrum (liberal/conservative) to twelve distinct ideologies with varying levels of overlap and popularity. On that task, we establish state of the art performance with a model that also provides informative features for every pairwise political comparison. We recreate models CA may have built, and report their performance and the type of information they extracted. We bring character level deep learning to gender prediction. To our knowledge, we also set the standard for predicting IQ, fair-mindedness, self-disclosure, race, and religion from Facebook statuses. Finally, we propose a novel method to make classification less biased.
Given the broad scope of this paper, some contributions are given less space than they would typically merit. Even so, we believe it is important to report results on many traits in a single paper. This demonstrates the power of a simple model and allows task difficulty and extracted features to be compared across traits without concerns about changing experimental setup.
Background
==========
myPersonality Dataset
---------------------
From 2008 to 2012, over 7 million Facebook users took the myPersonality quiz produced by the psychologist David Stillwell [@kosinski2015facebook]. After answering at least 20 questions, users were scored on the Big Five personality axes: openness, creativity, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism. Over 3 million of those users agreed to give researchers access to their extant Facebook profile and their personality scores. A much smaller subset of users answered additional questionnaires about their interests, Friends’ personality, belief in astrology, and other personal information. The research community has added to the dataset by providing race labels for several hundred thousand users; representing the text of statuses in terms of their Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) statistics [@pennebaker2001linguistic]; and much more. Labels used in this study are listed in Tables \[acc\_cat\] and \[acc\_cont\], along with descriptive statistics. To see all available labels, visit myPersonality.org.
myPersonality.org lists 43 publications that use this data. Most work explores the relationship between personality and easily extractable features such as number of Friends or Likes, geographic location, or user-Like pairs. For example, user-Like pairs are shown to be better predictors of a personality than one’s spouse [@youyou2015computer]. In 2013, Schwartz et al introduced the open vocabulary approach (or bag of words) to personality, gender, and age prediction [@schwartz2013personality]. This significantly outperforms closed-vocabulary approaches such as LIWC that rely on domain knowledge to assign each word to one or more of 69 categories. For an excellent overview of related work, we direct readers to that paper’s introduction [@schwartz2013personality].
Language Models
---------------
### Bag of Words
The majority of our experiments use bag of words (BoW) term frequency-inverse document frequency (tf-idf) preprocessing followed by $\ell_2$ regularized regression. First, the vocabulary is limited to the $k$ most common words in a given training set. Then a matrix of word counts, $N$, is constructed, where $N_{ij}$ refers to how often word $j$ is used by subject $i$. Each row is normalized to sum to one, moved to a log scale, and divided by $d$, the ratio of documents in which each word appears. In more formal notation, each element of the tf-idf matrix is defined by
$$W_{ij} = \frac{1 + \log\Big(\frac{N_{ij}}{\sum_{i=1}^{k}N_{ij}}\Big)}{d_j}.$$
$W$ is then normalized so each row lies on the unit sphere. $W$ can now be used for linear classification or regression with $\ell_2$ regularization on the parameters. This is commonly called Ridge Regression. For binary classification problems, labels are assigned values of $\{-1,1\}$ and a threshold determines predicted label. For categorical data with more than two labels, we train a classifier on each pair of labels. Predicted label is decided by majority vote of the $\frac{c(c-1)}{2}$ classifiers, where $c$ is the number of classes.
### Character-Level Convolutional Neural Network {#CNN}
For gender prediction, we also train a 49 layer character level convolutional neural network (char-CNN) described in [@conneau2017very]. Much like successful computer vision architectures [@krizhevsky2012imagenet], each character is embedded in continuous space and combined with neighbors by many layers of convolutional filters. Unlike BoW models, CNNs preserve the temporal dimension, allowing the use of syntactic information. While a great advantage, and theoretically more similar to human cognition, this requires different preprocessing. During training, all inputs must be the same length along the temporal axis despite the wide variation in total length of users’ statuses. We chose to split users’ concatenated statuses into chunks of no more than 4000 characters, and no less than 1000, as this is enough text for humans to perform gender classification [@nguyen2014gender]. Each chunk contains roughly 800 words. Chunks from the same user are assigned entirely to either the training or test set. Unfortunately, preprocessing differences do not allow for a direct comparison between methods. However, enforcing the same preprocessing for both models would necessarily limit one.
Labels
------
Tables \[acc\_cont\] and \[acc\_cat\] provide statistics of the continuous and categorical data respectively. What follows is a brief description of each label and how it was collected.
### Gender
is the binary label users supplied when setting up their Facebook account. Offering this information was common before 2008, and mandatory from 2008-2014. In 2014, (after the collection of this dataset) Facebook added 56 more gender options but still uses a binary representation to monetize users [@bivens2017gender].
### Race
labels provided in the dataset are inferred from profile pictures using the Faceplusplus.com algorithm which can identify races termed White, Black, and Asian. A noisy measure of visual phenotype is not the gold standard for the study of race, however, our results indicate it is related to social media use.
### Political identity
is limited to the twelve most common responses: IPA, anarchist, centrist, conservative, democrat, doesn’t care, hates politics, independent, liberal, libertarian, republican, and very liberal. These are heterogenous categories from an open-ended question. No work was done to limit labels to political parties (eg. remove “doesn’t care”), disambiguate misspelled or similar responses (eg. combine “anarchy” and “anarchist” or “liberal” and “very liberal”), or limit responses to one country. To produce the word list for Liberals and Conservatives in Table \[words\_rel\_pol\], we combine “liberal”, “very liberal”, and “democrat’’ as well as “conservative”, “very conservative”, and “republican”. The most likely meaning of IPA is the Independence Party of America, which was in its nascence during this survey. The party is most popular among young people disaffected by the two party system, a sentiment reflected by the users who report IPA.
### Religion
categories were limited to the nine most common responses, and similar labels were combined. Three variants of Catholic—“catholic”,“christian-catholic”, and “romancatholic”—were merged to form Catholic. Likewise, Christian refers to “christian”, “christian-baptist” and “christian-evangelical”. The entire list includes: Atheist, Agnostic, Catholic, Christian, Hindu, and None.
### Belief in star sign
is the user’s response to “Horoscopes provide useful information to help guide my decisions?” Options include: Strongly Agree, Slightly Agree, No Opinion, Slightly Disagree, and Strongly Disagree.
### Personality
is determined on five axes—Openness, Conscientiousness, Extroversion, Agreeableness, and Neurotocism—by a survey. Users answer 20-300 questions which are used to score each personality component on a scale of 1-5. There is a large body of research showing that five factor analysis is explanatory for behavior [@digman1990personality], and its measurement is reproducible [@mccrae1987validation]. That work is now adapting to larger datasets collected online [@kosinski2015facebook].
### Sensational Interests
include Militarism, Violent-Occult, Intellectual Recreation, Occult Credulousness, and Wholesome activities. Users can indicate “Great Dislike”, “Slight Dislike”, “No Opinion”, “Slight Interest”, and “Great Interest” for 28 different items including: “Drugs”, “Paganism”, “Philosophy”, “Survivalism”, and “Vampires and Wolves”. Interest levels are calculated by summing responses from relevant items. The full calculation can be found in [@egan1999sensational].
### IQ
is determined by 20 questions that conform to Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices. The development and validation of these questions is explained in [@IQkosinski] and [@kosinski2014measurement]. Because performance on IQ tests has been rising at roughly 0.3 points a year over the past century and IQ is defined as mean 100, the scoring of a test is properly defined over an age cohort [@flynn1987massive]. These scores do not take age into account and the mean is 114.
### Satisfaction with life, self-disclosure, and fair-mindedness
are assessed by separate questionnaires. SWL is a measure of global well being somewhat robust to short term mood fluctuations [@diener1985satisfaction].
The Interpretation of Feature Weights {#interpret}
=====================================
A common approach to understand traits in social science is to solve
$$X = UT + \epsilon,$$ where $X$ is observations of subjects, $T$ is the traits of subjects, $U$ is a transition matrix, and $\epsilon$ is model error [@khandani2010consumer; @egan1999sensational; @cooke2004demographic; @pecina2013personality; @quilty2009personality; @tett1991personality; @park2015automatic; @cesare2017detection; @kleinberg2016inherent]. Traits are preferred to be orthogonal to promote compactness without sacrificing modeling power. The Big 5 personality model is both criticized and defended on grounds of trait independence, explanatory power, and measureability, which conforms to the linear model above [@john1999big]. Because the traits are defined by language they will not be completely orthogonal. Additionally, observations are not independent. As such, values in $U$ will have dependencies across both rows and columns. Some traits like personality are used to predict other traits or life events [@egan1999sensational; @tett1991personality]. Learning those relationships can be interpreted as informing our beliefs about column dependencies for $U$ when both traits are part of $T$.
In this paper, $X$ is the tf-idf word matrix, $T$ is defined by our labels, and the model weights are some estimate of $U$ we define as $\hat{U}$. Row dependencies in $\hat{U}$ are based on how words function. For example, ‘camp’ and ‘camping’ perform similar roles in a status. Likewise, the relationship between IQ and agreeableness will be embedded in the columns of $\hat{U}$. However, many of the tasks have little training data and the solution is ill-posed. Regularization encourages generalization, but does not provide any guarantees. Further, sometimes $\epsilon$ dominates the model when observations are not very explanatory or the relationship to a trait is not linear. Given these challenges, what confidence can be placed in the estimate $\hat{U}$?
These problems mirror those faced when clustering data. Clustering does not come with guarantees it will yield sensible answers in diverse scenarios [@kleinberg2003impossibility]. However, it is broadly useful when exploring large sets of data [@jain1999data; @shamir20021; @dixon2003classification]. Similarly, $\hat{U}$ can be viewed as a way of ranking features for exploration. A highly ranked observation is not proof it is important. But several highly ranked observations with functional coherence may suggest a hypothesis; particularly when coupled with domain knowledge of row and column dependencies in $U$.
The 55 most highly weighted features for each label are reported in the Appendix. Though the word lists are shown in order of importance, this ranking is not strict. Different regularization, preprocessing, or train/test splits can alter the ordering, especially when there are few examples. Additionally, more common words with lower weights may be used more often in a model’s prediction, but may not appear at the top of a list. One may use $\ell_1$ regularization to obtain an arbitrary small number of non-zero weights [@meinshausen2009lasso]. This encourages weighting common words and provides more stable rankings. We demonstrate that approach with our IQ model in Section \[IQ\].
There are many well-studied phenomena embedded in the $\hat{U}$ produced by our work. For example, Sarah Palin is the only politician indicated in the liberal word list in Table \[words\_rel\_pol\]. Likewise, Nancy Pelosi ranks just below Ronald Reagan among conservative words. This accords with literature on the memorability of negative ads [@lau2007effects], importance of outgroup prejudice for social identity [@huddy2003group; @branscombe1994collective], and biases women face in politics [@schneider2014measuring; @dolan2010impact]. We hope the many word lists in the appendix will be useful to researchers in the development of new hypotheses.
$\hat{U}$ is also useful to understand models built on social media data. Until recently, the models themselves were not very important. However, machine learning can now be used to estimate sensitive traits such criminal recidivism [@kleinberg2016inherent]. Given the literalness with which estimates are often interpreted, it is essential to note that model weights are causal for the predicted label. In Section \[gender\_bias\] we use our understanding of the input features to characterize information the model extracts to predict religion. This dataset also includes demographic labels, which show predicted religion labels are more gendered than the ground truth.
We hope the included word lists (a) highlight unstudied relationships about these traits (b) illustrate what kind of information is extracted from social media by machine learning systems.
Results and Discussion
======================
Experimental Setup
------------------
All BoW experiments employ the same preprocessing. Users must have over 500 words in the sum of all their statuses. 80% of the data is randomly assigned to the training set; the remaining samples constitute the test set. The vocabulary is limited to the 40,000 most common words in each training set. Words must be used by at least 10 users but no more than 60% of users in the training set. The regularization parameter is tuned via efficient leave one out cross validation [@vehtari2015efficient] when $n<10,000$, and $3$-fold cross validation for larger datasets. All BoW models are implemented using the sklearn library [@scikit-learn]. Table \[acc\_cont\] reports the number of samples and explained variance (EV) of the predictions on continuous data. Table \[acc\_cat\] reports the number of classes, ratio of samples in the dominant class, homogeneity, and performance on tasks with categorical data.
**Label** **N** **EV**
--------------------------- ------- --------
**Personality**
Openness 84451 0.171
Conscientiousness 84451 0.120
Extroversion 84451 0.141
Agreeableness 84451 0.090
Neuroticism 84451 0.100
**Sensational Interests**
Militarism 4074 0.165
Violent-Occult 4074 0.192
Intellectual Recreation 4074 0.033
Occult Credulousness 4074 0.144
Wholesome Activities 4074 0.108
Satisfaction With Life 2502 0.034
Self Disclosure 2006 0.092
Fair-Mindedness 2006 0.064
IQ 1807 0.128
: Prediction Accuracy on Continuous Data[]{data-label="acc_cont"}
Explained Variance (EV) is 1-$\frac{\mathrm{Var}(y-\hat{y})}{\mathrm{Var}(y)}$, where $\hat{y}$ is the predicted label.
**Label** **N** **Classes** **Mode** **Homogeneity** **F1-score** **Acc**
--------------------- -------- ------------- ---------- ----------------- -------------- ---------
Gender 109104 2 0.598 0.519 0.92 0.903
Race 22059 3 0.682 0.52 0.74 0.766
Political identity 19769 12 0.213 0.133 0.33 0.337
Religious identity 8388 5 0.488 0.318 0.54 0.541
Belief in Star Sign 7115 5 0.331 0.245 0.32 0.334
: Prediction Accuracy on Categorical Data[]{data-label="acc_cat"}
Mode is the ratio of the dominant class. Homogeneity is the probability two random samples will be of the same class. The F1-Score is the harmonic mean of precision and recall. For non-binary labels, the precision and recall for each class is weighted by its support.
**Model** **Accuracy**
--------------------- --------------
Human Majority Vote 0.840
LIWC 0.784
Tri-grams 0.914
Tri-grams + LIWC 0.916
BoW (40k Vocab) 0.903
BoW (500k Vocab) 0.928
49 layer char-CNN 0.901
: Gender Prediction[]{data-label="acc_gender"}
Human baseline is the majority vote (n=210) in gender prediction on Twitter data [@nguyen2014gender]. LIWC and Tri-grams are reported in [@schwartz2013personality].
Performance {#accuracies}
-----------
### Gender
Table \[acc\_gender\] compares our gender predictor to several other methods. The BoW model with a vocabulary of 500,000 yields accuracy of 92.8%, 1.4% more accurate than the tri-gram model reported by Schwartz et al [@schwartz2013personality]. Even though the same dataset is used, the comparison is not direct. The tri-gram model seeks to remove the age information from words, has a larger vocabulary, preserves some temporal relationships in the tri-grams, and draws a different train/test split. Moreover, the preprocessing is more restrictive and only includes users with at least 1000 words. Notwithstanding these discrepancies, which may boost or dampen performance, the results are very similar. When the LIWC representation is added to the tri-grams, there is a slight improvement to 91.6% accuracy. Preprocessing is even less similar for the char-CNN described in the Section \[CNN\]. The human baseline of 84.0% consists of volunteer judgments based on 20-40 user tweets as reported by Nguyen et al [@nguyen2014gender]. This is less text than is available to the other models, and from a different social media platform. But, with 210 volunteer guesses per user, it provides a relevant human baseline.
### Personality
After gender, personality is the most studied trait in this paper. Likewise, Schwartz et al achieve the best results to date [@schwartz2013personality]. They report the square root of EV to two significant digits: 0.42, 0.35, 0.38, 0.31, 0.31. In that format, we are just 0.01 beneath the state of the art for openness and agreeableness, 0.01 better for neuroticism, and equivalent for the remaining traits. As with gender, we achieve this with a simpler model.
### Political Identity
Prediction accuracy of 33.7% is a gain of 11.7% over the baseline strategy of always predicting the mode, ‘doesn’t care’. As noted in the experiments section, training samples are weighted inversely to their class representation; therefore, ignoring any class will result in an equal loss. This does not provide the highest classification accuracy. However, we believe when some classes are sparsely populated an MSE optimal classifier that is highly biased toward the mode should not be the standard. For reference, equal sample weights and the same training scheme yield classification accuracy of 36.3% and a weighted f1 score of 31.6%. Five classes—IPA, hates politics, independent, libertarian, and very liberal—have no representation in the test set predictions. The weighted classifier predicts each class at least once.
According to Preotiuc-Pietro et al., all previous research on predicting political ideology from social media text has used binary labels such as liberal vs conservative or Democrat vs Republican. They broaden the classification task to include seven gradations on the liberal to conservative spectrum [@preoctiuc2017beyond]. When predicting ideological tilt from tweets, they achieve a 2.6% boost over baseline (19.6%) with BoW follow by logistic regression. Word2Vec feature embeddings [@mikolov2013distributed] and multi-target learning with some hand-crafted labels yield an 8.0% boost. From classification along grades of a single spectrum, we significantly expand the task to twelve diverse identities with varying levels of representation and ideological overlap while maintaining classification accuracy.
In Table \[pol\_mat\] we report the matrix of highest weighted words for separating users in each pairwise class comparison. As with race, belief in star sign, and religion, we plan on making expanded pairwise lists available online. In Table \[cm\_pol\] we report the confusion matrix. Note that many errors are between similar labels, such as liberal and democrat. Ease of training, strong performance, and representation of minority classes make a majority vote system of shallow pairwise classifiers a good approach for this task.
For binary comparison, by pooling {‘very liberal’,‘liberal’,‘democrat’} and {‘very conservative’,‘conservative’,‘republican’} we achieve 76.4% accuracy; 12.1% above baseline. Table \[words\_rel\_pol\] shows the top 55 liberal and conservative words.
### Religion
Religion seems to be more difficult to glean from statuses than political identity. At 54.1%, accuracy is a modest 5.3% above guessing the mode. The most highly weighted pairwise words are on Table \[mat\_rel\], and Table \[cm\_rel\] shows the confusion matrix. The most highly weighted word to distinguish someone who is agnostic from an atheist is ‘boyfriend’. This led us to look deeper at that pairwise classifier in Section \[gender\_bias\]. Binary labels were constructed by pooling {‘catholic’, ‘christian-catholic’, ‘romancatholic’, ‘christian’, ‘christian-baptist’} and {‘atheist’, ‘agnostic’,‘none’ }. We achieve 78.0% accuracy, 5.2% above baseline. Those words are on table \[words\_rel\_pol\]. To our knowledge, there is no other multi class religion predictor to which our results can be compared.
### IQ {#IQ}
In a genome wide association meta study of 78,308 individuals, 336 single nucleotide polymorphisms were found to explain 2.1-4.8% of the IQ variance among the test population [@sniekers2017genome]. We achieve 12.8% EV with a model trained on less than 2000 users and their statuses. Using $\ell_1$ regularization to limit the vocabulary to the ten most informative words—final, physics; ayaw, family, friend, heart, lmao, nite, strong, ur—still yields 5.6% percent EV. The relative accuracy of such a trivial model that leverages intuitive features is a helpful comparison for any project predicting this important trait. To our knowledge, this is the only work to date that infers IQ from social media.
The selected features are also informative. Words suggesting intelligence—‘final’ and ‘physics’—are parsimonious and singularly academic. Whereas the university experience is sufficient to find users with high IQ, features inversely related to IQ are more focused on disposition. From table \[words\_big5\], agreeableness is implied by ‘family’ and ‘heart’; conscientiousness is implied by ‘family’ and ‘lmao’; and low openness is implied by ‘ur’. Overall, the list can be characterized as prosocial, or at least concerned with social relationships. Predicting low IQ with prosocial features seems to challenge some previous research.
Gottlieb et al observed that learning disabled children were more likely to engage in solitary play [@gottlieb1986sociometric]. Play has also been observed to be more aggressive [@bryan1976come]. More directly related to our task, McConaughy and Ritter showed a positive correlation between the IQ of learning disabled boys and social competence scores; and a negative correlation between IQ and behavior problem scores [@mcconaughy1986social]. For further review of the subject see [@bellanti2000disentangling].
An MSE optimal classifier seeks to generalize information about samples near the average. This can cause bias when classifying minorities, but is instructive when interpreting features. Features should say something about the majority of our sample, those with IQ near the mean. This explains why antisocial behavior among those with extremely low IQ does not preclude prosocial behavior indicating moderately lower IQ. Reflecting the limitations of this type of study, words like ‘family’, ‘friend’, and ‘heart’ could also be caused by differing norms for social media use or many other factors. Prosocial words predicting lower IQ does however suggest interesting future work.
### Sensational Interests
In this study, SIQ is the easiest continuous variable to predict, even with an order of magnitude less training data than personality. The SIQ asks lists 28 discrete interests like ‘black magic’ and ‘the armed forces’. Very similar terms can be recovered from statuses: ‘zombie’, ‘blood’, ‘vampire’; ‘military’, ‘marines’, ‘training’. Personality tests, on the other hand, ask more abstract questions like ‘I shirk my duties’ for conscientiousness. Many of these duties seem to be extracted in Table \[words\_big5\]: ‘studying’, ‘busy’,‘obstacles’. But many more training examples are required for similar performance.
This is the first work to demonstrate an automatic system for predicting SIQ. Previous research relied on manually counting the number of sensational interests in statuses. The count was only correlated with militarism among men; the relationship was negative for women [@hagger2011social].
### Satisfaction With Life
Previous research cast doubt on the relationship between status updates and SWL [@wang2014can]. The number of positive words used on Facebook nationwide in a given day, week, or month, is inversely correlated with the SWL of that time period’s myPersonality participants. The interpretation of that result is that it “challenges the assumption that linguistic analysis of internet messages is related to underlying psychological states.” Here we show that a BoW model accounts for 3.4% of the variance in SWL scores. Moreover, the most important words the model finds are intuitive. Lower SWL is implied by “fucking”, “hate”, “bored”, “interview”, “sick”, “hospital”, “insomnia”, “farmville”, and “video”. The deleterious effects of joblessness, anger, chronic illness, and isolation are well documented. Words positively associated with SWL—“camping”, “imagination”, “epic”, “cleaned”, “success”—make similar sense.
Conversational AI on Facebook Messenger is an efficacious and scalable way to administer cognitive behavioral therapy [@fitzpatrick2017delivering]. Our results show linguistic analysis can shed light on underlying psychological states. This is important to find users that could benefit from such treatment.
### Belief in Star Sign
Compared to political identity, BSS has seven fewer classes and a far more homogeneous distribution. Even so, the BSS classifier performs slightly worse than the politics classifier and roughly on par to the baseline of predicting the mode. Unlike our race, gender, politics and sensational interests, we don’t wear belief in astrology on our sleeve.
Model Selection
---------------
BoW models are somewhat unintuitive. Humans use syntactic information when decoding language, which the model discards. Yet, for many tasks they achieve state of the art performance. We compare our BoW to a character-level CNN on gender prediction, our most data rich problem. A character-level CNN is well suited to large amounts of messy, user generated data. Pooling layers in a CNN allow generalization of words like “gooooooooo” and “gooooooo”, while BoW must learn distinct weights. Surprisingly, the CNN does not outperform the simple BoW as shown in Table \[acc\_gender\].
We found the choice of prediction model is not as important as preprocessing. In initial experiments, Support Vector Machines [@suykens1999least] and logistic regression, and $\ell_2$ regularized regression yielded similar performance, depending on choice of $n$-grams and whether Singular Value Decomposition was used [@golub1970singular]. We implement ridge regression and classification for simplicity.
Inferring human traits from social media is now being done using deep models [@iyyer2014political; @preoctiuc2017beyond]. That may be useful in some cases, but for this project the deep model offered no performance boost or intuition to underlying human behavior. Perhaps a continuous bag of words [@mikolov2013distributed] and recurrent neural network [@felbo2017using] would have done better, but researchers should not consider deep learning essential for this field. Moreover, any performance gains should be weighed against loss of interpretability.
Cambridge Analytica {#CA}
-------------------
With current technology, Facebook statuses are a better predictor of someone’s IQ than the totality of their genetic material [@sniekers2017genome]. When a marketing firm adds such a tool to their arsenal it is natural to be suspicious. Indeed, The Guardian article that broke the CA story was headlined “‘I made Steve Bannon’s psychological warfare tool’: meet the data war whistleblower” [@guardianBannon]. (Steve Bannon is the former chief executive of the Trump presidential campaign.) However, closer inspection of psychographic models casts doubt on their ability to add value to an advertising campaign, even when the predictions are accurate. In this paper we show that militarism is one of the most easily inferred traits. At 16.5% explained variance, it is more predictable than any of the big 5 personality traits except openness, even with just 5% of the training data. SIQ is also a much stronger predictor of aggressive behavior than the Big 5 [@egan2009sensational]. If this trait was actionable for the Trump campaign, it is interesting that the two most highly weighted features are ‘xbox’ and ‘man’. Gaming interest and gender are already available via Facebook’s advertising platform; reaching that demographic does not require an independent model. Additionally, Steve Bannon’s belief in the political power of gamers predates CA’s psychographic model by a decade [@wiredBannon].
Readers are encouraged to view the word lists in the Appendix through the lens of task accuracy on Tables \[acc\_cont\] and \[acc\_cat\]. They may come to the same conclusion as the Trump campaign who, according to CBS News, “never used the psychographic data at the heart of a whistleblower who once worked to help acquire the data’s reporting – principally because it was relatively new and of suspect quality and value.” [@CBSbig5]. Performance results and extracted features allow for more informed discussion; particularly for SIQ, fair-mindedness and self-disclosure on which we report the first accurate prediction model.
There are limitations to this analysis. Our models only use statuses; Likes and network statistics could increase accuracy. Further, other psychographic traits beyond militarism may be politically useful but have no obvious demographic stand-in. Finally, we don’t have access to CA’s exact dataset and instead built our models on the myPersonality dataset.
-- -------------- -------------- ------------- -----------
**Agnostic** **Atheist** **Total**
**Agnostic** 36 33 69
**Atheist** 28 58 86
**Total** 64 91
-- -------------- -------------- ------------- -----------
: Agnostic vs Atheist Confusion Matrix[]{data-label="cm_biased"}
-- ------ -------------- ------------- -----------
**Agnostic** **Atheist** **Total**
**** 86 21 107
**** 34 16 50
**** 120 37
-- ------ -------------- ------------- -----------
: Agnostic vs Atheist Confusion Matrix[]{data-label="cm_biased"}
-- -------------- -------------- ------------- -----------
**Agnostic** **Atheist** **Total**
**Agnostic** 40 29 69
**Atheist** 31 55 86
**Total** 71 84
-- -------------- -------------- ------------- -----------
: Fair Agnostic vs Atheist Confusion Matrix[]{data-label="cm_fair"}
-- ------ -------------- ------------- -----------
**Agnostic** **Atheist** **Total**
**** 85 22 107
**** 31 19 50
**** 116 41
-- ------ -------------- ------------- -----------
: Fair Agnostic vs Atheist Confusion Matrix[]{data-label="cm_fair"}
Gender Bias in Atheist vs Agnostic Classifier {#gender_bias}
---------------------------------------------
Highly weighted atheist words include “fucking”, “bloody”, “maths”, “degrees”, “disease”, “wifey”, and “religion”. Meanwhile, “beautiful”, “santa”, “friggin”, “thank”, “hubby”, “miles”, and “paperwork” imply the user is agnostic. This paints a picture of academic, male, disagreeable and British atheists. Agnostic words are more positive, female, and related to mundane preparation. A more complete list is shown in Table \[words\_rel\_pol\]. What follows is an empirical analysis of our estimator‘s gender bias, a discussion of fairness, and results debiasing the model.
In this dataset, atheists and agnostics are 33.5% and 50.3% female respectively. This is a stronger female preference for agnosticism than random surveys across the United States which report 32% and 38%, respectively [@pew]. Table \[cm\_biased\] shows the confusion matrices for men and women. The ratio of predicted to true agnostics is 0.945 for men and 1.35 for women. Similarly, the ratio of false atheist to false agnostic predictions is 90.8% larger for men than women. The classification of women, the minority in this dataset, is highly distorted.
Models built to generalize information often amplify biases in training data. Cooking videos elicit female pronouns in machine-generated captions 68% more than male pronouns, even though the training shows only 33% more women cooking [@zhao2017men]. Word embeddings used in machine translation [@zou2013bilingual], information retrieval [@clinchant2013aggregating], and student grade prediction [@luo2015predicting] produce analogies such as “man is to computer programmer as woman is to homemaker”[@bolukbasi2016man].
There are many notions of fairness defined over an individual [@dwork2012fairness; @joseph2016rawlsian; @kusner2017counterfactual], population [@zafar2017fairness; @hardt2016equality], or information available to the model [@grgic2016case]. Building a fair estimator often requires domain knowledge to define a similarity metric [@dwork2012fairness], make corpus-level constraints [@zhao2017men], or construct a causal model that separates protected information from other latent variables [@kusner2017counterfactual]. In this paper, we will use the notion of Disparate Mistreatment to measure fairness [@zafar2017fairness]. That is, if protected classes experience disparate rates of false positive, false negative or overall misclassification, the estimator is unfair.
To mitigate Disparate Mistreatment we explicitly encode gender—{$-1$,0,$1$} for {male, unknown, female}—in the feature vector during train time. At test time the gender of all samples is encoded as unknown. The intuition is that latent variables are amplified when they are easy to extract and correlated with the target. As demonstrated by the accuracy of our race and gender predictors, that is often the case for protected information. There often exist more informative, if more subtle, traits than the protected features. For example, atheists and agnostics report a yawning gap in those that don’t believe in God, at 92% and 41% [@pew]. Additionally, religiosity is shown to be correlated with both Agreeableness and Conscientiousness [@saroglou2010religiousness]. But gender is much easier to extract then belief in God or personality. By explicitly giving the model gender information, we hope that the model will do more to extract those other features.
This approach produces much less Disparate Mistreatment of men and women. The ratio of predicted to true agnostics moves closer to parity at 1.02 for men and 1.22 for women. Additionally, the ratio of false atheist to false agnostic predictions is now only 31.8% larger for men, compared to 90.8% without intervention. The most highly weighted agnostic words for the new fair classifier are also less gendered; “hair”, “wifey”, and “boyfriend” are no longer in the top 55, as reported in Table \[words\_rel\_pol\]. We also saw no decay in classification rate.
The gender bias of the atheism classifier is clear by simply inspecting its most heavily weighted features. More opaque models should be subjected to more rigorous inspection for bias.
Conclusion and Future Work
==========================
We match or set the state of the art for the 20 traits in this paper. Additionally, we provide the top words for many pairwise classification problems, and top 55 words for regression or binary classification problems. We hope researchers from many fields find the benchmarks and word lists useful. Our analysis of psychographic models in marketing as well as gender bias in a religion classifier are examples of how these performance measures and extracted features can be used together.
In future work we hope to explore what types of unfairness can be solved by our approach in Section \[gender\_bias\]. Further, models built on traits with few examples are well suited to be augmented by transfer learning. This is especially pressing for detecting states like low satisfaction with life, which can be somewhat ameliorated at low cost.
[angle=270]{}
-- --------- --------------- -------------- -------------- ----------- ------------------ ---------------- ------------ ---------- ------------ ------------ -------------
**IPA** **anarchist** **centrist** **conserv.** **dem.** **doesn’t care** **hates pol.** **indep.** **lib.** **liber.** **repub.** **v. lib.**
fuck wishes wishes smh yay rain congrats wishes money church damn
excited wishes driving excited lol dont driving excited ready ready excited
xd fuck lord today tattoo shit surgery shit government school damn
xd fuck damn fb anymore shit damn damn art school damn
xd fuck wishes tonight stupid fuck died wishes government church wishes
packers fuck wishes lord smh shit definitely wishes government church damn
class music dey loves fb tht movie wishes email camp damn
xd fuck wishes lord valentine sitting fuck wishes beer parents damn
xd fuck final lord im xd im gonna government church damn
xd fuck headache lord walk xd dont till packing girls vacation
xd fuck wishes wishes smh mum fuck minute wishes fucking damn
xd xd boy lord im xd xd school missing im im
-- --------- --------------- -------------- -------------- ----------- ------------------ ---------------- ------------ ---------- ------------ ------------ -------------
: Pairwise Politics Words[]{data-label="pol_mat"}
[angle=270]{}
-- --------- ----------- -------------- -------------- ---------- ------------------ ---------------- ------------ ---------- ------------ ------------ ------------- -----------
**IPA** **anar.** **centrist** **conserv.** **dem.** **doesn’t care** **hates pol.** **indep.** **lib.** **liber.** **repub.** **v. lib.** **Total**
**0** 2 3 3 11 18 2 1 3 1 16 1 61
0 **24** 4 3 5 21 1 3 15 5 4 3 88
2 9 **74** 40 52 66 3 6 95 7 43 4 401
2 5 29 **113** 26 31 0 7 53 5 62 0 333
5 17 53 36 **321** 101 4 18 80 9 89 3 736
3 39 51 29 122 **373** 12 12 105 12 102 9 869
0 4 6 1 6 30 **5** 3 6 0 2 0 63
0 8 16 13 35 22 1 **8** 29 4 25 1 162
1 18 51 27 74 51 6 6 **223** 15 24 13 509
0 12 17 9 17 28 0 6 32 **11** 12 4 148
1 8 19 57 67 64 1 8 29 3 **179** 3 439
0 4 25 2 11 22 2 2 67 1 6 **3** 145
14 150 348 333 747 827 37 80 737 73 564 44 3954
-- --------- ----------- -------------- -------------- ---------- ------------------ ---------------- ------------ ---------- ------------ ------------ ------------- -----------
: Politics Confusion Matrix[]{data-label="cm_pol"}
-- ------------- -------------- -------------- --------------- ----------
**athiest** **agnostic** **catholic** **christian** **none**
boyfriend thank church lol
fucking prayers church lol
fucking fucking lol lol
fucking fucking mass xmas
fucking apartment god church
-- ------------- -------------- -------------- --------------- ----------
: Pairwise Religion Words[]{data-label="mat_rel"}
The most highly weighted word from each pairwise classifier. Word implies top label.
-- ------------- -------------- -------------- --------------- ---------- -----------
**Atheist** **Agnostic** **Catholic** **Christian** **None** **Total**
**68** 29 17 16 21 151
54 **69** 27 55 11 216
27 37 **172** 130 9 375
35 48 126 **560** 26 795
22 11 19 50 **39** 141
206 194 361 811 106 1678
-- ------------- -------------- -------------- --------------- ---------- -----------
: Religion Confusion Matrix[]{data-label="cm_rel"}
In the remaining tables the top 55 words are listed in order for each trait.
\[words\_big5\]
-------------- ------------ ----------------- --------------- ------------ ------------
**-** **+** **-** **+** **-** **+**
bored art lost gym internet party
boring poetry fucking ready quiet guys
husband beautiful xd weekend bored amazing
attitude universe phone excited listening audition
shopping peace im success apparently baby
dinner poem bored finished computer haha
tv writing fuck studying stupid dance
game books gonna busy pc girls
proud theatre sick vacation hmm fabulous
ur dream procrastination arm anime blast
dentist mind internet officially tt ready
daughter book computer family dark im
dont woman probably relax probably wine
haha guitar cousins tennis sims success
stupid damn hates wonderful didn lets
ni awesome sims special watching excited
ipod tea anybody win slow super
bed apartment charger glad depressing text
justin insomnia sister piano calculus chill
gift xd playing scholarship kind phone
2nd adventure grounded received anymore dear
hurt cali poker lmao repost parties
ohh far tt degrees maybe support
baseball philosophy status state draw loves
mum sigh momma tons yay pics
pray nature ftw motor trying hey
school maybe press obstacles books big
repost music dead research shadow hit
booked blues failed extremely bother met
lord chill forgot circumstances damned pirate
ops fam depression workout suppose ben
nice epic lazy paid reading rocked
tmr places youtube 100 cat gang
dam rights 420 hit poor sex
idol dragons school surgery depression sing
snowing woot http law sigh btw
pissed vampire awsome university games gorgeous
shut soul pokemon anatomy drawing musical
maths eclipse woke blessings odd cali
msn drawing dammit hmmmm 10th girlfriend
aldean strange hair husband pokemon stoked
vodka planet wished counting nice folks
comes yay cleaning calc essay ponder
eid dreams fine louis pointless wanna
alot blood dunno delhi managed hahahaha
waste sushi enemy final looks pool
worst smoking social drive grr tanning
kiero contact yo lets darkness hello
soo lines procrastinator iphone saw pumped
mas deep black lunch crying chillin
staff genius magic yankees lonely theatre
12 novel wasn running laptop kiss
piss smh fans weather shouldn office
transformers worried kinda zone paranoid cock
car folks trying smart walking lauren
-------------- ------------ ----------------- --------------- ------------ ------------
: Personality Words
\[words\_big5\_cont\]
----------- --------------- -------------- ------------ ------------ -----------
**-** **+** **-** **+** **-** **+**
fucking wonderful loving sick bored family
stupid amazing girlfriend nervous fuck loving
kill awesome wife stressed fucking hope
shopping haha awesome depression hates thankful
shit smile parties depressed bday india
burn happiness party anymore apparently wonderful
bitch phone weekend lonely damn busy
pissed urself haha stress internet friend
punch family doing fucking zero heart
hates blessed game tired chem man
death status sunday trying wat yum
hell music kansas depressing supposed fb
suck woop guy sims ma glad
freak hands delicious anxiety hating beautiful
piss heart beach worst spend lauren
dead spirit definitely hair la lord
xmas smiles swag fed dumb wine
karma guy started scream young swim
fight moment ready fine british energy
blood beautiful hunting nightmare killed lunch
awful movie power rip hmm locked
deal theres funniest tears france woot
misery car melody horrible chances sons
fuck dancing hawaii flu simply special
enemies lord action worse exams trust
fake guitar hit issues mum wish
pathetic sore chillin scared main weeks
irony sara workout stressful hate day
dumb help flow fml edge father
cunt walk portland care dnt tried
care excited seat shes party journey
devil prayers smart stressing kept hospital
black knowing snowboarding ugh dat email
ich valentines knowing sad didn business
russian borrow sore gary months santa
idiots laura greatest hates du walked
cunts notifications success die rain lights
wtf beard basketball actually pass kingdom
crap reli update scary bus work
truck snowboarding gf boyfriend okay lol
deleted sorry women pills australia mommy
anger chillin gotta crying shooting turkey
die hill followed kitty england nap
tu whats jumping awful africa revenge
nightmare hearts fool hurt rachel truly
annoyed kindness dancing bored fml son
rip study greatness fair metal final
bloody worry blast screaming uk reached
drama clients woke dreading school survived
bitches smells ass friggin wtf dont
stupidity troops hitting suicide matt 0
hair sing cock miserable freakin god
wifi goood wise quiet 15 kitchen
fat holy kiss xd 200 normal
rage faster toes sadness free blessing
----------- --------------- -------------- ------------ ------------ -----------
: Personality Words Continued
\[words\_siq\]
------------ ---------- ----------- ----------- ------------- ------------
**-** **+** **-** **+** **-** **+**
sleeping man lord hell im life
ugh xbox pray zombie course jon
sad gets cousins damn boring beautiful
excited gotta church fuck painful dancing
lovely good michael bitch decision yoga
oh training allah ass hurts thankful
hair headed jesus drink bus peace
shopping truck game blood game kinda
husband guitar 0 lmao stupid truly
sick guys summer xd bak la
cares bro gosh woot hero ich
mum gun praise halloween problem miss
boyfriend boom sunday play yeah likes
lady epic dad guys christ comfort
concert work loving drunk gona lol
today weight mum thanx id wtf
gaga gym team animal sittin insomnia
okay bike hospital sanity die chicken
pic dang 10 fucking horse children
adorable game tv dragons yell tired
sunday blast christ burn chuck lovely
ordered lol heal vampires 2day ap
birth war usa blah tommorrow funny
lots black personal man ow things
poor fish best loved bored man
ben military ray pissed fukin simple
fine woot nervous lil inbox thank
settings 12 thing bday race period
birthday till look send basketball countdown
cousins ppl week body word baby
shoes brave 2morrow metal rhys beach
art 17 quite head tell hey
omg fight poor piss step depression
stop success brazil blast wats jobs
wear marines cup theyre coke cure
prince hrs zumba cause football manage
round sword account gun penguins sugar
come make website death won aware
neighbours ko tryna vampire facebookers singing
basement friend study bleh letters egg
music hit haha tattoo awsome taste
speak play soccer ppl dont rains
thoughts pics feeling dead blah log
story hahaha christmas woman till taught
weird troops round purple playing coolest
awful army youth peaceful dead yellow
quite running story message fact cheers
rachel mag bible shit learned small
hear strong woah angel visit society
alice knw grace kinda address fly
tea beer prayers tongue 14 social
promised hehehe plan sushi chilling boo
jesus comwatch feat wolf win beauty
actually xoxo anybody poke pokemon world
counting run stressed kick sees sunshine
------------ ---------- ----------- ----------- ------------- ------------
: Sensational Interest Words
\[words\_siq\_cont\]
------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ------------ ------------
**-** **+** **-** **+** **No** **Yes**
church zombie coke woot minutes omg
praise ass michigan camping didn im
jesus bitch stupid fish church ready
lord halloween pathetic life praise friend
bible animal ops yesterday jesus mind
christ sign husband beautiful probably ass
team omg didn rain physics butt
quite xd hurts man jess stay
loving job kurwa mexico white tom
pray woot evil wish religion tomarrow
paper wish afternoon river iv october
game cure problem love officially promise
blessed street taylor path imagine lol
salvation vampire idea moon christ searching
ops guys jess haha germany bitch
summer send glee snow giants bleh
michael lol mum bike saw eye
spent thanx mental hahaha wants cute
youth luck meg ghost north family
cousins wtf mad baking decided halloween
word nature 360 grandma discovered hanging
god cancer pissed live 11th haunted
homework woohoo club goin ouch japanese
alarm miss uni sky skin mother
0 barely lyrics cat doesn dinner
haha moment head animal bacon card
player bar recently netflix train help
sunday safe internet birds hahaha bored
college proud min smile lasts luv
wedding woman lesson happiness america luck
prayer mom bus mom haven neighbors
glory away rly yum burning yum
forgiveness dare debate fishing pray fireworks
ann inches kevin truly thursday lmao
mm boyfriend inbox fell jessica tt
political il jeez make prince tired
fact nd official clean knew person
greatest pls nite portland umm nd
confused aware ms smells quiero watch
appreciated xmas lack lake deserves ya
algebra hell saw create heres prom
brazil solstice troy making finds crazy
travel date sims 2010 kim upload
daughter vampires school josh heard elf
bacon copy thinks children punch hehe
laura purple thanking laughing groups crack
personal haunted die sa car bell
week theyre hates law amazing human
greater lmao stuff jobs sick finish
statement later band earth tape lnk
messed interview thieves gets drink june
tv peeps feels hehehe morn change
em peaceful elm swimming dallas costume
poor drunk germany wa cops shit
trust dunno sat monkeys waters decorating
------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ------------ ------------
: Sensational Interest Words Continued
\[words\_psych\]
------------ ----------- ----------- ------------ ------------- -----------
**-** **+** **-** **+** **-** **+**
bored family bored excited nite exam
fuck loving wat business ur hours
fucking hope soon says lmao sigh
hates thankful dad apartment alot camping
bday india xd great family finish
apparently wonderful stage delicious omg paper
damn busy pass sure 2011 wtf
internet friend moon needed city il
zero heart haha seattle lol finds
chem man kitty uni help important
wat yum tired airport wew read
supposed fb mum thankful boy physics
ma glad farmville dallas heart google
hating beautiful face learn com ra
spend lauren drank weekend angie xd
la lord fuk definitely www wifi
dumb wine fuck dinner ha text
young swim ma card 333 weeks
british energy sun amazing tom studying
killed lunch crap tonight goodnight training
hmm locked bday exciting history course
france woot shit degrees xxx student
chances sons hopefully classes xdd magic
simply special feel support friend kinda
exams trust fails priceless morning everytime
mum wish va oh mum raining
main weeks big certainly christmas yea
hate day nd government eid maths
edge father smoke ticket kay semester
dnt tried yay food gives maybe
party journey watchin january din exciting
kept hospital sick couple beautiful point
dat email wedding php folks kno
didn business regret journey luv excited
months santa seconds universe 0 imma
du walked im 21 hacked months
rain lights ignore grateful secrets flying
pass kingdom tt pay iam final
bus work lose size forgiveness nah
okay lol marriage class strong library
australia mommy lolz situation busy used
shooting turkey fukin duke jo chem
england nap picture honesty hate brain
africa revenge blessing austin ti everybody
rachel truly slow tires nightmare awesome
fml son anxiety 29 ayaw groups
metal final cy3 sisters prayer progress
uk reached library mother fought champion
school survived tmr heading ow calculus
wtf dont fucking bc sana behave
matt 0 epic piece tired den
freakin god il summer afraid badly
15 kitchen marie breakfast para times
200 normal bunch answer sum mobil
free blessing loaded surgery movie fun
------------ ----------- ----------- ------------ ------------- -----------
: Psychographic Words
\[words\_rel\_pol\]
--------------- ----------- ----------- ------------ ----------- ----------- ------------ --------------
extra physics miles fucking church fucking church damn
miles fucking working physics pray fuck truck happy
turn snowing extra wat prayers xmas government fb
**hair** shit awhile fuck god damn america smh
packing wat packing bloody easter shit pray marriage
awhile write turn shit lord bloody haha xmas
insane bloody super write blessed hell prayers chicago
working enter **hubby** maths christmas ass deer sex
**hubby** fuck chill xx ugh india christmas hell
points sigh free snowing praying zombie country fam
friggin thinks sleepy enter hw fuckin tonight lovely
santa talk santa thinks ppl halloween 17 halloween
heck weeks heck talk prayer car lord health
wishes town ready science game yay awesome saw
child science friggin sigh believe social god yoga
free maths vacation hai family xx military celebrate
**boyfriend** degrees work cancer ready quite texas gay
lady lolz thursday person fb religion freedom apartment
learn record late coursework bless drink savior wtf
super xmas points town im oh dad thoughts
houston tom pack xd calling using bible shit
service hai houston weeks dang shitty jesus glee
pack person insane tom paper internet supper gaga
late dat ya film jesus fucked girls da
wanting tyler relax dat school damned huge palin
hasn cod join kill camp omfg praying 2010
mai afraid busy lolz gosh meh camp help
sleepy untill learn msn heart indian soldiers mexico
worked present child english success post byu mother
fly **wifey** headed xmas mary head christ indian
chill movie favorite chemistry strength cricket disney lady
join xx beautiful afraid butt any1 risen studies
kyle cancer season na fishing dragon beach social
dun boring san pierced brother lovely tournament art
thursday rape fly dick military body troops holiday
taken month worked anatomy sad new schools shitty
childhood kill service bbc uncle boyfriend leave ve
mother welcome spring tell senior teeth ill free
thank clinton wanting untill fair nice blonde earthquake
headed nicht halloween memory mom fml armed street
ya ay lady bothered tan warped xbox phone
london brother thank horse watching woke reagan lakers
beautiful tell childhood record em bleh utah ur
jail hadn mai cod president wednesday served fine
hates pierced hair ki smh gods tide relationship
paperwork wild paperwork nicht love afford gators asshole
wanna use 4th sheep haha japanese pelosi worried
clear perfect hopefully chem future tongue husband purple
san return missed brother best robert stinks putting
til needed peace fancy emails sophie trial omg
halloween paid hasn degrees goin holy picked nature
bring half trip disease football eye beep prop
kindle horse mother realised latest tattoo gun black
vida disease sunshine room thank decent trailer live
powers chuck kyle religion matthew odd ready eid
--------------- ----------- ----------- ------------ ----------- ----------- ------------ --------------
: Religion and Politics Words
\[words\_race\]
-------------- ---------- ------------- ------------- ----------- -------------
tonight smh tonight asian smh korea
dad fb blonde tt fb sa
stupid lord town tmr lord na
exited fam fuckin korea wit asian
thinks nigeria ass chinese aint gay
ends yall college ng da chinese
journey black gas na yall internet
meet fathers dope korean lol korean
hahahahahaha mj worse china say monday
fun yuh night ang fam xd
awesome gon men aq jackson tmr
ability birthday sons asians cos shooting
night mad adult chen michael philippines
mas lol pretty guys finals 3d
wouldnt finish theres thailand ass babe
chargers dey idea taiwan yuh heaven
bein asap hope karaoke black important
aftr tryna ability sa ny tan
pretty jackson melissa chan sooooo thailand
eh came state dream mad yummy
tom degrassi unique company mind completely
exhausted wat weekend craving season woot
tough iz screaming zzz wat smell
great hw mamaya holiday birthday bought
running pple tune wanna degrassi fly
exciting jus figure ms hell tt
yankees braids inside nguyen chelsea worry
politics haters exited singapore woman ruin
mirror females wine yang figure passed
pepsi misfits 5th hu african skating
roll god superman fat nigeria english
animal man emotionally ftw episode belong
grr omg sell gg iz shot
gay african sitting rice smart mas
tattoo desires february tttt saying grandpa
2nite chelsea easter damnit asap lazy
spend female months 555 attention sacrifice
monday cousin saying wong knowing grr
sorrow holla expecting achieve ki broken
ed smart rollin pa meeting yang
healthy laker wheres mode hw beer
enjoyable favour eminem lmao sings chatting
actually dis apparently pride india meet
charity money does bbq gas shoulder
delete happy status super self ang
iron mii legit 1st ready funn
blonde aye 30 long college shoes
comforted hard wen skating mj wood
standards wuz eric mean search dad
shot ready yelled heart years apart
chose nigga mis dx misfits aj
chatting jamaica breaking faith blessed line
damage bus homework expectation advice jack
innocent facebook actually research boys totally
thnx cos wishes hard fathers tomorrow
-------------- ---------- ------------- ------------- ----------- -------------
: Race Words
|
[**SYMMETRY CONSTRAINTS AND THE ELECTRONIC STRUCTURES OF A QUANTUM DOT WITH THIRTEEN ELECTRONS**]{}
G.M. Huang, Y.M. Liu, and C.G. Bao
The State Key Laboratory of Optoelectronic Materials and Technologies, and
Department of Physics, Zhongshan University, Guangzhou, 510275, P.R. China
ABSTRACT: The symmetry constraints imposing on the quantum states of a dot with 13 electrons has been investigated. Based on this study, the favorable structures (FSs) of each state has been identified. Numerical calculations have been performed to inspect the role played by the FSs. It was found that, if a first-state has a remarkably competitive FS, this FS would be pursued and the state would be crystal-like and have a specific core-ring structure associated with the FS. The magic numbers are found to be closely related to the FSs.
PACS(numbers): 73.61.-r
1, INTRODUCTION
Modern experimental techniques, e.g., by using electrostatic gates and by etching, allow a certain number of electrons to be confined in semiconductor heterostructures.$^{1-6}$ Such many-electron systems have much in common with atoms, yet they are man-made structures and are usually called ” quantum dot ”. The number of electrons contained in a dot ranges from a few to a few thousands, they are confined in a domain one hundred or more times larger than the atoms. Thus, in addition to atoms, nuclei,$\cdot \cdot \cdot $ that exist in nature, quantum dots as a new kind of system will definitely contain new and rich physics, and therefore they attract certainly the interest of academic research.
On the other hand, the properties of the dots can be changed in a controlled way, e.g., by changing the gate voltage or by applying an adjustable magnetic field, etc. Therefore, these systems have a great potential in application. Due to this fact, the investigation of quantum dots is a hot topic in recent years$^{1-6}$. In the experimental aspect, progress has been made to reveal different kinds of physical property. A crucial point is to clarify the electronic structures. An important step along this line is the first observation of the Coulomb blockade spectra via the measurement of conductance as a function of gate voltage$^{7}$, where very clear level structure has been demonstrated. Afterwards, a substantial amount of information is drawn from conductance measurement. The measurement of the difference in chemical potential exhibits also clear shell structures$^{8}$. The excitation of electron can be probed by far-infrared and capacitance spectroscopy.$^{9,10}$ With further progress in experimental techniques, the dots will definitely be understood better and better, and they will serve as a rich source of information on many-body physics in the coming years.
In the theoretical aspects, detailed information on electronic structures has been obtained for the systems with a smaller N (say, N$<$10)$%
^{2,4,6}$. When N is small, the effect of symmetry was found to be very important, e.g., the magic angular momenta of few-electron dots originate from the constraint of symmetry$^{11-13}$. When N is larger (say, N $\geq $10), the effect of symmetry is scarcely studied. The systems with a larger N are themselves very attractive, because they might possess both the features of few-body and many-body systems. Thus the understanding of these systems might serve as a bridge to connect few-body and many-body physics. In a previous paper, the electronic structures of a dot with nine electrons have been studied$^{13}$. The present paper is a continuation of the previous one, and is dedicated to the study of the dot with N=13 and with the spins polarized. The choice of thirteen is rather arbitrary, just because it is explicitly larger than the systems with N$<$10 which have already been extensively studied, and because it is not very large so that accurate numerical calculations (in the qualitative sense) and detailed analysis can still be performed. From a previous study by a number of authors$^{13-18}$ , it is believed that a general picture of dots would consist of a core surrounding by a ring. It would be interesting to see, when N is larger, how the details of the core-ring structure would be and how these structures are affected by symmetry . Such a study would exhibit further insight of many-body physics.
In what follows, the 13-body Schrödinger equation is solved via an exact diagonalization of the Hamiltonian, the accuracy has been evaluated. The underlying dynamical and symmetry background has been studied. Favorable structures for each state have been suggested based on symmetry consideration. The eigenwavefunctions have been analyzed in detail to exhibit how the electronic structures are affected by symmetry. The appearance of magic numbers is discussed.
2, HAMILTONIAN AND THE APPROACH
Let the electrons be fully polarized (therefore the spin-part can be neglected and the spatial wave functions are totally antisymmetric) , and confined in a 2-dimensional plane by a parabolic confinement. The Hamiltonian reads
$H=T+U\qquad \qquad (1.1)$
$\qquad T=-\sum\limits_{j=1}^{N}\frac{\hbar ^{2}}{2m^{\ast }}\nabla
_{j}^{2}\qquad \qquad \qquad (1.2)$
$\qquad U=\sum\limits_{j=1}^{N}\frac{1}{2}m^{\ast }\omega _{o}^{2}r_{j}^{2}+%
\frac{e^{2}}{4\pi \varepsilon _{r}\varepsilon _{0}}\sum\limits_{j<k}^{N}%
\frac{1}{r_{jk}}$ (1.3)
where m\* is the effective electron mass, $\varepsilon _{r}$ is the dielectric constant, and $\hbar \omega _{o}$measures the strength of the parabolic confinement ( $\omega _{o}$ arises mainly from a magnetic field $B$. This field leads also to a term linearly proportional to $B$ . This term has been neglected because it does not at all affect the eigenwavefunctions, and therefore not affect the electronic structures).
In order to diagonalize the Hamiltonian, a set of orthonormalized single-particle harmonic oscillation (h.o.)states $\phi _{mk}$ are introduced. Here, $\phi _{mk}$ is an eigenstate of a pure h.o. Hamiltonian
$h=-\frac{\hbar ^{2}}{2m^{\ast }}\nabla ^{2}+\frac{1}{2}%
m^{\ast }\Omega _{0}^{2}r^{2}$ (2)
where $\Omega _{0}$ is an adjustable parameter in general not equal to $%
\omega _{o}$, This eigenstate has eigenenergy $(m+k+1)\hbar \Omega _{0}$ and angular momentum $(m-k)\hbar $ . From them the many-body basis functions (BFs)
$\ \psi _{\alpha }(1,2,\cdot \cdot \cdot ,N)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N!}}%
\left|
\begin{array}{cccc}
\phi _{m_{1}k_{1}}(\vec{r}_{1}) & \phi _{m_{1}k_{1}}(\vec{r}_{2}) & \cdot
\cdot \cdot & \phi _{m_{1}k_{1}}(\vec{r}_{N}) \\
\phi _{m_{2}k_{2}}(\vec{r}_{1}) & \phi _{m_{2}k_{2}}(\vec{r}_{2}) & \cdot
\cdot \cdot & \phi _{m_{2}k_{2}}(\vec{r}_{N}) \\
\cdot \cdot \cdot & \cdot \cdot \cdot & \cdot \cdot \cdot & \cdot \cdot \cdot
\\
\phi _{m_{N}k_{N}}(\vec{r}_{1}) & \phi _{m_{2}k_{2}}(\vec{r}_{2}) & \cdot
\cdot \cdot & \phi _{m_{N}k_{N}}(\vec{r}_{N})
\end{array}
\right| $ (3)
with a given total orbital angular momentum $L=\sum_{i}(m_{i}-k_{i})$ are composed.
From the BFs, the eigenstates of the dot are expanded as
$\Psi =\sum C_{\alpha
}\psi _{\alpha }$ (4)
where the coefficients $C_{\alpha }$ can be obtained via a procedure of diagonalization. The $\ \psi _{\alpha }$ are arranged in such a sequence that $<\psi _{\alpha }|H|\psi _{\alpha }>$ $\leq $ $<\psi
_{\alpha +1}|H|$ $\psi _{\alpha +1}>$ . Evidently, in such a sequence, the $\ \psi _{\alpha }$ with a smaller $\alpha $ is more important to the low-lying states, while those with a very large $\alpha $ can be neglected. The $H$ will be diagonalized step by step. In the first step, $H$ is diagonalized in a smaller space with N$_{a}$ BFs ( $\psi _{1}$ to $\psi
_{N_{a}}$) . Then, $H$ is diagonalized again in a larger space with N$_{b}$ BFs ( from $\psi _{1}$ to $\psi _{N_{b}}$ , and N$_{b}$ is considerably larger than N$_{a}$) . This process repeats again and again until a satisfactory convergency of the lower eigenenergies is achieved. In the first step, all the $\ \psi _{\alpha }$ for the diagonalization is limited to the lowest Landau levels (LLL), i.e., all the $\phi _{m_{i}k_{i}}$ contained in $\ \psi _{\alpha }$ have $k_{i}=0$. However, step by step, BFs of higher Landau levels will mixed in. In order to speed up the convergency, the $\Omega _{0}$ in eq.(2) is considered as a variational parameter to optimize the lower eigenenergies emerged from the diagonalization.
\[w\] In the following calculation, we have m\*=0.067$m_{e}$, $\hbar \omega _{0}$=3meV, $\varepsilon _{r}$=12.4 (for a GaAs dot). To show the convergency, as an example, the lowest eigenenergies with $L$=82 are obtained as $436.895,$ $436.806$ and $436.760$meV when the number of BFs are 6000, 9000, and 12000, respectively. One can see that the convergency is not very good. However, the densities calculated below by using 6000, 9000 and 12000 BFs are indistinguishable (e.g. in Fig.1). Since we are mainly interested in the qualitative aspect, the accuracy that we have achieved is sufficient.
After the diagonalization the eigenstates are obtained. The series of states having the same $L$ is labeled as ($L$)$%
_{i} $. The $i=1$ state (the lowest of the $L$-series) is called a first-state.
The eigenwavefunctions of a 13-electron system are complicated. In order to extract informations from them the following physical quantities are defined and calculated. They are the one-body density
$\rho _{1}(r_{1})=\int \left| \Psi _{L}\right| ^{2}d{\bf r}_{2}d{\bf r}%
_{3}\cdot \cdot \cdot d{\bf r}_{13}$ , (5a)
the two-body density
$\rho _{2}({\bf r}_{1}{\bf ,r}_{2})=\int \left| \Psi _{L}\right| ^{2}d{\bf r}%
_{3}d{\bf r}_{4}\cdot \cdot \cdot d{\bf r}_{13}$ , (5b)
and the three-body density
$\rho _{3}({\bf r}_{1}{\bf ,r}_{2}{\bf ,r}_{3})=\int \left| \Psi _{L}\right|
^{2}d{\bf r}_{4}d{\bf r}_{5}\cdot \cdot \cdot d{\bf r}_{13}$ , (5c)
It was found that in many cases the $\rho _{1}(r)$ has an outer peak and an inner peak with a minimum lying in between (at $r=a)$. In this case we can define an outer region ($r$ $\geq a$) and an inner region ($r$ $<$ $a$) . Accordingly, we can define the average number of particles $N_{out}$ and $N_{in}$ contained in the outer and inner regions, respectively, as
$N_{out}=N\int_{a}^{\infty }\rho _{1}(r_{1})d{\bf r}_{1}$ (6a) $\qquad N_{in}=N\int_{0}^{a}\rho _{1}(r_{1})d{\bf r}_{1}$ (6b)
For example, the (88)$_{1}$ state has $a$ =367.8$\stackrel{o}{A}$, $%
N_{out}=$ 9.97 and $N_{in}=$3.03.
Once the border $a$ is defined, we can define the angular momenta $%
l_{out}$ and the moments of inertia $I_{out}$ contributed by the outer region, respectively , as
$l_{out}=N\int_{a}^{\infty }d{\bf r}_{1}\int \Psi _{L}^{\ast }%
\widehat{l_{1}}\Psi _{L}d{\bf r}_{2}\cdot \cdot \cdot d{\bf r}_{13}$ (7) and
$\ \ I_{out}$ $=M\int_{a}^{\infty }\rho _{1}(r_{1})r_{1}^{2}d{\bf r}%
_{1}$ (8) where $M=Nm^{\ast }$ is the total mass. Similarly, the $l_{in}$ and $%
I_{in}$ contributed from the inner region can also be defined. Although these quantities are not good quantum numbers, they can help us to understand better the physics as shown later.
3, DYNAMICAL AND SYMMETRY BACKGROUND
Quantum mechanic systems are affected by both dynamical reasons and symmetry consideration . The following points are noticeable:
(i) [**Core-ring structures**]{}.
The spatial wave functions of low-lying states are mainly distributed in an area where the total potential energy $U$ (eq.(1.3)) is lower. In particular, they would like to be distributed surrounding the (local)minima of $U$. In order to find out the (local)minima, let N$_{in}$ electrons be contained inside to form a core, and N$_{out}$ electrons be contained outside to form a ring, N$_{in}$+N$_{out}=$N. When the relative locations of the electrons are appropriately adjusted (e.g., they form two homocentric regular polygons with or without an electron at the center) $U$ will be optimized and arrives at its (local) minimum $U_{opt}$, the associated configuration is called an N$_{in}-$N$_{out}$ core-ring configuration. In this configuration, let the ratio of the radii of the outer polygon and the inner polygon be denoted as G$_{opt}$. $U_{opt}$ and G$_{opt}$ are given in Table 1.
Table 1, The optimal values $U_{opt}$ and the associated G$_{opt}$ of the (local)minima of $U$ , each is associated with a N$_{in}-$N$_{out}$ core-ring configuration.
N$_{in}-$N$_{out}$ 1-12 2-11 3-10 4-9 5-8 6-7 7-6 8-5
-------------------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------
$U_{opt}$ (meV) 281.41 278.35 274.83 274.22 274.93 276.31 275.73 278.76
G$_{opt}$ 3.73 2.83 2.41 2.16 2.02 1.77 1.70
Evidently, a too small or too large N$_{out}$ (say, N$_{out}\leq
7$ or N$_{out}\geq 11)$ is not advantageous to binding. Furthermore, the outer polygon should be neither too close to nor too far away from the core.
In what follows, when the wave function of a state is distributed surrounding a N$_{in}-$N$_{out}$ core-ring configuration, then the state is said to have a N$_{in}-$N$_{out}$ structure. If the configuration has an electron at the center, then the structure is further denoted as (N$%
_{in})_{c}-$N$_{out}$ , otherwise as (N$_{in})_{h}-$N$_{out}$ . The subscript $h$ implies a hollow structure.
It is shown in the table that the $U_{opt}$ of a number of configurations are quite close to each other. At a first glance, one might expect that a strong mixing of geometric configurations would occur and would spoil the crystal-like picture. However, this is not true mainly due to the quantum constraints as we shall see later.
\(ii) [**Uniform rotation**]{} .
Let us consider first a classical model system of two rotating homocentric rings. the outer ring has ($b\leq r\leq a$), while the inner ring has ($d\leq r\leq c$ , and $\ $c$\leq b$). Let the angular momentum, the moment of inertia and the angular velocity of the outer (inner) ring be $%
l_{out}$, $I_{out}$ and $\omega _{out}$ ( $l_{in}$, $I_{in}$ and $\omega
_{in}$), respectively. The total angular momentum $L=l_{out}+l_{in}=I_{out}%
\omega _{out}+I_{in}\omega _{in}$ , and the total rotation energy $T=\frac{1%
}{2}(I_{out}\omega _{out}^{2}+I_{in}\omega _{in}^{2})$ . Now, let us ask how the $\omega _{out}$ and $\omega _{in}$ would be chosen so that $T$ is minimized under the condition that $L$ is conserved? The answer is simply $%
\omega _{out}=\omega _{in}=L/(I_{out}+I_{in})=L/I$. This fact implies that if the two rings are rotating with the same angular velocity, the rotation energy can be reduced. Although this point is viewed from classical mechanics, however the first-states of a quantum mechanic system would do its best to lower the energy, thus they would pursue a uniform rotation, i.e., $\omega _{out}\approx \omega _{in}$ .
From the point of view of quantum mechanics, the low-lying states are mainly dominated by the BFs belonging to the LLL. In these BFs, all the single-particle state $\phi _{mk}$ have $k=0$ and angular momentum $%
l=m-k=m $. For each $\phi _{mk}$ , the angular velocity can be defined as $%
\omega =<l>/(m^{\ast }<r^{2}>)$, which is proportional to $\frac{l}{l+1}$ if $k=0$. Evidently, $\omega $ is close to a constant unless $l$ is very small. Thus , for the BFs of the LLL, all the electrons rotate with similar angular velocities, and we have the uniform rotation $\omega _{out}\approx
\omega _{in}$ .
\(iii) [**Symmetry constraints and the favorable structures**]{}.
It has been found that[* inherent nodal surfaces are imposed in wave functions by symmetry, thereby the structures of quantum states are seriously affected*]{}.$^{12,19-21}$ In the case of 2-dimensional polarized quantum dots , it was found that a wave function would be zero when the electrons locate at the vertexes of a regular N-side polygon if $L\neq $N$%
(j+\frac{1+(-1)^{N}}{4})$ , where $j$ is an integer$^{6,11,22}$. This constraint can be generalized to the core-ring structures. Let the ring has an angular momentum $l_{out}$ , while the core has $l_{in}$ . When the outer particles locate at the vertexes of a N$_{out}$-side polygon, and the inner particles locate at the vertexes of a N$_{o}$-side polygon (N$_{o}$=N$_{in}$ or N$_{in}-1$, in the latter case an electron would stay at the center) , then it is straight forward to prove that the wave function would be zero if
$l_{out}\neq $N$_{out}(j_{2}+(1+(-1)^{{N}_{out}})/4)$ $\qquad (9a)$
or
$l_{in}\neq $N$_{o}(j_{1}+(1+(-1)^{{N}_{o}}/4)$ $\qquad (9b)$
where $j_{1}$ and $j_{2}$ are integers. In other words, the above configuration would be prohibited if $l_{out}($ $l_{in})$ does not relate to N$_{out}$ (N$_{o}$) in the above way. [*Thus, a (N*]{}$_{in})-$[*N*]{}$%
_{out}$[* structure would be pursued by a first-state only if the* ]{}$L$[* can be divided as a sum of *]{}$l_{in}$[* and* ]{}$l_{out}$[* so that the requirements (9a) and (9b) are fulfilled.* ]{} If this happens, the (N$_{in})-$N$_{out}$ structure is called a candidate of favorable structure[* (CFS)*]{} of the state. Incidentally, for an eigenstate, both the $%
l_{out}$ and $l_{in}$ are not good quantum numbers, they appear as the angular momenta of the main component of eigenwavefunctions.
Usually each state may have a number of CFS, some of them are not competitive due to having a too small or too large N$_{out}$, they can be neglected. In what follows, among the CFS of a state, if some of them have N$_{out}\geq 8$, then those with N$_{out}\leq 7$ are neglected; if all the CFS has N$_{out}\leq 7,$ then all of them would be neglected except the one with the largest N$_{out}$; all the CFS with N$_{out}=12$ are neglected without exception. After the neglect, the remaining CFS are call the favorable structures (FSs), they are listed in Table 2. E.g., the $L=86$ state has four CFS , namely the (5)$_{c}$-8, (9)$_{c}$-4, (11)$_{c}$-2, and (12)$_{c}$-1 . Among them only the (5)$_{c}$-8 as a FS is listed in Table 2. When a state has more than three FS, only the most competitive three are listed.
\(iv) [** Excitation of the core**]{}
This paper concerns only the low-lying states with $L\geq N(N-1)$ $/2$ ( or the filling factor $\nu \leq 1$ ), they contain mainly the BFs belonging to the LLL. In these BFs, the angular momenta of any pair of electrons can not be the same due to the Pauli Principle. Therefore, they can be denoted as $%
\psi _{\alpha }=\{l_{1}l_{2}\cdot \cdot \cdot l_{N}\}$ with $l_{i}<l_{i+1}$.
Since we have
$<\phi _{l0}|r^{2}|\phi _{l0}>=(l+1)\frac{\hbar }{m^{\ast
}\Omega _{o}},\qquad \qquad (10)$
the spatial distribution of the wave function $\phi _{l0}$ depends on $l$. The smaller the $l$, the smaller the size. Thus, for the $\psi _{\alpha }$ belonging to the LLL, $l_{in}$ is just equal to $l_{1}+l_{2}+\cdot \cdot
\cdot +l_{{N}_{in}}$ . If $l_{1}=0$, there must be an electron staying at the center, because the $\phi _{00}$ wave function is distributed closely surrounding the center. Thus, a (N$_{in})_{c}$-N$_{out} $ structure must be contributed by the $\psi _{\alpha }$ with $l_{1}=0$ , while a (N$%
_{in})_{h}$-N$_{out}$ structure is contributed by those with $l_{1}>0$ . When all the $l_{i}$ of the inner electrons satisfies $l_{i}+1=l_{i+1}$ , the inner electrons are said to be compactly aligned. Meanwhile, $l_{in}$ would arrive at its lower bound $(l_{in})_{b}=$N$_{in}($N$_{in}-1)$ $/2$ , if $l_{1}=0$. In this case, we say that the core is inert (not excited). Otherwise, we have $l_{in}>$ $(l_{in})_{b}$, and we say that the core is excited. Evidently, all the hollow states must have $l_{1}>0$, thus they have an excited core.
When $L$ $\leq 90$, core excitation is not possible (unless the electrons jump to higher LLL), therefore the first-states would have a (N$%
_{in})_{c}-$N$_{out}$ structure with the core inert. However, when $L>90$, core excitation might occur. It implies two cases: (a) The inner electrons have their $l_{i}$ remaining to be compactly aligned but with $l_{1}=k$ , and therefore have a (N$_{in})_{h}$-N$_{out}$ hollow structure . (b) The $%
l_{i}$ of the core are no longer aligned compactly, e.g., $l_{1}=0$ while $%
l_{2}=2$, etc. .
It was found that, when $L$ is not large (say, $L\leq 101$ ), the first-states have either an inert core or an excited compact core with $%
l_{1}=1$ , as shown in Table 2 . However, when $L$ is large, higher core excitation with $l_{1}>1$ will emerge as shown later.
Incidentally, due to eq.(10), the compact alignment of the angular momenta also implies a compact alignment of radial positions. Thus, in the core-ring structures, the groups of inner and outer electrons may each compactly aligned. The associated BF can be simply denoted as $%
\{l_{1}-l_{N_{in}},l_{N_{in}+1}-l_{N}\}$ (e.g., {1,2,3, 6,7,$\cdot \cdot
\cdot $,15} $\equiv ${1-3,6-15}.). This is called a two-bunched BF by Ruan$^{23}$ (The one-bunched BF {$l_{1}-l_{N}$} is a special case of two-bunched BF with $l_{N_{in}}=l_{N_{in}+1}-1$ ). It is straight forward to prove that, for a CFS of a $\nu \leq 1$ state, among the BFs of the CFS, one and only one of them is a two-bunched BF belonging to the LLL. Thus, a simple way to find out the CFS is to look for the two-bunched BFs of a state.
\(v) [**Particle separation**]{}
It is noted that the $U$ in eq.(1.3) can be exactly rewritten as
$U=\frac{1}{2}M\omega _{o}^{2}R_{c}^{2}+\sum\limits_{j<k}
u_{eff}(r_{jk})\qquad \qquad \qquad (11.1)$
Where $R_{c}$ is the radial distance of the c.m., and $u_{eff}(r_{jk})$ is the effective pairwise interaction
$u_{eff}(r_{jk})=\frac{(m\ast \omega _{o})^{2}}{2M}r_{jk}^{2}+\frac{%
e^{2}}{4\pi \varepsilon _{r}\varepsilon _{0}}\cdot \frac{1}{r_{jk}}\qquad
\qquad \qquad (11.2)$
There is a minimum in $u_{eff}$ located at $r_{jk}=r_{u}=(\frac{e^{2}M}{4\pi
\varepsilon _{r}\varepsilon _{0}(m\ast \omega _{o})^{2}})^{1/3}$ . Evidently, if each electron separates from all its adjacent electrons by this distance, the potential energy can be minimized. Therefore, in low-lying states, adjacent electrons would roughly keep the separation $%
r_{u}$ . With the above parameters, $r_{u}=576.3\stackrel{\circ }{A}$ .The $r_{u}$ is a basic measure and is useful for the understanding of electronic correlation and the size of the system. Obviously, for a (N$%
_{in})-$N$_{out}$ structure, the distance between the ring and the core depends closely on $r_{u}$ .
\(vi) [**Core-ring separation**]{}
It is recalled that, in order to minimize the potential energy, the ring should separate from the core by an appropriate distance. In this subsection, we shall evaluate the core-ring separation by using the approximation of uniform rotation.
For a given CFS with the given N$_{out}$ and $l_{out}$ , let us define a quantity
$\stackrel{\_}{g}=\sqrt{\frac{l_{out}/l_{in}}{N_{out}/N_{in}}}\qquad
\qquad (12)$
On the other hand, we have
$I_{out}=m^{\ast }N_{out}<r^{2}>_{ring}\qquad \qquad (13)$
(this equation is the same as eq.(8)), and a similar equation for $I_{in}$. Thus we have
$\stackrel{\_}{g}=\sqrt{\frac{l_{out}/l_{in}}{I_{out}/I_{in}}\cdot
(<r^{2}>_{ring}/<r^{2}>_{core})}=\sqrt{\frac{\omega _{out}}{\omega _{in}}%
\cdot (<r^{2}>_{ring}/<r^{2}>_{core})}\qquad \qquad (14)$
It is believed that the uniform rotation is a good approximation for the first-states, because they should do their best to lower the energy (this is a point remain to be checked). Under this approximation
$\stackrel{\_}{g}\approx (<r^{2}>_{ring}/<r^{2}>_{core})^{1/2}\qquad
\qquad (15)$
The optimal value of the right hand side of eq.(15) has been denoted as G$%
_{opt}$ given in Table 1. Thus, if a FS has its $\stackrel{\_}{g}$ (evaluated from the definition eq.(12)) close to G$_{opt}$ , then the core-ring separation is appropriate and the FS is advantageous to binding and therefore competitive. Otherwise, it is not.
The $\stackrel{\_}{g}/$G$_{opt}$ of the FS are also listed in Table 2, many of them are found to be very close to one. E.g., the FS of the (86)$%
_{1} $ is a (5)$_{c}-$8 structure with $\stackrel{\_}{g}$ =2.18, the associated G$_{opt}$ is 2.16 (cf. Table 1) , thus they are close to each other .
The above points are important to the following discussion. [*When a first-state has a FS which is superior than the other FSs (or the state has only one FS), the FS is expected to be dominant. In this case the state would have a clear geometric feature arising from the N*]{}$%
_{in}-$[*N*]{}$_{out}$[* structure of the FS, and appear to be crystal-like.*]{} However, when a first-state has a few nearly equally competitive FSs, its structure can not be uniquely predicted. Nevertheless, the Table 2 is a key to understand the electronic structures.
Table 2, Characters of the first-state from symmetry consideration and from our calculations.
----- -------------- --------- ---------- ---------------- -------------------------- ------- ---------- ---------- -----------
L FS $l_{1}$ $l_{in}$ $\overline{g}$ $\overline{g}/$G$_{opt}$ $a$ $N_{in}$ $l_{in}$ $\gamma $
81 (10)$_{c}$-3 0 45 1.6330
82 (9)$_{c}$-4 0 36 1.6956
83 (8)$_{c}$-5 0 28 1.7728 1.04
84 (7)$_{c}$-6 0 21 1.8708 1.05 2.700 6.55 21.30 0.89
85 (6)$_{c}$-7 0 15 2.0000 0.99 2.550 5.76 16.45 0.91
86 (5)$_{c}$-8 0 10 2.1794 1.01 2.288 4.65 10.52 0.93
87 (4)$_{c}$-9 0 6 2.4495 1.02 2.100 3.85 7.21 0.95
88 (3)$_{c}$-10 0 3 2.9155 1.03 1.889 3.03 4.44 0.96
89 (2)$_{c}$-11 0 1 4.0000 1.07 1.555 2.00 1.90 0.98
90 (1)$_{c}$-12 0 0 1.120 0.97 0.42 1.094
92 (6)$_{c}$-7 0 15 2.0976 1.04 2.700 6.26 19.70 0.94
93 (8)$_{c}$-5 0 28 1.9272 1.13 2.414 4.99 12.43 0.964
94 (5)$_{c}$-8 0 10 2.2913 1.06 2.377 5.01 12.51 0.967
95 (9)$_{h}$-4 0 45 1.5811 2.205 4.06 8.30 0.967
96 (4)$_{c}$-9 0 6 2.5820 1.07 2.181 3.89 7.38 0.998
97 (7)$_{h}$-6 1 28 1.6956 0.96 1.942 3.04 4.80 0.967
98 (3)$_{c}$-10 0 3 3.0822 1.08 1.926 2.91 4.19 1.012
99 (5)$_{h}$-8 1 15 1.8708 0.86 1.519 1.74 1.86 0.904
100 (2)$_{c}$-11 0 1 4.2426 1.14 1.611 1.90 1.98 0.981
100 (4)$_{h}$-9 1 10 2.0000 0.83
101 (3)$_{h}$-10 1 6 2.1794 0.77 1.936 2.82 6.54 0.813
----- -------------- --------- ---------- ---------------- -------------------------- ------- ---------- ---------- -----------
4, EIGENENERGIES
After performing the diagonalization, eigenenergies and eigenstates are obtained. Let $E((L)_{i})$ be the energy of the $(L)_{i}$ state. It is noted that , for a first-state, if the Coulomb repulsion among the electrons are removed, all the electrons would fall in the LLL with the energy $(L+N)\hbar \omega _{o}$ . For this reason, let us define $%
\varepsilon (L)\equiv E((L)_{1})-(L+N)\hbar \omega _{o}.$This quantity is a measure of the Coulomb repulsion in the first-states, which is plotted in Fig.2 in accord with $L$. When $L$ increases, the size of the system will increase a little , the Coulomb repulsion will thereby decrease. Thus, $%
\varepsilon (L)$ decreases monotonously with $L$ as shown in the figure. However, there are four platforms. We shall return to this point later.
5, ELECTRONIC STRUCTURES $\left( 78\leq L\leq 90\right) $
In what follows mainly the results of the first-states are given. We use $a_{M}\equiv \sqrt{\frac{\hbar }{m^{\ast }\omega _{o}}}=$ 194.71$%
\stackrel{\circ }{A}$ as the unit of length. The optimal separation $%
r_{u}= $ 2.96$a_{M}$ .
Let us begin from the state with the filling factor $\nu =1$ , namely the (78)$_{1}$ state. This state has only one BF {0,1,2,$\cdot \cdot \cdot $12} (for short, {0-12}) belonging to the LLL, this BF has a weight85.5%. In this BF, the electrons are roughly uniformly distributed inside a circle as shown in Fig.3a. It is noted that a clear geometric structure arises from the coherent mixing of BFs. Due to the lack of mixing, the (78)$%
_{1}$ can not have a clear geometric structure, therefore it is liquid-like as shown in Fig.4a.
On the other hand, for the number N together with two arbitrary integers $n$ ($\leq $N), and $j^{\prime }$, there is an identity
$\frac{N(N-1)}{2}+j^{\prime }N=\frac{n(n+2j^{\prime }-1)}{%
2}+\frac{(N-n)(N+n+2j^{\prime }-1)}{2}\qquad \qquad \qquad (16)$
Let the left hand side be equal to $L$, and the two terms at the right be equal to $l_{in}$ and $l_{out}$. Then this identity is associated with a division of $L$. When $j^{\prime }=0$ , the left hand side of (16) is equal to 78 . It is easy to see that the pair N$_{o}=n-1$ and $l_{in}$ meet the requirement of eq.(9b), while the pair N$_{out}$=$N-n$ and $l_{out}$ meet the requirement of eq.(9a). Thus, eq.(16) implies that all the (N$%
_{o}+1)_{c}$-N$_{out}$ structures with N$_{o}=0$ to 12 are the CFS of the $%
L=78$ states. Therefore the wave function of the (78)$_{1}$can get access to all the symmetric configurations$^{12,13}$, and thus is nodeless (except a pair of electrons overlap with each other). Accordingly, the energy of this state is lower.
For the (79)$_{1}$ state, there is also only one BF {0-11,13} belonging to the LLL. Thus this state is also liquid-like as shown in Fig.4b. However, on the contrary with the (78)$_{1}$ , all the (N$_{in})$-N$_{out}$ structures are not the CFS of the (79)$_{1}$, except the (12)$_{c}$-1 which is very poor in binding. Thus the energy of this state is much higher. Owing to the (78)$_{1}$ is lower while the (79)$_{1}$ is higher, the difference leads to a platform appearing in Fig.2 between $L=78$ and 79.
Ranging from (79)$_{1}$ to (90)$_{1}$, all these states have only one FS, thus their structures can be well predicted. The N$_{out}$ of their FS (cf. Table 2) increases from 1 to 12, this leads to a regular variation of their electronic structure. When N$_{out}$ is small (say, N$%
_{out}\leq 5$ ), the outward electrons are found to be very close to the core. As a result, their ring-core-structures are ambiguous as shown in Fig.3b and 4b, where the patterns are representative for the (79)$_{1}$ to (83)$_{1}$ states. In these states the FS itself is not competitive. This fact would lead to a stronger mixing of structures, and therefore they are liquid-like.
Even in the liquid-like states, electronic correlation can still be viewed via the three-body densities as shown in Fig.5a and 5b, they are representative. Fig.5a for the (81)$_{1}$ exhibits that the three outward electrons (two are labelled by white spots and one by a double-peak, which implies an oscillation around an equilibrium position) are very close to the core. This fact supports the presumption that the FS, namely the (10)$%
_{c}$-3 structure (cf. Table 2), is pursued by the state . Although the $U$ of the (10)$_{c}$-3 is higher, however no other better symmetric configurations are allowed by symmetry. Consequently, the component of the (10)$_{c}$-3 is still relatively important . Since the outward electrons are so close, the core is strongly deformed. There are three peaks at the outer ridge of the core, it implies that three inward electrons form a regular triangle close to the border. Fig.5b for the (82)$_{1}$ exhibits that the four outward electrons are also very close to the core. This fact supports again that the FS is pursued. The core is also strongly deformed with four inward electrons forming a square close to the border. The pursuit of the FS can also be viewed by observing the composition of the wave functions. For the (81)$_{1}$ , the BF with the largest weight (35.4%) is the {0-9,11-13}, in which the electrons are divided into two compact bunchs, and therefore supports directly the (10)$%
_{c}$-3 structure . For the (82)$_{1}$ , the BF with the largest weight (33.4%) is the {0-8,10-13}. When $L\geq 84$, the N$_{out}$ of the FS is $\geq 6$. Since the outward electrons would separate (roughly by $r_{u}$) from each other, a larger N$_{out}$ definitely leads to a larger ring. Consequently, the outward electrons are no more close to the core, and the ring-core structure becomes explicit. This is shown in Fig.3c to 3f for the (84)$_{1}$ to (90)$%
_{1}$ states, where the outward peak becomes larger and larger. The point $%
\ a$ separating the inner and outer regions can be well defined. Accordingly, the quantities related to eq.(6) to (8) can be calculated as listed in Table 2. In particular, a quantity related to the uniformity of rotation
$\gamma =\frac{l_{out}}{I_{out}}/\frac{l_{in}}{I_{in}}=\omega
_{out}/\omega _{in}\qquad \qquad (17)$
is defined and is also listed.
It is exhibited in Table 2 that, in the range 84$\leq
L\leq 90$, $a$ and $N_{in}$ are decreasing . This coincides with the reduction of the core of the FS. In particular, the N$_{in}$ of the FS are one-to-one close to the $N_{in}$ from calculation. This fact confirms that the FSs are pursued by the first-states. In general the $N_{in}$ and $l_{in}$ deviate more or less from those of the FS, this is due to the mixing of the FS together with other minor structures ( the inner electrons may occasionally go out ,or the core may get slightly excited). E.g., the wave function of the (87)$_{1}$ has $N_{in}=3.85$ and $l_{in}=7.21$ , while its FS has N$_{in}$=4 and $l_{in}$=$(l_{in})_{b}=$6 (incidentally, a core-excitation may cause a big increase of $l_{in}$ ). Furthermore, the $%
\gamma $ are close to the unity, it implies that the rotation is roughly uniform. However, the slight deviation of $\gamma $ implies that the system is not entirely rigid.
It is recalled that the $\rho _{2}$ of the $L\leq 83$ first-states appear as liquid-like. However, when N$_{out}$ is neither very small nor very large (say, 6 $\leq $N$_{out}\leq 10$ ), the $U$ of the core-ring structure is lower, and thereby the associated FS becomes more dominant. This would lead to a clear crystal-like picture as shown in Fig.4c to 4g, where the outward electrons form a regular polygon. The number of vertexes (from 6 to 10) is just equal to the N$_{out}$ of the FS. This fact once again demonstrates the pursuit of the FSs. In general, the crystal-like structure can be seen more clearly if $\rho _{3}$ is observed as shown in Fig.5c.
When N$_{out}$ is larger than 10, due to the rapid increase of $U$, the associated (N$_{in})-$N$_{out}$ structure is no more dominant, and therefore the crystal-like picture becomes ambiguous again due to the mixing of structures. This is shown in Fig.4h and 4i.
6, ELECTRONIC STRUCTURES $\left( 91\leq L\leq 101\right) $
Inserting $j^{\prime }=1$ into eq.(16) and using the same argument as before , it is straight forward to prove that the CFS of the $L=\frac{N(N-1)%
}{2}+N=91$ states include all the hollow (N$_{in})_{h}-$N$_{out}$ structures ranging from N$_{in}=0$ to 12 . Therefore the (91)$_{1}$ would be nodeless if the core is hollow. On the other hand, if the core is inert, all the (N$%
_{in}$)$_{c}$-N$_{out}$ are not the CFS (except the (12)$_{c}$-1). Thus, the (91)$_{1}$ is expected to be hollow . This suggestion is confirmed by Fig.3g. Similar to the (78)$_{1}$, the (91)$_{1}$ is also mainly contributed by a single BF {1-13} with the weight 82.0% . Due to the lack of coherent mixing, the (91)$_{1}$ is liquid-like as shown in Fig.4j.
For the first-states with 92$\leq L\leq 101$ , we have
\(i) The core-ring structure is explicit as representatively shown by the $\rho _{1}$ plotted in Fig.3h to 3j. However, the core may be excited and the probability of an electron staying at the center is smaller (3i and 3j).
\(ii) It is noted that a state with a large $L$ would pursue a larger moment of inertia to reduce the rotation energy. Since the structures with N$_{out}$$<$ 7 have a smaller moment of inertia, these structures are never found in the first-states with $L$ $\geq 93$ . Specifically, the (92)$_{1}$ is found to have N$_{out}$=7 as shown in Fig.4k.
\(iii) Each of the (92)$_{1}$ , (94)$_{1}$ , (96)$_{1}$ , and (98)$%
_{1} $ states has only one FS, this FS has an appropriate N$_{out}$ , and has $\stackrel{\_}{g}/$G$_{opt}$ $\approx 1$. Therefore these FSs are competitive and are expected to be dominant. This point is confirmed by the associated $\rho _{2}$ (cf. Fig.4), where a crystal-like picture with the N$_{out}-$side polygons is seen. Furthermore, the N$_{in}$ of the FS of the above four states are 6, 5, 4, and 3 (cf. Table 2), while the $N_{in}$ are 6.26, 5.01, 3.89, and 2.91, respectively . These values are one-to-one close to each other. Thus, the pursuit of the FSs is further confirmed. Besides, the FS of the above four states have $l_{in}=$ $(l_{in})_{b}$, namely 15, 10, 6, and 3 (cf. Table 2), respectively. The corresponding $%
l_{in}$ calculated from $\rho _{1}$ are 19.70, 12.51, 7.38, and 4.19, respectively. The latter set are always one-to-one bigger than the former set due to having a slight core-excitation.
\(iv) When $L\geq 100$ , the excited core (i.e., $l_{in}>(l_{in})_{b} $ ) begin to compete seriously with the inert core. For the $L=100$ states, the competing FSs are the (4)$_{h}$-9 and (2)$_{c}$-11 as shown in Table 2. The $\stackrel{\_}{g}/$G$_{opt}$ of the former (latter) is considerably smaller (larger) than one. It is noted that, when $L$ is large, the outer ring would shift a little outward to increase the moment of inertia to reduce the rotation energy. Thus, a small increase of $\stackrel{\_}{g}$is of advantageous, while a decrease of $\stackrel{\_}{g}$ is not. In fact, it is the (2)$_{c}$-11 wins in the competition and is pursued by the first-state, while the (4)$_{h}$-9 is pursued by the second-state. This is shown in Fig.3h and 3i, and in Fig.4o and 4p. For the $(101$)$_{1}$, the (3)$%
_{h}$-10 is the only FS, and is expected to be dominant as shown in Fig.3j and 5d.
\(v) For the (93)$_{1}$ , (95)$_{1}$ , and (97)$_{1}$ , the N$_{out}$ of their FS are smaller than 7 and therefore is not competitive. Although the (99)$_{1}$ has N$_{out}$=8, however its $\stackrel{\_}{g}/$G$_{opt}$ is quite small. Thus these four states do not have a competitive FS, and therefore do not have a clear-cut geometric structure to pursue. They are liquid-like. Nonetheless, their $\rho _{1}$ are more or less similar to Fig.3h, thus they still have clear core-ring structures.
\(vi) All the first-states with 92$\leq L\leq 101$ rotate uniformly, they have $\gamma \approx 1$ except the (99)$_{1}$ and (101)$_{1}$, The FSs of these two states have a considerably smaller $\stackrel{\_}{g}/$G$_{opt}$ (cf. Table 2). Thus, due to eq.(14), if they rotate uniformly the ring would be too close to the core . To avoid being too close, $\omega _{out}$ would decrease a little. In this way, although the rotation energy may increase a little, the potential energy may thereby considerably decrease. This suggestion is confirmed by the fact that their $\gamma $ is really smaller. Incidentally, since the angular momentum $l_{out}$ is strongly constrained by symmetry via eq.(9a), and therefore can not be adjusted freely , the decrease of $\omega _{out}$ would cause an increase of $I_{out}$ via the relation $l_{out}=I_{out}\omega _{out}$.
7, ELECTRONIC STRUCTURES ($L\approx 200)$
The main finding of the above study is the pursuit of the FSs . Does this experience work when $L$ is much larger? To clarify this point we shall no more go to the states one-by-one, instead we choose arbitrary a range 196$\leq L\leq 201$ for the studying. Let us first evaluate the accuracy of the calculation in this range. E.g., the energies of the (199)$_{1}$ state calculated with 6000, 9000, and 12000 BFs, respectively, together with the $\alpha ,$ $N_{in},$ $l_{in}$ and $\gamma $ are listed in Table 3. One can see that, although the convergency is not very good, it is qualitatively acceptable.
Table 3 The energies and the quantities extracted from the $\rho _{1}$ of the (199)$_{1}$ in accord with the increase of the number of BFs.
Number of BFs $\alpha $ $N_{in}$ $l_{in}$ $\gamma $ $E((199)_{1})$
--------------- ----------- ---------- ---------- ----------- ----------------
6000 3.121 3.96 10.56 1.268 739.97
9000 3.123 3.97 10.75 1.238 739.86
12000 3.125 3.98 10.86 1.227 739.81
The FSs are shown in Table 4. The FSs with the core inert ($%
l_{1}=0 $) are found to have a too large $\overline{g}/$G$_{opt}$ , and therefore are not listed. Whereas an excited core is pursued. On the other hand, a highly excited core ($l_{1}\geq 6$) would lead to a too small $%
\overline{g}/$G$_{opt}$ as shown in the table. Thus, too weak and too strong core-excitation are both not appropriate.
Table 4 A continuation of Table 2 for the first- states with $(196\leq L\leq $ 201).
----- -------------- --------- ---------- ---------------- -------------------------- ------ ---------- ---------- -----------
L FS $l_{1}$ $l_{in}$ $\overline{g}$ $\overline{g}/$G$_{opt}$ $a$ $N_{in}$ $l_{in}$ $\gamma $
196 (5)$_{h}$-8 6 40 1.5612 0.72
196 (3)$_{h}$-10 6 21 1.5811 0.59 3.16 3.75 13.88 1.11
196 (2)$_{h}$-11 4 9 1.9437 0.52
197 (5)$_{h}$-8 3 25 2.0736 0.96 3.48 4.80 24.61 1.05
197 (4)$_{h}$-9 5 26 1.7097 0.71
197 (3)$_{h}$-10 3 12 2.1506 0.76
198 (4)$_{h}$-9 3 18 2.1082 0.85 3.25 3.90 18.65 1.10
198 (2)$_{h}$-11 5 11 1.7581 0.47
199 (4)$_{h}$-9 1 10 2.8983 1.20 3.13 3.98 10.86 1.23
199 (5)$_{h}$-8 5 35 1.7113 0.80
200 (5)$_{h}$-8 2 20 2.3717 1.01 3.47 4.93 20.88 1.10
200 (3)$_{h}$-10 4 15 1.9235 0.70
200 (2)$_{h}$-11 6 13 1.6172 0.43
201 (3)$_{h}$-10 1 6 3.1225 1.10 3.00 3.06 7.27 1.24
201 (2)$_{h}$-11 1 3 3.4641 0.93
201 (4)$_{h}$-9 6 30 1.5916 0.66
----- -------------- --------- ---------- ---------------- -------------------------- ------ ---------- ---------- -----------
For the (196)$_{1}$ none of the FSs are superior (their $\stackrel{\_%
}{g}/$G$_{opt}$ are too small), therefore this state would have a strong mixing of structures and would be liquid-like. Among the three FSs of the (197)$_{1},$ the (5)$_{h}-8$ has its $\stackrel{\_}{g}$ closer to G$_{opt}$ , thus this FS is predicted to be dominant. Similarly, based on Table 4 , the (4)$_{h}-$9 is predicted to be dominant in (198)$_{1}$ and (199)$%
_{1} $ ,the (5)$_{h}-$8 is predicted to be dominant in (200)$_{1}$, and the (3)$_{h}-$10 is predicted to be dominant in (201)$_{1}$. It turns out that, for the case with a dominant FS, the predictions are nicely confirmed by the calculation. E.g., the N$_{in}$ of the above FSs of the (197)$_{1}$ to (201)$_{1}$ are 5, 4, 4, 5, and 3, while the corresponding $%
N_{in}$ extracted from $\rho _{1}$ are 4.80, 3.90, 3.98, 4.93, and 3.06 . The $l_{in}$ of the above FSs are 25, 18, 10, 20, and 6, while the corresponding $l_{in}$ extracted from $\rho _{1}$ are 24.61, 18.65, 10.86, 20.88, and 7.27 . These values are amazingly one-to-one close to each other, and thus the analysis based on the FSs is convincing. Furthermore, the associated $\rho _{2}$ and $\rho _{3}$ confirm also the predictions. Representative examples are given in Fig. 4q, 4r, 5e, and 5f.
It is noted that the (199)$_{1}$ and (201)$_{1}$ have a considerably larger $\gamma $. On the other hand, their most competitive FSs have a larger $\stackrel{\_}{g}/$G$_{opt}$. Thus, if these states rotate uniformly, the ring would be too far away from the core (cf. eq.(15)). To avoid being too far away, the ring rotates a little faster to reduce the moment of inertia without altering $l_{out}$. This is the reason why they have a considerably larger $\gamma $.
In general, when $L$ is large, the size of the system would increase, the core-ring structures become more clear-cut. Besides, the core would have a higher excitation. As a result, all these states are hollow as shown in Fig. 3k, 3$l$, 5e and 5f.
8, MAGIC NUMBERS
The above discussions demonstrate that, based on the FSs, the structures of the first-states can be more or less predicted. In this section we shall see that the energies are also strongly related to the FSs. Let us go back to Fig.2 where platforms and shoulders are shown. A platform starting at $L_{a}$ and ending at $L_{b}=L_{a}+1$ implies $%
E((L_{b})_{1})=$ $E((L_{a})_{1})+\hbar \omega _{o}$, i.e., the $(L_{b})_{1}$ is an c.m. excited state of the $(L_{a})_{1}$. This fact implies that the internal energy ( the energy without the c.m. motion) of the $(L_{b})_{i}$ states are relatively higher. This is also the case if a shoulder appears. In this case, $L_{a}$ is a candidate of a magic number (CMN). Evidently, if the $(L_{a})_{1}$ has a competitive FS and the $(L_{b})_{1}$ does not have, a CMN arises. For example, the (78)$_{1}$ is inherently nodeless and is able to get access to all symmetric configurations , while the (79)$_{1}$ has only one CFS (12)$_{c}$-1 which is unfavorable to binding. Thus the 78 appears as a CMN. Similarly, the (91)$_{1}$ is inherently nodeless (if the core is excited), while the (92)$_{1}$ has only the (6)$_{c}$-7 ( which is not competitive due to N$_{out}=7$), thus 91 is a CMN. The (111)$_{1}$ has a competitive FS (3)$_{h}$-10 . Although the (112)$_{1}$ has two FSs, namely the (6)$_{h}-$7 and (5)$_{h}$-8 , however the former has a small N$_{out}$ while the latter has a too small $\stackrel{\_}{g}/$G$_{opt}=0.78$ . They are both not competitive, thus 111 is a CMN. Finally, The (118)$_{1}$ has a number of competitive FSs, namely the (3)$_{c}$-10 , (5)$_{c}$-8 , and (4)$%
_{h}$-9 , while the (119)$_{1}$ has only one FS (6)$_{h}$-7 , which is not competitive due to having N$_{out}=7$. Thus 118 is a CMN. These examples exhibit that the CMN can be more or less predicted.
9, SUMMARY
The electronic structures of the first-states have been studied. By an analysis of symmetry constraint and by performing numerical calculation, we have obtained a clear picture of the core-ring structures. When $L$ is small (78$\leq L\leq 83$), the core and ring are connected. When $L$ is larger than 83, the core-ring structure becomes more and more explicit. When $L\leq 100$, the core remains inert (the (91)$_{1}$ is an exception). When $L$ is larger, core excitation begins to compete. When $L$ is much larger (say, $L\approx 200$), core excitation becomes dominant and the states are hollow.
This leads to Table 2 and 4, where the favorable structures (FSs) of each state are listed.
The identification of the FSs is the main result of this paper. Based on the FSs, the structures of the first-states can be predicted to a great extent, the formation of crystal-like structure and the appearance of magic numbers can be explained. In particular,[* if a first-state has a remarkably competitive FS (both the* ]{}N$_{out}$[* and* ]{}$\stackrel{\_}{g}/$G$_{opt}$[* are appropriate), the FS would be pursued, and the state would be crystal-like and possess the associated (*]{}N$_{in})-$N$_{out}$[*structure. If the* ]{}$L=L_{a}$ states[* contain one or more than one competitive FSs while the* ]{}$L=L_{a}+1$ states[* do not contain, then* ]{}$%
L_{a}$[* is a CMN.*]{}
The FSs can provide us an objective base for the further classification of states. The states having the same FSs can be grouped into a kind, e.g., all the $L=87$ , 96, 105, $\cdot \cdot \cdot $ contain a single FS (4)$_{c}-$9, thus they belong to the same kind and their first-states would have the same (4)$_{c}-$9 structure.
Although only a N=13 system is concerned in this paper, the idea, the way of analysis, the qualitative results are quite common to the 2-dimensional systems with an attractive center. In fact, both this paper and the previous ref.8 provide qualitatively similar message. Thus, it is not doubted that the physical picture provided by these two papers can be generalized to the systems with an even larger N. Where, the identification of the FSs is again a key to understand the electronic structures .
Acknowledgment: This paper is supported by the NSFC of China under the grant No.90103028, No.10174098, and by a fund from the Ministry of Education of China.
REFERENCES
1, L. Jacak , P. Hawrylak, A. Wójs, [*Quantum Dots* ]{}(Springer, Berlin, 1998)
2, T. Chakraborty, [* Quantum Dots*]{} (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1999)[* *]{}
3, M.S. Kushwaha, Surface Science Reports, [**41**]{}, 1 (2001)
4, S.M Reimann and M. Manninen, [*Rev. Mod. Phys*]{}. [**74**]{}, 1283 (2002)
5, G.W. Bryant , [* Phys. Rev. Lett*]{}. [**59**]{}, 1140, ([*1987*]{})
6, P.A. Maksym, H. Imamura, G.P. Mallon, and H. Aoki, [*J. Phys.: Condens. Matter*]{}[** 12**]{}, R299 (2000)
7, U. Meirav, M.A. Kastner, and S.J. Wind, [*Phys. Rev. Lett*]{}.[** 65**]{}, 771 (1990)
8, S. Tarucha, D.G. Austing, T. Honda, R.J. van der Haage, and L. Kouwenhoven, [* Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**77**]{}, 3613 (1996)
9, H. Drexler, D. Leonard, W. Hansen, J.P. Kotthaus, and P.M. Petroff,[**]{}[*Phys. Rev. Lett*]{}. [**73**]{}, 2252 (1994)
10, M. Fricke, A. Lorke, J.P. Kotthaus, G. Medeiros-Ribeiro, and P.M. Petroff, [*Europhys. Lett*]{}. [**36**]{}, 197 (1996).
11, W.Y. Ruan, Y.Y. Liu, C.G. Bao and Z.Q. Zhang, 1995 [*Phys. Rev*]{}. [**B51**]{} 7942 (2000).
12, C.G. Bao, [* Phys. Rev. Lett*]{}. [**79**]{}, 3475 ([* 1997*]{}).
13, C.G. Bao, J. Phys. :Condens. Matter [**14**]{}, 8549 (2002)
14, C. de C. Chamon, and X.G. Wen, [*Phys. Rev*]{}. [**B49**]{}, 8227, (1994)
15, H.M. Muller and S.E. Koonin, [*Phys. Rev*]{}. [** B54**]{}, 14532, (1996)
16, E. Goldmann and S.R. Renn, [* Phys. Rev.*]{} [**B60**]{}, 16611, ([*1999* ]{})
17, S.M. Reimann, M. Koskinen, M. Manninen and B.R. Mottelson, [*Phys. Rev. Lett*]{}. [**83**]{}, 3270, (1999 )
18, C. Yannouleas and U. Landman, Phys. Rev. B [**66**]{}, 115315 (2002)
19, C.G. Bao, Few-Body Systems, [**13**]{}, 41 (1992).
20, C.G. Bao and Y.X. Liu, Phys. Rev. Lett., [** 82**]{}, 61 (1999)
21, C.G. Bao, W.F. Xie, and W.Y. Ruan, Few-Body Systems, [**22**]{}, 135 (1997)
22, T. Seki, Y. Kuramoto, and T. Nishino, J. Phys. Soc. Japan, [**65**]{}, 3945 (1996)
23, Ruan W Y, Chan K S, Ho H P and Pun E Y B, 2000 [*J. Phys.: Condens. Matter*]{} [**12**]{}, 3911
Caption
Fig.1 $\rho _{1}(r{\bf )}$ of the first-state (82)$_{1}$with 6000 (a), 9000 (b), and 12000 (c) basis functions. The unit of length in this paper is $%
\sqrt{\hbar /m^{\ast }\omega _{0}}=194.71\stackrel{\circ }{A}.$
Fig.2 $\varepsilon (L)$ as a function of $L$. $\hbar \omega _{0}$=3meV is assumed.
Fig.3 $\rho _{1}(r{\bf )}$ of the first-states (Fig.3i is for a second-state).
Fig.4 The contour plot of the two-body densities $\rho _{2}({\bf r,r}_{2}%
{\bf )}$ as a function of ${\bf r}$. The given ${\bf r}_{2}$ is marked by a white spot. The lighter region has a larger $\rho _{2}$ .
Fig.5 The contour plot of the three-body densities $\rho _{3}(%
{\bf r,r}_{2},{\bf r}_{3})$ as a function of ${\bf r}$. The given ${\bf r}%
_{2}$ and ${\bf r}_{3}$ are marked by two white spots. Refer to Fig.4.
|
---
abstract: 'Federated learning enables a large amount of edge computing devices to jointly learn a model without data sharing. As a leading algorithm in this setting, Federated Averaging (`FedAvg`) runs Stochastic Gradient Descent (SGD) in parallel on a small subset of the total devices and averages the sequences only once in a while. Despite its simplicity, it lacks theoretical guarantees under realistic settings. In this paper, we analyze the convergence of `FedAvg` on non-iid data and establish a convergence rate of $\mathcal{O}(\frac{1}{T})$ for strongly convex and smooth problems, where $T$ is the number of SGDs. Importantly, our bound demonstrates a trade-off between communication-efficiency and convergence rate. As user devices may be disconnected from the server, we relax the assumption of full device participation to partial device participation and study different averaging schemes; low device participation rate can be achieved without severely slowing down the learning. Our results indicates that heterogeneity of data slows down the convergence, which matches empirical observations. Furthermore, we provide a necessary condition for `FedAvg` on non-iid data: the learning rate $\eta$ must decay, even if full-gradient is used; otherwise, the solution will be $\Omega (\eta)$ away from the optimal.'
author:
- |
Xiang Li[^1]\
School of Mathematical Sciences\
Peking University\
Beijing, 100871, China\
`smslixiang@pku.edu.cn`\
Kaixuan Huang[$^*$]{}\
School of Mathematical Sciences\
Peking University\
Beijing, 100871, China\
`hackyhuang@pku.edu.cn`\
Wenhao Yang[$^*$]{}\
Center for Data Science\
Peking University\
Beijing, 100871, China\
`yangwenhaosms@pku.edu.cn`\
Shusen Wang\
Department of Computer Science\
Stevens Institute of Technology\
Hoboken, NJ 07030, USA\
`shusen.wang@stevens.edu`\
Zhihua Zhang\
School of Mathematical Sciences\
Peking University\
Beijing, 100871, China\
`zhzhang@math.pku.edu.cn`
bibliography:
- 'refer.bib'
title: 'On the Convergence of FedAvg on Non-IID Data'
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Federated Learning (FL), also known as federated optimization, allows multiple parties to collaboratively train a model without data sharing [@konevcny2015federated; @shokri2015privacy; @mcmahan2016communication; @konevcny2017stochastic; @sahu2018convergence; @zhuo2019federated]. Similar to the centralized parallel optimization [@jakovetic2013distributed; @li2014scaling; @li2014communication; @shamir2014communication; @zhang2015disco; @meng2016mllib; @reddi2016aide; @richtarik2016distributed; @smith2016cocoa; @zheng2016general; @wang2018giant], FL let the user devices (aka worker nodes) perform most of the computation and a central parameter server update the model parameters using the descending directions returned by the user devices. Nevertheless, FL has three unique characters that distinguish it from the standard parallel optimization [@li2019federated].
First, the training data are [massively distributed]{} over an incredibly large number of devices, and the connection between the central server and a device is slow. A direct consequence is the slow communication, which motivated communication-efficient FL algorithms [@mcmahan2016communication; @smith2017federated; @sahu2018convergence; @sattler2019robust]. Federated averaging (`FedAvg`) is the first and perhaps the most widely used FL algorithm. It runs $E$ steps of SGD in parallel on a small sampled subset of devices and then averages the resulting model updates via a central server once in a while.[^2] In comparison with SGD and its variants, `FedAvg` performs more local computation and less communication.
Second, unlike the traditional distributed learning systems, the FL system does not have control over users’ devices. For example, when a mobile phone is turned off or WiFi access is unavailable, the central server will lose connection to this device. When this happens during training, such a non-responding/inactive device, which is called a straggler, appears tremendously slower than the other devices. Unfortunately, since it has no control over the devices, the system can do nothing but waiting or ignoring the stragglers. Waiting for all the devices’ response is obviously infeasible; it is thus impractical to require all the devices be active.
Third, the training data are non-iid[^3], that is, a device’s local data cannot be regarded as samples drawn from the overall distribution. The data available locally fail to represent the overall distribution. This does not only bring challenges to algorithm design but also make theoretical analysis much harder. While `FedAvg` actually works when the data are non-iid [@mcmahan2016communication], `FedAvg` on non-iid data lacks theoretical guarantee even in convex optimization setting.
There have been much efforts developing convergence guarantees for FL algorithm based on the assumptions that (1) the data are iid and (2) all the devices are active. @khaled2019first [@yu2018parallel; @wang2019adaptive] made the latter assumption, while @zhou2017convergence [@stich2018local; @wang2018cooperative; @woodworth2018graph] made both assumptions. The two assumptions violates the second and third characters of FL. Previous algorithm `Fedprox` [@sahu2018convergence] doesn’t require the two mentioned assumptions and incorporates `FedAvg` as a special case when the added proximal term vanishes. However, their theory fails to cover `FedAvg`.
#### Notation.
Let $N$ be the total number of user devices and $K$ ($\leq N$) be the maximal number of devices that participate in every round’s communication. Let $T$ be the total number of every device’s SGDs, $E$ be the number of local iterations performed in a device between two communications, and thus $\frac{T}{E}$ is the number of communications.
#### Contributions.
For strongly convex and smooth problems, we establish a convergence guarantee for `FedAvg` without making the two impractical assumptions: (1) the data are iid, and (2) all the devices are active. To the best of our knowledge, this work is the first to show the convergence rate of `FedAvg` without making the two assumptions.
We show in Theorem \[thm:full\], \[thm:w\_replace\], and \[thm:wo\_replace\] that `FedAvg` has $\OM (\frac{1}{T})$ convergence rate. In particular, Theorem \[thm:wo\_replace\] shows that to attain a fixed precision $\epsilon$, the number of communications is $$\frac{T}{E}
\: = \:
\OM \left[ \frac{1}{\epsilon} \Bigg( \left(1+\frac{1}{K}\right) EG^2 + \frac{\myave ^2\sigma_k^2 + \Gamma + G^2}{E} + G^2 \Bigg)\right].$$ Here, $G$, $\Gamma$, $p_k$, and $\sigma_k$ are problem-related constants defined in Section \[sec:convergence:notation\]. The most interesting insight is that $E$ is a knob controlling the convergence rate: neither setting $E$ over-small ($E=1$ makes `FedAvg` equivalent to SGD) nor setting $E$ over-large is good for the convergence.
This work also makes algorithmic contributions. We summarize the existing sampling[^4] and averaging schemes for `FedAvg` (which do not have convergence bounds before this work) and propose a new scheme (see Table \[tab:conv\]). We point out that a suitable sampling and averaging scheme is crucial for the convergence of `FedAvg`. To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to theoretically demonstrate that `FedAvg` with certain schemes (see Table \[tab:conv\]) can achieve $\OM(\frac{1}{T})$ convergence rate in non-iid federated setting. We show that heterogeneity of training data and partial device participation slow down the convergence. We empirically verify our results through numerical experiments.
Our theoretical analysis requires the decay of learning rate (which is known to hinder the convergence rate.) Unfortunately, we show in Theorem \[thm:failure\] that the decay of learning rate is necessary for `FedAvg` with $E>1$, even if full gradient descent is used.[^5] If the learning rate is fixed to $\eta$ throughout, `FedAvg` would converge to a solution at least $\Omega (\eta (E-1))$ away from the optimal. To establish Theorem \[thm:failure\], we construct a specific $\ell_2$-norm regularized linear regression model which satisfies our strong convexity and smoothness assumptions.
Paper Sampling Averaging Convergence rate
--------------------------- ------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------
@mcmahan2016communication $\SM_t \sim \mathcal{U}(N,K) $ $ \sum_{k\notin \SM_t} p_k \w_t + \sum_{k \in \SM_t} p_k \w_t^k $ -
@sahu2018convergence $\SM_t \sim \mathcal{W}(N,K,\mathbf{p})$ $\frac{1}{K}\sum_{k\in \SM_t} \w_t^k$ $\OM(\frac{1}{T})$
Ours $\SM_t \sim \mathcal{U}(N,K) $ $\sum_{k \in \SM_t} p_k \frac{N}{K} \w_t^k$ $\OM(\frac{1}{T})$
: Sampling and averaging schemes for `FedAvg`. $\SM_t \sim \mathcal{U}(N,K)$ means $\SM_t$ is a size-$K$ subset uniformly sampled **without replacement** from $[N]$. $\SM_t \sim \mathcal{W}(N,K,\mathbf{p})$ means $\SM_t$ contains $K$ elements that are iid sampled **with replacement** from $[N]$ with probabilities $\{p_k\}$. In the latter scheme, $\SM_t$ is not a set. []{data-label="tab:conv"}
#### Paper organization.
In Section \[sec:alg\], we elaborate on `FedAvg`. In Section \[sec:convergence\], we present our main convergence bounds for `FedAvg`. In Section \[sec:example\], we construct a special example to show the necessity of learning rate decay. In Section \[sec:related\], we discuss and compare with prior work. In Section \[sec:experiment\], we conduct empirical study to verify our theories. All the proofs are left to the appendix.
Federated Averaging (`FedAvg`) {#sec:alg}
==============================
#### Problem formulation.
In this work, we consider the following distributed optimization model: $$\label{eq:loss}
\min_{\w} \;
\Big\{ F (\w ) \, \triangleq \,
\sum_{k=1}^N \, p_k F_k(\w) \Big\},$$ where $N$ is the number of devices, and $p_k$ is the weight of the $k$-th device such that $p_k \ge 0$ and $\sum_{k=1}^N p_k = 1$. Suppose the $k$-th device holds the $n_k$ training data: $x_{k, 1}, x_{k, 2}, \cdots , x_{k, n_k}$. The local objective $F_k (\cdot)$ is defined by $$\label{eq:local-f}
F_k (\w) \triangleq \frac{1}{n_k} \sum_{j=1}^{n_k}\ell(\w; x_{k, j}),$$ where $\ell (\cdot ; \cdot)$ is a user-specified loss function.
#### Algorithm description.
Here, we describe one around (say the $t$-th) of the *standard* `FedAvg` algorithm. First, the central server **broadcasts** the latest model, $\w_t$, to all the devices. Second, every device (say the $k$-th) lets $\w_t^k = \w_t$ and then performs $E$ ($\geq 1$) **local updates**: $$\w_{t+i+1}^k \: \longleftarrow \: \w_{t+i}^k - \eta_{t+i} \nabla F_k(\w_{t+i}^k, \xi_{t+i}^k) , i=0,1,\cdots,E-1$$ where $\eta_{t+i}$ is the learning rate (a.k.a. step size) and $\xi_{t+i}^k$ is a sample uniformly chosen from the local data. Last, the server **aggregates** the local models, $\w_{t+E}^1 , \cdots, \w_{t+E}^N$, to produce the new global model, $\w_{t+E}$. Because of the non-iid and partial device participation issues, the aggregation step can vary.
#### IID versus non-iid.
Suppose the data in the $k$-th device are i.i.d. sampled from the distribution $\DM_k$. Then the overall distribution is a mixture of all local data distributions: $\DM = \sum_{k=1}^N p_k \DM_k$. The prior work [@zhang2015deep; @zhou2017convergence; @stich2018local; @wang2018cooperative; @woodworth2018graph] assumes the data are iid generated by or partitioned among the $N$ devices, that is, $\DM_k = \DM$ for all $k \in [N]$. However, real-world applications do not typically satisfy the iid assumption. One of our theoretical contributions is avoiding making the iid assumption.
#### Full device participation.
The prior work [@coppola2015iterative; @zhou2017convergence; @stich2018local; @yu2018parallel; @wang2018cooperative; @wang2019adaptive] requires the [full device participation]{} in the aggregation step of `FedAvg`. In this case, the aggregation step performs $$\w_{t+E} \: \longleftarrow \: \sum_{k=1}^N p_k \, \w_{t+E}^k .$$ Unfortunately, the full device participation requirement suffers from serious “straggler’s effect” (which means everyone waits for the slowest) in real-world applications. For example, if there are thousands of users’ devices in the FL system, there are always a small portion of devices offline. Full device participation means the central server must wait for these “stragglers”, which is obviously unrealistic.
#### Partial device participation.
This strategy is much more realistic because it does not require all the devices’ output. We can set a threshold $K$ ($1\leq K < N$) and let the central server collect the outputs of the first $K$ responded devices. After collecting $K$ outputs, the server stops waiting for the rest; the $K+1$-th to $N$-th devices are regarded stragglers in this iteration. Let $\SM_t$ ($| \SM_t | = K$) be the set of the indices of the first $K$ responded devices in the $t$-th iteration. The aggregation step performs $$\w_{t+E} \: \longleftarrow \: \frac{N}{K} \sum_{k\in \SM_t } p_k \, \w_{t+E}^k .$$ It can be proved that $\frac{N}{K} \sum_{k\in \SM_t } p_k $ equals one in expectation.
#### Communication cost.
The `FedAvg` requires two rounds communications— one broadcast and one aggregation— per $E$ iterations. If $T$ iterations are performed totally, then the number of communications is $\lfloor \frac{2T}{E} \rfloor$. During the broadcast, the central server sends $\w_t$ to all the devices. During the aggregation, all or part of the $N$ devices sends its output, say $\w_{t+E}^k$, to the server.
Convergence Analysis of `FedAvg` in Non-iid Setting {#sec:convergence}
===================================================
In this section, we show that `FedAvg` converges to the global optimum at a rate of $\OM(1/T)$ for strongly convex and smooth functions and non-iid data. The main observation is that when the learning rate is sufficiently small, the effect of $E$ steps of local updates is similar to one step update with a larger learning rate. This coupled with appropriate sampling and averaging schemes would make each global update behave like an SGD update. Partial device participation ($K < N$) only makes the averaged sequence $\{\w_t\}$ have a larger variance, which, however, can be controlled by learning rates. These imply the convergence property of `FedAvg` should not differ too much from SGD. Next, we will first give the convergence result with full device participation (i.e., $K=N$) and then extend this result to partial device participation (i.e., $K<N$).
Notation and Assumptions {#sec:convergence:notation}
------------------------
We make the following assumptions on the functions $F_1, \cdots , F_N$. Assumption \[asm:smooth\] and \[asm:strong\_cvx\] are standard; typical examples are the $\ell_2$-norm regularized linear regression, logistic regression, and softmax classifier.
\[asm:smooth\] $F_1, \cdots, F_N$ are all $L$-smooth: for all $\v$ and $\w$, $F_k(\v) \leq F_k(\w) + (\v - \w)^T \nabla F_k(\w) + \frac{L}{2} \| \v - \w\|_2^2$.
\[asm:strong\_cvx\] $F_1, \cdots, F_N$ are all $\mu$-strongly convex: for all $\v$ and $\w$, $F_k(\v) \geq F_k(\w) + (\v - \w)^T \nabla F_k(\w) + \frac{\mu }{2} \| \v - \w\|_2^2$.
Assumptions \[asm:sgd\_var\] and \[asm:sgd\_norm\] have been made by the works [@zhang2013communication; @stich2018local; @stich2018sparsified; @yu2018parallel].
\[asm:sgd\_var\] Let $\xi_t^k$ be sampled from the $k$-th device’s local data uniformly at random. The variance of stochastic gradients in each device is bounded: $\EB \left\| \nabla F_k(\w_t^k,\xi_t^k) - \nabla F_k(\w_t^k) \right\|^2 \le \sigma_k^2$ for $k=1,\cdots,N$.
\[asm:sgd\_norm\] The expected squared norm of stochastic gradients is uniformly bounded, i.e., $\EB \left\| \nabla F_k(\w_t^k,\xi_t^k) \right\|^2 \le G^2$ for all $k=1,\cdots,N$ and $t=1,\cdots, T-1$
#### Quantifying the degree of non-iid (heterogeneity).
Let $F^*$ and $F_k^*$ be the minimum values of $F$ and $F_k$, respectively. We use the term $\Gamma = F^* - \myave F_k^*$ for quantifying the degree of non-iid. If the data are iid, then $\Gamma$ obviously goes to zero as the number of samples grows. If the data are non-iid, then $\Gamma$ is nonzero, and its magnitude reflects the heterogeneity of the data distribution.
Convergence Result: Full Device Participation {#subsec:convres_full}
---------------------------------------------
Here we analyze the case that all the devices participate in the aggregation step; see Section \[sec:alg\] for the algorithm description. Let the `FedAvg` algorithm terminate after $T$ iterations and return $\w_T$ as the solution. We always require $T$ is evenly divisible by $E$ so that `FedAvg` can output $\w_T$ as expected.
\[thm:full\] Let Assumptions \[asm:smooth\] to \[asm:sgd\_norm\] hold and $L, \mu, \sigma_k, G$ be defined therein. Choose $\kappa = \frac{L}{\mu}$, $\gamma = \max\{8\kappa, E\}$ and the learning rate $\eta_t = \frac{2}{\mu (\gamma+t)}$. Then $\texttt{FedAvg}$ with [full device participation]{} satisfies $$\label{eq:bound_K=N}
\EB \left[ F(\w_T)\right] - F^*
\: \leq \:
\frac{\kappa}{\gamma +T-1} \left( \frac{2B}{\mu} + \frac{\mu \gamma}{2} \EB \|\w_1 - \w^*\|^2 \right),$$ where $$\label{eq:bound_B}
B = \sum_{k=1}^N p_k^2 \sigma_k^2 + 6L \Gamma + 8 (E-1)^2G^2.$$
Convergence Result: Partial Device Participation {#subsec:conv_partial}
------------------------------------------------
As discussed in Section \[sec:alg\], partial device participation has more practical interest than full device participation. Let the set $\SM_t$ ($\subset [N]$) index the active devices in the $t$-th iteration. To establish the convergence bound, we need to make assumptions on $\SM_t$.
Assumption \[asm:w\_replace\] assumes the $K$ indices are selected from the distribution $p_k$ independently and with replacement. The aggregation step is simply averaging. This is first proposed in [@sahu2018convergence], but they did not provide theoretical analysis.
\[Scheme I\] \[asm:w\_replace\] Assume $\SM_t$ contains a subset of $K$ indices randomly selected [with replacement]{} according to the sampling probabilities $p_1, \cdots , p_N$. The aggregation step of `FedAvg` performs $\w_{t} \longleftarrow \frac{1}{K} \sum_{k\in \SM_t } \w_{t}^k $.
\[thm:w\_replace\] Let Assumptions \[asm:smooth\] to \[asm:sgd\_norm\] hold and $L, \mu, \sigma_k, G$ be defined therein. Let $\kappa, \gamma$, $\eta_t$, and $B$ be defined in Theorem \[thm:full\]. Let Assumption \[asm:w\_replace\] hold and define $C = \frac{4}{K} E^2G^2$. Then $$\label{eq:bound_K<N}
\EB \left[ F(\w_T)\right] - F^*
\: \leq \:
\frac{\kappa}{\gamma +T - 1} \left( \frac{2(B+C)}{\mu} + \frac{\mu \gamma}{2} \EB \|\w_1 - \w^*\|^2 \right),$$
Alternatively, we can select $K$ indices from $[N]$ uniformly at random without replacement. As a consequence, we need a different aggregation strategy. Assumption \[asm:wo\_replace\] assumes the $K$ indices are selected uniformly without replacement and the aggregation step is the same as in Section \[sec:alg\]. However, to guarantee convergence, we require an additional assumption of balanced data.
\[asm:wo\_replace\] Assume $\SM_t$ contains a subset of $K$ indices uniformly sampled from $[N]$ [without replacement]{}. Assume the data is balanced in the sense that $p_1 = \cdots = p_N = \frac{1}{N}$. The aggregation step of `FedAvg` performs $\w_{t} \longleftarrow \frac{N}{K} \sum_{k\in \SM_t } p_k \, \w_{t}^k $.
\[thm:wo\_replace\] Replace Assumption \[asm:w\_replace\] by Assumption \[asm:wo\_replace\] and $C$ by $C = \frac{N-K}{N-1} \frac{4}{K} E^2G^2$. Then the same bound in Theorem \[thm:w\_replace\] holds.
Scheme II requires $p_1 = \cdots = p_N = \frac{1}{N}$ which obviously violates the unbalance nature of FL. Fortunately, this can be addressed by the following transformation. Let $\widetilde{F}_k(\w)= p_kNF_k(\w)$ be a scaled local objective $F_k$. Then the global objective becomes a simple average of all scaled local objectives: $$F(\w)
\: = \: \sum_{k=1}^N p_k {F}_k(\w)
\: = \: \frac{1}{N} \sum_{k=1}^N \widetilde{F}_k(\w) .$$ Theorem \[thm:wo\_replace\] still holds if $L, \mu, \sigma_k, G$ are replaced by $\widetilde{L} \triangleq \nu L$, $\widetilde{\mu} \triangleq \varsigma \mu$, $\widetilde{\sigma}_k = \sqrt{\nu} \sigma$, and $\widetilde{G} = \sqrt{\nu} G$, respectively. Here, $\nu = N \cdot \max_{k}p_k$ and $ \varsigma = N \cdot \min_{k} p_k $.
Discussions
-----------
#### Choice of $E$.
Since $\| \w_0 - \w^* \|^2 \le \frac{4}{\mu^2} G^2$ for $\mu$-strongly convex $F$, the dominating term in is $$\label{eq:bound_dom}
\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{\sum _{k=1}^N p_k^2 \sigma_k^2 + L \Gamma + \left(1+\frac{1}{K}\right)E^2G^2 + \gamma G^2}{\mu T}\right).$$ Let $T_\epsilon$ denote the number of required steps for `FedAvg` to achieve an $\epsilon$ accuracy. It follows from that the number of required communication rounds is roughly[^6] $$\label{eq:communication_round}
\frac{T_\epsilon}{E}
\: \propto \: \left(1+\frac{1}{K}\right)EG^2 + \frac{\myave ^2\sigma_k^2 + L \Gamma + \kappa G^2}{E} + G^2 .$$ Thus, $\frac{T_\epsilon}{E}$ is a function of $E$ that first decreases and then increases, which implies that over-small or over-large $E$ may lead to high communication cost and that the optimal $E$ exists.
@stich2018local showed that if the data are iid, then $E$ can be set to $\OM (\sqrt{T} )$. However, this setting does not work if the data are non-iid. Theorem \[thm:full\] implies that $E$ must not exceed $\Omega (\sqrt{T})$; otherwise, convergence is not guaranteed. Here we give an intuitive explanation. If $E$ is set big, then $\w_t^k$ can converge to the minimizer of $F_k$, and thus `FedAvg` becomes the one-shot average [@zhang2013communication] of the local solutions. If the data are non-iid, the one-shot averaging does not work because weighted average of the minimizers of $F_1, \cdots , F_N$ can be very different from the minimizer of $F$.
#### Choice of $K$.
@stich2018local showed that if the data are iid, the convergence rate improves substantially as $K$ increases. However, under the non-iid setting, the convergence rate has a weak dependence on $K$, as we show in Theorems \[thm:w\_replace\] and \[thm:wo\_replace\]. This implies `FedAvg` is unable to achieve linear speedup. We have empirically observed this phenomenon (see Section \[sec:experiment\]). Thus, in practice, the participation ratio $\frac{K}{N}$ can be set small to alleviate the straggler’s effect without affecting the convergence rate.
#### Choice of sampling schemes.
We considered two sampling and averaging schemes in Theorems \[thm:w\_replace\] and \[thm:wo\_replace\]. Scheme I selects $K$ devices according to the probabilities $p_1, \cdots, p_N$ with replacement. The non-uniform sampling results in faster convergence than uniform sampling, especially when $p_1, \cdots, p_N$ are highly non-uniform. If the system can choose to activate any of the $N$ devices at any time, then Scheme I should be used.
However, oftentimes the system has no control over the sampling; instead, the server simply uses the first $K$ returned results for the update. In this case, we can assume the $K$ devices are uniformly sampled from all the $N$ devices and use Theorem \[thm:wo\_replace\] to guarantee the convergence. If $p_1, \cdots, p_N$ are highly non-uniform, then $\nu = N \cdot \max_{k}p_k$ is big and $ \varsigma = N \cdot \min_{k} p_k $ is small, which makes the convergence of `FedAvg` slow. This point of view is empirically verified in our experiments.
Necessity of Learning Rate Decay {#sec:example}
================================
In this section, we point out that diminishing learning rates are crucial for the convergence of `FedAvg` in the non-iid setting. Specifically, we establish the following theorem by constructing a ridge regression model (which is strongly convex and smooth).
\[thm:failure\] We artificially construct a strongly convex and smooth distributed optimization problem. With full batch size, $E>1$, and any [*fixed*]{} step size, `FedAvg` will converge to sub-optimal points. Specifically, let $\tilde{\w}^*$ be the solution produced by `FedAvg` with a small enough and constant $\eta$, and $\w^*$ the optimal solution. Then we have $$\|\tilde{\w}^* - \w^* \|_2 = \Omega ( (E-1)\eta ) \cdot \| \w^* \|_2.$$ where we hide some problem dependent constants.
Theorem \[thm:failure\] and its proof provide several implications. First, the decay of learning rate is necessary of `FedAvg`. On the one hand, Theorem \[thm:full\] shows with $E>1$ and a decaying learning rate, `FedAvg` converges to the optimum. On the other hand, Theorem \[thm:failure\] shows that with $E>1$ and any fixed learning rate, `FedAvg` does not converges to the optimum.
Second, `FedAvg` behaves very differently from gradient descent. Note that `FedAvg` with $E=1$ and full batch size is exactly the `Full Gradient Descent`; with a proper and fixed learning rate, its global convergence to the optimum is guaranteed [@nesterov2013introductory]. However, Theorem \[thm:failure\] shows that `FedAvg` with $E>1$ and full batch size cannot possibly converge to the optimum. This conclusion doesn’t contradict with Theorem 1 in [@khaled2019first], which, when translated into our case, asserts that $\tilde{\w}^*$ will locate in the neighborhood of $\w^*$ with a constant learning rate.
Third, Theorem \[thm:failure\] shows the requirement of learning rate decay is not an artifact of our analysis; instead, it is inherently required by `FedAvg`. An explanation is that constant learning rates, combined with $E$ steps of possibly-biased local updates, form a sub-optimal update scheme, but a diminishing learning rate can gradually eliminate such bias.
The efficiency of `FedAvg` principally results from the fact that it performs several update steps on a local model before communicating with other workers, which saves communication. Diminishing step sizes often hinders fast convergence, which may counteract the benefit of performing multiple local updates. Theorem \[thm:failure\] motivates more efficient alternatives to `FedAvg`.
Related Work {#sec:related}
============
Federated learning (FL) was first proposed by [@mcmahan2016communication] for collaboratively learning a model without collecting users’ data. The research work on FL is focused on the communication-efficiency [@konevcny2016federated; @mcmahan2016communication; @sahu2018convergence; @smith2017federated] and data privacy [@bagdasaryan2018backdoor; @bonawitz2017practical; @geyer2017differentially; @hitaj2017deep; @melisexploiting]. This work is focused on the communication-efficiency issue.
`FedAvg`, a synchronous distributed optimization algorithm, was proposed by [@mcmahan2016communication] as an effective heuristic. @sattler2019robust [@zhao2018federated] studied the non-iid setting, however, they do not have convergence rate. A contemporaneous and independent work [@xie2019asynchronous] analyzed asynchronous `FedAvg`; while they did not require iid data, their bound do not guarantee convergence to saddle point or local minimum. @sahu2018convergence proposed a federated optimization framework called `FedProx` to deal with statistical heterogeneity and provided the convergence guarantees in non-iid setting. `FedProx` adds a proximal term to each local objective. When these proximal terms vanish, `FedProx` is reduced to `FedAvg`. However, their convergence theory requires the proximal terms always exist and hence fails to cover `FedAvg`.
When data are iid distributed and all devices are active, `FedAvg` is referred to as `LocalSGD`. Due to the two assumptions, theoretical analysis of `LocalSGD` is easier than `FedAvg`. @stich2018local demonstrated `LocalSGD` provably achieves the same linear speedup with strictly less communication for strongly-convex stochastic optimization. @coppola2015iterative [@zhou2017convergence; @wang2018cooperative] studied `LocalSGD` in the non-convex setting and established convergence results. @yu2018parallel [@wang2019adaptive] recently analyzed `LocalSGD` for non-convex functions in heterogeneous settings. In particular, @yu2018parallel demonstrated `LocalSGD` also achieves $\mathcal{O}(1/\sqrt{NT})$ convergence (i.e., linear speedup) for non-convex optimization. @lin2018don empirically shows variants of `LocalSGD` increase training efficiency and improve the generalization performance of large batch sizes while reducing communication. For `LocalGD` on non-iid data (as opposed to `LocalSGD`), the best result is by the contemporaneous work (but slightly later than our first version) [@khaled2019first]. @khaled2019first used fixed learning rate $\eta$ and showed $\OM (\frac{1}{T})$ convergence to a point $\OM (\eta^2 E^2)$ away from the optimal. In fact, the suboptimality is due to their fixed learning rate. As we show in Theorem \[thm:failure\], using a fixed learning rate $\eta$ throughout, the solution by `LocalGD` is at least $\Omega ((E-1) \eta)$ away from the optimal.
If the data are iid, distributed optimization can be efficiently solved by the second-order algorithms [@mahajan2018efficient; @reddi2016aide; @shamir2014communication; @wang2018giant; @zhang2015disco] and the one-shot methods [@lee2017communication; @lin2017distributed; @wang2019sharper; @zhang2013communication; @zhang2015divide]. The primal-dual algorithms [@hong2018gradient; @smith2016cocoa; @smith2017federated] are more generally applicable and more relevant to FL.
Numerical Experiments {#sec:experiment}
=====================
#### Models and datasets
We examine our theoretical results on a logistic regression with weight decay $\lambda=1e-4$. This is a stochastic convex optimization problem. We distribute MNIST dataset [@lecun1998gradient] among $N=100$ workers in a non-iid fashion such that each device contains samples of only two digits. We further obtain two datasets: `mnist balanced` and `mnist unbalanced`. The former is balanced such that the number of samples in each device is the same, while the latter is highly unbalanced with the number of samples among devices following a power law. To manipulate heterogeneity more precisly, we synthesize unbalanced datasets following the setup in @sahu2018convergence and denote it as `synthetic(\alpha, \beta)` where $\alpha$ controls how much local models differ from each other and $\beta$ controls how much the local data at each device differs from that of other devices. We obtain two datasets: `synthetic(0,0)` and `synthetic(1,1)`. Details can be found in Appendix \[sec:appen:exp\].
\
#### Experiment settings
For all experiments, we initialize all runnings with $\w_0 = 0$. In each round, all selected devices run $E$ steps of SGD in parallel. We decay the learning rate at the end of each round by the following scheme $\eta_t = \frac{\eta_0}{1+t}$, where $\eta_0$ is chosen from the set $\{1, 0.1, 0.01\}$. We evaluate the averaged model after each global synchronization on the corresponding global objective. For fair comparison, we control all randomness in experiments so that the set of activated devices is the same across all different algorithms on one configuration.
#### Impact of $E$
We expect that $T_\epsilon/E$, the required communication round to achieve curtain accuracy, is a hyperbolic finction of $E$ as equ (\[eq:communication\_round\]) indicates. Intuitively, a small $E$ means a heavy communication burden, while a large $E$ means a low convergence rate. One needs to trade off between communication efficiency and fast convergence. We empirically observe this phenomenon on unbalanced datasets in Figure \[fig:test\_figure\_a\]. The reason why the phenomenon does not appear in `mnist balanced` dataset requires future investigations.
#### Impact of $K$
Our theory suggests that a larger $K$ may slightly accelerate convergence since $T_\epsilon/E $ contains a term $\mathcal{O}\left( \frac{EG^2}{K}\right)$. Figure \[fig:test\_figure\_b\] shows that $K$ has limited influence on the convergence of `FedAvg` in `synthetic(0,0)` dataset. It reveals that the curve of a large enough $K$ is slightly better. We observe similar phenomenon among the other three datasets and attach additional results in Appendix \[sec:appen:exp\]. This justifies that when the variance resulting sampling is not too large (i.e., $B \gg C$), one can use a small number of devices without severely harming the training process, which also removes the need to sample as many devices as possible in convex federated optimization.
#### Effect of sampling and averaging schemes.
We compare four schemes among four federated datasets. Since the original scheme involves a history term and may be conservative, we carefully set the initial learning rate for it. Figure \[fig:test\_figure\_c\] indicates that when data are balanced, Schemes I and II achieve nearly the same performance, both better than the original scheme. Figure \[fig:test\_figure\_d\] shows that when the data are unbalanced, i.e., $p_k$’s are uneven, Scheme I performs the best. Scheme II suffers from some instability in this case. This is not contradictory with our theory since we don’t guarantee the convergence of Scheme II when data is unbalanced. As expected, transformed Scheme II performs stably at the price of a lower convergence rate. Compared to Scheme I, the original scheme converges at a slower speed even if its learning rate is fine tuned. All the results show the crucial position of appropriate sampling and averaging schemes for `FedAvg`.
Conclusion
==========
Federated learning becomes increasingly popular in machine learning and optimization communities. In this paper we have studied the convergence of `FedAvg`, a heuristic algorithm suitable for federated setting. We have investigated the influence of sampling and averaging schemes. We have provided theoretical guarantees for two schemes and empirically demonstrated their performances. Our work sheds light on theoretical understanding of `FedAvg` and provides insights for algorithm design in realistic applications. Though our analyses are constrained in convex problems, we hope our insights and proof techniques can inspire future work.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
Li, Yang and Zhang have been supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 11771002 and 61572017), Beijing Natural Science Foundation (Z190001), the Key Project of MOST of China (No. 2018AAA0101000), and Beijing Academy of Artificial Intelligence (BAAI).
[^1]: Equal contribution.
[^2]: In original paper [@mcmahan2016communication], $E$ epochs of SGD are performed in parallel. For theoretical analyses, we denote by $E$ the times of updates rather than epochs.
[^3]: Throughout this paper, “non-iid” means data are not identically distributed. More precisely, the data distributions in the $k$-th and $l$-th devices, denote $D_k$ and $D_l$, can be different.
[^4]: Throughout this paper, “sampling” refers to how the server chooses $K$ user devices and use their outputs for updating the model parameters. “Sampling” does not mean how a device randomly selects training samples.
[^5]: It is well know that the full gradient descent (which is equivalent to `FedAvg` with $E=1$ and full batch) do not require the decay of learning rate.
[^6]: Here we use $\gamma = \OM(\kappa + E)$.
|
---
abstract: 'The unprecedented range of second-generation gravitational-wave (GW) observatories calls for refining the predictions of potential sources and detection rates. The coalescence of double compact objects (DCOs)—i.e., neutron star-neutron star (NS-NS), black hole-neutron star (BH-NS), and black hole-black hole (BH-BH) binary systems—is the most promising source of GWs for these detectors. We compute detection rates of coalescing DCOs in second-generation GW detectors using the latest models for their cosmological evolution, and implementing inspiral-merger-ringdown (IMR) gravitational waveform models in our signal-to-noise ratio calculations. We find that: (1) the inclusion of the merger/ringdown portion of the signal does not significantly affect rates for NS-NS and BH-NS systems, but it boosts rates by a factor $\sim 1.5$ for BH-BH systems; (2) in almost all of our models BH-BH systems yield by far the largest rates, followed by NS-NS and BH-NS systems, respectively, and (3) a majority of the detectable BH-BH systems were formed in the early Universe in low-metallicity environments. We make predictions for the distributions of detected binaries and discuss what the first GW detections will teach us about the astrophysics underlying binary formation and evolution.'
author:
- 'Michal Dominik, Emanuele Berti, Richard O’Shaughnessy, Ilya Mandel, Krzysztof Belczynski, Christopher Fryer, Daniel E. Holz, Tomasz Bulik, Francesco Pannarale'
bibliography:
- 'b1.bib'
title: 'Double compact objects III: Gravitational-wave detection rates'
---
Introduction
============
Nearly a century has passed since Albert Einstein wrote down the field equations of general relativity. A crucial prediction of his theory is the existence of GWs. Observations of the Hulse-Taylor binary pulsar [@Taylor:1989] and the double pulsar J0737-3039 [@Lyne:2004] leave little doubt of the existence of GWs, with further evidence provided by the recent claim of a detection of a GW-induced B-mode polarization of the cosmic microwave background [@2014arXiv1403.3985B]. However, GWs still elude direct observation. The situation should change in the next few years, when a network of second-generation GW observatories – including Advanced LIGO (Harry, [-@AdvLIGO], henceforth aLIGO), Advanced Virgo [@AdvVirgo henceforth AdV], and KAGRA [@KAGRA] – will start taking data. The unprecedented sensitivity of these observatories will allow them to observe the inspiral and merger of DCOs out to cosmological distances: for example, aLIGO should observe binary neutron stars out to a luminosity distance of $\simeq 450 {\, {\rm Mpc}}$ ($z \sim 0.1$), while DCOs containing BHs will be observable to much larger distances [e.g., @2010CQGra..27q3001A]. Given the cosmological reach of second-generation GW interferometers, a theoretical investigation of the observable DCO populations which incorporates cosmological evolution and accurate models of the gravitational waveforms is particularly timely. This is the goal of this paper, the third in a series [cf. @dominik; @dominik2]. Our work builds on the results presented in the second paper [@dominik2 henceforth Paper 2], where we presented the cosmological distribution of DCOs for a set of four evolutionary models. These models investigated a range of Hertzsprung gap (HG) common envelope (CE) donors, supernova (SN) explosion engines, and BH natal kicks, showing distinct differences in the properties of the resulting DCO populations. Population models were placed in a cosmological context by adopting the star formation history reported in [@strolger] and the galaxy mass distribution of [@fontana], both of which are redshift-dependent. We performed all calculations assuming two scenarios for metallicity evolution, meant to bracket the uncertainties associated with the chemical composition of the Universe. Binary evolution was performed using the [StarTrack]{} population synthesis code [@startrack]. In this work we complete and extend the analysis of Paper 2. We study the detection rates and the expected physical properties of coalescing DCOs at cosmological distances for second-generation GW observatories. The rates are calculated for different sets of gravitational waveform models and different detector sensitivities, representative of aLIGO, AdV, and KAGRA. Several different groups have presented similar estimates and studies in the past decade [e.g., @lipunov1997; @bethe; @dedonder; @bloom; @grishchuk:2001; @nele2001; @voss; @dewi; @nutzman; @pfahl; @danny; @PostnovYungelson:2006; @seba; @mennekens]. However, none have combined cosmological DCO populations with accurate GW models to obtain thorough, detector-specific results. Our astrophysical models for DCO formation are reviewed in Section \[binevol\]. Gravitational waveform models and signal-to-noise ratio estimates are discussed in Section \[wmodels\]. Our procedure to compute event rates is presented in Section \[sec:fullrates\]. Event rates and bulk properties of the detected populations are presented in Section \[sec:results\]. In Section \[sec:nobhbh\] we present and discuss the study by [@mennekens], the primary result of which is the lack of detectable BH-BH systems. In Section \[sec:conclusions\] we discuss the possible astrophysical payoff of the first GW detections and important directions for future work.
Astrophysical models {#binevol}
====================
Binary evolution
----------------
We begin with a summary of the four [StarTrack]{} evolutionary models that form the backbone of this work; a more detailed discussion can be found in [@dominik; @dominik2].
*1) Standard model*. This is our reference model, representing the state of the art in the formation and evolution of binary systems. We consider only field populations here. Rate estimates performed for dense populations in which dynamical interactions between stars are important (i.e., globular clusters and galactic nuclear clusters) have been presented elsewhere [@gultekin; @oleary; @grin2006; @sadowski; @ivan; @downing; @MillerLauburg:2008]. Our Standard model uses the “Nanjing” [@chlambda] $\lambda$ coefficient in the CE energy balance prescription of [@webbink], where the precise value of $\lambda$ depends on the evolutionary stage of the donor, its Zero Age Main Sequence (ZAMS) mass, the mass of its envelope, and its radius. In turn, these quantities depend on metallicity, which in our simulations varies within the broad range $10^{-4}\leq Z \leq 0.03$ (recall that solar metallicity corresponds to $\zsun=0.02$). The values of $\lambda$ for high-mass stars ($M_{ZAMS}>20\msun$) were obtained through private communication with the authors and are not present in [@chlambda].
The impact of the CE outcome on binary populations depends strongly on the evolutionary stage of the donor, as first discussed in [@rarity]. The Standard model does not allow for CE events with HG donors. These stars are not expected to possess a clear core-envelope structure [@ivanovataam], thus making it difficult for them to eject their outer layers during the CE phase. In our Standard model all CE events with HG donors lead to a prompt merger before a DCO binary is formed, regardless of the aforementioned energy balance.
The model employs a Maxwellian distribution of natal kicks for NSs with 1-D root mean square velocity $\sigma=265$ km/s, consistent with NS observations [@hobbs]. The same distribution is extended to BHs, where we allow for the possibility that the kicks may be reduced due to fallback of material during the SN that leads to BH formation. The reduction in BH kicks is described via $$\label{vkick}
V_{\rm k}=V_{\rm max}(1-f_{\rm fb}),$$ where $V_{\rm k}$ is the final magnitude of the natal kick, $V_{\rm max}$ is the velocity drawn from a Maxwellian kick distribution, and $f_{\rm fb}$ is a “fallback factor” that depends on the amount of fallback material, calculated according to the prescription given in [@chrisija]. Our Standard model uses the “Rapid” convection-driven, neutrino-enhanced SN engine [@chrisija]. The SN explosion is sourced from the Rayleigh-Taylor instability and occurs within the first $0.1\,$–$\,0.2\,\mbox{s}$ after the bounce. When used in the context of binary evolution models, this SN engine successfully reproduces the mass gap [@massgap] observed in Galactic X-ray binaries [@mg1; @mg2], but see also [@2012ApJ...757...36K].
*2) Optimistic Common Envelope*. In this model we allow HG stars to be CE donors. When the donor initiates the CE phase, the CE outcome is determined via energy balance. The remaining physics is identical to the Standard model.
*3) Delayed SN*. This model utilizes the “Delayed” SN engine instead of the Rapid one. The former is also a convection driven, neutrino enhanced engine, but is sourced from the standing accretion shock instability (SASI), and can produce an explosion as late as $1\,\mbox{s}$ after bounce. The Delayed engine produces a continuous mass spectrum of compact objects, ranging from NSs through light BHs to massive BHs [@massgap].
*4) High BH kicks*. In this model the BHs receive full natal kicks, i.e. we set $f_{\rm fb}=0$ in Eq. (\[vkick\]). Otherwise this model is identical to the Standard model.
Metallicity evolution {#sec:metallicity}
---------------------
In this paper we employ two distinct metallicity evolution scenarios: “high-end” and “low-end”. These are identical to those in our previous study (Paper 2), and a detailed description can be found therein. Employing such calibrations allows us to explore and bracket uncertainties in the chemical evolution of the Universe. In both cases the average metallicity decreases with increasing redshift.
The high-end metallicity profile is calibrated to yield a median value of metallicity equal to $1.5\,\zsun$ (or $8.9$ in the “12+log(O/H)” formalism) at redshift $z=0$. This calibration was designed to match the upper $1 \sigma$ scatter of metallicities according to [@yuan] (see their Fig. 2, top-right panel).
The low-end metallicity profile is based on SDSS observations [@panter], from which we infer that one half of the star forming mass of galaxies at $z\sim0$ has $20\%$ solar metallicity, while the other half has $150\%$ solar metallicity.
Waveform models {#wmodels}
===============
Order-of-magnitude estimates {#sec:simplerates}
----------------------------
For any given GW detector the “horizon distance”, $D_h$, is defined as the luminosity distance at which an optimally oriented (face-on, overhead) canonical $(1.4+1.4)~M_\odot$ NS-NS binary would be detected at a fiducial threshold signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), taken to be $8$ in this paper. The expectation value of the SNR, $\rho$, of a signal with GW amplitude $h(t)$ is given by \[SNR\] \^2 = 4\_0\^ df, where $\tilde h(f)$ is the Fourier transform of the signal and $S_n(f)$ is the noise power spectral density of the detector [see e.g. @cutlerflanagan; @poissonwill]. The square root of the noise power spectral density is plotted in Fig. \[fig:noise\] for several advanced interferometers of interest. For example, the aLIGO horizon distance is $D_{h} \simeq 450 {\, {\rm Mpc}}$.
Although the sensitivity of a GW detector network depends on the details of the search pipeline and the detector data quality, we follow [@2010CQGra..27q3001A] in considering a single detector with an SNR threshold $\rho \ge 8$ as a proxy for detectability by the network. With this criterion, a simple and common expression to transform the local merger rate to a predicted detection rate $R_D$, given the horizon distance $D_h$ and the merger rate density, ${\cal R}(z)$, evaluated locally (at $z=0$), is: $$\label{eq:LocalUniverseMergerRateFormula}
R_D \simeq \frac{4\pi}{3} D_{h}^3 \langle w^3\rangle \left<(\mc/1.2 M_\odot)^{15/6}\right>{\cal R}(0)
$$ In this expression $\langle w^3\rangle^{-1/3}\simeq 2.264$ is a purely geometrical and SNR-threshold-independent factor commonly used to relate sky location- and orientation-averaged distances to optimal detection distances (see Appendix for details) and $\mc=\eta^{3/5}M$ (where $M=m_1+m_2$ is the total mass of the binary and $\eta\equiv m_1m_2/M^2$) is the “chirp mass” [see, e.g., @cutlerflanagan]. This estimate assumes that (1) cosmological effects are negligible (i.e., space is Euclidean to a good approximation), and (2) most of the SNR is accumulated during an inspiral phase which lasts through the entire sensitive band of the detector, where the GW amplitude in the frequency domain is well approximated by the quadrupole formula, i.e., $\tilde h(f)\sim \mc^{5/6} f^{-7/6}/D$. Here $D$ is the luminosity distance to the source. The estimate of Eq. (\[eq:LocalUniverseMergerRateFormula\]) follows from this simple scaling together with the definition of the SNR, Eq. (\[SNR\]).
![\[fig:noise\] **Noise models**: we use an analytical approximation to the aLIGO zero-detuning high power (ZDHP) noise power spectral density given in Eq. (4.7) of [@ajithspin] (we verified that this approximation gives results in excellent agreement with the “official” tabulated aLIGO ZDHP noise PSD given in [@PSD:AL]. For AdV we use the fit in Eq. (3.4) of [@ajithbose] to [@AdvVirgo], and for KAGRA we use the PSD fit from the Appendix of [@pannarale] to [@KAGRA].](noise){width="1.0\columnwidth"}
Eq. (\[eq:LocalUniverseMergerRateFormula\]) involves only the *local* merger rate ${\cal R}(0)$ and $\langle \mc^{15/6}\rangle$ is averaged over detected binaries. Both quantities can easily be extracted from [StarTrack]{} simulations; they are listed in Table \[tab:simplerates\], along with the values of $R_D$ predicted by Eq. (\[eq:LocalUniverseMergerRateFormula\]). We expect this rough estimate to be accurate for NS-NS binaries, for which the overwhelming majority of the SNR is accumulated during the inspiral phase. More accurate calculations are required for DCOs comprised of BHs, because they are visible out to larger distances (making cosmological corrections important) and because, as we discuss below, a large fraction of the SNR for these binaries comes from the merger/ringdown portion of the signal.
Including merger and ringdown {#sec:IMR}
-----------------------------
In order to refine our rate estimates for high-mass systems containing BHs, it is important to consider the full waveform, including inspiral, merger, and ringdown (IMR). The calculation of gravitational waveforms from merging BH-BH and BH-NS binaries requires expensive numerical relativity simulations, but several semi-analytical models have been tuned to reproduce the amplitude and phasing of BH-BH and BH-NS merger simulations. To estimate systematic uncertainties and the impact of spin, we performed rate calculations using three models: (1) the IMRPhenomB model described in [@PhenomB], one of the earliest phenomenological models tuned to both nonspinning and spinning BH-BH simulations with aligned spins, henceforth abbreviated as PhB; (2) the IMRPhenomC (henceforth abbreviated PhC) model by [@santamaria], a more accurate alternative to PhB also tuned to nonprecessing simulations of BH-BH mergers; and (3) a nonspinning effective-one-body (EOB) model [@eob]. A detailed comparison of the three models can be found in [@Damour:2010zb]. Recent work by [@pannarale] shows that finite-size effects introduce negligible errors ($\lesssim 1\%$) in SNR calculations for BH-NS binaries, therefore the above models are adequate for [*both*]{} BH-BH and BH-NS binaries. In order to facilitate comparison with previous work, we also evaluated rates using the simplest possible approximation: a restricted post-Newtonian (PN) waveform where the amplitude is truncated at Newtonian order, i.e. $\tilde h(f)\sim \mc^{5/6}
f^{-7/6}/D$, terminated at a fiducial “innermost stable circular orbit” frequency $f_{\rm ISCO}=(G M\pi/c^3)^{-1}6^{-3/2}$. At low mass, the upper limit can be neglected and this approximation corresponds to $\rho \propto \mc^{5/6}$, as stated above: see also Eq. (7) in [@roskb].
![\[fig:Ingredients:SNRVersusMass:CompareModels\]**SNR for different signal models**: To illustrate the relatively small differences between the signal models we have adopted, we show the SNR, $\rho(M)$, as a function of total binary mass, $M$, for an equal-mass nonspinning binary at $100 {\, {\rm Mpc}}$, where the SNR is evaluated using a single fiducial aLIGO detector. The colored solid curves show (a) the trivial expression $\rho =\rho_0(M/2.8
M_\odot)^{5/6}$ with $\rho_0=34.3$ (red), (b) an EOB model (black), PhB model (blue), and PhC model (green), all evaluated for zero spin. The green dotted line shows the PhC model evaluated with near-extremal spin on both objects ($\chi_1=\chi_2=0.998$), while the green dashed line shows PhC with near-extremal spin on one object ($\chi_1=0.998,\chi_2=0$). The choice $\chi_i=0.998$ corresponds to the [@Thorne:1974ve] bound. This value of the spin is outside the regime in which phenomenological models have been calibrated, and it has been chosen to provide rough upper limits on the rates.](fig-mma-paper-SNRVersusMass){width="\columnwidth"}
Figure \[fig:Ingredients:SNRVersusMass:CompareModels\] shows that these models all make similar predictions for the SNR of optimally oriented equal-mass binaries as a function of their total mass for a single aLIGO detector. Even small differences can be important: for any given binary, a $30\%$ difference in amplitude corresponds to a factor $(1.3)^3\simeq 2.2$ in rate calculations. In practice, however, all nonspinning IMR models agree in SNR to within tens of percent over the total binary mass range of interest (up to $127\msun$, see Section \[dcos\]). The effect of spin will be discussed in more detail in Section \[subsec:WF\] below.
{width="1.0\columnwidth"} {width="1.0\columnwidth"}
{width="1.0\columnwidth"} {width="1.0\columnwidth"}\
Figure \[fig:Ingredients:SNRContours\] shows contour plots of the SNR, $\rho$, in the $(M_z, q)$ plane, where $M_z \equiv M(1+z)$ is the redshifted total mass, $z$ is the redshift, and $q=m_2/m_1 \leq 1$ is the mass ratio of the components, for nonspinning binaries at luminosity distance $D_L=100$ Mpc. We discuss the justification for considering the SNR as a function of $M_z$ below, but since the chosen distance corresponds to a negligible redshift $z\simeq 0.023$ using the cosmological parameters $\Omega_M=0.3$, $\Omega_\Lambda=0.7$, $\Omega_{\rm k}=0$, and $h=0.7$ (chosen for consistency with [@dominik; @dominik2]), $M\simeq M_z$ at this distance. The left panel refers to a calculation using an inspiral-only waveform with Newtonian amplitude to compute the horizon distance. The right panel includes inspiral, merger, and ringdown, modelled using the PhC waveform. This plot shows two important features: (1) including the full IMR increases the maximum SNR at this luminosity distance by factors of a few with respect to an inspiral-only calculation, from $\approx 300$ to $\approx 10^3$; (2) high-mass binaries ($M_z \gtrsim
10^{2.5}M_\odot \approx 300 M_\odot$) involving BHs that would not be detectable using inspiral waveforms, become detectable using IMR waveforms. The latter point is not important for the field binaries considered in this paper, but it is crucial for intermediate-mass BH mergers [e.g., @walczak; @Fregeau:2006; @Amaro:2006imbh].
In an expanding Universe, GW emission is redshifted by the same factor of $(1+z)$ as electromagnetic radiation. In the units ($G=c=1$) adopted by relativists to describe gravitational waves, the only quantity with dimensions in the GW signal is the total mass $M$. Since the total mass sets the time scale, a binary source of mass $M$ in the local universe has an identical waveform (but with different amplitude) to a binary at redshift $z$ with mass $M/(1+z)$; see, e.g., [@1998PhRvD..57.4535F]. Eq. (\[SNR\]), together with the fact that gravitational amplitudes scale inversely with the luminosity distance $D_L(z)$, implies that the horizon redshift $z_{\rm h}$ (i.e., the redshift at which an optimally located and oriented binary would have SNR $\rho_{\rm thr}=8$) can be found via the simple scaling \[DLhor\] D\_h (z\_[h]{}) = D\_L(z) , where $\rho$ is the SNR at any redshift $z$, or luminosity distance $D_L(z)$. Note that the right-hand side depends only on $z$, $M_z$ and $q$. Therefore one can easily turn an SNR calculation at fixed $z$ (cf. Fig. \[fig:Ingredients:SNRContours\]) into a plot of the horizon luminosity distance $D_h$ (or equivalently of the horizon redshift $z_h$) such as Fig. \[fig:Ingredients:Dhorizon\].
[StarTrack]{} produces large catalogs of DCOs with intrinsic parameters $(M,q)$, with each of these binaries merging at a different redshift. Any of these representative DCOs is potentially detectable (depending on precise sky location and binary orientation) when $z<z_{\rm h}$. Determining detectability therefore amounts to a simple interpolation of two-dimensional grids similar to those plotted in Fig. \[fig:Ingredients:Dhorizon\]. These grids can be computed once and for all, given a waveform model and a detector’s power spectral density (PSD). Evaluating such a grid typically involves $100\times
100=10^4$ SNR evaluations, and it is much faster than the (impractical) evaluation of millions of SNR integrals such as Eq. (\[SNR\]), one for each representative binary produced by [ StarTrack]{}. The conversion between detectability at optimal location and optimal orientation and detectability at generic orientations involves a simple geometrical factor $p_{\rm det}$, as discussed below.
Rate calculation {#sec:fullrates}
================
The detection rate is \[Rdet\] R\_[det]{} = \_0\^ (z\_m) p\_[det]{} dz\_m dm\_1 dm\_2, where ${\cal R} (z_m) \equiv \frac{dN}{dm_1 dm_2 dV_c dt_m}$ is the binary merger rate per unit component mass per unit comoving volume $V_c$ per unit time $t_m$ as measured in the source frame at merger redshift $z_m$, the term $\frac{dt_m}{dt_{\rm det}} = \frac{1}{1+z_m}$ accounts for the difference in clock rates at the merger and at the detector, and $p_{\rm det}=p_{\rm det} (z_m; m_1, m_2)$ is the probability (over isotropic sky locations and orientations) that a source with given masses at a given redshift will be detectable. The quantity =, with $E(z)=\sqrt{\Omega_{\rm M}(1+z)^3+\Omega_{\rm k}(1+z)^2+\Omega_{\Lambda}}$, is the comoving volume per unit redshift, and D\_c(z)=\_0\^z is the comoving distance, related to the luminosity distance $D_L(z)$ by $D_c(z)=D_L(z)/(1+z)$: see [@hogg] for our notation and conventions.
The merger rate ${\cal R} (z_m)$ is a convolution of the star formation rate and the number density of binaries per unit star forming mass $M_f$ per unit time delay between formation and merger $\tau$: \[Rzm\] [R]{} (z\_m) &=& \_0\^[t\_m]{} \_0\^[t\_[det]{}]{} (z\_f) (t\_f; m\_1, m\_2, )\
&& (t\_m-t\_f-) ddt\_f, where ${\rm SFR} = \frac{dM_f}{dV_c dt_f} (z_f)$ is the star formation rate per unit comoving volume per unit time $t_f$ at formation redshift $z_f$.
The distribution of binaries in mass and time delay space, $\frac{dN} {dM_f dm_1
dm_2 d\tau} (t_f; m_1, m_2, \tau)$, is obtained with the [StarTrack]{} population synthesis code, taking into account the metallicity distribution at the formation redshift as described in Section \[binevol\]. Since [StarTrack]{} simulations produce a set of merging binaries with specific component masses and time delays sampling the desired distribution, the integrals above are easily computed via Monte Carlo over the simulated systems. For computational efficiency the outer integral over the time of formation in Eq. (\[Rzm\]) is binned over $\Delta t_f = 100$ Myr segments, while the integral over the merger redshift $z_m$ in Eq. (\[Rdet\]) is transformed into an integral over merger time via $dz_m
= \frac{dz_m}{dt_m} dt_m = H_0 (1+z)E(z) dt_m$ [@hogg]. Thus the detection rate integral can be represented as a Monte Carlo sum over all simulated binaries: \[eq:rate\] R\_[det]{}= p\_[det]{} t , where $\Delta M_f$ is the total star-forming mass that was simulated in the Monte Carlo to represent the time bin $\Delta t$, all terms but the first are computed at the merger redshift of the simulated source.
The detection probability for a given source at its merger redshift $p_{\rm det} (z, m_1, m_2)$ is simply the fraction of sources of a given mass located at the given redshift that exceed the detectability threshold in SNR, assuming that sources are uniformly distributed in sky location and orbital orientation. If a single detector with an SNR threshold (e.g., $\rho_{\rm thr}=8$) is used as a proxy for detectability, the detection probability can be expressed as a cumulative distribution function on the projection parameter $w$. In the Appendix, $w$ is defined such that $w=0$ when the detector has no response to the gravitational wave, and $w=1$ for an optimally located and oriented (face-on and directly overhead) binary. The detection probability is p\_[det]{} = P(\_[thr]{}/\_[opt]{}), where $P(w)$ is the cumulative distribution function on $w$ over different source locations and orientations, and $\rho_{\rm opt}$ is the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) for an optimally located and oriented binary at redshift $z$.
[l|ll|ll]{}\[thb\] Model & $\left<\mc^{15/6}\right>$& ${\cal R}(0)$ & $R_D$ (aLIGO $\rho \ge 8$) & $R_D$ (3-det network $\rho
\ge 10$)\
& $M_\odot^{15/6}$ & ${\, {\rm Gpc}}^{-3} {\, {\rm yr}}^{-1}$ & ${\, {\rm yr}}^{-1}$ & ${\, {\rm yr}}^{-1}$\
\
Standard & 1.1 (1.1) & 61 (52) & 1.3 (1.1) & 3.2 (2.7)\
Optimistic CE & 1.2 (1.2) & 162 (137) & 3.9 (3.3) & 9.2 (7.7)\
Delayed SN & 1.4 (1.4) & 67 (60) & 1.9 (1.7) & 4.5 (4.0)\
High BH Kicks & 1.1 (1.1) & 57 (52) & 1.2 (1.1) & 3.0 (2.7)\
\
Standard & 18 (19) & 2.8 (3.0) & 1.0 (1.2) & 2.4 (2.7)\
Optimistic CE & 17 (16) & 17 (20) & 5.7 (6.5) & 13.8 (15.4)\
Delayed SN & 24 (20) & 1.0 (2.4) & 0.5 (0.9) & 1.1 (2.3)\
High BH Kicks & 19 (13) & 0.04 (0.3) & 0.01 (0.08) & 0.04 (0.2)\
\
Standard & 402 (595) & 28 (36) & 227 (427) & 540 (1017)\
Optimistic CE & 311 (359) & 109 (221) & 676 (1585) & 1610 (3773)\
Delayed SN & 829 (814) & 14 (24) & 232 (394) & 552 (938)\
High Kick & 2159 (3413) & 0.5 (0.5) & 22 (34) & 51 (81) \[tab:simplerates\]
[l|ll|ll|lll|ll]{}\[thb\] & & & &\
& & & &\
Model &Insp &PhC (EOB) &Insp &PhC (EOB) &Insp &PhC (EOB) & PhC (spin) & Insp & PhC\
& ${\, {\rm yr}}^{-1}$ & ${\, {\rm yr}}^{-1}$ & ${\, {\rm yr}}^{-1}$ & ${\, {\rm yr}}^{-1}$ & ${\, {\rm yr}}^{-1}$ & ${\, {\rm yr}}^{-1}$ & ${\, {\rm yr}}^{-1}$ & ${\, {\rm yr}}^{-1}$ & ${\, {\rm yr}}^{-1}$\
\
Standard & 0.3 & 0.3 & 0.8 & 0.7 & 1.2 & 1.1 &- & 2.5 (1.5) & 2.4 (1.4)\
Optimistic CE & 0.9 & 0.9 & 2.1 & 1.9 & 3.3 & 3.1 &- & 6.9 (4.0) & 6.5 (3.8)\
Delayed SN & 0.4 & 0.4 & 1.0 & 0.9 & 1.6 & 1.5 &- & 3.3 (1.9) & 3.1 (1.8)\
High BH Kicks & 0.3 & 0.3 & 0.7 & 0.7 & 1.1 & 1.1 &- & 2.3 (1.4) & 2.2 (1.3)\
\
Standard & 0.2 & 0.2 & 0.5 & 0.4 & 0.7 & 0.6 & 0.8 & 1.5 (0.9) & 1.2 (0.7)\
Optimistic CE & 1.1 & 1.0 & 2.9 & 2.2 & 4.4 & 3.6 & 4.4 & 9.2 (5.4) & 7.4 (4.3)\
Delayed SN & 0.09 & 0.07 & 0.2 & 0.2 & 0.4 & 0.3 & 0.5 & 0.8 (0.5) & 0.6 (0.3)\
High BH Kicks & 0.01 & 0.007 & 0.02 & 0.02 & 0.04 & 0.03 & 0.1 & 0.09 (0.05) & 0.07 (0.04)\
\
Standard & 35 & 41 (38) & 70 & 93 (86) & 117 & 148 (142) & 348 & 236 (144) & 306 (177)\
Optimistic CE & 126 & 144 (133) & 281 & 366 (333) & 491 & 618 (585) & 1554 & 1042 (588) & 1338 (713)\
Delayed SN & 27 & 34 (32) & 50 & 81 (75) & 90 & 129 (124) & 320 & 182 (110) & 270 (155)\
High Kick & 0.6 & 1.0 (0.9) & 0.9 & 2.5 (2.3) & 2.1 & 3.8 (3.8) & 12 & 4.2 (2.7) & 8.2 (4.7) \[rates2genH\]
[l|ll|ll|lll|ll]{}\[thb\] & & & &\
& & & &\
Model &Insp &PhC (EOB) &Insp &PhC (EOB) &Insp &PhC (EOB) & PhC (spin) & Insp & PhC\
& ${\, {\rm yr}}^{-1}$ & ${\, {\rm yr}}^{-1}$ & ${\, {\rm yr}}^{-1}$ & ${\, {\rm yr}}^{-1}$ & ${\, {\rm yr}}^{-1}$ & ${\, {\rm yr}}^{-1}$ & ${\, {\rm yr}}^{-1}$ & ${\, {\rm yr}}^{-1}$ & ${\, {\rm yr}}^{-1}$\
\
Standard & 0.3 & 0.3 & 0.7 & 0.6 & 1.1 & 1.0 &- & 2.3 (1.3) & 2.2 (1.3)\
Optimistic CE & 0.8 & 0.7 & 1.8 & 1.7 & 2.9 & 2.7 &- & 6.0 (3.5) & 5.6 (3.3)\
Delayed SN & 0.4 & 0.4 & 1.0 & 0.9 & 1.5 & 1.4 &- & 3.2 (1.8) & 2.9 (1.7)\
High BH Kicks & 0.3 & 0.3 & 0.7 & 0.6 & 1.0 & 1.0 &- & 2.1 (1.3) & 2.0 (1.2)\
\
Standard & 0.3 & 0.2 & 0.7 & 0.5 & 1.1 & 0.8 & 1.2 & 2.3 (1.3) & 1.8 (1.0)\
Optimistic CE & 1.4 & 1.2 & 3.6 & 2.8 & 5.5 & 4.4 & 5.7 & 12 (6.7) & 9.4 (5.4)\
Delayed SN & 0.2 & 0.1 & 0.5 & 0.4 & 0.8 & 0.6 & 0.9 & 1.7 (0.9) & 1.3 (0.7)\
High BH Kicks & 0.04 & 0.03 & 0.09 & 0.07 & 0.1 & 0.1 & 0.3 & 0.6 (0.2) & 0.5 (0.2)\
\
Standard & 56 & 66 (61) & 106 & 153 (140) & 183 & 246 (235) & 610 & 369 (226) & 514 (292)\
Optimistic CE & 287 & 324 (297) & 629 & 828 (745) & 1124 & 1421 (1339) & 3560 & 2384 (1336) & 3087 (1633)\
Delayed SN & 53 & 64 (59) & 97 & 152 (139) & 171 & 241 (231) & 596 & 345 (213) & 501 (291)\
High Kick & 0.9 & 1.5 (1.4) & 1.4 & 3.8 (3.6) & 3.2 & 5.9 (5.8) & 19 & 6.6 (4.0) & 13 (7.2) \[rates2genL\]
Results {#sec:results}
=======
In Section \[sec:simplerates\] we obtained a rough estimate of event rates by extrapolating the local rate density via the scaling of Eq. (\[eq:LocalUniverseMergerRateFormula\]). This extrapolation is expected to provide a good approximation for low-mass systems (and in particular, NS-NS binaries), because in this case the early inspiral makes up most of the signal observable by advanced GW detectors, the signal extends through the detector band, and the detector range is sufficiently low that cosmological corrections to detectability and the dependence of merger rates on redshift can largely be ignored. The approximation will become increasingly inaccurate for high-mass binaries, such as those comprising one or two BHs. In Sections \[sec:IMR\] and \[sec:fullrates\] we went beyond this approximation by implementing three “complete” IMR waveform models (EOB, PhC, PhB), and we described how to combine these models with simulations from the [StarTrack]{} code in order to obtain more accurate estimates of the event rates (see Eq. (\[eq:rate\])).
The analytical estimates of Section \[sec:simplerates\] with local merger rates based on the [StarTrack]{} code are presented in Table \[tab:simplerates\]. The more careful event rate calculations of Section \[sec:fullrates\] are listed in Table \[rates2genH\] (for the high-end metallicity scenario) and Table \[rates2genL\] (for the low-end metallicity scenario).
In these tables, the “single-detector” columns represent estimated detection rates for a single detector with a $\rho \ge 8$ threshold for detectability. This is often used as a proxy for rates in multi-detector networks [@2010CQGra..27q3001A]. In the “three-detector” columns we consider two alternate detectability thresholds: minimum [*network*]{} SNRs of either 10 or 12 for a three-detector network composed of three instruments located at the LIGO Hanford, LIGO Livingston, and Virgo sites, all with aLIGO sensitivity. The network SNR threshold of 10 would have yielded false alarm rates of roughly once per decade in 2009-2010 initial LIGO and Virgo data [see Fig. 3 in @scenarios]. This threshold is optimistic for making confident detections if data quality in advanced detectors is similar to that in the initial detectors and the same searches are used. With this in mind, @scenarios assumed a network SNR threshold of $12$ with an additional threshold constraint on the SNR in the second-loudest instrument; we consider a simple SNR threshold of $12$. Detection rates using a network SNR threshold were calculated using the same framework as above, but implementing a network-geometry-dependent $P(w)$ described (and fitted) in the Appendix. In the order-of-magnitude estimates described by Eq. (\[eq:LocalUniverseMergerRateFormula\]) and provided in Table \[tab:simplerates\] we employ $\left<w^{3}\right> \simeq 0.404$ for the three-detector network ($\rho \ge 10$), a factor of $\sim
4.6$ larger than the value $\left<w^{3}\right> \simeq (1/2.26)^3
\approx 0.0866$ used for a one-detector network.
We now discuss these rate predictions, their dependence on gravitational waveform models, and the astrophysical properties of DCO populations observable by advanced GW detectors.
Broad features of rate estimates
--------------------------------
The main conclusion of this work is that BH-BH mergers should yield the highest detection rates in all advanced detectors (aLIGO, AdV, and KAGRA), followed by NS-NS mergers, with BH-NS mergers being the rarest. This finding is independent of our evolutionary models and of the details of the gravitational waveforms (however, see Sec. \[sec:conclusions\] for discussion). The only exception is the “Optimistic CE” model, where detection rates for BH-NS mergers dominate over NS-NS mergers (with BH-BH mergers still dominating the detection rates). This model makes the assumption that CE events with HG donors do not always end in a premature merger, allowing more binaries to survive the CE and form merging DCOs, and therefore increasing detection rates. As a result the Optimistic CE model yields very large BH-BH rates, comparable to, though a factor of a few below, existing upper limits on the BH-BH binary mergers from initial LIGO/Virgo observations [see, e.g., @comparison; @2012PhRvD..85h2002A; @2013PhRvD..87b2002A].
Our quantitative predictions for compact binary merger rates are consistent with our previous papers in this series [@dominik; @dominik2]. In particular, we agree with the main conclusion of those papers: detectable BH-BH binaries can be formed over a broad range of metallicities, with a significant proportion forming in highly subsolar environments (Fig. \[fig:FiducialResultDistributions:BHBH\]). On a model-by-model basis our results are in good agreement with prior work, with factor-of-two or smaller differences due to our inclusion of cosmological effects. As expected, the simple approximation of Eq. (\[eq:LocalUniverseMergerRateFormula\]) gives a good order-of-magnitude estimate of the NS-NS detection rates listed in Tables \[rates2genH\] and \[rates2genL\]. However, the approximation fails for BH-BH systems. By comparing the detection rates from Table \[tab:simplerates\] with inspiral rates from Tables \[rates2genH\] and \[rates2genL\], we see that the local Universe approximation of Eq. (\[eq:LocalUniverseMergerRateFormula\]) overestimates more careful calculations of detection rates by a factor $\sim 2$ for BH-BH systems. The limited signal bandwidth of high-mass systems, the redshift dependence of binary merger rates, and cosmological corrections make simple scaling relations inaccurate over the large volume in which detectors are sensitive to BH-BH systems. On the other hand, as the merger–ringdown phase of these binaries falls within the sensitive band of second-generation interferometers, it provides a significant contribution to the SNR. Indeed, as can be seen in Tables \[rates2genH\] and \[rates2genL\], the full IMR calculations increase the detection rates considerably. However, BH-BH detection rates computed with appropriate cosmological corrections are still lower than local merger rates converted into detection rates via the basic scaling of Eq. (\[eq:LocalUniverseMergerRateFormula\]).
![ \[fig:FiducialResultDistributions:NSNS\]**Compact NS-NS binaries detectable by aLIGO**: Properties of NS-NS binaries with $\rho \ge 8$ in a single aLIGO instrument in the high-end metallicity scenario, scaled in proportion to their detection probability. Different color and line styles indicate results for different binary evolution models: Standard model (solid black), Optimistic CE (dotted black), delayed SN (dashed black), and high BH kicks (blue). The top, second, and third panels show the distribution of birth time $t_{\rm f}$, birth metallicity $Z_{\rm b}$ (with a vertical bar marking solar metallicity, $\zsun=0.02$), and chirp mass $\mc$, respectively. The bottom panel shows the cumulative distribution in chirp mass, to highlight significant changes on a linear scale. The time domain ranges from $0$ Gyr (Big Bang) to $13.47$ Gyr (today). Though our simulations use a discrete array of metallicity bins, to guide the eye their relative contributions have been joined by solid lines in the second panel; this histogram makes no correction for the density of metallicity bins. ](fig-mma-dPdtb-NSNShigh "fig:"){width="0.86\columnwidth"} ![ \[fig:FiducialResultDistributions:NSNS\]**Compact NS-NS binaries detectable by aLIGO**: Properties of NS-NS binaries with $\rho \ge 8$ in a single aLIGO instrument in the high-end metallicity scenario, scaled in proportion to their detection probability. Different color and line styles indicate results for different binary evolution models: Standard model (solid black), Optimistic CE (dotted black), delayed SN (dashed black), and high BH kicks (blue). The top, second, and third panels show the distribution of birth time $t_{\rm f}$, birth metallicity $Z_{\rm b}$ (with a vertical bar marking solar metallicity, $\zsun=0.02$), and chirp mass $\mc$, respectively. The bottom panel shows the cumulative distribution in chirp mass, to highlight significant changes on a linear scale. The time domain ranges from $0$ Gyr (Big Bang) to $13.47$ Gyr (today). Though our simulations use a discrete array of metallicity bins, to guide the eye their relative contributions have been joined by solid lines in the second panel; this histogram makes no correction for the density of metallicity bins. ](fig-mma-logZ-NSNShigh "fig:"){width="0.86\columnwidth"} ![ \[fig:FiducialResultDistributions:NSNS\]**Compact NS-NS binaries detectable by aLIGO**: Properties of NS-NS binaries with $\rho \ge 8$ in a single aLIGO instrument in the high-end metallicity scenario, scaled in proportion to their detection probability. Different color and line styles indicate results for different binary evolution models: Standard model (solid black), Optimistic CE (dotted black), delayed SN (dashed black), and high BH kicks (blue). The top, second, and third panels show the distribution of birth time $t_{\rm f}$, birth metallicity $Z_{\rm b}$ (with a vertical bar marking solar metallicity, $\zsun=0.02$), and chirp mass $\mc$, respectively. The bottom panel shows the cumulative distribution in chirp mass, to highlight significant changes on a linear scale. The time domain ranges from $0$ Gyr (Big Bang) to $13.47$ Gyr (today). Though our simulations use a discrete array of metallicity bins, to guide the eye their relative contributions have been joined by solid lines in the second panel; this histogram makes no correction for the density of metallicity bins. ](fig-mma-logdPdMc-NSNShigh "fig:"){width="0.86\columnwidth"} ![ \[fig:FiducialResultDistributions:NSNS\]**Compact NS-NS binaries detectable by aLIGO**: Properties of NS-NS binaries with $\rho \ge 8$ in a single aLIGO instrument in the high-end metallicity scenario, scaled in proportion to their detection probability. Different color and line styles indicate results for different binary evolution models: Standard model (solid black), Optimistic CE (dotted black), delayed SN (dashed black), and high BH kicks (blue). The top, second, and third panels show the distribution of birth time $t_{\rm f}$, birth metallicity $Z_{\rm b}$ (with a vertical bar marking solar metallicity, $\zsun=0.02$), and chirp mass $\mc$, respectively. The bottom panel shows the cumulative distribution in chirp mass, to highlight significant changes on a linear scale. The time domain ranges from $0$ Gyr (Big Bang) to $13.47$ Gyr (today). Though our simulations use a discrete array of metallicity bins, to guide the eye their relative contributions have been joined by solid lines in the second panel; this histogram makes no correction for the density of metallicity bins. ](fig-mma-PMc-NSNShigh "fig:"){width="0.86\columnwidth"}
![\[fig:FiducialResultDistributions:BHNS\] **Compact BH-NS binaries detectable by aLIGO**: Same as Figure \[fig:FiducialResultDistributions:NSNS\], but for BH-NS binaries in the high-end metallicity scenario. Some of the sharp features in the chirp mass distribution are an artifact of the crude binning in metallicity undertaken for computational reasons; see the discussion in section \[dcos\].](fig-mma-dPdtb-BHNShigh "fig:"){width="\columnwidth"} ![\[fig:FiducialResultDistributions:BHNS\] **Compact BH-NS binaries detectable by aLIGO**: Same as Figure \[fig:FiducialResultDistributions:NSNS\], but for BH-NS binaries in the high-end metallicity scenario. Some of the sharp features in the chirp mass distribution are an artifact of the crude binning in metallicity undertaken for computational reasons; see the discussion in section \[dcos\].](fig-mma-logZ-BHNShigh "fig:"){width="\columnwidth"} ![\[fig:FiducialResultDistributions:BHNS\] **Compact BH-NS binaries detectable by aLIGO**: Same as Figure \[fig:FiducialResultDistributions:NSNS\], but for BH-NS binaries in the high-end metallicity scenario. Some of the sharp features in the chirp mass distribution are an artifact of the crude binning in metallicity undertaken for computational reasons; see the discussion in section \[dcos\].](fig-mma-logdPdMc-BHNShigh "fig:"){width="\columnwidth"} ![\[fig:FiducialResultDistributions:BHNS\] **Compact BH-NS binaries detectable by aLIGO**: Same as Figure \[fig:FiducialResultDistributions:NSNS\], but for BH-NS binaries in the high-end metallicity scenario. Some of the sharp features in the chirp mass distribution are an artifact of the crude binning in metallicity undertaken for computational reasons; see the discussion in section \[dcos\].](fig-mma-PMc-BHNShigh "fig:"){width="\columnwidth"}
![\[fig:FiducialResultDistributions:BHBH\] **BH-BH binaries detectable by aLIGO**: Same as Figure \[fig:FiducialResultDistributions:NSNS\], but for BH-BH binaries in the high-end metallicity scenario. Some of the sharp features in the chirp mass distribution are an artifact of the crude binning in metallicity undertaken for computational reasons; see the discussion in section \[dcos\].](fig-mma-dPdtb-BHBHhigh "fig:"){width="\columnwidth"} ![\[fig:FiducialResultDistributions:BHBH\] **BH-BH binaries detectable by aLIGO**: Same as Figure \[fig:FiducialResultDistributions:NSNS\], but for BH-BH binaries in the high-end metallicity scenario. Some of the sharp features in the chirp mass distribution are an artifact of the crude binning in metallicity undertaken for computational reasons; see the discussion in section \[dcos\].](fig-mma-logZ-BHBHhigh "fig:"){width="\columnwidth"} ![\[fig:FiducialResultDistributions:BHBH\] **BH-BH binaries detectable by aLIGO**: Same as Figure \[fig:FiducialResultDistributions:NSNS\], but for BH-BH binaries in the high-end metallicity scenario. Some of the sharp features in the chirp mass distribution are an artifact of the crude binning in metallicity undertaken for computational reasons; see the discussion in section \[dcos\].](fig-mma-logdPdMc-BHBHhigh "fig:"){width="\columnwidth"} ![\[fig:FiducialResultDistributions:BHBH\] **BH-BH binaries detectable by aLIGO**: Same as Figure \[fig:FiducialResultDistributions:NSNS\], but for BH-BH binaries in the high-end metallicity scenario. Some of the sharp features in the chirp mass distribution are an artifact of the crude binning in metallicity undertaken for computational reasons; see the discussion in section \[dcos\].](fig-mma-PMc-BHBHhigh "fig:"){width="\columnwidth"}
Impact of waveform models on predicted rates {#subsec:WF}
--------------------------------------------
Our results show that the merger-ringdown contribution is not important for estimating detection rates of DCOs containing NSs. In fact, when compared with the restricted PN model, the IMR waveforms slightly [*decrease*]{} event rates for NS-NS and BH-NS systems. The reason for this reduction is that IMR waveforms (such as PhC and EOB) provide a more accurate representation of the early inspiral, incorporating PN amplitude corrections that [*reduce*]{} the signal amplitude[^1]—and hence the event rates—for signals dominated by the early inspiral.
BH-NS systems may be subject to an additional event rate reduction mechanism. There is the possibility of the NS being distorted and disrupted by the BH tidal field. When these violent phenomena occur, a suppression of the GW amplitude takes place before the ISCO frequency, and the SNR decreases with respect to that of a BH-BH system with the same properties. The GW shut–off due to NS tidal disruption depends on the parameters of the system: large values of the mass ratio, the BH spin, the NS radius and the low tilt angles of NS orbital angular momentum relative to BH spin all favor NS disruption (e.g., [@kabelspin]). By using point-particle IMR waveforms to describe the GW emission of BH-NS systems we are neglecting this event rate reduction mechanism. While it would be possible to take these effects into account for nonspinning systems by using the GW amplitude model of [@pannarale], accurate models for systems with spinning BHs do not exist yet. For consistency we therefore use BH-BH waveform models in both cases. Additionally, [@pannarale] found that in the nonspinning case, the SNR difference between the mergers of disrupted BH-NS systems and the undisrupted systems modeled with PhC is less than $1\%$.
Including the merger portion of the signal is important for BH-BH systems. For illustration, let us focus on the Standard Model: if we use PhC waveforms rather than the restricted PN approximation, we find a $\sim25\%$ increase in the detection rates of BH-BH systems, from 117 (183) to 148 (246) in the *high-end* (*low-end*) metallicity scenario.
The rates predicted by EOB and PhC models agree quite well[^2]. This can be understood by looking again at Figure \[fig:Ingredients:SNRVersusMass:CompareModels\], which shows that different approximations of the strong-field merger waveform agree rather well (at least in the equal-mass limit) on the SNR $\rho$ and hence on the predicted event rates, which scale with the cube of the SNR. Waveform differences produce systematic rate uncertainties significantly less than a factor of 2, much smaller than astrophysical differences between our preferred models.
Our detailed calculation shows that typically PhC models overestimate the rates by about $10\%$ when compared to EOB models. This agreement is nontrivial, because the two families of models are very different in spirit and construction: the PhC family is a frequency-domain model that can be easily implemented in rate calculations, while the time-domain EOB model is more accurate in its domain of validity and more computationally demanding. It is important to note that in order to use the two families of models in rate calculations we must compute waveforms and SNRs in regions of the parameter space where the models were not tuned to numerical relativity simulations. In particular, both models become less accurate for small mass-ratio binaries.
Besides systematic errors in waveform modeling, the detection rates reported in this work (and the resulting distribution of detectable DCO parameters) depend on our detection criteria. We ignore a variety of complications of the detection pipelines, such as the difficulty of searching for precessing sources, noise artifacts (non-stationary, non-Gaussian “glitches” in the instruments) which can make searches for shorter, high-mass signals less sensitive, and the limited uptime of detectors. Instead, we have assumed several simplistic detection thresholds on single-detector or network SNR that are constant across all masses and mass ratios.
Moreover, achieving good detector sensitivity at low frequencies may prove particularly difficult. We have only included bandwidth above specified low-frequency cutoffs ($f_{\rm cut}=20$ Hz in most cases) for detection-rate calculations. However, the specific choice of low frequency cutoff has minimal impact on our results. For example, using a lower cutoff $f_{\rm cut}=10$ Hz rather than $f_{\rm cut}=20$ Hz in the single-detector, high-end metallicity aLIGO rate calculation would increase the Standard Model BH-BH rates from 117 to 128 in the inspiral case, and from 148 to 161 in the IMR case. The effect is even smaller for BH-NS and NS-NS rates.
The impact of spins on the predicted detection rates can be important. We only consider BH spins, since NSs in compact binaries are not expected to be rapidly spinning [e.g., @MandelOShaughnessy:2010] and the dynamical impact of NS spin will be small. In Tables \[rates2genH\] and \[rates2genL\] we use the PhC model to estimate the possible impact of BH spin on BH-NS and BH-BH detection rates by assuming that all BHs are nearly maximally spinning (i.e., with dimensionless spin parameter $\chi_1=\chi_2=0.998$) and aligned with the orbital angular momentum. Aligned BH spins cause an orbital hang-up effect that increases the overall power radiated in the merger, produces a rapidly spinning merger remnant, and therefore increases the range to which high-mass binaries can be detected.
We find that spin effects may increase BH-BH detection rates by as much as a factor of $3$. These increased rates are a direct result of the increased horizon distance to spinning binaries. For example, a (30+30) $M_\odot$ binary can be observed to roughly $1.3$ times farther and be detected $\simeq (1.3)^3 \simeq 2$ more often with near-maximal spins than with zero spin. Additionally, spin dynamics can provide a direct diagnostic of the dominant physical effects in DCO formation [@gerosa]. Spin effects only marginally increase BH-NS rates, but (as discussed at the beginning of this section) tidal disruption, which we neglected, may have the opposite effect.
Astrophysical properties of observable DCOs {#dcos}
-------------------------------------------
We now turn to a more detailed analysis of the observable properties of DCOs. For concreteness we will focus on aLIGO results for the “Standard model” and nonspinning PhC waveforms, unless stated otherwise.
**NS-NS**. By comparing Tables \[rates2genH\] and \[rates2genL\] we see that the detection rates of NS-NS systems are not sensitive to our differing metallicity evolution scenarios. For simplicity, we therefore only discuss our results for the *high-end* metallicity evolution scenario.
As shown in our previous work [@dominik], NS-NS systems are efficiently created in metal-rich environments. The observable population shares this trait, and half of the observable systems originate from solar metallicities and higher. As the average metallicity content of the Universe correlates with time and as most DCOs preferentially merge shortly after formation (i.e., the time delay distribution is $\propto t_{\rm merger}^{-1}$; see [@dominik]), the birth rate of detectable NS-NS systems peaks at $13$ Gyrs after the Big Bang (see Fig. \[fig:FiducialResultDistributions:NSNS\]). The most distant detectable system has a merger redshift $z\sim 0.13$ (or luminosity distance $L_{\rm D}=610$ Mpc).
The range of possible chirp masses in the third panel from the top of Figure \[fig:FiducialResultDistributions:NSNS\] is limited at the low end ($>0.87 M_\odot$) by the $1M_\odot$ minimum birth mass for NS and is limited at the high end by the (assumed) maximum mass for a NS ($m_{NS} <2.5 M_\odot; \mc < 2.1 M_\odot$). The birth mass, in turn, is set by supernova physics, which we have implemented as the Rapid or Delayed SN engine [@chrisija]. For this reason the NS mass difference between the SN engines is intrinsic to the entire merging population of NS-NS systems. Therefore, this observable feature should be available to any of the detectors considered in this study.
The chirp mass distributions for Standard and Optimistic CE models span the range from $0.9\msun$ to $1.6\msun$. The Delayed SN model results in a notably different NS mass distribution, favoring heavier masses. As the SN explosion in the Delayed engine lasts longer, more matter is accreted onto the proto–NS (which is more massive than in the Rapid engine scenario), allowing the formation of more massive remnants (cf. Figure \[fig:FiducialResultDistributions:NSNS\]). The maximum allowed NS mass in this model is $2.5\msun$, and in extreme (but very rare) cases this mass is approached; the maximum chirp mass for a detectable system in our Monte Carlo simulation was $2.1\msun$, corresponding to both components close to the maximum allowed limit. For comparison, chirp masses of NS-NS systems in the models utilizing the Rapid SN engine (Standard, Optimistic CE and High BH kick) never exceed $1.7\msun$. Such extremely high masses are rare for all engines, however, and the majority of chirp masses are much lower, as seen in Figure \[fig:FiducialResultDistributions:NSNS\]. The presence of more massive systems in the Delayed SN models extends the horizon of NS-NS detectability to $z\sim 0.16$ ($L_{\rm D}=765$ Mpc).
Lastly, we note that Standard and High BH kick models are identical for NS-NS systems. The difference between the black curve (Standard) and blue curve (High BH Kick) in Figure \[fig:FiducialResultDistributions:NSNS\] corresponds to the systematic errors associated with Monte Carlo errors of binary simulations, galaxy sampling, metallicity binning, etc.
**BH-NS**. In our previous study [@dominik2] we showed that BH-NS systems are efficiently created at moderate metallicities (${\rm Z}
\sim 0.1\,\zsun$, or $\log({\rm Z})\sim -2.7$). Indeed, Figure \[fig:FiducialResultDistributions:BHNS\] shows that about half of all detectable BH-NS systems will originate from metallicities ${\rm Z}<0.5\,\zsun$ ($\log({\rm Z})< -2$). These systems have higher chirp masses than NS-NS systems, on average $3.3\msun$ vs. $1.2\msun$, and therefore the detectors can sample BH-NS systems from a larger volume. However, BH-NS systems are the rarest of all DCOs per unit (comoving) volume. As a consequence, BH-NS binaries typically yield the lowest detection rates. One exception is the Optimistic CE model, in which the merger rate per unit volume is large enough (while still being lower than for NS-NS systems at all redshifts) that BH-NS detection rates are larger than NS-NS rates because they are observed farther (cf. Table \[tab:simplerates\] and Figure \[fig:FiducialResultDistributions:BHNS\]).
In our standard model BH-NS systems are detectable up to redshift $z\approx 0.28$ ($L_{\rm D}=1.4$ Mpc). However, in the Delayed SN model this value reaches $z\approx 0.31$ ($L_{\rm D}=1.6$ Mpc). As discussed earlier, this is due to the more massive NSs (up to $2.4\msun$) produced by the Delayed engine.
**BH-BH**. As discussed in our previous papers in this series [@nasza; @dominik; @dominik2], BH-BH systems are formed most efficiently in low-metallicity environments. The detectable population reflects this property: about half of all detectable BH-BH systems were created in environments with metallicities ${\rm Z}<0.1\,\zsun$ ($\log({\rm Z})<
-2.7$). As in prior studies [@nasza; @dominik; @dominik2; @vosstauris], our calculations imply that BH-BH systems yield the highest detection rates for ground-based interferometers. This is true even in the “High BH kick” model, where the vast majority of binaries containing a BH are disrupted.
Adjusting the metallicity evolution in the Universe from *high-end* to *low-end* we see a factor of $\sim 2$ increase in detection rates. In the *low-end* scenario the average metallicity in the Universe is lower at all times. Low metallicity environments are much more effective at producing merging BH-BH systems than higher ones, hence the increase in the detection rates.
Half of the detectable objects have chirp masses above $14\msun$. The most massive of these systems originate from environments with very low metallicity content (${\rm Z}\sim 0.01\,\zsun$). The birth times of detectable BH-BH systems peak at $\sim1$ Gyr after the Big Bang. Additionally, half of these systems were created within $\sim 2$ Gyrs of the Big Bang (see top panel of Figure \[fig:FiducialResultDistributions:BHBH\]), when the average abundance of heavy elements was much smaller than today.
As seen in Tables \[rates2genH\] and \[rates2genL\], the detection rates of BH-BH systems vary as we change our assumptions between the four models and two metallicity evolution scenarios. By comparing detection rates, for example, found by aLIGO with PhC waveforms, for the *high-end* metallicity model (works for all model choices), we can distinguish two extreme configurations: (1) The High BH kick model yields the lowest rates of merging BH-BH systems ($3.8$ yr$^{-1}$). This is a direct consequence of assuming the presence of the maximum natal kick velocities allowed within our framework, which efficiently disrupt BH progenitor binaries. (2) The highest detection rate is achieved with the Optimistic CE model ($618$ yr$^{-1}$). Here, it is assumed that binaries are allowed to progress through the CE with a HG donor, which adds a significant amount of BH-BH systems to the detectable population. The detection rates of the other two models: Standard and Delayed SN are similar to each other ($148$ yr$^{-1}$ and $129$ yr$^{-1}$, respectively).
The farthest objects are detectable out to $z\sim2$ ($L_{\rm D}15$ Gpc). These systems consist of the most massive BH pairs ($m_1=61\msun$ and $m_2=66\msun$ in the detectable population, with a chirp mass equal to $55\msun$), born $1.8$ Gyr after the Big Bang, and originating from regions with our lowest considered metallicity content (${\rm Z}=0.005\,\zsun$). Note that the maximum mass of BH-BH systems is limited by the maximum ZAMS mass of stars, which was set to $150\msun$ in the current simulations. The effect of IMF extending to much higher masses on detection of BH-BH inspirals have been recently presented by [@walczak].
The detectable BH-BH chirp mass distribution for the Standard model has three major peaks. These are present at $\sim 7\msun$, $14\msun$, and $21\msun$ (see the black curve in the 3rd and 4th panels of Fig. \[fig:FiducialResultDistributions:BHBH\]). Their presence is associated with the physics governing the Rapid SN engine and the formation of the most massive BH-BH systems. Within this framework we can distinguish three scenarios for BH formation, each depending on the pre-SN carbon–oxygen (CO) mass (see Eq. 16 in [@chrisija]). The “*A*” scenario occurs for $6\msun < M_{\rm CO} \leq 7\msun$ and results in full fallback on the BH and, therefore, no natal kicks (see Eq. \[vkick\]). The “*B*” scenario occurs for $7\msun < M_{\rm CO} \leq 11\msun$, where the fallback is partial and some natal kicks are present. For this scenario we expect a decreased number of BH-BH systems because of natal kicks disrupting binary systems during SNe. The “*C*” scenario develops for $M_{\rm CO} \geq 11\msun$ and again results in full fallback, and no natal kicks.
BH progenitors originating from $\zsun$ environments never form through the *C* scenario, since they lose mass in winds at rates that do not allow them to form CO cores larger than $11\msun$. Since BH-BH progenitors in the *B* scenario are subject to disruption due to the presence of natal kicks, most BH-BH systems in $\zsun$ environments form through the *A* scenario, with chirp masses clustered around $7\msun$.
However, reducing the metallicity by a factor of $2$ lowers the wind mass loss rates sufficiently to allow BHs to form through the *C* scenario. At this metallicity ($\sim 0.5\,\zsun$) only the most massive progenitors ($M_{\rm ZAMS}>100\msun$) may form BHs through this scenario. Additionally, the mass of the BHs formed from these high mass components ($M_{\rm ZAMS}>100\msun$) only depends weakly on their initial mass. This stems from the fact that these stars evolve quickly ($\sim\,\mbox{Myrs}$) and lose large fractions of their hydrogen envelope. Binary evolution does not alter this result significantly, as the interactions between components, such as mass transfer during CE episodes, also lead to the removal of their hydrogen envelopes. The result for metallicity $\sim 0.5\,\zsun$ is a clustering of BH-BH systems formed from the most massive binaries at masses around $16\msun$ for each component. This produces the peak in the chirp mass distribution at $\sim 14\msun$.
Reducing the metallicity content by another factor of $2$ (to $\sim 0.25\,\zsun$) allows the same mechanism to form BH-BH systems with masses clustering at around $24\msun$ for each component. These systems form the peak in the chirp mass distribution at $\sim 21\msun$.
The grouping effect disappears when reducing the metallicity abundance in BH progenitors even further. For example, at $0.1\,\zsun$ the low wind mass loss rate does not increase the separation between components as significantly as for higher metallicities. Consequently, the most massive progenitor binaries engage in a CE phase early in their evolution. This usually happens when the donor is on the HG and the Standard model does not allow for successful outcomes of such CEs. However, this scenario is allowed to form BH-BH systems in the Optimistic CE model, yielding the peak present in the chirp mass distribution at $\sim 29\msun$.
As discussed above, the chirp mass distribution in scenario *C* depends sensitively on the mass loss rate of stars, which depends strongly on metallicity. Binary evolution for $0.5\,\zsun$ and $0.25\,\zsun$ creates sharp peaks in the chirp mass distribution of BH-BH systems. In the discrete metallicity grid simulated in this study, there are no metallicity points between $0.5\,\zsun$ and $0.25\,\zsun$. Targeted follow-up investigations indicate that metallicity choices between $0.5\zsun$ and $0.25\zsun$ lead to additional sharp peaks in the chirp mass distribution between $14\msun$ – $21\msun$. We expect that an integral over a fine grid with appropriately small step sizes in metallicity would lead to all of these narrow peaks merging together to form a single broad distribution without sharp features. However, we cannot confidently describe the shape of this distribution without a more detailed investigation with a fine grid of metallicities, which is not computationally tractable at present.
Finally, the peak in the chirp mass distribution at $\sim 7\msun$ in the Standard model is formed from systems born in $0.5$–$1\,\zsun$ environments. These are low-mass BHs (usually $8$–$9\msun$ per component) formed in the *A* scenario. This formation is particularly interesting as it does not appear in the Delayed SN model, with the difference stemming from the different fallback scenarios in the Rapid and Delayed engines. With the Rapid engine, we can distinguish the three fallback regions. However, the Delayed engine predicts one region of partial fallback for $3.5\msun < M_{\rm CO} \leq 11\msun$ and one region of full fallback $M_{\rm CO} \geq 11\msun$ (identical to the *C* scenario in the Rapid engine). Since partial fallback implies the presence of natal kicks and, therefore, increased probability of binary disruption, there are no “preferred” masses for the lightest BHs in the Delayed SN engine (see dashed line on the 3rd panel, Fig. \[fig:FiducialResultDistributions:BHBH\]) as in the Rapid engine.
The Standard and Delayed SN models also yield different lower mass limits for BH remnants (see Section \[binevol\]). For the “Rapid engine” scenario the lowest-mass BH is $\sim 5\msun$, while for the “Delayed engine” scenario the lowest-mass BH is $\sim 2.5\msun$ (this is also the highest NS mass adopted in our [StarTrack]{} calculations). As a result, the detectable systems with the lowest total mass have $\mc=4.8\msun$ and $\mc=2.4\msun$ in the Rapid and Delayed engine scenarios, respectively.
Additionally, regardless of our evolutionary models the majority BH-BH systems are formed with nearly equal mass components. Therefore, systems with mass rations $\sim 1$ dominate the detected population, as shown in Fig. \[fig:qdis\]. For the Delayed SN model the detectable BH-BH systems with the lowest mass ratio have $q\approx 0.05$. For the remaining models this value is $q\approx 0.12$.
![\[fig:qdis\] **Mass ratio ($q$) detection probability distribution for BH-BH systems.** It is clear that one should expect that the vast majority of detectable BH-BH systems will be formed of nearly equal mass components. The lowest values of $q$ among the detected systems are $0.05$ for the Delayed SN model and $0.12$ for the remaining models. For each model the probability is normalized to the total number of detections for this model.](q.ps){width="\columnwidth"}
For future reference we also present the initial–final mass relation for close BH-BH systems in Fig. \[fig:bmr\]. The relation is divided into the primary (more massive at ZAMS) and secondary (less massive) component for two metallicity values ($\zsun$ and $0.1\zsun$), for the Standard model. It is clearly visible that binary evolution distorts the initial-final mass relation for single stars in both mass dimensions. In the initial mass dimension, the absence of BHs forming from stars with ZAMS mass above $\sim 70\msun$ is a direct consequence of the assumption of the negative (merger) CE outcome for HG donors in our Standard model. In our framework more massive stars have larger radii and, therefore, are more likely to engage in CE while the donor is on the HG rather than on later evolutionary stages. If this assumption was relaxed (Optimistic CE model) the maximum BH mass reached in close BH-BH systems is found to be $150\msun$ for both metallicities. In the final mass dimension, binary evolution prevents remnant components from reaching masses as high as those formed from single progenitors. Whereas single stars shed mass only through winds, binaries may also remove mass through interactions like the non-conservative mass transfer and/or CE events, which consequently lowers the mass of the remnants.
![\[fig:bmr\] **Initial-final mass relation for binary systems.** Presented for close BH-BH systems, Standard model. We define primary and secondary components as the initially (at ZAMS) more and less massive, respectively. The shaded scale (right side of each panel) shows the fractional contribution of a given ZAMS mass bin to the total mass of merging black holes formed from primaries (left panels) and secondaries (right panels). Note that binary evolution produces a very different initial-final mass relation than the single stellar evolution (thin line). The top panels and bottom panels show results for $\zsun$ and $0.1\zsun$, respectively. ](binary_mass_rel.eps){width="\textwidth"}
The initial-final mass relation (in this case for the binary population of close BH-BH systems) is a result of a number of various initial and evolutionary assumptions used in population synthesis calculations. Change of any of these assumptions (whether in initial conditions or evolutionary calculations) may potentially influence the initial-final mass relation and in turn the generated BH-BH population. The largest impact is expected from the treatment of RLOF stability (i.e., criteria for CE development), SN explosion physics, wind mass loss and internal mixing within massive stars induced by convection and/or rotation that sets the radial evolution of massive stars. It seems that the change in the assumptions underlying the initial-final mass relation may yield no BH-BHs [@mennekens] or numerous BH-BH systems [@voss; @nasza; @dominik; @dominik2]. However, these results apply only to isolated binary evolution. New studies of globular clusters suggest that, such environments may be the birthplaces of a significant number of BH-BH systems [@gcbhbh].
Note, that the above relations apply only to BH-BH systems. However, our models do not inhibit the creation of NS from progenitors much more massive than $20 \msun$. In fact, the study by [@betaam2008] shows that, due to binary evolution, NS may form from progenitors as massive as $100 \msun$.
Questioning the no BH-BH theorem {#sec:nobhbh}
================================
During more than a decade of research into the evolution of binary stars and the formation of DCOs, several authors proposed the absence of stellar-mass BH-BH systems merging within the Hubble time (e.g. [@nele2001; @mennekens]). In the latter study the authors have claimed that the main reason for this are the high wind mass loss rates experienced by BH progenitors. For example, in their version of the Brussels population/galactic code (originally [@ddv04]) they fix the wind mass loss rates of the Luminous Blue Variable (LBV) phase at $10^{-3}\msun$ yr$^{-1}$. Following such heavy mass loss, the orbital separation of the components increases so that they do not engage in CE. As the CE is a major mechanism for reducing orbital separation in isolated binary evolution, allowing for the formation of close BH-BH systems, the result is an absence of BH-BH systems detectable through gravitational waves. These results stand in contrast with the works of [@voss] and our previous studies [@nasza; @dominik; @dominik2].
There are mitigating factors to the finding of [@mennekens]. For example, their code does not allow for tidal interactions between close binary components. As we demonstrate in the following text, tidal interactions may (even for very high LBV winds) allow for the formation of close BH-BH binaries (for more on the importance of tidal interactions see e.g., [@serena]). Let us consider the following example of binary evolution generated with the StarTrack code. We start with an evolved binary: a $8\msun$ BH accompanied by a $43\msun$ companion at the beginning of the HG phase, with an orbital separation of $4600\rsun$ at $5.5$ Myr after the creation of the systems (ZAMS). This is a typical phase of a BH-BH progenitor in our Standard model. In this example we also set the LBV wind mass loss rate to $10^{-3}\msun$ yr$^{-1}$ and disable tidal interactions between the components, both as in [@mennekens]. We find that intense wind mass loss widens the orbital separation between the components to such extent that they never interact. Therefore, when the BH companion forms a second BH, the resulting BH-BH systems is too wide to merge within a Hubble time. This example is presented in Fig. \[fig:notides\].
![\[fig:notides\] **Orbital evolution with tidal interactions disabled**. This figure presents a part of the evolution of a $8\msun$ BH and $43\msun$ HG system, with Luminous Blue Variable wind mass loss rate set at $10^{-3}\msun$ yr$^{-1}$. The top panel shows the evolution of the radius and Roche lobe of the HG star in addition to the orbital separation in the binary. The bottom panel shows the evolution of the HG star’s spin frequency relative to the orbital frequency. The HG star’s activity as a Luminous Blue Variable is marked by the ’LBV’ label. The vertical line separating the ’HG’ and ’CHeB’ labels marks the transition of the HG star to the Core Helium Burning phase. Note that without tidal interactions the binary’s orbit expands (due to stellar wind mass loss) and no component interaction (e.g., CE) is expected. In the end a wide BH-BH binary is formed. ](notides.ps){width="\columnwidth"}
We can repeat our exercise can be repeated with tidal interactions between the components enabled. Investigating the same system we find a drastically different outcome of the evolution (see Fig. \[fig:tides\]). As in the example above, the BH companion starts its significant evolutionary expansion across Hertzsprung gap. Due to the conservation of angular momentum, the expansion of the star slows its rotation down almost to a standstill.
Once the companion star fills a sizable fraction of its Roche lobe ($\sim 50\%$), the tidal torques imposed on the star by an orbiting BH transfer the orbital angular momentum into the star, spinning it up. At first this effect is negligible. However, after approximately $5000$ years, when the radius of the star becomes sufficient ($\sim 1100\rsun$), the spin up of the HG star stalls and overpowers the increase of orbital separation. From this point on, the orbital separation starts to decrease for another $3000$ years. Finally, when the radius of the star is $\sim 2000\rsun$, it fills its Roche lobe and initiates a CE.
![\[fig:tides\] **Orbital evolution with tidal interactions enabled**. Same as Fig. \[fig:notides\] but with tidal interactions enabled. The ‘Rad. Env.’ and ‘Conv. Env.’ labels along with corresponding arrows highlight areas where the HG star has a radiative and convective envelope, respectively. The vertical line linking the arrows marks the transition point in the structure of the envelope. Tidal interactions allow the transfer of orbital angular momentum into the expanding HG star. The associated orbital decay leads to RLOF and the development of a CE, which allows for the formation of a close BH-BH binary. The timescale on the horizontal axis is zoomed in relative to Fig. \[fig:notides\]. ](tides.ps){width="\columnwidth"}
Our exercise clearly shows that different assumptions may lead to qualitatively different outcomes in terms of the close BH-BH formation. In particular, assumptions used in this study on LBV winds, tidal interactions and radial expansion result in a large number of BH-BH mergers. In contrast, assumptions used by [@mennekens] result in no BH-BH mergers formed out of the isolated binary evolution.
There are several caveats in this framework. First, it is not theoretically well established if stellar radii can grow to $\sim 2000\rsun$. For example, intensive mixing (either invoked by rapid rotation or extended convection in the stellar interior) may reduce the size of the H-rich envelope which is responsible for expansion in massive stars. On the other hand the intense wind mass loss may additionally reduce the envelope (e.g., [@yusof2013], but see MESA models for very massive stars [@walczak]). However, the radii of AH Sco, KW Sgr and UY Scuti estimated with the PHOENIX stellar atmosphere model [@wittkowski] extend well beyond $1000\rsun$, with UY Scuti, reaching $1708\rsun$ [@yuscuti]. The mass of UY Scuti is estimated to be within $25\msun$–$40\msun$, i.e., within the mass range for BH progenitors in our framework. Second, the efficiency of tidal interactions depends on the structure of the envelope of the participating components. Stars with convective envelopes tend to respond more strongly to tidal dissipation than stars with radiative envelopes. In [StarTrack]{} (see Section 3.3 of [@startrack]) we calibrate this phenomenon against the cutoff period for circularization of a population of MS binaries in M67 and the orbital decay accompanying tidal synchronization in the LMC X-4 high mass X-ray binary.
This treatment of tidal dissipation applies directly to the given example as the envelope of the companion star turns from radiative to convective about $3000$ years after the companion enters the HG (when HG star radius increases to over $\sim 1000 \rsun$). However, our simulations show that switching tidal dissipation to the weaker radiative damping does not prevent binaries from initiating the CE. In our framework tides are applied to the entire star and we assume that stars rotate non-differentially. It cannot be excluded that tides operate only on the outer layers of stellar atmosphere that holds only a small fraction of a star’s mass. Additionally, if there is no (or very weak) transport of angular momentum within a star, only a small fraction of orbital energy is used to synchronize the stellar atmosphere as compared to our prescription. Finally, the moment of inertia of very massive stars depends strongly on the radial profile, and the [StarTrack]{} assumptions may yield a moment of inertia that is too large, therefore providing a more significant reservoir for depositing orbital angular momentum into the star than is available in practice. If in fact only very little orbital angular momentum is used for binary component synchronization [*and*]{} if the winds are in fact as intense as indicated by [@mennekens], then this would bar the formation of many close BH-BH binaries found within the framework of our evolutionary model.
Even if tidal interactions turn out to be ineffective in massive close binaries, this does not necessarily rule out the formation of close BH-BH binaries. In field populations about 10–30% of binaries are, in fact, triples (or higher multiples; e.g., [@kiminki1; @kiminki2; @duchene]) and Kozai-Lidov effects or dynamical instabilities [@PeretsKratter:2012] may lead to the merger of wide BH-BH binaries. Additionally, many [@kroupa2014] massive stars are formed in clusters and may be subject to dynamical interactions that can potentially decrease orbital separations. Finally, over the last few years it has been claimed that dense globular clusters may produce significant number of close BH-BH binaries. In contrast with earlier findings with no efficient formation of close BH-BH binaries (e.g., [@kulkarni; @sigurdsson; @zwart2000; @banerjee]) the new paradigm emerged based on recent and updated Monte Carlo simulations of dense cluster evolution (e.g., [@mackey; @morscher; @sippel; @heggie2014]). BH-BH binaries may also form via dynamical interactions in galactic nuclear clusters with or without a massive black hole [@OLeary:2008; @MillerLauburg:2008] (but cf. [@Tsang:2013]).
Conclusions {#sec:conclusions}
===========
We have calculated cosmological detection rates of merging DCOs for second-generation GW observatories. We used redshift distributions of merging DCOs from the [Startrack]{} population synthesis code, and have incorporated the cosmic star formation rate as well as galaxy and metallicity evolution. Using state-of-the-art gravitational waveforms and detector sensitivity curves, we have translated the cosmological merger rates into detection rates for four distinct models of binary evolution.
Our study has several robust implications for imminent GW searches. First and foremost, our four models agree on the detection rates of merging NS-NS systems ($\sim 1$ detection per year), with the exception of the Optimistic CE model which predicts rates a factor of $2$–$3$ times higher than other models. The mass distributions of detectable NS-NS systems are also similar across the models, with the exception of the Delayed SN model, which allows for the formation of NSs with higher masses due to prolonged accretion during the SN explosion. We predict that NS-NS binaries will be detectable up to redshift $z\approx 0.13$, i.e., only in the local Universe.
Second, BH-NS systems are expected to be the rarest detectable DCOs (less than $1$ detection per year), with the exception of the Optimistic CE model, in which BH-NS detection rates slightly exceed those of NS-NS systems of the same model. We predict BH-NS systems to be detectable up to redshift $z\approx 0.3$.
In contrast, BH-BH systems will provide the largest number of detections ($\sim 100$–$1000$ per year), making them the primary target for first detection and the most promising source for future statistical studies of source populations. BH-BH systems dominate event rates even in the pessimistic “High BH kick” model (several events per year), wherein most of the systems containing BHs are disrupted during the SN. Additionally, the BH-BH mass distribution could have rich, observationally-accessible structure (various lower limits and shapes) that encodes fine details about stellar and binary evolution [see, e.g., @PSconstraints3-MassDistributionMethods-NearbyUniverse; @massgap; @2012ApJ...757...36K; @chrisija]. We note, however, that the crude binning in metallicity that we had to undertake in order to limit computational costs may create artificial sharp, narrow features in the mass distribution, which would merge together into broader trends with a finer metallicity grid.
[@mennekens] point out that the detection rate of BH-BH systems may be reduced to zero due to the effects of intense stellar wind during the Red Supergiant and Luminous Blue Variable phases of BH progenitors. However, we have demonstrated that the [@mennekens] result is a direct consequence of their assumption of no tidal interaction in close binaries. If tides can efficiently transfer angular momentum from the orbit into the companion spin, then it is expected that isolated binaries will form close BH-BH systems.
The criteria for the development of the CE phase may influence the merger and detection rates of all DCOs. [@woods] and [@ivanova2014] state that the criterion for the stability of mass transfer sourced from the polytropic approximation is much too strict. Therefore, the frequency of the CE may be overestimated. The CE is a major mechanism for creating close binaries that coalesce within a Hubble time. The lack of CE events would, therefore, decrease the number of DCO mergers. This would provide a reasonable pessimistic scenario for the lack of detections of gravitational wave signals. A study of CE development criteria and its effect on the formation of close BH-BH binaries is underway (Belczynski et al., in prep.). However, an assumed rarity of CE systems would be difficult to reconcile with observational evidence pointing to systems (for example V1309 Sco, V4332 Sgr, OGLE 2002-BLG-360 or CK Vul) which seem to have developed a CE (e.g., [@tylenda; @martini99; @tylenda2013]). Additionally, massive X-ray binaries such as NGC300 X-1 or IC10 X-1 are on close orbits with orbital periods $\sim 30$ hr, which have likely developed through a CE event.
Our study shows that detectable NS-NS systems are formed significantly later in the history of the Universe than BH-BH and BH-NS systems. As shown in Figs. \[fig:FiducialResultDistributions:NSNS\], \[fig:FiducialResultDistributions:BHNS\], and \[fig:FiducialResultDistributions:BHBH\], the birth times of NS-NS systems cluster around $13$ Gyr after the Big Bang, while for the other systems this is $1$ Gyr. This behavior might be counter-intuitive, as the intrinsic distribution of time delays between formation and merger for all types of DCOs falls off as $t_{\rm merger}^{-1}$, barring exceptional circumstances [e.g., near-solar metallicity BH-BH binaries, @dominik]. Therefore, one might expect the majority of detectable DCOs to be formed within the past $\sim$ Gyr as is the case for NS-NS systems. However, BH-BH systems are created most efficiently in the lowest metallicity environments, and therefore their formation rate is highest in the early Universe. The long time-delay tail of these early systems dominates the subsequent detection rate. The metallicity evolution is therefore a crucial factor in predicting the detectable rate of DCOs.
We also find that including the merger and ringdown components of the GW signal does not have a significant impact on the detection rates of NS-NS systems. The full IMR calculations become important for higher mass systems, and especially for BH-BH binaries. The detection rates for BH-BH systems increases by at least $20\%$, and typically by $\sim
50\%$, when using full IMR waveforms when compared to the PN inspiral alone.
The detection rate of BH-BH systems is also sensitive to spin effects. Extreme aligned spins increase the rates by a factor of $\sim
3$ when compared with the non-spinning case.
We used simplified criteria for detectability, considering an SNR threshold of $8$ in a single detector as a proxy for the network [cf. @2010CQGra..27q3001A]. For reference, we also considered a network SNR threshold of $10$, which is likely to be very optimistic, and $12$, which is more realistic [cf. @scenarios], on a network of three detectors with aLIGO sensitivity. The network SNR threshold of $12$ yields rates which are roughly comparable with rates computed using an SNR threshold of $8$ in a single aLIGO detector as proxy for the network. The actual detection thresholds are a complicated function of network configuration, the level and frequency of non-Gaussian, non-stationary excursions in the noise, and search pipeline sensitivity to different source types. Therefore, our simple thresholds are only meant to yield rough estimates of detection rates, and the focus should be on relative rates for different source types and model assumptions rather than absolute numbers. Finally, we note that the sensitivity of advanced detectors will gradually improve during commissioning, and several years will pass before they reach the sensitivity we have assumed above [for an approximate time line, see @scenarios].
The detection rates computed by assuming an SNR threshold of $8$ in a single aLIGO detector as proxy for the network allow for a direct comparison with the rate ranges compiled in [@2010CQGra..27q3001A], which used the same detectability criterion. @2010CQGra..27q3001A incorporated a number of population synthesis studies and Galactic binary pulsar observations, but did not include some of the factors considered in the present study, such as cosmology and variations in metallicity distributions and star formation rates with redshift. We find that our predicted detection rates for NS-NS and BH-BH binaries fall within the ranges given in [@2010CQGra..27q3001A] for all models and both metallicity distribution choices considered in the present work. For BH-NS binaries, the same holds for all models and metallicity choices except for the high BH kick model, which yields BH-NS detection rates below the range quoted in [@2010CQGra..27q3001A].
We note that uncertainties in waveform systematics and detection criteria pale in comparison to uncertainties in stellar and binary evolution. We consider the most important uncertainties to be the progress and outcome of the CE phase, the SN explosion mechanism and the magnitude of BH natal kicks. The four binary evolution models discussed in this study explore these uncertainties, resulting in a wide range of mass distributions and event rates. Changing other parameters such as the initial binary mass distribution or varying the mass escaping the systems during mass transfer episodes would also influence the resulting distributions and rates [@2005ApJ...620..385O; @2008ApJ...675..566O; @roskb].
The properties of the DCO populations produced in our various models are sufficiently differentiated that it may be possible to constrain or rule out some of the input physics based on observed populations. For example, a lack of significant number of detections will disfavor the Optimistic CE model, in which we allow for CE events with HG donors and thus find very high detection rates. This will indicate how (if at all) CE develops for HG stars. If BH-BH systems are not detected far more frequently than other DCO types, a likely explanation is that BHs receive significant natal kicks disrupting their binaries. A detailed comparison of detection rates with current LIGO upper limits can be found in @comparison. As detections accumulate, a well measured chirp mass distribution could allow us to distinguish between the Rapid and Delayed SN engine models, which generate continuous and gapped chirp mass distribution of DCOs, respectively. The number of detections needed to distinguish between the Rapid and Delayed SN engines will be discussed in future work (Dominik et al. 2014, in preparation).
We thank a number of LIGO and Virgo collaboration colleagues, particularly Thomas Dent, David Shoemaker, Stephen Fairhurst and Peter Saulson, for advice on the manuscript. We thank the N. Copernicus Astronomical Centre in Warsaw, Poland, and the University of Texas at Brownsville, for providing computational resources. The authors acknowledge the Texas Advanced Computing Center (TACC) at The University of Texas at Austin for providing computational resources. KB acknowledges support from a Polish Science Foundation “Master2013” Subsidy, Polish NCN grant SONATA BIS 2, NASA Grant Number NNX09AV06A and NSF Grant Number HRD 1242090 awarded to the Center for Gravitational Wave Astronomy at U.T. Brownsville. MD acknowledges support from the National Science Center grant DEC-2011/01/N/ST9/00383. EB acknowledges support from National Science Foundation CAREER Grant PHY-1055103. ROS was supported by NSF award PHY-0970074 and the UWM Research Growth Initiative. DEH acknowledges support from National Science Foundation CAREER grant PHY-1151836. He was also supported in part by the Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics at the University of Chicago through NSF grant PHY-1125897 and an endowment from the Kavli Foundation and its founder Fred Kavli. TB was supported by the DPN/N176/VIRGO/2009 grant and the DEC-2013/01/ASPERA/ST9/00001 from the National Science Center, Poland. FP was supported by STFC Grant No. ST/L000342/1. This work was supported in part by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. PHYS-1066293 and the hospitality of the Aspen Center for Physics (KB). The study was also sponsored by the National Science Center grant Sonata Bis 2 (DEC-2012/07/E/ST9/01360).
Single and multidetector response
=================================
The “expected detection rate for GW detectors” is a theorist’s idealization. First and foremost, the event rate depends sensitively on the (time-dependent) performance of instruments in development. Furthermore, real GW searches employ complicated detection thresholds, accounting for noise non-gaussianity and non-stationarity; for multiple instruments with unequal power spectra; and for some search-dependent consistency requirement across multiple detectors. Rather than attempt realism, our idealizations provide a concrete, reproducible filter to identify the number and (critically) distribution of “detectable” binaries.
Cumulative amplitude distribution for a single detector
-------------------------------------------------------
In a simple idealization, the detection threshold depends only on a single detector’s SNR. Several authors have characterized the response of a single GW detector to the angular distribution of power for a GW source dominated by $(l,|m|)=(2,2)$ multipole radiation [@finnchernoff; @finn96; @roskb]. This response depends on the 2-dimensional sky location $\Omega$, inclination $\iota$, and polarization $\psi$, and can be conveniently summarized by a projection parameter $w$ which is maximum ($w=1$) for a face-on, overhead source, and minimum ($w=0$) for sky locations and orientations where the detector has no response to the source. The SNR, $\rho(\Omega,\psi,\iota)$, is equal to the maximum SNR of a face-on, overhead source at the same distance scaled by $w$, i.e., $\rho = w \rho_{\rm opt}$. The cumulative distribution function for $w$ is $P(w)$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:P}
P(w)&=& \int_{V}
\frac{d\Omega}{4\pi}
\frac{d\psi}{\pi}
\frac{d\cos \iota }{2} \end{aligned}$$ where we integrate over the 4-dimensional angular integration volume, $V$, which is the set of all $\Omega,\iota,\psi$ such that the response exceeds $w$. Our expression is identical to the cumulative distribution function $P(\Theta)$ defined by [@finnchernoff] and discussed also by [@finn96], but we use the variable $w=\Theta/4$ such that $0<w<1$: [see e.g. @roskb; @walczak]. Note that $\langle w^2\rangle =
(2/5)^2$, therefore the optimal SNR at a given distance and the square root of the angle-averaged signal power for a source at that distance ($\rho_{\rm ave}^2
\equiv \left<\rho^2\right>$) are related by $\rho_{\rm opt}=(5/2) \rho_{\rm ave}$. Meanwhile, $\langle
w^3\rangle^{-1/3}\simeq 2.264$ is the factor commonly used to relate volume-averaged distances to optimal detection distances, where $\left< w^3 \right>$ is the fraction of detectable sources within a sphere whose radius equals the at-threshold detection distance for an optimally located and oriented source; see, e.g., Eq. (6) of [@roskb].
Easily-interpolated tabulated results for $P(w)$ are available online[^3]. The analytic approximation to this distribution function given by [@finn96] is inadequate for our purposes; our tabulated results follow from sampling the distribution numerically via a Monte Carlo over $10^9$ binaries. We found that a good three-parameter fit to the data is \[eq:Pfit\] P(w)= a\^[(n)]{}\_[2]{} \[(1-w/\^[(n)]{})\^[2]{}\] + a\^[(n)]{}\_[4]{} \[(1-w/\^[(n)]{})\^[4]{}\] + a\^[(n)]{}\_[8]{} \[(1-w/\^[(n)]{})\^[8]{}\] + (1-a\^[(n)]{}\_[2]{}-a\^[(n)]{}\_[4]{}-a\^[(n)]{}\_[8]{})\[(1-w/\^[(n)]{})\^[10]{}\], where $(n)$ refers to the number of detectors in the network, $\alpha^{(n)}$ is the maximum value that $w$ can attain, so that $\alpha^{(1)}=1$ as $w$ is bounded between $0$ and $1$, and the coefficients are $a^{(1)}_2 = 0.374222$, $a^{(1)}_4 = 2.04216$, and $a^{(1)}_8 =
-2.63948$. Notice that Eq.(\[eq:Pfit\]) ensures that $P(\alpha^{(1)})=0$ and $P(0)=1$.
Cumulative amplitude distribution for multiple detectors {#ap:Details}
--------------------------------------------------------
For a multidetector network $A$, a network SNR $\rho_A$ can always be defined. Following an identical procedure as above, we can define a cumulative distribution $P_A$ that generalizes Eq. (\[eq:P\]). As before, $w=\rho/\rho_{\rm opt}$, but for multi-detector networks composed of instruments with equal sensitivity, $\rho$ is the network SNR while $\rho_{\rm
opt}$ is the single-detector SNR from an optimally-oriented binary directly overhead that detector. For three identical instruments at the LIGO Hanford, Livingston, and Virgo sites, tabulated results for $P_A$ are available online at the URL listed in the previous footnote; a good fit to the data has the form given in Eq. (\[eq:Pfit\]), but now $0<w<1.4$, so that $\alpha^{(3)}=1.4$. The coefficients we obtain are $a^{(3)}_2 = 1.19549$, $a^{(3)}_4 = 1.61758$, and $a^{(3)}_8 =
-4.87024$.
@2011CQGra..28l5023S described a simple idealized model for the sensitivity of multi-instrument networks. This model is almost equivalent to our own. The two models differ in that @2011CQGra..28l5023S, in his Eqs.(14)–(15), replaces $w^2$ by an (unphysical) average of $w^2$ over polarization, then treats the rms value of $w$ \[i.e., $\left<w^2\right>^{1/2}$\] as a substitute for $w$ whenever $w$ appears. Our results adopt no such simplifying approximation.
Higher harmonics
----------------
Real GW sources produce multimodal radiation, with each mode providing a distinct angular pattern. For low-mass sources these higher harmonics contribute little to the detector’s response. For high-mass binaries with asymmetric mass ratios, higher harmonics can contribute significantly to the observationally accessible signal [@Capano:2013raa]. For nonspinning binaries of total mass $M<60 M_\odot$, and with the smaller mass $>1.2M_\odot$, we expect higher harmonics to increase the SNR $\rho$ by less than a few percent, consistent with extrapolations derived using PN waveforms. This expectation is supported by investigations carried out with a multimodal EOB IMR waveform [@2011PhRvD..84l4052P]. To a good approximation, the SNR $\rho$ and angular distribution $P(w)$ can be approximated by the corresponding expressions derived assuming purely quadrupolar, $(2,2)$-mode emission. Higher harmonics can play a significant role if the mass distribution extends to very high *redshifted* mass. At high mass, higher harmonics contribute a greater fraction of the SNR, each in a distinctive angular pattern; see [@2010PhRvD..82j4006O] for illustrative results. For aLIGO, systematic astrophysical uncertainties such as the BH spin and mass have a significantly greater impact than the harmonic content. These higher harmonics will be important for third-generation interferometers, like the Einstein Telescope. This will be investigated in future work.
[^1]: Note that in Eq. (3.14) of [@santamaria] the coefficient of the dominant correction, ${\cal A}_2$, listed in their Eq. (A5) is negative.
[^2]: We also carried out calculations using PhB models, which overestimate rates by about $10\%$ with respect to PhC models. We decided not to report these results in the Tables, because the PhB model is less accurate than PhC, although it is easier to implement and less computationally expensive.
[^3]: Data files can be found online at the following URL: <http://www.phy.olemiss.edu/~berti/research.html>.
|
---
abstract: 'Many natural processes rely on optimizing the success ratio of a search process. We use an experimental setup consisting of a simple online game in which players have to find a target hidden on a board, to investigate the how the rounds are influenced by the detection of cues. We focus on the search duration and the statistics of the trajectories traced on the board. The experimental data are explained by a family of random-walk-based models and probabilistic analytical approximations. If no initial information is given to the players, the search is optimized for cues that cover an intermediate spatial scale. In addition, initial information about the extension of the cues results, in general, in faster searches. Finally, strategies used by informed players turn into non-stationary processes in which the length of each displacement evolves to show a well-defined characteristic scale that is not found in non-informed searches.'
author:
- 'Ricardo Martínez-García'
- 'Justin M. Calabrese'
- Cristóbal López
title: 'Online games: a novel approach to explore how partial information influences human random searches'
---
Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
============
The problem of searching for targets whose location is unknown arises in many fields and at different scales [@MendezChap6; @Benichou2011; @kagan2015search]. Numerous examples appear in the natural sciences including in ecology [@Viswanathan2011; @Viswanathan1999; @MendezChap9; @bartumeus2005animal; @edwards2007revisiting], biochemistry [@gorman2008; @Kantslere02403; @bonnet2008sliding] and chemistry [@Haangi1990]. In addition, many human activities involve situations where a target has to be found. Some instances are the location of a lost object, rescue operations, or fugitive prosecutions [@frost2001review]. More recently, the development of eye-tracking technology has allowed the study of visual searches on screens [@najemnik2005optimal; @credidio2012statistical; @amor2016persistence]. In order to understand the social, biological and physical mechanisms behind these processes, it is essential to have empirical evidence of the performance of different strategies and how they are affected by environmental cues, regardless of whether they are employed by humans, animals or bacteria [@levin1992problem]. Such data are also required to verify the mathematical models that have been proposed [@bartumeus2002optimizing; @hein; @Benichou2005; @Chupeau2015; @Vergassola2007; @campos2015optimal; @abe2015levy; @Robertse12572], and to develop improved protocols.
Situations in which a target has to be located appear in a large variety of scenarios, which allows the design of multiple strategies to find a successful solution. Such strategies can be classified in many different ways, according to one or more of their properties [@MendezChap6]. For instance, stochastic or systematic processes are distinguished depending on the type of search rule [@Benichou2011] and the amount of directional information available determines the existence of bias towards preferred regions [@patlak1953random; @codling2008random]. Finally, differences may also be attributable to the movement pattern, such as cruising versus ambush [@o1990search] and to the frequency of the reorientation events, such as intensive (frequent) versus extensive (infrequent) [@JonsenEtAl2005.Robust.modeling; @McClintockEtAl2012.Movement.framework]. The effectiveness of a particular choice within each category is determined by the properties and the state of the searcher, the target, and the environment where the task has to be accomplished. For instance, searchers with memory that navigate relatively predictable environments do not employ purely random strategies but combine a stochastic component with knowledge acquired through previous experience. There is therefore a learning process that plays an important role in the emergence of new rules [@merkle2014memory; @fagan2013spatial]. In other scenarios, individuals who live in groups may incorporate information gathered by conspecifics with their own in order to improve foraging efficiency. It has been recently showed that intermediate combinations between both types of cues result in more efficient searches regardless of the nature of the mobility pattern [@Martinez-Garcia2014a] and the spatial distribution of the targets [@bhattacharya2014collective; @Martinez-Garcia2013b]. However, the precise optimal balance between social and individual information is determined by each specific setup.
In all of these scenarios, interactions with the environment provide the searcher with information that may alter the effectiveness of a given strategy over the course of the search. Therefore, in the most general case, search strategies must be interpreted as dynamical processes consisting of several components rather than fixed procedures. For instance, many predators respond to the detection of cues indicating the proximity of prey by increasing their turning angles and reducing their speed in order to scan the local environment more carefully [@hassell1978dynamics; @curio2012ethology], which leads to concentration of the search activity in areas of high prey density [@kareiva1987swarms]. This behavior has been reported in several species of insects [@kareiva1986patchiness], seabirds [@weimerskirch2007does; @fauchald2003using] and also in human searchers looking for hidden resources in open environments [@hills2013adaptive]. Other phenomena that trigger sudden changes in individual movement behavior are changes between habitats [@Ovaskainen2004.Diffusion.model] and changes in the amount and quality of information gathered by the searcher [@bartumeus2005animal].
In this work we propose the use of computer games as a new experimental approach with which it is possible to address these and related questions in humans. This is particularly intriguing since, due to their cognitive abilities, individuals might show a large diversity of complex responses to the same stimulus. Despite substantial efforts aimed at understanding the theoretical concepts behind many search processes, a reliable and unifying empirical framework in which these ideas may be tested is still lacking. The family of games presented here is a good candidate to fill this gap, as they can be accessed online by a large number of players. This results in the generation of large and clean datasets. In addition, the rules and setup of the game can be experimentally manipulated so that different mechanisms or strategies can be rigorously tested. Firsy, we address several questions related to search efficiency and investigate how the strategies change due to the amount and the quality of information acquired by the player at different stages of the game. In a second step, the main features of these patterns are extracted from the data and used to develop a family of random walk models that can be applied to predict human search behavior in other configurations of the game. The variety of experiments shown in this work reinforces the flexibility of our approach and aims to open a new route for the study of search problems.
In the following section, after presenting the characteristics of the game, we show the empirical results obtained from two different setups. In the first case, players have no information about the configuration of the board, whereas in the second study they are provided with partial information about it. Then, we formulate a family of models that capture the main mechanisms behind the experimental results and derive analytical approximations to show the robustness of the results. Finally, all the previous steps are combined to develop a comprehensive framework in which it is possible to predict the optimal configuration of the landscape that yields faster searches. The paper finishes with a discussion of the results and opportunities for new lines of research.
Results {#results .unnumbered}
=======
Experimental setup {#experimental-setup .unnumbered}
------------------
We consider a simple game in which a single target has to be found. It slightly resembles the classic [*minesweeper*]{}, although the objective is to find a unique target ([*mine*]{}) instead of avoiding a collection of them. The interface consists of $N\times N$ squares that can be explored by the player through successive clicks with the mouse. There are three classes of cells depending on their color after being clicked (unclicked cells are always blue): (i) black cells are typically far from the target, (ii) yellow cells indicate that the target may be one of the neighboring cells and (iii) the single red cell is the target. The target is randomly located within a patch of yellow cells. Therefore, it provides partial information about the configuration of the board. Two different geometries for this set of yellow cells are explored here. First, in the next two sections they form a $N_{\mbox{\tiny{y}}}\times N_{\mbox{\tiny{y}}}$ [*neighborhood*]{} square region (Fig. \[fig:setup\]a). Second, in the last section of the Results they will outline a random patch whose size will be measured in terms of the number of yellow cells. Further details about the implementation of these random neighborhoods will be provided in that section. The discovery of a yellow cell indicates that the player is in the neighborhood of the target and thus reduces the area that needs to be scanned. For simplicity we fixed $N=20$ in all the experiments and then manipulated $N_{\mbox{\tiny{y}}}$.
To generate the dataset players access anonymously the game online and are asked to find the target using as few clicks (jumps on the board) as possible. Since players are not identified separately, we cannot identify the number of rounds played by each user. The rounds are all independent (different configurations of the board) and each one is represented by the trajectory traced by the player on the board. Finally, the experimental setup also includes a timer. In order to study the limit in which searches are more stochastic, players are requested to find the target as quickly as possible. This constraint also mimics many real situations both for humans and non-humans in which time is a limitation for the search. Some instances are human rescue operations or animal foraging while avoiding predators.
In the following sections we investigate i) how the duration of the search, represented by the number of mouse clicks, changes with the size of the target’s neighborhood (also called yellow region); and ii) the statistical properties of the searching patterns as defined by the distance between clicks $d_i$ (jump length) and the turn angles $\theta_i$. By definition, we consider turns to the left to be between $0^{\circ}$ and $180^{\circ}$ and turns to the right to be between $180^{\circ}$ and $360^{\circ}$ (see Fig. \[fig:setup\]b for a definition of both quantities). We consider two classes of experiments: a) blind searches, where the player is given no *a priori* knowledge of the size of the neighborhood, and b) searches with initial information, where the value of $N_{\mbox{\tiny{y}}}$ is given to the player at the beginning of the round. The objective of performing both classes of experiments is twofold: on the one hand to investigate whether players adapt their searching strategies when they have better information about the landscape and, on the other hand, to examine how search efficiency changes when the reliability of the information provided by the yellow cells increases.
Experiments with blind searchers and square neighborhoods {#experiments-with-blind-searchers-and-square-neighborhoods .unnumbered}
----------------------------------------------------------
For this first series of experiments neither the exact size, the position of the yellow region, nor a range of possible dimensions was given to the searchers. Before starting the round, each player only knew that a target (red square) was hidden in the board and it might be randomly placed inside a square vicinity of yellow cells of unknown size. The uncertainty in the size of the neighborhood reduces the reliability of the information acquired by the player when a yellow cell is clicked and favors the efficiency of random strategies [@MendezChap6]. Our dataset consists of $500$ rounds with $N_{\mbox{\tiny{y}}}$ ranging from $N_{\mbox{\tiny{y}}}=1$, which means that the target does not have a neighborhood, to $N_{\mbox{\tiny{y}}}=13$. A distribution of the number of rounds for each value of $N_{\mbox{\tiny{y}}}$ is shown in the Supplementary Table I. We first measure the mean number of clicks needed to find the target as a function of the lateral length of its yellow neighborhood (black squares in Fig. \[fig:blindjumps\]a).
Due to the design of the experiments, there is a tradeoff between finding the yellow region and finding the target inside it. Larger neighborhoods are easier to locate but make the final detection of the target inside them harder. Smaller neighborhoods, however, need on average more steps to be found but make the target within them easier to locate (Fig. \[fig:blindjumps\]b). According to our results, this tradeoff is balanced at intermediate sizes of the neighborhood, $N_{\mbox{\tiny{y}}}^{\mbox{\tiny{opt}}}=5$. This resembles the foraging dynamics of animals that exchange information about food location with their conspecifics, so that both spreading information over distances that are either too large or too short may slow down the search [@Martinez-Garcia2013b]. Following this analogy, we refer to the the size of the yellow area that minimizes the number of clicks needed to find the target as the [*optimal interaction range*]{}. The standard deviation of the number of jumps is also minimal at the optimal range, which means a narrowing in the distribution of clicks used to detect the target and therefore a reduction in the stochasticity of the search. In the limit of zero information (i.e. no yellow cells or $Ny=1$, or the whole board is yellow, $Ny=N$), the probability of finding the target on the first click is given by the inverse of the number of available cells, $1/N^{2}$. In any subsequent movement, $m$, this probability is given by
$$\label{eq:limitnoinfo}
P_m = \frac{N^{2}-(m-1)}{N^{2}}\times\frac{1}{N^{2}-(m-1)},$$
where the first term yields the probability of not having found the target in the previous $m-1$ clicks and the second term yields the probability of hitting the target once $m-1$ squares have been visited. Equation (\[eq:limitnoinfo\]) reduces to $1/N^{2}$ regardless of the value of $m$. Therefore, the probability of detection in the limit $N_{\mbox{\tiny{y}}}=1$ (and $N_{\mbox{\tiny{y}}}=N$) follows a uniform distribution of mean $N^{2}/2$ and standard deviation $N^{2}/\sqrt{12}$, which is in good agreement with data (black squares in Fig. \[fig:blindjumps\]).
Next, we analyze all the trajectories traced by the players in every round. To facilitate this, the experimental setup saves the sequence of clicks in each round, from which we calculate the length of each displacement and the angle of each turn. We identify extensive and intensive searching modes that depend on whether the player has detected a yellow cell or not respectively (Fig. \[fig:blindexp\]a). In both situations the jump lengths can be fitted using exponential distributions, with the intensive phase showing a lower mean value $1/\lambda_{\mbox{\tiny{int}}}=2.04$ and $1/\lambda_{\mbox{\tiny{ext}}}=3.70$ ($1/\lambda_{\mbox{\tiny{int}}}$, $1/\lambda_{\mbox{\tiny{ext}}}$ are the mean length of the displacements in the intensive and the extensive phase respectively). Therefore, the typical size of the jumps is reduced once the player finds the yellow area as the detection of the cue (represented by a yellow cell) triggers an area-restricted search [@hassell1978dynamics; @curio2012ethology]. Although the player does not know how big the neighborhood is and therefore how reliable the information is, the trajectories recorded after the discovery of the yellow region still show shorter distances between turns, suggesting that players switch to an intensive search mode once they find the yellow region [@MendezChap6]. It is important to remark that, although alternation between extensive (motion phase) an intensive modes (scanning phase) is also characteristic of intermittent searches, the player is not performing an intermittent search as it has been defined in the literature before [@Benichou2011]. The differences lie in two points. First, in our study the switch between reorientation modes is triggered by the external cue instead of taking place at random. Second, the detection of the target may take place in both phases instead of being limited to the extensive one. Regarding to the type of motion, we study, however, a spatially intermittent search since the player performs a saltatory trajectory in which the target can be found only if the searcher lands on it. This differs from the case of a cruise forager who looks for targets while moving and that would constitute a completely different study.
Regarding the turn angles, both the extensive (before the first encounter with a yellow cell) and the intensive phases (after detecting the first yellow cell) show correlations between subsequent turn angles (Fig. \[fig:blindexp\]b,c, respectively). This could indicate that the strategies are not completely random but contain some systematic features. In fact, a frequent strategy consists of tracing a series of short jumps in the same direction. To reduce searching times players show a tendency to scan a direction doing several consecutive clicks. This behavior is also seen in the distributions of jump lengths, since they show a large deviation from the exponential for one-cell length jumps, which are overrepresented in the dataset (Figure \[fig:blindexp\]a). The higher frequency of turning angles closer to zero is linked to the higher presence of jumps of length one. The explanation for this persistence in the direction of movement shown in Fig. \[fig:blindexp\]b,c is probably a combination between the attempt of some players to design purely systematic strategies and the intrinsic tendency of humans to keep visually scanning in the same direction [@amor2016persistence].
As an exception, movements done immediately after a yellow-to-black transition show a strong tendency to reverse the direction, as this sequence in the colors of the cells indicates that the player is moving away from the target (Fig. \[fig:blindexp\]d).
Experiments with initial information and square neighborhoods. The case of $N_{\mbox{\tiny{y}}}=5$ as compared to the blind case {#sub:know .unnumbered}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this second series of experiments the players know the size of the yellow region, which is fixed at the optimal interaction range $N_{\mbox{\tiny{y}}}=5$. This increases the quality of the information obtained when one of the yellow cells is found as the player can limit the search area. The position of this area, as well as the location of the target inside it, is random, changes from round to round and is unknown to the player.
Data from $230$ rounds were collected. As a general result, *a priori* information accelerates the search and reduces its stochasticity. Blind searchers need on average $31.30$ clicks to find the target when $N_{\mbox{\tiny{y}}}=5$ (subset of $65$ rounds from the $500$ trajectories analyzed for blind experiments, see Supplementary Table I ), while informed players use $25.5$ clicks. The two-tailed P value on the difference of these mean values obtained using an unpaired t-test, $3\times10^{-4}$, is highly statistically significant. The standard deviation also decreases, indicating a narrowing in the distribution of the number of displacements and therefore in the randomness of the process: $\sigma_{\mbox{\tiny{b}}}=14.10$ for blind searchers and $\sigma_{\mbox{\tiny{i}}}=10.50$ for the informed ones. To find out what stage of the search is more strongly affected by the initial information, we analyze the number of clicks done in each phase of the search. We repeat this factorization for the blind and the informed cases and compare both of them (Fig. \[split\]). From Fig. \[split\]b and \[split\]c, we observe that all of the reduction in the number of jumps accumulates in the intensive phase, while the extensive stage remains unaltered by the initial information. More interestingly, if the number of displacements that take place between two yellow cells is subtracted from the total number of jumps of the intensive phase (Fig. \[split\]d), we observe that this quantity remains almost unchanged. There is, however, an important reduction in the number of displacements that correspond to the rest of the combinations of cells (black to yellow, yellow to black and black to black jumps; Fig. \[split\]e). In fact, the percentage of yellow-to-yellow movements that take place during the intensive phase increases from $54\%$ to a $75\%$ in the informed searches. This result indicates that having information about the size of the yellow zone allows a faster detection of its limits and therefore reduces the number of movements spent to find the target.
Regarding to the statistical analysis of the trajectories, initial information about $N_{\mbox{\tiny{y}}}$ also yields some differences in the distributions of the lengths of the jumps and the turning angles. Informed players adapt their displacements during the extensive phase, concentrating the length of their movements around the size of the yellow neighborhood, $N_{\mbox{\tiny{y}}}=5$ (Fig. \[fig3\]a). If we analyze the whole set of informed rounds, we observe a strong dominance of movements of length $N_{\mbox{\tiny{y}}}=5$ (green squares in Figure \[fig3\]a). This is due to the presence of approximately $50$ rounds in the dataset where players performed optimally designed systematic strategies that consist of moving in jumps of fixed length $N_{\mbox{\tiny{y}}}$ during the extensive phase. We will come back to this in the description of a random walk based model for this process. For the purposes of this section we will remove these systematic rounds and focus on the subset of stochastic strategies formed by the other $180$ rounds. The distribution of the length of the displacements is still dominated by jumps that cover a distance of the order of $N_{\mbox{\tiny{y}}}$ (red circles in Fig. \[fig3\]a). For the subset of blind searchers with $N_{\mbox{\tiny{y}}} = 5$, however, this distribution does not show a well defined typical scale and instead, players explore several scales as they look for the yellow region (Fig. \[fig3\]b). For the intensive phase, informed searches also show a higher abundance of one-cell displacements than the distribution of the blind searches (inset of Fig. \[fig3\]a and \[fig3\]b respectively). This result is independent of whether or not the systematic deterministic strategies are included within the analyzed dataset and is due to the fact that knowing the neighborhood size reduces exploration during this phase. Finally, giving the size of the yellow neighborhood to the players in advance also has an effect on the distribution of turns made by the searcher immediately after a yellow-to-black displacement. This distribution is shown in Fig. \[fig3\]c for informed strategies and in Fig. \[fig3\]d for blind searches. Although in both cases the movement shows a strong bias backwards, informed searches result in distributions with a stronger peak around $\theta = 180^{\circ}$. This is due to the fact that players do not have to find out the size of the neighborhood of the target and consistent with the factorization of the number of clicks shown in Fig. \[split\]
We conclude this section with an analysis of the trajectories during the extensive phase, in order to find the mechanism by which a characteristic length scale appears in the jump length distribution. We find the existence a feedback between the searcher and the environment that makes the extensive phase non-stationary (the mean value of the distribution changes with time). This feedback allows a progressive narrowing of the jump length distribution around $N_{\mbox{\tiny{y}}}$ as the extensive phase evolves and the searcher gathers and accumulates information from the landscape. Since the player has perfect memory about his trajectory (visited cells remain open), trajectories that start with large displacements tend to create landscapes that are fragmented in patches of length $N_{\mbox{\tiny{y}}}$ in which long movements are inefficient. To show the existence of this feedback we split the data of the extensive phase in four subdivisions: (i) from jump 1 to 5, (ii) 6 to 10, (iii) 11 to 15, and (iv) 16 to the end. The distributions for each of these pieces are shown in Fig. \[nonst\]a, \[nonst\]b, \[nonst\]c and \[nonst\]d respectively, and they can be fitted by a family of gamma distributions (dashed lines in each panel) of decreasing mean, mode and variance (See Table \[tabla-partidas\] for numerical values of these parameters and details of the distributions). Then the total distribution of Fig. \[fig3\]a can be approximated by a gamma function defined in terms of the parameters of the distributions of the pieces (dashed line in Fig. \[fig3\]a). This approach shows an excellent agreement with a direct fitting of the whole extensive phase (full line in Fig. \[fig3\]a).
At this point, we have shown the existence of an optimal size for the neighborhood of the target, as well as an improvement in the search efficiency when the value of $N_{\mbox{\tiny{y}}}$ is revealed at the beginning of the round. In addition, these informed strategies evolve through information gathering during the extensive phase towards a dominant jumping distance equal to the lateral length of the neighborhood of the target, $N_{\mbox{\tiny{y}}}$. In the following sections we develop a theoretical framework and a family of models based on random walks to study the basic principles behind these results and how they can be transfered to more general scenarios, with irregular shapes for the information region.
Model for blind searchers: numerical simulations and analytical approximation {#model-for-blind-searchers-numerical-simulations-and-analytical-approximation .unnumbered}
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
We develop a minimalistic searching model based on random walks to explain previous experimental results on the basis of simple dynamical rules. The model has the three main ingredients obtained from the data analysis: (i) two modes of movement defined by the mean length of the displacements: $1/\lambda_{\mbox{\tiny{int}}}$ and $1/\lambda_{\mbox{\tiny{ext}}}$; (ii) in the absence of any information (no yellow cell clicked) the direction is completely random (uniform distribution in the turning angles); and (iii) when cues are obtained (a yellow cell has been detected), the searcher has a bias towards unvisited cells surrounding a yellow one. The choice of a uniform distribution for the turning angles is a consequence of using a purely exponential distribution for the length of the displacements (see Fig. \[fig:blindexp\]a). The high persistence shown by the experimental turning angle distribution, which can be approximated by a uniform distribution except for that peak at $\theta = 0$ (see Fig. \[fig:blindexp\]b,c), comes from the high presence of jumps of length one. Disregarding the high frequency of unity-length movements also implies disregarding the higher abundance of turning angles close to zero and therefore using a uniform distribution for $\theta$. The third assumption aims to capture the influence of the information provided to the searcher when a yellow cell is found, as well as the strong tendency to go back to yellow cells exhibited by the distribution of turning angles in Fig. \[fig:blindexp\]d. The results of the simulations (green curve in Fig. \[fig:blindjumps\]) show an excellent agreement with the experimental data (black curve) both in the mean average number of jumps and in its standard deviation. Simulations reproduce at least the two first moments of the number of clicks distribution.
Except in the limits $N_{\mbox{\tiny{y}}}=1$ (no yellow cells) and $N_{\mbox{\tiny{y}}}=N$ (yellow cells occupy the whole board), it is hard to obtain exact analytical expressions for the average total number of jumps needed to find the target. However, it is possible to obtain the distribution for the length of the extensive phase
$$\label{eq:extensive}
P_i(N_{\mbox{\tiny{y}}}) = p_i(N_{\mbox{\tiny{y}}})\prod_{j=1}^{i-1}\left(1-p_j(N_{\mbox{\tiny{y}}})\right),$$
where $P_i(N_{\mbox{\tiny{y}}})$ is the probability of having an extensive phase of $i$ jumps when the neighborhood of the target has a lateral length $N_{\mbox{\tiny{y}}}$ and $p_i(N_{\mbox{\tiny{y}}})=\frac{N_{\mbox{\tiny{y}}}}{N-i+1}$ is the probability of finding a yellow cell in the $i-th$ mouse click. In words, the probability of having an extensive phase with $i$ jumps is given by the probability of not finding a yellow cell in all the previous movements multiplied by the probability of finding one in the $i-th$ movement. Given Eq. (\[eq:extensive\]), the mean length of the extensive phase is
$$\label{eq:limits-anal}
M_{\mbox{\tiny{ext}}}=\sum\limits_{i=1}^{N^{2}-N_{\mbox{\tiny{y}}}^{2}+1}iP_i(N_{\mbox{\tiny{y}}}).$$
For the length of the intensive phase however we can only give and upper and a lower limit, assuming that after the detection of the first yellow cell all the movements are to neighboring cells. Therefore, the target is found on average after $N_{\mbox{\tiny{y}}}^{2}/2$ jumps in the intensive phase when the neighborhood of the target is large and after $(N_{\mbox{\tiny{y}}}+2)^{2}/2$ movements when the neighborhood is small. These two limits account for the decreasing probability of visiting cells outside the neighborhood when increasing its size. For small values of $N_{\mbox{\tiny{y}}}$ it is very likely to reach the border of the neighborhood before detecting the target and thus to return to the black region. Combining these two results for the intensive phase with the length of the extensive phase obtained in Eq. \[eq:limits-anal\], we obtain two theoretical approximations to the total number of clicks
$$\begin{aligned}
M^{\mbox{\tiny{up}}} &=& \sum\limits_{i=1}^{N^{2}-N_{\mbox{\tiny{y}}}^{2}+1}iP_i + \frac{(N_{\mbox{\tiny{y}}}+2)^{2}}{2}, \\
M^{\mbox{\tiny{low}}} &=& \sum\limits_{i=1}^{N^{2}-N_{\mbox{\tiny{y}}}^{2}+1}iP_i + \frac{N_{\mbox{\tiny{y}}}^{2}}{2}.\end{aligned}$$
The combination of these two expressions gives an approximated range for the length of the search (magenta region in Fig. \[fig:blindjumps\]) that shows an excellent agreement with empirical data and numerical simulations of the model.
Model for searches with initial information. The design of optimal strategies. {#model-for-searches-with-initial-information.-the-design-of-optimal-strategies. .unnumbered}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Knowing the size of the yellow region at the beginning of the game changes the nature of the search as the information gathered by the player with each movement may be used to design the next displacement. This reinforces the non-Markovian nature of the informed search process as the player uses all the previous steps to discard cells that have not been visited yet and results in self-adaptive strategies that evolve towards displacements of length $N_{\mbox{\tiny{y}}}$. Also, as the value of $N_{\mbox{\tiny{y}}}$ is known, the number of exits from the neighborhood of the target diminishes (Fig. \[split\]). In a first approach to model this effect, we modify the model used for blind searches using the new experimental distribution of the length of the displacements in both the extensive and the intensive modes (Fig. \[fig3\]a). Therefore, instead of using the exponential distributions of Fig. \[fig:blindexp\] we sample the histograms of Fig. \[fig3\]a (red circles) and its inset, that are obtained from experimental searches with initial information. This approach overestimates both the length of the extensive and the intensive phases, which results in a clearly higher average number of movements; $33.50$ jumps, $\sigma=19.00$ for the model and $25.50$ jumps, $\sigma=10.50$ in the data (MB green bars and DI gray bars in Fig. \[fig-comp\] respectively). This is due to the fact that the model does not integrate the information about the size of the target to a priori discard some of the cells during the intensive and the extensive phase. In a first approach to remove this discrepancy, we hypothesize that the most important differences arise in the modeling of the intensive phase. During this stage, given a certain number of yellow cells and some of their neighboring black squares, our experimental results suggest that human players are able to discriminate the real border of the neighborhood of the target and thus reduce the number of erroneous displacements. The model that we developed for blind searches lacks this ingredient, which increases the duration of the intensive phase since more black cells are open. To correct this, we modify the model and include the effect that previous movements, together with knowing the size of the neighborhood of the target, have on the intensive phase (See Methods for a detailed description). In this new approach, once the first yellow cell has been detected and based on all the previous movements, only those cells that can possibly be part of a $5\times 5$ yellow square have a non-zero probability of being visited by the searcher. This mechanism reduces the number of times that black cells are visited once a yellow cell has been found as the model is able to discriminate all the possible borders of the neighborhood of the target. With this new ingredient the efficiency of the model increases (MI blue bar in Fig. \[fig-comp\]a) and the number of jumps in the intensive phase shows excellent agreement with the experimental data (DI gray and MI blue bars in Fig. \[fig-comp\]c). However, despite this substantial improvement as compared to the blind model, significant differences still remain between empirical data and numerical results. The source of this disagreement arises from the extensive phase (DI gray and MI blue bars in Fig. \[fig-comp\]b). To correct this, we next modify the extensive phase of the model.
During the extensive phase, players are able to discriminate regions where the target cannot be placed as a $5\times5$ square would not fit. To incorporate this in the model, we first compute the probability of jumping to each of the non-visited cells of the board according to the histogram in Fig. \[fig3\]a. Then, for each cell we obtain all the possible squares of lateral length $5$ to which it could belong and set the probability of jumping to that cell to zero if all these squares contain at least one open black cell (See Methods for more details). With this mechanism the extensive phase becomes more efficient and the agreement of the model with the experimental data is excellent. More importantly, this comes from a precise fitting of both the intensive and the extensive phase individually (DI gray and MII black bars in Fig. \[fig-comp\]a,b,c).
[*Optimal strategy.-*]{} However, both actual player strategies and random walk models are much less efficient than entirely systematic protocols. Knowing a typical size of the target in advance allows the design of optimized strategies that minimize the number of incorrect steps. Particularly important is to shorten the extensive phase, as within the neighborhood of the target all the cells are equivalent and it is equally likely to find the target in any position. In fact, during the experimental rounds with initial information, one of the players developed one of these searching methods by repeatedly playing with the same size of $N_{\mbox{\tiny{y}}}=5$.
This strategy optimizes the extensive phase and only allows for two yellow-to-black transitions during the intensive phase (Fig. \[fig4\]a). Given a value for $N_{\mbox{\tiny{y}}}$, the search rule is given the following steps:
1. Divide the board in theoretical squares of size $N_{\mbox{\tiny{y}}}\times N_{\mbox{\tiny{y}}}$ (see Fig. \[fig4\]a)
2. Click in the upper right corner of each subdivision. Start with those squares whose upper right cell has more neighbors and continue with those in the borders. This reduces the length of the extensive phase on average as corners that are farther from the border are more likely to contain a yellow cell.
3. Once a yellow cell is found, visit consecutive squares in a given direction (horizontal in Fig. \[fig4\]a for $N_{\mbox{\tiny{y}}}=5$) until finding a black position. Then, if the number of yellow cells in the row is lower than $N_{\mbox{\tiny{y}}}$, complete it.
4. Repeat the same operation in the other direction starting from one already known yellow cell.
5. Once the neighborhood of the target has been delimited, move inside it until finding the target.
In the particular case of $N_{\mbox{\tiny{y}}}=5$, the average number of movements before target detection following this strategy is $19.03$ ($10^4$ realizations) and it is always lower than $42$. In addition the extensive phase has a duration of $5.90$ clicks on average, which is about $50\%$ lower than the experimental result. This improvement is much higher than the one observed for the intensive phase, which can be optimized by players once they are provided with initial informaition about the landscape (see gray and red bars in Fig. \[fig-comp\]b, c for a comparison). In real human scenarios, this result suggests that efforts put into optimizing the extensive phase may pay off more than equivalent efforts to optimize the intensive phase.
Applying this optimal strategy to many sizes of the yellow region (Fig. \[fig4\]b) we observe that the tradeoff between finding the neighborhood of the target (yellow diamonds in Fig. \[fig4\]b) and finding the target inside it (blue circles in Fig. \[fig4\]b) balances at intermediate values of $N_{\mbox{\tiny{y}}}$. Following theoretical results for blind experiments, analytical expressions can be obtained for the mean number of movements during both phases and therefore for the optimal interaction range. The mean number of clicks during the intensive phase is $N_{\mbox{\tiny{y}}}^{2}/2$ as the target can be in any cell with the same probability (green dashed line in Fig. \[fig4\]b) (we only consider the lower bound obtained for blind experiments since this optimal protocol minimizes the number of erroneous movements). To obtain the mean number of movements in the extensive stage, we assume that the upper right corner of each subdivision of the board (Fig. \[fig4\]a) is equally likely to have a yellow cell. Therefore, the number of steps is given by $N^{2}/2N_{\mbox{\tiny{y}}}^{2}$. This is not completely true, as cells close to the border have a lower probability of being yellow, but it is a good approximation (black dashed line in Fig. \[fig4\]b fitting yellow diamonds). At the optimal interaction range both functions intersect, which gives $N_{\mbox{\tiny{y}}}^{\mbox{\tiny{opt}}}=\sqrt{N}=4.47$ for our experimental setup with $N=20$. This result is in excellent agreement with the value obtained from the experiments (Fig. \[fig4\]c) and suggests, together with the theoretical approximation, that the optimal interaction range is independent of the searching strategy. This result suggests the possibility of using this theoretical framework to predict the optimal size of the neighborhood of the target in more general scenarios.
Anticipating the optimal range of interaction for random neighborhoods. {#anticipating-the-optimal-range-of-interaction-for-random-neighborhoods. .unnumbered}
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
In this section we allow the target to adopt different sizes and random shapes across rounds. In order to facilitate the formulation of theoretical predictions, the neighborhood is built starting from a triangle of varying base $b_y$ (see Methods for a detailed description and Fig. \[random-neigh\]) where the target is embedded. Then, the region is randomized by turning $30\%$ of the cells black. In this way, we implement random neighborhoods that vary in form and size from round to round but with an underlying fixed pattern. Before starting the game, players know that the neighborhood has now a varying form and size (Fig. \[random-neigh\]), but they are given no information about the way it is constructed.
The optimal [*interaction range*]{} can be evaluated from an independent estimation of the number of movements needed in the extensive and the intensive phases. The length of the extensive phase is obtained following the same steps used for square neighborhoods; the probability of finding a yellow cell in the $i-th$ movement is given by Eq. (\[eq:extensive\]) from where the mean length of the extensive phase is obtained using Eq.\[eq:limits-anal\]. This quantity is shown by the magenta circles in Fig. \[opt-line\]b. To approximate the number of movements used in the intensive phase, which will give us the optimal interaction range we used the underlying triangle shape of the neighborhood of the target. This calculation provides lower and upper bounds for the average duration of the intensive phase. The lower bound is obtained assuming that all the cells from the original target have the same probability of being visited but all the cells that do not belong to it will never be clicked. The total number of cells that form this original triangle is $(b_y/2+0.5)^2$ and since all the cells can be visited with the same probability, the lower limit for the length of the intensive phase is given by $\frac{(b_y/2+0.5)^2}{2}$. The upper limit is obtained assuming that the first cells that do not belong to the triangle in each direction also have a non-zero probability of being visited. This results in an upper bound for the length of the intensive phase given by $\frac{[(b_y+4)/2+0.5]^2}{2}$. Both limits are shown by the magenta circles in Fig. \[opt-line\]c. Finally, the total number of movements, i.e., the sum of the extensive and the intensive phase, is shown by the magenta circles in Fig. \[opt-line\]a, with an estimated optimal neighborhood size in between $18$ and $25$ yellow cells. It is important to note the difference between the optimal interaction range for random and square neighborhoods, which shows the non triviality of predicting optimal interaction ranges for different geometries.
We tested these a priori predictions with a series of experiments using an experimental setup with neighborhoods that consist of $5$, $16$, $33$, $55$ and $69$ cells (plus the target red cell, see Supplementary Table II for a distribution of the number of rounds with each size). $301$ rounds were analyzed and the observed mean number of clicks is shown in Fig. \[opt-line\]a. We also split each round into the extensive and intensive phases and the results are shown in panels b and c of Fig. \[opt-line\]. The good agreement between the predicted values and the results obtained with the experiments shows the robustness of the theoretical approach developed in simpler scenarios.
Discussion {#discussion .unnumbered}
==========
We have developed a novel approach to study human search problems by building a simple game that can be accessed online. This approach facilitates the collection of large and clean experimental datasets. By combining data analysis with probabilistic calculations and numerical simulations of existing and new models, it is possible to obtain a deeper understanding of how humans approach simple search tasks and how their strategies differ from optimal patterns.
A comprehensive analysis of the trajectories on the board of the game (length of the displacements and turning angles) shows that players follow strategies consisting of two modes. The detection of cues about the location of the target triggers an area-restricted search mainly characterized by shorter movements on average [@hassell1978dynamics; @curio2012ethology]. In the context of existing studies, these processes are usually modeled by composite random walks that consist of an extensive phase and an intensive one. In the particular instance of animal foraging, the latter is triggered by encountering a food item and is characterized by shorter steps and larger turning angles (relative to the extensive mode) [@MEE3:MEE312412; @MendezChap6; @benhamou1992efficiency; @MoralesEtAl2004.Extracting.more]. Our findings show that the duration of the search is minimal when the cues extend over intermediate spatial scales as compared to the system size. The tradeoff between locating a cue and finding the target among the cues is balanced, which results in faster searches. Although this result seems to be robust against changes in the total system size, considering larger landscapes could offer a richer phenomenology in the analysis of the trajectories on the board as well as in the features of both phases.
In the simplest scenario studied here, in which no information is given about the size of the neighborhood of the target, developing a systematic searching rule as opposed to following a stochastic trajectory does not provide a significant advantage. A systematic scan of the environment usually provides higher efficiencies by minimizing the probability of revisiting a certain region. In this setup, however, cells remain open once they are visited, providing players with a perfect memory about the history of their movements. As a consequence, neither random nor systematic players click more than once on a cell, regions are not revisited, and both protocols offer equivalent results. This scenario however changes when some information about the nature of the target is provided to the players. In that case an optimal systematic strategy can be constructed based on this information. Interestingly, our data show that one of these optimal strategies was developed by a particular player who repeatedly played several rounds in the same landscape. This result opens the door to explore a broad range of questions at the interface between landscape variability, the searcher’s memory, and learning abilities, which has recently become an important topic in movement ecology [@fagan2013spatial]. Most animals do not follow completely random strategies, but combine this stochastic component with spatial memory and learning [@merkle2014memory; @boyer2014random; @polansky2015elucidating]. To investigate the importance of cognitive skills such as learning or memory in the development of optimal strategies, our approach could easily be extended to allow landscapes where the position of the target exhibits a certain degree of persistence across rounds of the game. In addition, in order to compare how more complex decision-making processes come into play, it would be particularly interesting to compare the results presented here with the outcome of a new round of experiments in which players are not requested to find the target in the shortest possible time.
In fact, we have shown that, when they have some knowledge about the landscape (size of the neighborhood of the target), players use the additional information obtained in each movement step to increase search efficiency. In this scenario, the effect of the information gathered during the whole process has to be included in theoretical models to reproduce experimental results. Introducing a more realistic finite memory by allowing clicked cells to revert back to the unclicked state after some time arises as a future line of research.
More importantly, however, the excellent agreement between our experimental data and simple theoretical models suggest that this online-game based methodology could be applicable to address more complex scenarios. Energy budget related questions can be addressed by introducing a [*metabolic*]{} cost that penalizes longer movements and [*evolutionary*]{} aspects of search problems may be addressed by allowing pairs of players to compete and selecting those using more efficient strategies. This would mimic environments where different individuals compete for limited resources and could shed some light on the driving forces behind the evolution of optimal searching. The effect of cooperative interactions among players on search efficiency could also be addressed. Many species forage in groups as opposed to individually. The methodology that has been presented here would facilitate, given a certain landscape, exploration of the level of confidence that players place on movements performed by previous participants. Before every movement of the new player, the choice of previous searchers at that same moment can be shown to the new player to investigate whether and how much the current player trusts on previous participants. In addition, if the neighborhood of the target is changed, or multiple targets are included, it would be possible to explore the relationships between use of social information versus personal experience for tasks of increasing difficulty. Finally, in this study we have focused on the case of saltatory searches, in which the target can be detected only if the searcher lands on it. A next step should consider the more general scenario of cruising searches, in which the target can be detected at any point of the displacements [@MendezChap6]. Such setup would provide a higher flexibility in constructing more complex landscapes with different gradients of information that could allow the study of taxis-driven searches.
In summary, and in view of the large and exciting range of possibilities for future exploration, we expect that this general framework will complement purely theoretical efforts to unveil the fundamental mechanisms that drive a wide variety of search scenarios.
Methods {#methods .unnumbered}
=======
**Ethics statement.** The anonymity of all the participants was maintained during the whole experimental protocol. Participants accessed the game remotely through internet and non of their personal data was stored. No ethical concerns are involved other than preserving the anonymity of participants. Informed consent was obtained from all subjects. The procedure was checked and approved by the Committee of Ethics in Research of the University of the Balearic Islands, since the game was hosted in the web domain of one of its research institutes, the Institute for Cross-Disciplinary Physics and Complex Systems (IFISC) The experiments were subsequently carried out in accordance with the approved guidelines.
Fitting of the partial distributions of displacement lengths to gamma distributions in informed searches {#fitting-of-the-partial-distributions-of-displacement-lengths-to-gamma-distributions-in-informed-searches .unnumbered}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We showed that, for informed searches, the length of the displacements when players are given a priori information about the landscape follow a series of gamma distributions whose probability density function is given by
$$f(x;\alpha,\beta) = \frac{\beta^{-\alpha}{\rm e}^{-x/\beta}x^{-1+\alpha}}{\Gamma(\alpha)},$$
where $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are real positive parameters. For known values of $\alpha$ and $\beta$, the mean value of the distribution can be obtained as $\alpha\beta$, the variance as $\alpha\beta^{2}$ and the mode (the value that appears most often in the distribution) as $\beta(\alpha-1)$. All the parameters shown in Table \[tabla-partidas\] were obtained using the maximum likelihood estimation. Results shown in the last row of Table \[tabla-partidas\] correspond to a distribution that is a mixture of all four component distributions. Given the mean value and variance of these distributions, we can assume that they all have the same weight in the composition since all the subsets of the trajectory have the same length. The mixed distribution can be obtained as:
$$\begin{aligned}
\mu_{\mbox{\tiny{mix}}} &=& \frac{1}{4}\sum_{i=1}^{4}\mu_i \\
\sigma^{2}_{\mbox{\tiny{mix}}} &=& \frac{1}{4}\sum_{i=1}^{4} \left(\mu_{i}^{2}+\sigma_{i}\right)-\mu_{\mbox{\tiny{mix}}}^{2}\end{aligned}$$
Implementation of the random walk model for blind searches {#model:markov .unnumbered}
----------------------------------------------------------
We have developed a minimalistic model based on composite random walks to understand the basic features of the search strategies used by the players. We initialize the model from a random configuration of the board in which the target is placed in a random position inside a smaller square of lateral length $N_{\mbox{\tiny{y}}}$. To mimic the experimental setup, we fix the size of the board so it has $20$ cells on each side and explore $N_{\mbox{\tiny{y}}}$ varying between $1$ and $20$. The searcher is placed in a random position of the board and the dynamics starts. The algorithm consists of the following steps:
1. Obtain the probability of jumping from the current position, $i$ to the rest of the cells in the board $j$. This is given by the experimental jump length distributions, so $P_{ij}=\exp(-\lambda_\gamma r_{ij})/\lambda_{\gamma}$, where $\gamma\equiv\lbrace \mbox{in, ext} \rbrace$ and $r_{ij}$ is the distance between two cells. The two values of $\lambda$ are obtained from the experimental data and define the extensive and the intensive phase: $1/\lambda_{\mbox{\tiny{int}}}=2.05$ and $1/\lambda_{\mbox{\tiny{ext}}}=3.70$.
2. As in the game the player has perfect memory of previous moves, so the probability of jumping to already visited cells is set to zero.
3. If any of the visited cells belongs to the neighborhood of the target (yellow cell), then we multiply the probability of jumping to each of its unvisited neighbors by a bias factor $\eta=10^{3}$ whose effect is to keep the searcher around the cues and avoid unrealistic escapes from them. The existence of such a bias is suggested by the distribution of turn angles shown in Fig. \[fig:blindexp\]d that shows a high probability of returning to the yellow region when it is left. Our results are, however, independent of the numerical value of this bias provided that it is strong enough to trap the searcher close to the yellow cells.
4. Renormalize all the jumping probabilities so $\sum\limits_{j=1}^{N^2}P_{ij}=1$.
5. Sort a uniform random number $u$ between $0$ and $1$ and move to a cell $k$ when $\sum\limits_{j=1}^{k}P_{ij}\geq u$.
These steps are repeated until the target is found, then the number of movements is saved and the system restarted for a new realization.
Implementation of the random walk model for searches with initial information {#model:nonmarkov .unnumbered}
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To introduce the effect of having initial information about the configuration of the landscape (size of the yellow region) we modify the random-walk model presented for blind searches. Simulations are set as in the first model, starting from a $20\times 20$ cells board where the target is randomly placed inside a square region of lateral length $N_{\mbox{\tiny{y}}}=5$. The position of this region is also random in the board and changes across realizations. The searcher is placed at an initial random position and the dynamics starts. The algorithm has two well differentiated parts for the intensive and the extensive phase:
- Extensive phase:
1. Obtain the distance from the current position of the searcher, $i$, to every other cell in the board, $j$, and assign a jumping probability, $P_{ij}$, by taking a random sample from the histogram in Fig. \[fig3\]a.
2. As in the game the player has perfect memory of previous moves, so the probability of jumping to already visited cells is set to zero.
3. For every cell $j$ in the board obtain all the possible $5\times 5$ squares to which it can belong. If all of them have any open black cell, then set the probability of jumping to $j$ to zero. This step is skipped in the intermediate model where only the intensive phase is improved.
4. Renormalize all the jumping probabilities so they sum one.
5. Sort a uniform random number $u$ between $0$ and $1$ and move to a cell $k$ when $\sum\limits_{j=1}^{k}P_{ij}\geq u$.
- Intensive phase, after the first yellow cell is hit:
1. Obtain all the possible neighborhoods of the target to which the first detected yellow cell can belong.
2. Count the number of open cells of both classes (black and yellow) in each of those possible neighborhoods of the target.
3. Pick those $5\times5$ squares that include all the open yellow cells and none of the black ones.
4. Set the probability of jumping to all other of the rest of the cells of the board to zero.
5. From the histogram in the inset of Fig. \[fig3\]a, obtain the probability $P_{ij}$ of jumping to the cells that belong to the chosen $5\times5$ squares.
6. Renormalize all the jumping probabilities so they sum one.
7. Sort a uniform random number $u$ between $0$ and $1$ and move to a cell $k$ when $\sum\limits_{j=1}^{k}P_{ij}\geq u$.
[10]{} url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\[2\][\#2]{} \[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{}
, & . In **, Springer Series in Synergetics, (, ).
, , & . ** ****, ().
& ** (, ).
, , & ** (, ), edn.
*et al.* ** ****, ().
, & . In **, Springer Series in Synergetics, (, ).
, , & . ** ****, ().
*et al.* . ** ****, ().
& . ** ****, ().
, , & . ** **** ().
*et al.* . ** ****, ().
, & . ** ****, ().
& . , ().
& . ** ****, ().
, , , & . ** **** ().
, , , & . ** **** ().
. ** ****, ().
, , , & . ** ****, ().
& ** ****, ().
, , , & . ** ****, ().
, & . ** **** ().
, & ** ****, ().
, , , & . ** ****, ().
& . ** ****, ().
*et al.* . ** ().
. ** ****, ().
, & . ** ****, ().
, & . ** ****, ().
, & . ** ****, ().
*et al.* . ** ****, ().
, & . ** ****, ().
*et al.* . ** ****, ().
, & . ** ****, ().
& . ** ****, ().
, , , & . ** ****, ().
** (, ).
**, vol. (, ).
& . ** ().
. ** ().
, , & . ** ****, ().
& . ** ****, ().
, & . ** ****, ().
. ** ****, ().
, , , & . ** ****, ().
. ** ****, ().
, , , & . ** ****, ().
& . ** ****, ().
, & . ** ****, ().
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We acknowledge Antònia Tugores, Rubén Tolosa and Iharob al Asimi Espina for advice in the development of the experimental setup. We are also grateful to George W. Constable for useful discussions and to Frederic Bartumeus for useful discussions and a critical reading of the manuscript. This work is funded by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation through Grant GBMF2550.06 to RMG, Universitat de les Illes Balears through a 2015 Young Visiting Scholar grant to RMG, the US National Science Foundation through grant ABI 1458748 to JMC and Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad and Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional through project CTM2015-66407-P (MINECO/FEDER) to CL.
Author contributions statement {#author-contributions-statement .unnumbered}
==============================
R.M-G conceived the study, implemented the experimental setup, and did the numerical simulations. All the authors designed the experiments, analyzed and discussed the results and contributed to the writing and revision of the manuscript.
Additional information {#additional-information .unnumbered}
======================
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
![\[fig:setup\] Experimental setup. a) Single realization as shown in the game interface. Blue cells have not been visited, black and yellow cells represent the two types of cues and the red square is the target. Yellow crosses mark those squares that belong to the neighborhood of the target and have not been visited yet. They are used here to indicate the layout of the board but they are not shown to the player. b) Reconstruction of the round in A from the saved data. Small circles correspond to black cells, bigger circles to the yellow ones and the biggest circle is the target. Circles are labeled with blue numbers, $d_i$ is the distance jumped starting from node $i$ and $\theta_i$ is the turn angle relative to the direction at node $i$.](Fig1.eps){width="70.00000%"}
![\[fig:blindjumps\] Number of movements for the blind searches as a function of the lateral length of the yellow neighborhood $N_{\mbox{\tiny{y}}}$. a) Data-model-theory comparison of the total search length. $N_{\mbox{\tiny{y}}}=1$ means that there are no yellow cells around the target. Black squares are averages taken from experimental data, light green squares are obtained from numerical simulations (averages over $10^4$ independent realizations) and the magenta region is the theoretical approximation. Dashed lines are interpolations and the error bars represent the standard deviation of the data. b) Decomposition of the total number of clicks between the intensive and the extensive phase. Dashed lines are interpolations and the error bars represent the standard error. When the bar is not shown the error is lower than the size of the point.](Fig2.eps){width="78.00000%"}
![\[fig:blindexp\] Statistical analysis of the trajectories on the board. a) (Linear-log plot) Jump length distribution during the extensive (blue squares) and intensive (green circles) phase. Magenta lines are exponential fits with mean value given by $1/\lambda$. b, c) Turn angle distributions during the extensive and the intensive phase respectively. d) Turn angle distribution for movements performed immediately after a yellow-to-black transition. ](Fig3.eps){width="48.00000%"}
![\[split\] Factorization of the number of clicks comparing blind and informed searches with $N_{\mbox{\tiny{y}}}=5$. a) Total number of clicks, b) extensive phase, c) intensive phase, d) yellow-to-yellow jumps of the intensive phase, e) black-to-yellow and yellow-to-black transitions and black-to-black movements during the intensive phase.](Fig4.eps){width="48.00000%"}
![\[fig3\] Comparison of the jump length and turning angle distributions for informed and blind searchers with $N_{\mbox{\tiny{y}}}=5$ . a) Jump length distribution for the extensive phase. Green squares correspond to the whole set of rounds and red circles to the subset of random strategies. The dashed and full lines show two analytical approximations. Inset: distribution for the intensive phase. b) Equivalent to a) but for the subset of $65$ blind rounds with $N_{\mbox{\tiny{y}}}=5$. c) Turning angle distribution for movements in the intensive phase made immediately after a yellow-to-black jump. d) Same as c) but for the subset of blind searches with $N_{\mbox{\tiny{y}}}=5$.](Fig5.eps){width="48.00000%"}
![\[nonst\] Non-stationary jump length distributions for the extensive phase of the informed searches . The extensive phase is divided in four parts and the distribution of each subset is shown: steps 1-5 (a), 6-10 (b), 11-15 (c) and 16-end (d). Red circles show experimental data and black dashed lines the theoretical fitting. Parameter estimates for each fit are shown in Table \[tabla-partidas\].](Fig6.eps){width="48.00000%"}
![\[fig-comp\] Comparison between informed searches experimental data and the models. a) Number of clicks before target detection (extensive + intensive). b) Number of clicks during the extensive phase. c) Number of clicks during the intensive phase. The magenta dashed line shows the value obtained from the data for informed searchers. Labels of the x-axis: DI data informed, MB model blind, MI model informed, MII model informed 2 and OS optimal strategy.](Fig7.eps){width="48.00000%"}
![\[fig4\] Analysis of the optimal systematic strategy. a) Typical realization. The color of the squares indicates the temporal sequence of the jumps and its size the location outside (smaller squares) or inside the neighborhood (intermediate squares). The biggest square represents the target. b) Typical length of search as a function of the size of the neighborhood (red squares). This quantity is divided between the extensive (yellow diamonds) and the intensive (blue circles) phases. Analytical approximations are shown by dashed lines. c) Comparison between the mean number of jumps needed using an optimized systematic search rule (red squares) and the blind experimental data (black squares). Error bars represent the standard deviation, lines are interpolations.](Fig8.eps){width="48.00000%"}
![\[random-neigh\] Construction of random information neighborhoods starting from triangles of different size. Black cells highlighted in green belonged to the original triangle and have been removed in the randomization process. They are used here to indicate the original layout of the board but they are not shown to the player.](Fig9.eps){width="48.00000%"}
![\[opt-line\] Prediction of the optimal size of random neighborhoods . a) Total number of movements, b) extensive phase, c) intensive stage. Black squares correspond to experimental data and magenta circles to theoretical predictions. Dashed lines are interpolations and the error bars represent the standard error, when not shown they are smaller than the size of the square.](Fig10.eps){width="48.00000%"}
--------------- --------- ------------- --------- ------------------- -------------------
Part Mean Variance Mode $\alpha$ $\beta$
\[0.5ex\] 1-5 8.48 22.56 5.83 3.19 2.66
6-10 6.66 12.86 4.72 3.45 1.93
11-15 6.09 9.36 4.56 3.97 1.54
16 – 5.20 7.88 3.69 3.44 1.51
Total 7.07 16.10 4.80 3.11 2.28
Mix 6.61 16.02 4.19 2.73 2.42
--------------- --------- ------------- --------- ------------------- -------------------
: Parameters obtained fitting the jump length distributions to gamma distributions. The extensive phase of the informed searches is divided in four pieces and the partial distributions fitted to gamma distributions. Changes in the mean value show the non-stationarity of the process .[]{data-label="tabla-partidas"}
|
---
abstract: 'We report the fabrication and photoluminescence properties of laterally-coupled GaAs/AlGaAs quantum dots. The coupling in the quantum dot molecules is tuned by an external electric field. An intricate behavior, consisting of spectral line crossings and avoided crossings is observed for different molecules. Anticrossing patterns in the photoluminescence spectra provide direct evidence of the lateral coupling between two nearby quantum dots. A simple calculation suggests that the coupling is mediated by electron tunneling, through which the states of direct and indirect exciton are brought into resonance.'
author:
- 'L. Wang'
- 'A. Rastelli'
- 'S. Kiravittaya'
- 'M. Benyoucef'
- 'O. G. Schmidt'
title: Experimental Observation of Electronic Coupling in GaAs Lateral Quantum Dot Molecules
---
Coupled semiconductor quantum dots (QDs) are attracting growing interest due to their potential application as solid-state quantum gates [@loss98; @burkard99]. Substantial progress towards the experimental implementation of such quantum dot molecules (QDMs) has been achieved in the last few years both for electrically defined QDs (see Ref. [@Koppens2006] and Refs. therein) and for self-assembled, vertically-stacked QDs [@Krenner2005; @Ortner05; @Stinaff2006; @Krenner2006]. In the latter case, the coupling between two structurally different QDs is controlled by applying a vertical electric field. A signature of coupling and entanglement [@Bester05] is represented by anticrossing patterns in two-dimensional maps obtained from photoluminescence (PL) spectra for different values of the external field. To explore the possibility of coupling a larger number of self-assembled QDs, investigations on lateral coupling are needed [@Bracker2006]. The fabrication of laterally-close QDs with well-defined properties requires special growth protocols [@Schmidt2002; @Songmuang2003c; @Lippen04; @Suraprapapich05; @Hanke06; @Yamagiwa06; @Lee06; @Beirne2006] and, while indications of lateral coupling have been reported [@Unold05; @Beirne2006], anticrossing patterns for lateral QDMs have not been observed so far.
In this Letter we employ a lateral electric field to tune the coupling between two laterally-close GaAs/AlGaAs QDs and present the observation of an anticrossing pattern in the PL spectra of a single GaAs QDM.
The QDM samples are grown by molecular beam epitaxy (MBE) combined with a method based on AsBr$_{3}$ selective etching of buried InAs QDs and subsequent overgrowth. With a proper choice of etching and overgrowth parameters, either single AlGaAs holes [@Rastelli04] or biholes aligned in the \[110\] direction can be created, which are used as templates for the fabrication of either single QDs or QDMs. To create QDMs, low density ($\lesssim 10^8$ cm$^{-2}$) InAs QDs are first deposited at a substrate temperature of 500$^\circ$C on a GaAs buffer, followed by a 30 s growth interruption. The substrate temperature is lowered to 470$^\circ$C and 10 nm GaAs are deposited while ramping the temperature back to 500$^\circ$C. An [*in situ*]{} etching step with a nominal depth of 7.5 nm is then applied to remove the buried QDs and obtain bow-tie shaped nanoholes [@Kiravittaya2003a; @Songmuang2003c], which are overgrown with 10 nm Al$_{0.45}$Ga$_{0.55}$As. During Al$_{0.45}$Ga$_{0.55}$As growth, single holes are found to split into two closely-spaced holes aligned in the \[110\] direction. The biholes are subsequently filled by depositing 1 nm GaAs followed by a 1 min growth interruption. 100 nm Al$_{0.35}$Ga$_{0.65}$As, 20 nm Al$_{0.45}$Ga$_{0.55}$As, and 10 nm GaAs complete the structure. The GaAs-filled biholes embedded in AlGaAs represent QDMs below a thin quantum well. Atomic force microscopy (AFM) in tapping mode is employed for the morphological investigation of the bihole structure. For this purpose, the sample is cooled to room temperature immediately after the growth of the 10 nm Al$_{0.45}$Ga$_{0.55}$As layer. Because of fluctuations inherent in the self-assembled growth, the two QDs are generally not identical and their mutual coupling can be controlled by an electric field parallel to the \[110\] direction. To this end, interdigital gate electrodes with 100/20 nm thick Au/Ti stripes and 30 $\mu$m spacing are processed on the sample surface. Micro-PL ($\mu$-PL) spectroscopy of single QDMs is performed by using a laser excitation energy of 2.33 eV. The PL is analyzed by a 750 mm focal-length spectrometer equipped with a Si charge-coupled device.
Figure \[fig:1\](a) shows an AFM image of biholes on the surface of the 10 nm Al$_{0.45}$Ga$_{0.55}$As layer. The two holes are normally slightly different in size and shape, but are invariably aligned in the \[110\] direction. A typical linescan of a bihole along the \[110\] direction is displayed in Fig. \[fig:1\](b). The two holes have an average center-to-center distance of 35$\pm$4 nm and are separated by a thin barrier \[see also the inset in Fig. \[fig:1\](a)\]. Figure \[fig:1\](c) shows a statistical analysis of the hole depth and barrier height for the biholes. Gaussian fits to the histograms show that the average depth and barrier height of the biholes are 2.9 nm and 0.52 nm, respectively. When the biholes are filled with GaAs and annealed for 1 min, the deposited GaAs diffuses into the biholes, thus forming inverted lateral GaAs QDMs aligned in the \[110\] direction.
Typical PL spectra of three independent QDMs at relatively low excitation power are shown in Fig. \[fig:2\](a). Different QDMs exhibit several common spectral features, which indicate that the created QDMs have similar properties. The high-energy peaks, labeled as X$^{0}$, are attributed to the recombination of an electron and a hole confined in the larger QD composing a QDM (direct neutral exciton). Another intense peaks X$^{*}$, well separated ($>$3 meV) from the X$^{0}$ line, is present in all spectra. Since the background doping in our samples is p-type, we tentatively assign X$^{*}$ to a positive trion. Other features, generally labelled as multi-excitons (mX) are also observed.
We now concentrate on the QDM A \[topmost spectrum in Fig. \[fig:2\](a)\]. To confirm our identification of the spectral lines, a polarization-dependent PL measurement is performed by inserting a rotatable lambda-half waveplate and a fixed Glan-Thompson polarizer in front of the spectrometer. The oscillating peak energy as a function of polarization angle in Fig. \[fig:2\](b) indicates that the line X$^{0}$ originates from a neutral exciton transition [@Bayer02]. The two components of the line X$^{0}_{A}$, corresponding to light polarized in the \[110\] and \[1$\bar{1}$0\] directions, are plotted in Fig. \[fig:2\](c). The fine structure splitting deduced from the spectra is 34 $\mu$eV, which is comparable to the values typically observed for “natural” GaAs QDs [@Gammon1996]. Moreover, all other main lines do not show any polarization dependence, which suggests that they originate from charged excitons of direct or indirect nature [@Bayer02].
Due to the slightly different size and shape of the two QDs in a QDM, we expect that the X$^{0}_{A}$ emission originates from the recombination of excitons in the larger dot. The recombination of electron (hole) in the large dot with hole (electron) in the small dot is suppressed, leading to a very weak signal in the PL spectra \[see the weak features at 1.721-1.722 eV in the QDM A spectrum in Fig. \[fig:2\](a)\]. However, when the QDM is subject to an electric field, the emission of the QDM can be tuned through the quantum confined Stark effect (QCSE), and therefore the interdot coupling can also be tuned. The geometry of the Schottky interdigital electrodes processed on the sample surface is shown in Fig. \[fig:3\](a). A voltage $\pm V_{a}$ applied to nearby electrodes produces the desired electric field along the \[110\] crystal direction.
In order to locate QDM A with respect to the electrodes, we record PL spectra while scanning the laser spot on the sample surface. (In the experiment the sample is moved in a raster scan while the excitation/collection optics remain fixed.) The signal is then integrated over the spectral range of the QDM emission and a corresponding PL intensity-map is displayed in Fig. \[fig:3\](b). From this map, we clearly see that the bright spot in the center of the image, associated with the emission of QDM A, is located about 2 $\mu$m away from one of the Ti/Au electrodes. Another spot (on the right hand side of QDM A) from another QDM is also visible.
While the contact structure employed here is easy to implement and has previously been used to apply a lateral field on QD structures [@Heller98; @Beirne2006; @Gerardot07], the relation between applied voltage $V_{a}$ and electric field is not trivial. To clarify this point, the sample structure is simplified as a two-dimensional geometry shown in Fig. \[fig:3\](c). The GaAs material parameters with a p-type doping of 10$^{15}$ cm$^{-3}$ (typical background doping level in our MBE chamber) are assumed throughout the structure and the Schottky contacts are modeled as heavily n-type doping regions (10$^{19}$ cm$^{-3}$). The Poisson equation and the carriers’ (electron and hole) diffusion equations are simultaneously solved [@fieldcal]. At $V_{a}$=0, the built-in field along the $x$-direction $F_X$ in the depletion regions can be clearly seen, as color-encoded in Fig. \[fig:3\](c). When the voltage is applied, the depletion region around the left electrode extends laterally and the maximum field strength increases. Figure \[fig:3\](d) shows the behavior of $F_{X}$ at a point P near the positively biased electrode (1.5 $\mu$m from the electrode and 150 nm below the surface). The result suggests that $F_{X}$ increases slowly until, at a certain threshold value of the voltage ($V_{a,th}$), the depletion region reaches P. At that point the field increases abruptly. Therefore we expect that a pronounced QCSE will be observed only when $V_a>V_{a,th}$, with $V_{a,th}$ depending on the distance between QDM and the contact. This finding is in qualitative agreement with the experimental observation that only QDMs close to one of the contacts display a variation of the emission for $V_{a}$ less than about 100 V.
The first effect produced by moderate fields is a slight blue-shift (of the order of 100 $\mu$eV) of most of the QDM lines. This behavior, which we observed for all the investigated QDMs and also for single GaAs/AlGaAs QDs, has not been reported for other self-assembled QDs and is at present not understood. Most importantly, for larger fields, the PL spectra of some of the studied QDMs show pronounced red and blue-shifts leading to intricate patterns consisting of crossings and avoided crossings with increasing field. This is illustrated for QDM A in Fig. \[fig:4\](a), which displays a PL intensity map obtained from a series of spectra collected at 6 K as a function of applied voltage (defined as 2$\times V_{a}$).
Since at present we are not able to identify unambiguously the origin of the other spectral lines, we concentrate on the behavior of the high energy side of the spectrum and in particular on the X and Y lines. At low bias, X corresponds to the direct neutral exciton X$^0$ transition. After the initial blue-shift, the onset of a strong red-shift is observed at an applied voltage of about 44.5 V. The intensity of the X line then drops below the detection limit. At low fields the spectral line Y is weak and can be assigned to an indirect exciton recombination. When the voltage is increased it gains in intensity and also red-shifts, but at a much larger rate compared to X. Figure \[fig:4\](d) shows the X and Y peak position obtained by fitting the lines with Lorentzian functions. At the beginning (for applied voltages below 46.8 V), the splitting between these lines decreases. At a voltage of $\sim$46.8 V, the two lines reach a minimum energy splitting of 1.5 meV and then gradually separate. This anticrossing behavior, previously reported only for vertically-stacked QDs [@Krenner2005; @Ortner05; @Stinaff2006], demonstrates that the two GaAs QDs composing our lateral QDMs are quantum coupled. We can therefore interpret the energy splitting of 1.5 meV as the coupling energy. We also note that the pattern deviates slightly from a perfect anticrossing. In particular, the X line displays an anomalous shift at a voltage of about 48 V. This anomaly is probably due to interaction of the energy levels responsible for the X-Y transitions with other energetically close states \[see, in Fig. \[fig:4\](a), the line Z, which approaches X and avoids crossing it\].
To obtain further insight into the anticrossing behavior, we perform a quantized energy calculation of the electron and heavy hole wavefunctions in a QD using a single band effective mass approximation. In this calculation, a truncated pyramidal shape is assumed for each GaAs QD in a QDM. First, the QD diameter is tuned to fit with the $s$-shell and $p$-shell separation. Then, the height of each QD in the QDM is adjusted to the ground state of the direct and indirect transition of the QDM A. The fitting of the anticrossing energy is obtained by tuning the lateral distance between the apex of each QD and varying the applied electric field strength $F_{X}$. A splitting energy of 1.5 meV is obtained when the separation distance is 31 nm, consistent with the value observed by AFM (35$\pm$4 nm). Because of the large separation between the two QDs, we expect the indirect exciton to have a large polarizability and therefore display a pronounced QCSE at low fields. In the calculation the anticrossing is in fact observed at a field amplitude of only 0.45 kV/cm. The calculation also suggests that the coupling is mediated by electron tunneling since hole tunneling would yield smaller splitting energies. Schematic band diagrams of the involved transitions at different field amplitudes for lines X and Y are shown in Fig \[fig:4\](b) and (c), respectively. By assuming a linear relation between the electric field and the voltage \[$F_{X}=k\times(V_{a}-22.9~V)$, $k$=1000 cm$^{-1}$\], we plot the calculated energies as continuous lines in Fig. \[fig:4\](d). Since the model does not include all the states involved in the transitions observed experimentally, it can not reproduce the anomalous shifts. Moreover, the discrepancy between fit and experiment at high fields is due to the nonlinear relation between the field and the applied voltage \[see Fig. \[fig:3\](d)\], a technical issue which may be solved by improving the contact structure as proposed in Ref. [@Stavarache06].
In conclusion, we have reported the fabrication of lateral GaAs QDMs and we have provided evidence of lateral coupling between the two nearby QDs. The quantum coupling is controllably tuned by applying an in-plane electric field and manifests itself as an anticrossing pattern in the PL spectra. The coupling is likely to be mediated by electron tunneling, through which the states of direct and indirect exciton are brought into resonance by the electric field. While the present demonstration is based on a fully self-assembled structure, we envision the possibility of using lithographically positioned nanoholes [@Schmidt2002; @Kiravittaya06] as a template for the fabrication of QDMs with well-defined position. The application of an extra gate electrode above the barrier separating the two QDs may allow the coupling strength to be tuned [@Songmuang2003c].
The authors thank M. Riek and T. Reindl for help in the sample processing and K. v. Klitzing for continuous support and interest. The work was financially supported by the SFB/TR21, the BMBF (03N8711) and by the DFG research group “Positioning of single nanostructures - Single quantum devices”.
[27]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}bibnamefont \#1[\#1]{}bibfnamefont \#1[\#1]{}citenamefont \#1[\#1]{}url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\[2\][\#2]{} \[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{}
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , ****, ().
|
---
abstract: 'We formulate a new problem as Object Importance Estimation (OIE) in on-road driving videos, where the road users are considered as important objects if they have influence on the control decision of the ego-vehicle’s driver. The importance of a road user depends on both its visual dynamics, *e.g*., appearance, motion and location, in the driving scene and the driving goal, *e.g*., the planned path, of the ego vehicle. We propose a novel framework that incorporates both visual model and goal representation to conduct OIE. To evaluate our framework, we collect an on-road driving dataset at traffic intersections in the real world and conduct human-labeled annotation of the important objects. Experimental results show that our goal-oriented method outperforms baselines and has much more improvement on the left-turn and right-turn scenarios. Furthermore, we explore the possibility of using object importance for driving control prediction and demonstrate that binary brake prediction can be improved with the information of object importance.'
author:
- 'Mingfei Gao$^{1*}$, Ashish Tawari$^{2}$ and Sujitha Martin$^{2}$[^1] [^2][^3]'
bibliography:
- 'egbib.bib'
title: '**Goal-oriented Object Importance Estimation in On-road Driving Videos** '
---
Introduction {#sec: intro}
============
Human’s vision system plays a key role for perceiving and interacting with traffic participants under the complicated driving context. When looking into the dynamic scene, a driver can rapidly select the objects that are relevant for the driving task and make a control decision for effective and efficient driving. Inspired by this visual selection mechanism, driver’s attention has been studied in recent years in order to understand the human driving behavior and ultimately help the driving control system of autonomous vehicles. Existing works focus on pixel-level driver’s attention prediction by mimicking human gaze behavior [@dreyeve2018; @tawari2017computational; @xia2017training]. However, there are at least two drawbacks of using human gaze: 1) human gaze is sometimes not directly related to the driving task. For example, drivers may look at the billboards for their own interests; 2) human gaze is sequential which makes it impossible to capture all the important information at the same time. Moreover, existing works only take the perceived driving video as input and do not consider the effect of the driver’s goal, while driver’s goal is an essential factor to select relevant objects. For example, objects relevant for making control decisions should be very different when the ego vehicle is turning right versus turning left.
![The scenario of our work. Bounding boxes with arrows indicate the moving road users, dotted line shows the planned path of the ego vehicle and the dotted circle includes the important object. Given the dynamic status of the road users, a driver’s driving-related attention usually lands on the road users that have influence on the control decision of the driver. Moreover, the attention highly depends on the driving goal of the vehicle.[]{data-label="fig: idea"}](figs/idea.pdf){width="0.9\linewidth"}
To handle those limitations, we formulate the problem as Object Importance Estimation (OIE) in on-road driving videos. The important objects are defined as the road users, *i.e.*, vehicles and persons, that are relevant for the ego vehicle’s driver to make the vehicle control decision. Our definition ensures that the important objects are directly related to the driving task and that multiple important objects can be captured at the same time. Static semantic driving context, *e.g.*, traffic lights, line marks and drivable areas, can also influence the driving behavior. However, we only focus on the interactions with the road users and leave the static semantic driving context for future work. Fig. \[fig: idea\] shows an example of the scenario that our work focuses on. Visual dynamics of road users are important for our model to understand the driving scene. Also, the driver’s goal (where the vehicle is going) is essential for object importance estimation. For example, in Fig. \[fig: idea\], if the ego vehicle is turning left instead, all the pedestrians on the cross walk at the right side will not be as important to the ego vehicle.
To solve the proposed OIE problem, we present a novel framework where both the features of the dynamic road users (*visual model*) and the driving goal (*goal model*) are incorporated. In order to evaluate our framework, we collect an on-road driving dataset in the real world and annotate the important objects given the context. To provide more complex interactions between the road users and the ego vehicle, our dataset focuses on traffic intersections. Experiments show that our method largely outperforms the baselines, especially for the scenarios that the ego vehicle is turning left/right which demonstrates that modeling the driving goal is very important for our task. To explore the possibility of using important objects to improve driving control prediction, we conduct an experiment on binary brake prediction. Results show that the binary brake prediction can be improved with the information of the object importance.
![The proposed approach has two branches, *e.g.*, visual model and goal model. Object tracking is done for all the road users through the input clip. Visual features of objects are extracted at each time step. Goal model describes the driving goal at each time step using sampled points on the planned path in the real world. A common goal-oriented feature is concatenated with features of each object at the corresponding time to form the final feature representation. A shared LSTM model is used to predict the importance score for every object given the final features. Objects and their features are differentiated using different colors.[]{data-label="fig: pipeline"}](figs/pipeline.pdf){width="1.0\linewidth"}
Related Works
=============
Driver’s Attention Prediction
-----------------------------
**Human Gaze based Approach**. Existing works focus on driver’s attention prediction supervised by human gaze information [@tawari2017computational; @dreyeve2018; @xia2017training]. Tawari and Kang propose a Bayesian framework for driver’s attention prediction where a fully convolutional network is utilized with only images as input in [@tawari2017computational]. Palazzi *et al*. proposed a multi-branch model that incorporates RGB, optical flow and semantic segmentation clips in [@dreyeve2018] and C3D [@tran2015learning] is used to extract features from multiple branches. In [@xia2017training], Xia *et al*. propose a driver’s attention framework where a human weighted sampling strategy is used during training to handle critical situations. Kim *et al*. explore the idea of using driver’s attention to interpret the driving control prediction in [@kim2017interpretable].
**Driver’s Attention Prediction Dataset**. There are several datasets [@simon2009alerting; @underwood2011decisions; @fridman2016driver; @pugeault2015much; @alletto2016dr] can be used for driver’s attention prediction, but most of them are either restricted to limited settings or not publicly available. To the best of our knowledge, *Dr(eye)ve* [@alletto2016dr] is the only public on-road driving dataset for the driver’s attention prediction task. It consists of 555,000 frames divided into 74 video sequences. Human gaze is captured by eye tracking glasses and projected to the corresponding on-road driving video frame. However, it is not suitable for our task, since 1) it has only per pixel saliency annotations based on human gaze which cannot be easily converted for important object labels; 2) it contains mostly scenarios of driving on the straight road (mostly the vehicle is trying to keep itself between lines or following another vehicle) which makes it not complicated enough for our task. Driving at the traffic intersections is a more appropriate scene for us, since it provides more opportunities for the ego vehicle to interact with other road users.
Region based Object Detector
----------------------------
CNN detectors have achieved great success [@girshick14CVPR; @girshick2015fast; @ren2015faster; @he2017mask; @gao2018dynamic; @singh2018analysis; @gao2018c; @zhou2018learning]. Region based CNN (R-CNN) is one of the most popular frameworks. Girshick *et al*. initially proposed the two-stage R-CNN framework in [@girshick14CVPR] where object proposals are obtained first and then classified to different categories. Later, Fast R-CNN is proposed in [@girshick2015fast] to speed up R-CNN [@girshick14CVPR] via end-to-end training/testing. However, it relies on external object proposal algorithms. Ren *et al*. present Faster R-CNN [@ren2015faster] which jointly trains the proposal generation and the detection branches in a single framework. Further more, He *et al*. extend Faster R-CNN in [@he2017mask] and create an unified architecture for joint detection and instance segmentation. Our problem is related to R-CNN in a sense that we also assign some scores to the proposed object candidates. However, we estimate object importance under the driving context rather than differentiating object categories, *e.g.*, dog and cat.
Problem Formulation
===================
The problem is formulated as goal-oriented object importance estimation where the inputs are on-road driving video clip and the goal of the ego vehicle. The outputs are the detected objects with importance scores at the last frame of the video clip. The planned path information which can be obtained from autonomous driving (AD) path planning module when the vehicle is driving online, is used to represent the goal of the vehicle.
Inspired by the R-CNN frameworks, we propose a two-stage framework which firstly generates object tracklinks from videos as object proposals and then classify the proposals to the binary classes, *e.g.*, *important object* and *background*. Different from R-CNN detectors which generate proposals from static images, we track every object from the input video clip and treat the entire track link of an object as a proposal, since unlike the general object detection scenario where object categories, *e.g.*, dog and cat, can be determined just from a static image, the object importance depends on the dynamics of objects through the video.
Model Description
=================
As we mentioned in Sec. \[sec: intro\], object importance depends on both the dynamic of the object itself and the driving goal of the ego vehicle. Thus, our method fuses the information from both parts. Due to the good performance of recurrent networks [@xu2018temporal; @yao2018egocentric; @gao2019startnet] on online action detection tasks, our framework is based on LSTM [@hochreiter1997long].
Our framework is shown in Fig. \[fig: pipeline\]. The first branch describes our visual model. Multiple object tracking is performed on the input video clip. Thus, for each object candidate, $i$, its bounding-box location, $B^t_i$, is obtained at each time step $t$. Note that each time step corresponds to each image frame in the input video clip. For each object candidate at every time step, high dimensional features $\textbf{f}^t_i$ are extracted to represent the appearance, motion and location of the object. We use a feature matrix $\textbf{F}^t_i = [\textbf{f}^{t-n+1}_i, \textbf{f}^{t-n+2}_i,...,\textbf{f}^t_i]$ to represent each object $i$, in the video where $n$ is the length of the input clip. Without goal information, LSTM can be used directly with the $\textbf{F}^t_i$ as the input and the output is score $s^t_i$ of being an important object at time $t$. We will use it as a baseline in our experiment section.
The second branch shows our goal model. We extract the goal-oriented feature $\textbf{g}^t$ at time $t$ from the AD path planning module. The extracted feature is concatenated with the features of each object in the image to form the final feature representation $\textbf{gof}^t_i=[\textbf{f}^t_i, \textbf{g}^t]$, for the object. The representation for the object within the whole clip is $\textbf{GoF}^t_i=[\textbf{gof}^{t-n+1}_i,\textbf{gof}^{t-n+2}_i,...,\textbf{gof}^t_i]$. A one-layer LSTM model followed by a fully connected (FC) layer performs over $\textbf{GoF}^t_i$ to output the importance score for each object $i$ as shown in Eq. \[eq: lstm\], where $\textbf{W}$ and $\textbf{b}$ indicate parameters of the FC layer. Softmax layer is used then to output the corresponding important probability.
$$\label{eq: lstm}
\textbf{s}_i^t = \textbf{W}(LSTM(\textbf{GoF}_i^t))+\textbf{b}.$$
**Visual Feature**. Appearance, motion and location features are combined to represent the dynamic changes of an object. Appearance feature is extracted from the *fc7* layer of Faster R-CNN [@ren2015faster] pretrained on the Pascal VOC2007 [@pascal-voc-2007] and VOC2012 [@pascal-voc-2012] *trainval* sets with Resnet101 [@He2015] as the backbone. The appearance feature describes both the appearance of the object and the local context around the object [@ren2015faster]. Histogram of flow [@dalal2006human] with BIN=12 of each object bounding box is extracted as the motion feature. Location feature is represented by $(\frac{x^t_i}{W^t}, \frac{y^t_i}{H^t}, \frac{w^t_i}{W^t}, \frac{h^t_i}{H^t})$ where $x^t_i$, $y^t_i$, $ w^t_i$ and $h^t_i$ indicate the left-top corner of $B^t_i$, its width and height. $W^t$ and $H^t$ indicate the width and height of image $t$. The visual feature, $\textbf{f}^t_i$, is the concatenation of these three features.
**Goal-oriented Feature**. At each time step, the planned path (with regard to distance in the vehicle-centric coordinates) can be obtained from the AD path planning module for an online driving task. As shown in Fig. \[fig: goal\], at each time step, discrete points are uniformly sampled with respect to distance to represent the planned path. Each sampled point is represented by $(x, y)$ which indicates the location of the point in the vehicle-centric coordinate in the real world. Radius of curvature, $R$, is directly related to the turning behavior, so it can be used to represent each point on the path which can be calculated as in Eq. \[eq: R\_gps\] given the location $(x,y)$. For the straight road, the value of $R$ approaches infinity which is not appropriate for learning. So, we use $IR=\frac{1}{R}$ instead to describe a certain point in the planned path. At time $t$, $\textbf{IR}^t = [IR(1), IR(2),...,IR(L)]$ is used to represent the whole planned path where $IR(l)$ indicate the value of $IR$ at the next $l$ distance units and $L$ indicates the maximum future distance our method considers. One FC layer is applied on $\textbf{IR}^t$ to extract the goal-oriented feature, $\textbf{g}^t$. $$\label{eq: R_gps}
R = sign\times(\frac{(1+y^{'2})^{\frac{3}{2}}}{y^{''}}),\\$$ where $y^{'}=\frac{dy}{dx}$ and $y^{''}=\frac{d^2y}{d^2x}$. $sign=1$ when turning right and $sign=-1$ when turning left.
![Illustration of the planned path description. Points are sampled (per distance unit) on the planned path obtained from the AD path planning module. Radius of curvature can be used to describe each point. Thus, a path can be represented by a discrete set of point descriptions.[]{data-label="fig: goal"}](figs/goal.pdf){width="0.9\linewidth"}
Experiments {#sec: Exp}
===========
Object Importance Estimation Dataset
------------------------------------
**Dataset Description**. We collect 743 on-road driving videos at traffic intersections in the real world. Data collection was conducted from two different locations- Mountain View and Sunnyvale, CA, USA, totalling 6.3 hours. Each location contains 3 sessions of data. We believe that intersections contain more complicated driving scenarios and are more challenging for our task, so from each of the raw videos, a short video is trimmed. Each short video contains one pass of an intersection (25 meters before and after the intersection). After trimming, 2.7 hours of useful data are obtained. All the annotations and our experiments are conducted on the trimmed videos.
**Annotations**. When preparing the important object annotations, an annotator was asked to watch the on-road driving video and imagine he/she was driving the ego vehicle. All the objects that are relevant for the ego vehicle’s control decision are tightly located using bounding boxes. Note that the annotator was given the driving goal during the process of annotating each video sequence. For each video, important objects are labeled at every 30 frames. The frame sampling rate is 30 fps, thus labels were acquired at every second.
Further more, in order to understand our performance on different driving goals, *i.e.*, *turn left*, *straight pass* and *turn right*, per-frame goal are annotated. The goal of an image frame is annotated as ‘turn left’ if the vehicle is expected to turn left at the next frame and so on.
**Dataset Preprocessing**. Important object labeling may be influenced by traffic signals. For example, when the red light is on, no objects are considered as important since none of them will influence the driver’s control decision. However, since we only consider the interactions with road users, we remove all the image frames where no important objects are labeled because of the traffic signals.
**Dataset Statistics**. After preprocessing, $8,166$ image frames are annotated, where $4,268$ important objects are obtained. Among all the labeled frames, $56.6\%$ images contain no important objects, $38.3\%$ contain one important object and $5.1\%$ frames include multiple important objects.
The annotated frame numbers of *turn left*, *straight pass* and *turn right* are $1004$, $6591$ and $1016$. The corresponding object numbers are $375$, $3573$ and $320$. Although we focus on traffic intersections, there are still more straight-pass frames than left/right-turn ones, which motivates us to evaluate the models based on different goals in order to avoid the results being dominated by the straight-pass scenario.
**Train/test sets and statistics**. The dataset with 6 sessions is grouped into three parts [^4], *i.e.*, P1, P2 and P3. For cross validation, all models are evaluated at every part while trained on the other two parts. We ensure that data of each part was collected from different sessions, locations and times, and has similar amount of videos and category distributions of road users [^5]. Tab. \[tab: dataset\] and Fig. \[fig: anno\_splits\] show characteristics of each part. As shown, different parts have very similar statistics.
![Statistics of the split parts. The 1st and 2nd rows show the annotated frame and important object numbers based on different per-frame goals. The 3rd row shows the number percentages of vehicles and persons.[]{data-label="fig: anno_splits"}](figs/anno_splits.pdf){width="0.9\linewidth"}
Planned Path Approximation {#sec: pathEstimate}
--------------------------
Since the experiments are done in an off-line manner, data from the AD path planning module is not available. To evaluate our method, we recover (approximate) the planned path of our vehicle at a given time step as $\textbf{IR}^t\approx\hat{\textbf{IR}}^t=[\hat{IR}(1),\hat{IR}(2),...,\hat{IR}(L)]$ where $\hat{IR}(l)$ is calculated as in Eq. \[eq: R\]. We believe that it is easy to replace $\hat{\textbf{IR}}$ with $\textbf{IR}$ when AD path planning module is available. $$\label{eq: R}
\hat{IR}(l) = \frac{\omega(l)}{v(l)}
= \frac{\alpha \times yr(l)}{v(l)},$$ where $\omega(l)$, $v(l)$ and $yr(l)$ indicates angular velocity, velocity (kilometers per hour) and yaw rate (angle per second) at the next $l$ distance unit. One distance unite is $\frac{1}{3.6}$ meters. $\alpha$ is a scale number.
Both yaw rate and velocity can be obtained from the CAN bus sensors. Yaw rate values are negative when turning left while positive when turning right.
Examples of $\hat{IR}(l)$ for left turn, straight and right turn are shown in Fig. \[fig: r\]. As we can see, there are obviously discriminative patterns among the three driving goals, *e.g.*, left turns have negative troughs, right turns have positive crests and straights are around zero .
![Examples of the $\hat{\textbf{IR}}$ given different driving goals.[]{data-label="fig: r"}](figs/ir.pdf){width="0.9\linewidth"}
---------- ----- ----- ----- ------- ----- ---- -----
Total
Session S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 NA
Location MV SV MV SV MV SV NA
Video \# 134 100 183 87 188 51 743
8,611
4,268
---------- ----- ----- ----- ------- ----- ---- -----
: Overall statistics of the split parts (P1, P2 and P3).
\[tab: dataset\]
----------------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- -- -- -- --
Test Set Lt St Rt All Lt St Rt All Lt St Rt All Lt St Rt All
Visual Model-Image 23.5 42.9 16.1 35.5 22.9 42.7 26.7 42.1 19.1 33.9 25.3 32.6 21.8 39.8 22.7 36.7
Visual Model 35.8 71.2 34.7 68.1 56.0 70.6 54.2 68.1 36.4 72.4 57.4 70.9 42.7 71.4 48.8 69.0
Goal-Geometry Model 41.1 32.9 22.8 32.1 32.5 42.6 19.7 40.6 25.6 45.8 30.2 41.8 33.1 40.4 24.2 38.2
**Goal-Visual Model** **48.9** **72.2** **42.8** **70.2** **61.1** **71.7** **70.3** **70.3** **45.2** **75.8** **61.7** **72.0** **51.7** **73.2** **58.3** **70.8**
Random Chance 4.3 5.2 2.7 4.8 5.3 5.9 14.0 8.4 5.7 6.7 4.7 6.1 5.1 5.9 7.1 6.4
UpperBound 90.9 81.6 72.7 81.7 90.9 81.7 90.8 90.8 90.4 89.2 90.9 89.4 90.7 84.1 84.8 87.3
----------------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- -- -- -- --
\[tab: quantitative\]
Baselines
---------
**Upperbound**. We estimate importance scores for all the object proposals (tracklinks), so the final results depend on the quality of the detection and tracking algorithm. We assign the correct importance label for each proposal link in this baseline. Thus, it is the upper bound of our method and all the mistakes are due to the bad detection and tracking.
**Random Chance**. We randomly assign a value ($\in [0,1]$) to each proposed tracklink as its important probability in this baseline. So, it is the lower bound of our method.
**Visual model**. It contains only the first branch of our framework which has only the visual features as input to the LSTM model. We want to see how the goal information can improve the prediction results quantitatively.
**Visual model-Image**. This model does not utilize the temporal information and predicts object importance scores by just observing the target image frame. In order to do that, we replace the LSTM model with one FC layer. This baseline is to compare with the standard object detection framework and evaluate how much the temporal information can help.
**Goal-Geometry Model**. This baseline has the same two-branch structure as our method except that appearance feature is removed and only motion and location features are used. Comparing it with our method will show if the method performs good if semantic local context is not given.
Implementation Details {#sec: implementation}
----------------------
Tracking-by-detection [@andriluka2008people] framework is used to conduct object tracking, where Faster R-CNN [@ren2015faster] with Resnet101 is used for detection and SORT [@bewley2016simple] is used for tracking. Some of the objects may not start at the first frame or last till the end. We only keep the objects that still exist at the last frame and pad $0$s in the front if they do not start at the first frame.
The length of video clip, $n$, is set to $30$. We set $L$=40 which is roughly 10 meters in the real world. $\alpha$ in Eq. \[eq: R\] is set to 1. For the visual model, we set length of the LSTM hidden layer to be $256$ and the FC layer in goal model is set to be $16$. For image based visual model, the FC layer has $1,024$ units. Weighted-cross-entropy loss is used to optimize our model and all the baselines. The weights for positive and negative samples are inversely proportional to their sample numbers in one training batch.
Experimental Results {#sec: quantitative}
--------------------
Comparisons between our method, *i.e.*, *Goal-Visual Model*, and the baselines using *average precision (AP)* are shown in Tab. \[tab: quantitative\]. Our method largely outperforms *Random Chance* (“by-chance" approach). Comparing *Visual Model* with *Visual Model-Image*, we see that the temporal information is essential for our task. Without temporal modelling, the overall *AP* drops by $32.3\%$. With the goal information, our *Goal-Visual Model* outperforms the *Visual Model* by about $2\%$ in terms of *AP*.
----------------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Pn Ve mAP Pn Ve mAP Pn Ve mAP Pn Ve mAP
Visual Model-Image 17.7 42.6 30.15 29.6 46.9 38.25 21.2 39.8 30.5 22.8 43.1 33.0
Goal-Geometry Model 34.8 35.3 35.1 36.9 44.4 40.7 45.2 43.6 44.4 40.0 41.1 40.6
Visual Model 56.0 75.4 65.7 56.1 76.4 66.3 49.7 **78.6** 64.2 53.9 76.8 65.4
**Goal-Visual Model** **60.0** **76.2** **68.1** **61.2** **78.1** **69.7** **57.6** 77.3 **67.5** **59.6** **77.2** **68.4**
----------------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
\[tab: cate\]
To evaluate the effectiveness of local visual scene context, our method is compared with *Goal-Geometry Model*. The *Goal-Geometry Model* only captures the motion and location information of a road user and combines it with the goal of the ego vehicle, without knowing the scene semantic. As it is shown, our method largely outperforms this baseline which demonstrates the usefulness of the scene context.
To evaluate our performance on different driving goals, we validate our method and the baselines on *turn left*, *straight pass* and *turn right* frames separately. Intuitively, our goal model should help more on the *turn left* and *turn right* cases compared to the *straight pass*. From the results in Tab. \[tab: quantitative\], our method largely improves the *Visual Model* by $9\%$ *AP* for *turn left* and by $9.5\%$ for *turn right*.
{width="0.9\linewidth"}
We are also interested in our performance on different object categories, *i.e.*, person and vehicle. Since, we do not have ground truth of the object categories, we generate the class label using the detection results. We match each labeled important object to a detected object if they have the largest Intersection over Union (IoU) and the $IoU>0.5$. It is not guaranteed that every important object will find a match, since the detector is not perfect. However, experiment shows that around $95\%$ of important objects are matched, so we ignore the small amount of unmatched ones. Comparisons between our method and the baselines are shown in Tab. \[tab: cate\], which demonstrates that our model outperforms all the baselines in terms of *mAP*. Specifically, we observe that performance on the ‘person’ category is largely improved with goal information. *Goal-Visual Model* improves by around $6\%$ on ‘person’ compared to *Visual Model*. It may due to the fact that most important persons are those who are walking cross the road. It is essential for the model to know where the ego vehicle is going in order to infer if a pedestrian on a certain side is important.
Qualitative results on *turn left* and *turn right* are shown in Fig. \[fig: qualitative\]. As it is shown, knowing the driving goal can help capture important objects on (or coming to) our future path, *e.g.*, *turn left(a)(c)(d)* and *turn right(d)*. It can also filter out objects that are impossible to block our way based on their motion and location, *e.g.*, *turn left(b)* and *turn right(a)(b)(c)*.
Three major failure cases are shown in Fig. \[fig: failure\]. The first one is because of the bad detection/tracking results. When the detection of the important object fails, there is no way for our framework to correct it. That is why our upper bound is not $100\%$ *AP*. The second case is a result of missing global scene context. The comparison shows that for the two parked car, one is thought as important, but the other one is not. Based on our observation, the annotator tends to annotate the parked car if the road is narrow. The third case is due to the lack of communication among road users. For example, if we remove the labeled car in the last image, all the pedestrians should be important. They are not labeled as important because there is a closer car stopping the ego vehicle hitting them. Since our method does not model the interactions among road users, it is hard for an object to know the status of other objects. Future works are needed to solve these three failure cases.
![Major failure cases of our method. The examples of the $1st$ column are due to miss detection, those of the $2nd$ column is due to the lack of global scene context and the $3rd$-column ones are because of the lack of the interaction among road users. Red circle and blue box indicate ground truth and our result, respectively.[]{data-label="fig: failure"}](figs/failure.pdf){width="0.9\linewidth"}
Are Road Users Equally Important?
---------------------------------
For a proof-of-concept, we propose a binary brake prediction (BBP) framework with object importance as a input.
BBP is a simplified version of brake prediction task which has binary labels, $y_{brake}$, instead of continuous brake values (can be obtained from CAN bus data), $v_{brake}$ ($y_{brake}=1$ if $v_{brake} > 0$ and $y_{brake}=0$ otherwise). The input of BBP is a video clip and output is the brake probability of the ego vehicle in the last frame.
We assume that brakes depend only on the interaction between the road users and the ego vehicle, since we have removed the traffic-light related frames from our dataset. The visual model in Fig \[fig: pipeline\] is used to predict brake score, $\textit{s}^t_i$, at time $t$ of the ego vehicle given road user,$i$, in the input video clip. The final brake score, $\textit{s}^t_{fuse} = \underset{i}{\sum}{(w^t_i* \textit{s}^t_i)}$, is obtained by fusing predicted scores based on all the road users in a weighted sum manner. Our model use the predicted important probability to be the weight of each object. Our intuition is that more important objects will have bigger impacts on the brake decision. The baseline uses the same weight ($0.5$) for all the objects to indicate that all objects in the scene equally contributed to the brake.
Experimental results suggest that our method improves the baseline by $4.3\%$, $1.7\%$ and $1.3\%$ AP in the P1, P2 and P3, respectively, which demonstrates the potential usefulness of the object importance.
Conclusion
==========
We propose a new problem as Object Importance Estimation (OIE) in on-road driving videos to understand the human visual selection mechanism under the driving context. We present a novel framework to handle the problem where both the visual dynamics of road users and the goal of the ego vehicle are taken into consideration. To evaluate the problem, we collect an on-road driving dataset and annotate the important objects given the video clip. Experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness of our idea. Moreover, we explore the potential usage of the OIE by incorporating it into a binary brake prediction framework. Experiments show that important objects can help to improve the prediction.
[^1]: $^{*}$Work done during an internship at the Honda Research Institute, USA.
[^2]: $^{1}$The author is with the University of Maryland, College Park, MD, 20740. [mgao@umiacs.umd.edu]{}
[^3]: $^{2}$The authors are with the Honda Research Institute, Mountain View, CA, 94043. [{atawari, smartin}@honda-ri.com]{}
[^4]: We use 3-fold cross validation instead of 10-fold due to not enough data.
[^5]: Since we do not have the object-category annotations. We use the result of object detection (with confidence threshold of $0.5$) to estimate the numbers of vehicles and persons at the annotated frames.
|
---
abstract: 'We study the $\overline{\partial}$-Neumann problem using the Sobolev space inner product. We show that the problem can be solved on any smoothly bounded, pseudoconvex domain. We further formulate estimates and the basic results of a Sobolev Hodge theory.'
address:
- |
-Luigi Fontana, Dipartimento di Matematica, Via Saldini 50, Università di Milano\
20133 Milano (Italy)
- '-Steven G. Krantz, Mathematical Sciences Research Institute [and]{} Department of Mathematics, Washington University, St. Louis, MO 63130 (U.S.A.)'
- '-Marco M. Peloso, Dipartimento di Matematica, Politecnico di Torino, 10129 Torino (Italy)'
author:
- Luigi Fontana
- 'Steven G. Krantz'
- 'Marco M. Peloso'
title: 'The $\dbar$-Neumann problem in the Sobolev topology'
---
=8.35pt =18.88pt =18.88pt =14.21pt
\[section\] \[thm\][Proposition]{} \[thm\][Corollary]{} \[thm\][Lemma]{} \[thm\][Definition]{} \[thm\][Remark]{}
\#1\#2 \#1\#2[\^[\#1]{}\_[\#2]{}]{}
ß
\#1\#2
[^1]
Introduction
============
Let $\Omega$ be a smoothly bounded domain in ${{\Bbb C}^n}$. We write the coordinates $z_j =x_j +ix_{j+n}$, $j=1,\dots,n$, and the standard basis of vector fields $D_k := {\partial}/{\partial}x_k$, for $k=1,\dots,2n$. For $s$ a non-negative integer we define the Sobolev inner product $\la \cdot,\cdot\ra_s$ to be $$\label{Sobolev}
\la f,g\ra_s := \sum_{|\alpha|\le s} \CP \int_\Omega D^\alpha f
\overline{D^\alpha g} .$$ Here, and throughout the paper, we use $D^\alpha$ to denote the $\alpha$-order derivative, where $\alpha$ is a multi-index and we are using standard multi-index notation. Moreover, $\CP:=|\alpha|!/\alpha!$ denotes the polynomial coefficient. \[The naturality of this choice of the Sobolev inner product will be pointed out and discussed below.\]
We define the Sobolev space $W^s (\Omega)$ to be the closure of $C^\infty (\bar \Omega)
$ with respect to the above inner product. We denote by ${W^s_{(0,q)}(\Omega)}$ the space of $(0,q)$ forms whose coefficients are in ${W^s(\Omega)}$. If $\phi=\sum_{|J|=q}\phi_J d\bar z^J$ and $\psi=\sum_{|J|=q}\psi_Jd\bar z^J$, then the inner product in ${W^s_{(0,q)}(\Omega)}$ is defined by $$\la \phi,\psi\ra_s := \sum_{|J|=q}\sum_
{|\alpha|\le s} \CP
\int_\Omega D^\alpha \phi_J \overline{D^\alpha \psi_J} ,$$ where we use the standard notation $J$ to denote a $q$-vector with increasing entries, and $\alpha$ to denote a multi-index. \[Note that the inner product of forms of different degrees is defined to be 0.\]
For a $(0,q)$ form $\phi=\sum_{|J|=q}\phi_J d\bar z^J$ with $C^\infty$ coefficients, the operator $\dbar$ is defined by $$\label{d-bar}
\dbar\phi :=\sum_{|K|=q+1} \sum_{kJ}\e{K}{kJ} \pd{\phi_J}{\bar z_k}
d\bar z^K ,$$ where $\e{K}{kJ}$ equals the sign of the permutation $kJ\mapsto K$ if $\{ k\}\cup J=K$ as sets, and is $0$ otherwise. We continue to use $\overline{\partial}$ to denote its closure in the $W^s$ topology. In this way, for each integer $q=0,1,\dots,n$, we obtain an unbounded, densely defined, closed operator $$\dbar:{W^s_{(0,q)}(\Omega)}\rightarrow W^s_{(0,q+1)}(\Omega) .$$ Thus, in particular, $\ker \dbar$ is a closed subspace in ${W^s_{(0,q)}(\Omega)}$. Sometimes we shall use the notation $\dbar_{(0,q)}$ to stress the fact that the operator $\dbar$ is acting on $(0,q)$ forms.
Consider now the ${W^s(\Omega)}$-Hilbert space adjoint $\dbar^*$ of $\dbar$. We want to study the boundary value problem $$\label{dbar-neumann}
\begin{cases}
(\dbar\dbar^* +\dbar^* \dbar)u=f &\text{ on }\Omega\\
u,\, \dbar u\in \dom \dbar^* \, , &
\end{cases}$$ where $f$ is a given $(0,q)$ form. When appropriate, we shall refer to this problem as [**(3,s)**]{} in order to emphasize that the topology is coming from the $W^s$ inner product. The condition that $u$ and $\overline{\partial} u$ lie in the domain of $\overline{\partial}^*$ leads to the [*$\overline{\partial}$-Neumann $s$-order boundary conditions*]{}. We shall refer below to the $(\dbar,s)$-Neumann conditions, and the $\dbars$-Neumann problem. Notice that if the Hilbert space under consideration is $L^2
(\Omega)$ (that is, $s=0$) with respect to the Lebesgue measure, then the problem [**(3,s)**]{} reduces to the classical $\dbar$-Neumann problem.
J. J. Kohn solved the $\dbar
$-Neumann ($= (\dbar,0)$-Neumann) problem in a series of papers in 1963-4 (see [@Folland-Kohn] and references therein). This work has proved important in the theory of partial differential equations, in geometry, and in function theory. Recent work of Christ [@Christ] has shown that the [*canonical solution*]{}—the solution that is minimal in $L^2$ norm—that arises from Kohn’s work in the $L^2$ topology is not as well behaved as one might have hoped. The program presented in this paper endeavors to seek other canonical solutions that may serve when Kohn’s solution will not. This work is also interesting from the point of view of partial differential equations—particularly boundary value problems—and in the study of the energy integral in geometry. We mention that H. Boas [@Boas1] and [@Boas2] studied properties and regularity of the Hilbert space orthogonal projection of ${W^s(\Omega)}$ onto the subspace consisting of the holomorphic functions.
The present paper is the first of a series of papers that we devote to the study of the $\dbars$-Neumann problem. We begin by showing that problem [**(3,s)**]{} can always be solved on any smoothly bounded pseudoconvex domain $\Omega$. This result does not depend on the particular choice of Sobolev inner product. Then we investigate the $\dbars$-Neumann problem more closely by determining a description of the Hilbert space adjoint $\dbar^*$ of $\dbar$, and the boundary conditions arising from requiring that $u$ and $\dbar u$ belong to $\dom\dbar^*$. While doing this we use the particular choice of the inner product (\[Sobolev\]) to obtain reasonably clean equations and formulas. We then conclude with some remarks about what lies ahead. In a forthcoming paper we give estimates for the above problem in the special case of a strongly pseudoconvex domain, and with $s=1$. The foundations for the present work, studied in the real variable context of the de Rham complex, were laid in the papers [@FKP1], [@FKP2].
We thank H. Boas for making several useful remarks and comments on an earlier version of this paper. We also thank the referee for making helpful suggestions. Work of the second author at MSRI was supported by NSF Grant DMS-9022140.
Solvability of the $\dbars$-Neumann problem
===========================================
The aim of the present section is to prove the following theorem.
\[solvability\] *Let $\Omega$ be a smoothly bounded pseudoconvex domain in ${{\Bbb C}^n}$. Let $s,q$ be positive integers, $0<q\le n$. Let $f\in{W^s_{(0,q)}(\Omega)}$. Then there exists a unique $u\in{W^s_{(0,q)}(\Omega)}$ that solves the $\dbars$-Neumann problem $$\begin{cases}
(\dbar\dbar^* +\dbar^* \dbar)u=f & \text{ on }\Omega\\
u,\, \dbar u\in\dom \dbar^* \, . &
\end{cases}$$ Moreover, there exists a constant $c>0$, independent of $f$, such that $$\|u\|_s \le c\|f\|_s.$$*
The proof is in two steps. In the first, we rely heavily on Kohn’s estimates [@Kohn], to construct and estimate the [*canonical solutions*]{} in $W^s$ to the equations $\dbar u=f$ and $\dbar^* v=g$. In the second step we prove the solvabilty of the $(\dbar,s)$-Neumann problem. In the course of the proof, by [*orthogonal*]{} we shall always mean orthogonality in the $W^s$ inner product.
By (3.21) in [@Kohn], since the $\dbar$-cohomology is trivial on a pseudoconvex domain $\Omega\ss {\Bbb C}^n$, we have that $\rg \dbar_{(0,q-1)} = \ker \dbar_{(0,q)}$. This equality implies that $\rg\dbar_{(0,q-1)}$ is closed in ${W^s_{(0,q)}(\Omega)}$. Now Lemma 4.1.1 in [@HO], applied with $F=\rg\dbar_{(0,q-1)}$, gives that $$\| f\|_s \le c \|\dbar^*_{(0,q)} f\|_s$$ for all $f\in \rg\dbar_{(0,q-1)}\cap\dom\dbar^*_{(0,q)}$. This in turn, by Lemma 4.1.2 in [@HO], implies that for all $v$ in the orthogonal complement of $\ker\dbar_{(0,q-1)}$, i.e. in the closure of $\rg\dbar^*_{(0,q)}$, there exists $f\in\dom\dbar^*_{(0,q)}$ such that $\dbar^*_{(0,q)} f=v$. Hence, $\rg\dbar_{(0,q)}^*$ is closed as well, and therefore we have the estimate $\| f\|_s \le C\|\dbar f\|_s$ for all $f\in\rg\dbar^*_{(0,q)}\cap\dom\dbar_{(0,q-1)}$. Moreover, we have the strong orthogonal decomposition $${W^s_{(0,q)}(\Omega)}=\rg\dbar_{(0,q+1)}^* \oplus\rg\dbar_{(
0,q-1)} .$$ Now, given any $g\in{W^s_{(0,q)}(\Omega)}$, with $\dbar_{(0,q)} g=0$, i.e. $g\in\rg\dbar_{(0,q-1)}$, we can find $v\in\dom\dbar_{(0,q-1)}$, orthogonal to $\ker\dbar_{(0,q-1)}$, such that $\dbar v=g$, and we have the estimate $$\| v\|_s \le c_s \|g\|_s .$$ We can apply the same argument to the $\dbar^*$-equation, i.e. given any $f$ with $\dbar^*_{(0,q)}f=0$, we can find $u$ orthogonal to $\ker\dbar^*_{(0,q+1)}$ such that $\dbar^*_{(0,q+1)} u=f$, with the estimate $$\| u\|_s \le c_s \|f\|_s .$$ We shall call such solutions $u$ and $v$ the $s$-[*canonical*]{} solution to the $\dbar$ and $\dbar^*$ equation, respectively.
We now establish the solvability of the $\dbars$-Neumann problem. We shall suppress the subscripts on the operators $\dbar$ and $\dbar^*$ (used to denote the space of forms that is being acted upon), since this will be clear from context. Let $f\in{W^s_{(0,q)}(\Omega)}$. Then $f$ can be uniquely written as $f=f_1+f_2$ with $f_1 \in \rg\dbar$ and $f_2\in\rg \dbar^*$. Let $g_1,g_2$ be the canonical solution of $\dbar g_1=f_1$, and $\dbar^* g_2=f_2$, respectively. Since $g_1\perp \ker \dbar$ we have that $g_1\in\rg\dbar^*$, and therefore $\dbar^* g_1=0$. Analogously, $g_2\in\rg\dbar$ and $\dbar g_2=0$.
Thus we can canonically select $u_1,u_2$ such that $\dbar^* u_1=g_1$ and $\dbar u_2 =g_2$. Setting $u=u_1+u_2$ we obtain that $$(\dbar\dbar^* +\dbar^* \dbar)u=f,$$ and the desired estimate follows from the corresponding ones for $\dbar$ and $\dbar^*$: $$\begin{aligned}
\|
u\|_s^2
& = \|u_1\|_s^2 +\|u_2\|_s^2 \\
& \le c( \|g_1\|_s^2 +\|g_2\|_s^2 )\\
& \le c(\|f_1\|_s^2 +\|f_2\|_s^2)\\
& =c\|f\|_s^2 . \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qed\end{aligned}$$
We let $N_s$ be the operator on ${W^s_{(0,q)}(\Omega)}$ defined by $$\label{box}
(\dbar\dbar^* +\dbar^*\dbar)N_s f=f$$ for all $f\in{W^s_{(0,q)}(\Omega)}$. \[Notice that the harmonic space for the operator on the left side of (\[box\]) is just the zero space—by the preceding arguments. Therefore this last condition uniquely defines $N_s$.\] We call $N_s$ the [*Neumann operator*]{} for the $\dbars$-Neumann problem. Thus we have proved that $N_s$ is a bounded operator from ${W^s_{(0,q)}(\Omega)}$ into itself, for $0<q\le n$.
[ *We want to stress the fact that the results of the present section are [*independent*]{} of the particular choice of the Sobolev inner product. In fact, the same arguments work for any $s\ge0$, not necessarily integral, and any choice of an equivalent norm in ${W^s_{(0,q)}(\Omega)}$. The form of the inner product (\[Sobolev\]) will only become relevant in the next section since we seek explicit formulas for $\dbar^*$ and its domain.* ]{}
The Hilbert space adjoint $\dbar^*$ of $\dbar$
==============================================
In this section we wish to make the $\dbars$-Neumann problem more explicit by calculating the domain of $\dbar^*$, and the operator $\dbar^*$ itself by showing how it actually operates on the $(0,q)$-forms in its domain. As a result, we shall formulate problem (\[dbar-neumann\]) as a boundary value problem in which the equation on the domain is of the form $\Box+G_s$ where $\Box$ is the complex Laplacian and $G_s$ is a so-called [*singular Green’s operator*]{} (see [@Grubb]). This result demonstrates a striking difference with the classical case of the $(\dbar,0)$-Neumann problem, where the adjoint is taken with respect to the $L^2$-inner product, and no operator $G_s$ appears. The particular expression of the Hilbert space adjoint $\dbar$, and of the singular Green’s operator $G_s$ arising in the $\dbars$-Neumann problem depend on the choice of the inner product in ${W^s_{(0,q)}(\Omega)}$. We note that with our definition (\[Sobolev\]) we have $$\label{iteration}
\la f,g\ra_s = \la f,g\ra_0
+ \sum_{j=1}^{2n} \la D_j f,D_j g\ra_{s-1} .$$
Recall that for a $(0,q)$ form $\phi=\sum_{|J|=q}\phi_J d\bar z^J$ with $C^\infty$ coefficients, the operator $\dbar$ is defined as $$\dbar\phi =\sum_{|K|=q+1} \sum_{kJ}\e{K}{kJ} \pd{\phi_J}{\bar z_k}
d\bar z^K .$$ Then, the [*formal adjoint*]{} $\vartheta$ of $\dbar$ is easily calculated to be $$\vartheta \phi
= -\sum_{|I|=q-1} \e{J}{iI} \pd{\phi_J}{z_i} d\bar z^I.$$
We want to compute the Hilbert space adjoint $\dbar^*$, together with its domain. In carrying out this program, a central role is played by a particular extension of the normal vector field on $b\Omega$ to a suitable tubular neighborhood of $b\Omega$. The differential condition arising in the description of $\dom\dbar^*$ is most easily expressed if we make the following choices.
Let $\varrho$ be the signed Euclidean distance from $b\Omega$ (negative inside, positive outside). In a suitable tubular neighborhood $U$ of $b\Omega$, this function $\varrho$ is well defined and in $C^\infty(\overline{U})$. We define the vector field $N$ on $U$ by setting $N=\text{grad\,}\varrho$. Then $N$ is the outward unit vector field, and if we set $N=\sum_{j=1}^{2n}\nu_j D_j$, then $N\nu_j =0$ on $U$. \[This last one is in fact the property that at several stages makes our computations easier, and the formulas appearing simplier.\]
\[domain\] *Let $\Omega$ be a smoothly bounded domain in ${{\Bbb C}^n}$. Let $\dbar^*$ be the ${W^s(\Omega)}$-Hilbert space adjoint of $\dbar$. Then $$\dom\dbar^* \cap C_{(0,q+1)}^\infty(\bar\Omega)
=\{ \psi: N^s \bigl(\psi \llcorner\dbar\varrho\bigr)_I
=0 \text{ on }b\Omega, \text{ for all }I,
|I|=q \} .$$*
Notice that $N^s$ denotes the $s$-fold composition of $N$ with itself.
Here the contraction of a $(0,q+1)$ form $\psi$ with a $(0,1)$ form $\omega=\sum_{k}\omega_k d\bar z_k$ is defined by the formula $$\psi\llcorner\omega:= \sum_I \sum_{kK}\e{K}{kI}\psi_K \bar\omega_k
d\bar z^I .$$
[ *Suppose that $r$ is a generic defining function for $\Omega$, $C^\infty$ in a neighborhood of $\overline{\Omega}$, and we wish to express $\dom\dbar^*$ in terms of $r$ and ${\partial}/{\partial}r$. Then we obtain the following description. There exists a differential operator $L_s$ of order $s$, with $C^\infty (\overline{U})$ coefficients, whose leading term is $({\partial}/{\partial}r)^s$, and such that $$\dom\dbar^* \cap C_{(0,q+1)}^\infty(\bar\Omega)
= \biggl \{ \psi: L_s \bigl(\psi \llcorner\dbar r\bigr)_I
=0 \text{ on }b\Omega, \text{ for all }I, |I|=q \biggr \} .$$ Indeed, on $U$, $$\pd{}{r} = |\text{grad\,} r|N+ gX,$$ where $g\in C^\infty(\overline{U})$, $g=0$ on $b\Omega$, and $X$ is a vector field on $U$.* ]{}
We set $\dbar^* =\vartheta+\K$, and we want to determine $\K$. Our result is the following.
\[K\] *Let $\Omega$ be a smoothly bounded domain in ${{\Bbb C}^n}$, and let $s$ be a positive integer. Let $\dbar^*$ be the ${W^s(\Omega)}$-Hilbert adjoint of $\dbar$, and $\vartheta$ be the formal adjoint of $\dbar$, respectively. Set $\dbar^*=\vartheta + {\cal K}$. Then, for a $(0,q+1)$ form $\psi$, $\K\psi:=\sum_{|I|=q}\omega_I d\bar z^I$ is the $(0,q)$ form whose components are solutions of the following : $$\label{BV}
\begin{cases}
\sum_{j=0}^{s}(-\Delta)^j \omega_I =0 & \text{ on }\Omega\\
\sum_{j=0}^{s+k-1}T_j N^{s+k-1-j}\omega_I =P_{s+k}^{(I)}\psi
& \text{ on }b\Omega ,\, k=1,\dots,s \, .
\end{cases}$$ Here $T_k$ denotes a tangential differential operator of order $\le k$, with $C^\infty$ coefficients, $T_0 =(-1)^{k-1} \cdot \hbox{id}$ on $b\Omega$, and $P_{s+k}^{(I)}$ is a differential operator of order $s+k$ with $C^\infty$ coefficients and acting on the components of $\psi$.*
As a consequence, from the theory of elliptic boundary value problems [@LiMa], we shall obtain the next result.
\[K-order-1\] Let $s$ a be positive integer. Then, $\K$ is a well defined operator of order $1$. More precisely, for all $t>s+1/2$. there exists a positive constant $C_t >0$ such that we have the estimate $$\|\K \psi\|_{t-1} \le C_t \|\psi\|_t$$ for all $\psi\in C^\infty_{(0,q+1)}(\overline{\Omega})$. Furthermore, when restricted to purely tangential forms, $\K$ is of order $0$, i.e. for all $t>s+1/2$ there exists $C_t >0$ such that if $\psi\llcorner\dbar\varrho=0$ in a neighborhood of $b\Omega$, then $$\|\K\psi\|_{t-1} \le C_t \|\psi\|_{t-1} .$$
As a consequence of these facts, we obtain the following representation for the $\dbars$-Neumann problem. We set $G_s :=\dbar\K+\K\dbar$. With the notation above, the $\dbars$- Neumann problem is equivalent to the boundary value problem $$\begin{cases}
(\Box+G_s)u=f &\quad\text{on }\Omega\\
N^s (u\llcorner\dbar\varrho)=0 &\quad\text{on }b\Omega\\
N^s (\dbar u\llcorner\dbar\varrho)=0 &\quad\text{on }b\Omega \, .
\end{cases}$$
Here $\Box
:=\dbar\vt+\vt\dbar$ is the complex Laplacian, and it equals $-4\Delta$ on $\Omega\ss{\Bbb C}^n$. Notice that $G_s$ is the singular Green’s operator we mentioned earlier. The operator $G_s$ is of order $2$, so of the same order as the complex Laplacian $\Box$. Moreover notice that $G_s u$ only depends on the boundary values of $u$ and $\dbar u$ and their derivatives up to order $2s$, and that in general $G_s$ is not diagonal. An analysis of the analogue of the operator $G_s$ in the case of the de Rham complex, appears in [@FKP1].
[Proof of Theorem 3.1]{} Let $\phi\in C^\infty_{(0,q)} (\overline{\Omega})$ and $\psi\in C^\infty_{(0,q+1)} (\overline{\Omega})$. Using Green’s formula we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{>>>}
\la \dbar\phi,\psi\ra_s
= & \la \phi,\dbar^* \psi\ra_s = \la \phi,\vartheta \psi\ra_s
+\la\phi,\K\psi\ra_s \notag \\
= & \la \phi,\vartheta \psi\ra_s + \sum_{0\le|\alpha|\le s} \CP
\sum_{KkI} \e{K}{kI}
\int_{b\Omega}D^\alpha \phi_I \overline{D^\alpha \psi_K}
\pd{\varrho}{\bar z_k} .\end{aligned}$$ Recall that the $(0,q+1)$ form $\psi$ belongs to $\dom \dbar^*$ if and only if there exists a constant $C_\psi >0$ such that $|\la \dbar \phi,\psi\ra_s|\le C_\psi \|\phi\|_s$ for all $\phi\in\dom\dbar$. Hence $\psi\in\dom\dbar^*$ if and only if the boundary terms in the calculation (\[>>>\]) above can be bounded by $C_\psi \|\phi\|_s$. By the Sobolev trace theorem we can bound the terms of the form $$\int_{b\Omega} D^\alpha \phi_I \overline{D^\alpha \psi
_K}
\pd{\varrho}{\bar z_k}$$ when $|\alpha|\le s-1$. Thus it suffices to consider the sum $$\sum_{|\alpha|= s}
\sum_{KkI}
\int_{b\Omega}D^\alpha \phi_I \overline{D^\alpha \psi_K}
\pd{\varrho}{\bar z_k} .$$ By integrating by parts we can move tangential derivatives from $\phi$ to $\psi$, so only the $s$ normal derivatives on $\phi$ may cause trouble.
We decompose the standard derivatives in the coordinate directions into their normal and tangential components: $$D_j = Y_j +\nu_j N,$$ where $N$ is the normal derivative, and $Y_j$ are tangential vector fields. Then $$D^\alpha=(Y_{\alpha_{p_1}}+\nu_{\alpha_{p_1}}N)\cdots
(Y_{\alpha_{p_s}}+\nu_{\alpha_{p_s}}N).$$ Notice that, since $\sum_j \nu_j^2 \equiv 1$ and $N=\sum_j \nu_j D_j$, we have that $\sum_j \nu_j Y_j =0$. Therefore, when considering $s$ normal derivatives on $\phi_I$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\sum_{|\alpha|=s}\CP \sum_{KkI} } \\
& \biggl [ \e{K}{kI} \int_{b\Omega}
(\nu_{\alpha_{p_1}}N)\cdots
(\nu
_{\alpha_{p_s}}N)\phi_I
\overline{(Y_{\alpha_{p_1}}+\nu_{\alpha_{p_1}}N)\cdots
(Y_{\alpha_{p_s}}+\nu_{\alpha_{p_s}}N) \psi_K}
\pd{\varrho}{\bar z_k} \biggr ] \\
& = \sum_{|\alpha|=s} \CP \sum_{KkI} \e{K}{kI} \int_{b\Omega}
(\nu_{\alpha_{p_1}})^2 \cdots (\nu_{\alpha_{p_s}})^2
\bigl( N^s \phi_I\bigr) \overline{\bigl(N^s \psi_K)}
\pd{\varrho}{\bar z_k} \\
& = \bigl( \sum_{|\alpha|=s}\CP (\nu_{\alpha_{p_1}})^2 \cdots
(\nu_{\alpha_{p_s}})^2 \bigr)\sum_I \int_{b\Omega}
(N^s \phi_I) \overline{\bigl
( \sum_{Kk} \e{K}{kI} N^s (\psi_K
\pd{\varrho}{z_k} )\bigr) } . \end{aligned}$$ Now, if $\psi\in C^\infty_{(0,q+1)} (\overline{\Omega})$ and $$0=\sum_{Kk} \e{K}{kI} N^s (\psi_K
\pd{\varrho}{z_k}) = N^s (\psi\llcorner \dbar\varrho)_I$$ on $b\Omega$ for all $I$, then clearly $\psi\in\dom\dbar^*$.
On the other hand, suppose that $N^s (\psi\llcorner\dbar\varrho)_I \neq 0$ on $b\Omega$ for a certain $I$. We may assume that $$\text{Re} \bigl( N^s (\psi\llcorner\dbar\varrho)_I\bigr) \ge 1
\quad\text{on } B(p,\delta)\cap\overline{\Omega},$$ where $B(p,\delta)$ is a small ball center at $p\in\Omega$. For $\varepsilon>0$, consider the collection of $(0,q)$ forms $\phi^{(\varepsilon)}$, $$\phi^{(\varepsilon)}:=(-\varrho)^{s-1}
(-\varrho+\varepsilon)^{3/4} \chi d\bar z^I ,$$ where $\chi$ is a non-negative $C^\infty$ cut-off function, $\text{supp}\chi\ss B(p,\delta)$, and $\chi=1$ on $B(p,\delta/2)$. Now, an easy calculation shows that $$\| \phi^{(\varepsilon)} \|_s \le C_1$$ independently of $\varepsilon$, while $$\left |\int_{b\Omega} N^s \phi_I^{(\varepsilon)}
\cdot\overline{N^s (\psi\llcorner\dbar\varrho)_I} \right |
\ge C_2 \varepsilon^{-1/4} ,$$ which is unbounded, as $\varepsilon\rightarrow0$. This finishes the proof of the proposition.
*We observe that $\dom\dbar^* \cap C_{(0,q+1)}^\infty(\bar\Omega)$ is dense in $W^s_{(0,q+1)}(\Omega)$. Therefore it suffices to show that for any $\varepsilon>0$ and $\phi\in C^\infty_{(0,q+1)}(\overline{\Omega})$ there exists $\psi\in C^\infty_{(0,q+1)}(\overline{\Omega})$ with $\|\psi\|_s <\varepsilon$ and $\phi-\psi\in\dom\dbar^*$.*
Having fixed $\phi$ and $\varepsilon$, let $\chi\in C^\infty_0 (-1,1)$ and $\chi=1$ in a neighborhood of the origin. Then the form $\psi$ $$\psi:= (
1/s!)(-\varrho)^s \chi(-\varrho/\varepsilon) \bigl( N^s
(\phi\llcorner \dbar\varrho)\bigr) \wedge\dbar\varrho$$ satisfies the required conditions.
[Proof of Proposition 3.3]{} We have set $\dbar^* =\vartheta+\K$, so that for $\psi\in\dom\dbar^*$ we have $$\label{dag}
\la \phi,\dbar^* \psi\ra_s = \la\phi,\vartheta\psi\ra_s
+\la\phi,\K\psi\ra_s .$$ On the other hand by (\[>>>\]) we see that, for $\psi\in\dom\dbar^*$ and $\phi\in C^\infty_{(0,q)
}
(\overline{\Omega})$ we have the equality $$\la\dbar\phi,\psi\ra_s = \la\phi,\vartheta\psi\ra_s
+\sum_{0\le|\alpha|\le s} \CP
\sum_{KkJ}\e{K}{kJ}\int_{b\Omega} D^\alpha
\phi_J \overline{D^\alpha \psi_K}\pd{\varrho}{\bar z_k} \, ;$$ so it follows that $$\label{bnry-eq-K}
\la \phi,\K\psi\ra_s = \sum_{0\le|\alpha|\le s} \CP
\sum_{KkJ}\e{K}{kJ}\int_{b\Omega} D^\alpha
\phi_J \overline{D^\alpha \psi_K}\pd{\varrho}{\bar z_k} .$$ By choosing $\phi$ with compact support in $\Omega$ we find that $\K\psi$ satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
0 = & \la\phi,\K\psi\ra_s \\
= & \sum_{|J|=q}\sum_{0\le|\alpha|\le s} \CP
\int_\Omega D^\alpha \phi_J \overline{D^\alpha (\K\psi)_J} \\
= & \sum_{|J|=q}\sum_{0\le|\alpha|\le s} (-1)^{|\alpha|} \CP
\int_\Omega \phi_J \overline{D^{2\alpha} (\K\psi)_J} .\end{aligned}$$ Since this holds for all $\phi\in C^\infty_{(0,q)} (\Omega)$ with compact support in $\Omega$, we see that $(\K\psi)_J$ must satisfy the equation $$0=\sum_{0\le|\alpha|\le s}(-1)^{|\alpha|}\CP D^{2\alpha}(\K\psi)_J
=\sum_{j=0}^{s} (-\Delta)^j (\K\psi)_J \quad\text{on }\Omega$$ for all $J$, which is the equation on the interior of $\Omega$ that appears in (\[BV\]).
Now we move on to consider the boundary conditions that $\K\psi$ must satisfy. For $\phi\in C^\infty_{(0,q)}(\overline{\Omega})$, by repeatedly applying Green’s theorem to the left hand side of equation (\[bnry-eq-K\]), and recalling equation (\[iteration\]), we have $$\begin{aligned}
\la \phi,\K\psi\ra_s
& = \sum_{|J|=q} \biggl ( \la \phi_J, (\K\psi)_J \ra_0
+\sum_{j=1}^{2n}\la D_j \phi_J ,D_j (\K\psi)_J \ra_{s-1} \biggr) \\
& = \sum_{|J|=q}\biggl ( \int_\Omega \phi_J \overline{(\K\psi)_J}
+\sum_{i=1}^{2n} \int_\Omega D_i \phi_J \overline{D_i (\K\psi)_J} \\
& \qquad\qquad + \sum_{1\le|\beta|\le s-1} \CPb \sum_{i=1}^{2n}
\int_\Omega D_i D^\beta \phi_J \overline{D_i
D^\beta (\K\psi)_J} \biggr ) \\
& = \sum_{|J|=q} \biggl(\int_{b\Omega} \phi_J
\overline{N(\K\psi)_J} + \sum_{1\l
e|\beta|\le s-1} \CPb
\int_{b\Omega} D^\beta \phi_J \overline{ND^\beta(\K\psi)_J} \\
& \qquad\qquad
- \la \phi_J , \Delta(\K\psi)_J \ra_{s-1} + \dots \biggr ) , \end{aligned}$$ where the dots stand for terms that do not contribute to any boundary expression.
We iterate this calculation on the last term on the right in the above chain of equalities to obtain that $$\la\phi,\K\psi\ra_s = \sum_{|J|=q}
\sum_{i=0}^{s-1} \sum_{|\alpha|\le i}\CP \int_{b\Omega}
(D^\alpha\phi_J)\overline{ND^\alpha(
-\Delta)^{s-1-i}(\K\psi)_J} +
\dots ,$$ where the dots have the same meaning as before. >From this equation and (\[bnry-eq-K\]) it follows that, for all $J$, $$\begin{gathered}
\label{*}
\sum_{i=0}^{s-1} \sum_{|\alpha|\le i} \CP
\int_{b\Omega}(D^\alpha\phi_J)
\overline{ND^\alpha(-\Delta)^{s-1-i}(\K\psi)_J} \\
= \sum_{0\le|\alpha|\le s} \CP \sum_{kK} \e{K}{kJ} \int_{b\Omega}
D^\alpha \phi_J \overline{D^\alpha \psi_K} \pd{\varrho}{\bar z_k} . \end{gathered}$$ This equation must hold true for all $\phi\in C^\infty_{(0,q)}
(\overline{\Omega})$. Thus we need to isolate the terms containing $N^\ell \phi_J$ for $\ell=0,1,\dots,s-1$, and for all $J$.
Now observe that, if $f$ and $g$ are smooth functions on the boundary, then $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{j=1}^{2n} \int_{b\Omega} D_j f \overline{D
_j g}
= & \sum_j \int_{b\Omega}(Y_j +\nu_j N)f
\overline{(Y_j +\nu_j N)g}\\
= & \sum_j \int_{b\Omega} Y_j f \overline{Y_j g}
+\int_{b\Omega} Nf \overline{N g}, \end{aligned}$$ where we have used the fact that $\sum_j \nu_j Y_j =0$. Now $$D^\alpha = T_{\alpha,|\alpha|} +T_{\alpha,|\alpha|-1}N+\cdots
+\nu^\alpha N^{|\alpha|},$$ where $T_{\alpha,k}$ is a tangential operator of order $\le k$, and $\nu:=$ $(\nu_1,\dots,\nu_{2n})$. Therefore the left hand side of (\[\*\]) equals $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{
\sum_{i=0}^{s-1} \sum_{|\alpha|\le i} \CP \int_{b\Omega} \bigl(
T_{\alpha,|\alpha|}+T_{\alpha,|\alpha|-1}N+\cdots+\nu^\alpha
N^{|\alpha|} \bigr)\phi_J} \\
& \qquad \qquad \cdot\overline{N D^\alpha (-\Delta)^{s-1-i}
(\K\psi)_J }\notag \\
& = \sum_{\ell=0}^{s-1} \biggl( \int_{b\Omega}
N^\ell \phi_J \cdot \overline{ \bigl[ \sum_{i=\ell}^{s-1}
\sum_{\ell\le|\alpha|\le i} \CP T_{\alpha,|\alpha|-\ell}^*
ND^\alpha (-\Delta)^{s-1-i} (\K\psi)_J \bigr]} \biggr) \notag\\
& = \sum_{\ell=0}^{s-1} \biggl( \int_{b\Omega}
N^\ell \phi_J \cdot \overline{ \sum_{\ell\le|\alpha|\le s-1}
\bigl[ \sum_{j=0}^{s-1-|\alpha|} \CP T_{\alpha,|\alpha|-\ell}^*
ND^\alpha (-\Delta)^{j} (\K\psi)_J \bigr]} \biggr) .
\label
{DAG} \end{aligned}$$ Notice that in the above calculations we have obtained the identity $$\begin{gathered}
\label{K-identity}
\la\phi,\K\psi\ra_s = \sum_J \biggl( \la\phi_J,
\sum_{j=0}^{s} (-\Delta)^j (\K\psi)_J \ra_0 \\
+ \sum_{\ell=0}^{s-1} \int_{b\Omega}
N^\ell \phi_J \cdot \overline{ \sum_{\ell\le|\alpha|\le s-1}
\bigl[ \sum_{j=0}^{s-1-|\alpha|} \CP T_{\alpha,|\alpha|-\ell}^*
ND^\alpha (-\Delta)^{j} (\K\psi)_J \bigr]} \biggr) .\end{gathered}$$ In particular, for $\nu:=$ $(\nu_1,\dots,\nu_{2n})$, we have that $T_{\alpha,0}=\nu^\alpha=T_{\alpha,0}^*$ and for $\ell$ a positive integer we have $$\label{***}
\sum_{|\alpha|=\ell-1}\CP \nu^\alpha D^\alpha=
\sum_{|\beta|=\ell-2}\CPb \nu^\beta \bigl(\sum_{i=1}^{2n}\nu_i
D_i\bigr)D^\beta=\dots= N^{\ell-1}.$$ Thus the last summand on the right hand side of (\[DAG\]) (corresponding to $\ell=s-1$) becomes $$\int_{b\Omega} N^{s-1} \phi_J\cdot \overline{\biggl(
\sum_{|\alpha|=s-1} \CP
T_{\alpha,0}^* \bigl[ ND^\alpha (\K \psi)_J \bigr] \biggr)}
= \int_{b\Omega} N^{s-1} \phi_J\cdot \overline{N^s (\K\psi)_J} .$$ The right hand side of (\[\*\]) can be treated in the same way: $$\begin{gathered}
\sum_{0\le|\alpha|\le s} \CP \int_{b\Omega} \biggl(
\sum_{\ell=0}^{|\alpha|}
T_{\alpha,|\alpha|-\ell} N^\ell \phi_J\biggr)\overline{\biggl(
\sum_{kK} \e{K}{kJ} D^\alpha \psi_K \pd{\varrho}{z_k} \biggr)}\\
= \sum_{\ell=0}^{s} \int_{b\Omega} N^\ell \phi_J \cdot
\overline{ \sum_{\ell
\le|\alpha|\le s} \CP
T_{\alpha,|\alpha|-\ell}^* \biggl(
\sum
_{kK} \e{K}{kJ} D^\alpha \psi_K \pd{\varrho}{z_k} \biggr)} .
\label{DDAG}\end{gathered}$$ Notice that the top order term vanishes since $N^s \phi_J$ is paired with $$\sum_{|\alpha|=s} \CP
T_{\alpha,0}^* \biggl( \sum_{kK} \e{K}{kJ} D^\alpha
\psi_K \pd{\varrho}{z_k} \biggr) = \sum_{kK}\e{K}{kJ} N^s \psi_K
\pd{\varrho}{z_k} ,$$ which equals $0$ on $b\Omega$, because $\psi\in\dom\dbar^*$. >From these calculations, and by equating the right hand sides of (\[DAG\]) and (\[DDAG\]), we obtain the $s$ boundary equations. Set $$\sum_{kK}\e{K}{kJ}D^\alpha\psi_K \pd
{\varrho}{z_k}
= (L_\alpha \psi)_J .$$ Then, on $b\Omega$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
N^s (\K\psi)_J
& = \sum_{s-1\le|\alpha|\le s} \CP T_{\alpha,|\alpha|-s+1}^*
(L_\alpha \psi)_J \\
\lefteqn{\sum_{s-2\le|\alpha|\le s-1} \CP
T_{\alpha,|\alpha|-s+2}^* ND^\alpha
\biggl(
\sum_{j=0}^{s-1-|\alpha|}(-\Delta)^{j} (\K\psi)_J \biggr)
}
\hbox{\qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad} \\
& \qquad = \sum_{s-2\le|\alpha|\le s} \CP
T_{\alpha,|\alpha|-s+2}^* (L_\alpha \psi)_J\end{aligned}$$ $$\qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \cdots \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad
\cdots \\$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\sum_{0\le|\alpha|\le s-1} \CP T_{\alpha,|\alpha|}^*
ND^\alpha
\biggl(
\sum_{j=0}^{s-1-|\alpha|}(-\Delta)^{j} (\K\psi)_J \biggr)}
\hbox{\qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad} \\
& = \sum_{0\le|\alpha|\le s} \CP
T_{\alpha,|\alpha|}^* (L_\alpha
\psi)_J .\end{aligned}$$ Thus we have $s$ boundary equations in $(\K\psi)_J$. Notice that the $k^{\rm th}$ equation has order $s+k-1$ in the normal direction, for $k=1,\dots,s$. Since $T_{\alpha,0}^* =\nu^\alpha$ and $-\Delta=-N^2 +T_1 N+T_2$, using formula (\[\*\*\*\]), the operator on the left hand side in the $k^{\rm th}$ equation becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{
\sum_{s-k\le|\alpha|\le s-1} \CP
T_{\alpha,|\alpha|-s+k}^* ND^\alpha
\biggl( \sum_{j=0}^{s-1-|\alpha|}(-\Delta)^{j} \biggr)}\\
& = N^{s-k+1} \sum_{j=0}^{k-1}(-\Delta)^{j} + \cdots +
\sum_{|\alpha|=s-1} \CP T_{\alpha,k-1}ND^\alpha \\
& = (-1)^{(k-1)}N^{s+k-1} +T_1 N^{s+k-2}+\cdots+ T_{s+k-2}N \end{aligned}$$ as in the statement of the proposition, while the right hand side in the same equation is an operator of order $s+k$ (one order larger than the left hand side), that we denote by $P^{(J)}_{s+k}$. Then we have $$\label{P-s+k}
P^{(J)}_{s+k} (\psi) =
\sum_{s-k\le|\alpha|\le s} \CP
T_{\alpha,|\alpha|-s+k}^* (L_\alpha
\psi)_J .$$ This finishes the proof.
Before proving Corollary \[K-order-1\] we need one more result. Consider the (\[BV\]) that defines the components of $\K$: $$\label{BVP2}
\begin{cases}
\sum_{j=0}^{s}(-\Delta)^j u =0 & \text{ on }\Omega\\
\sum_{j=0}^{s+\ell}T_j N^{s+\ell-j}u = g_\ell
& \text{ on }b\Omega ,\, \ell=0,\dots,s-1 \, .
\end{cases}$$ for given $g_\ell \in C^\infty (b\Omega)$, $\ell=0,\dots,s-1$. Notice that the operator $\K$ applied to a form $\psi$ gives rise to the composition of a (non-diagonal) differential operator acting on the components of $\psi$, the restriction to the boundary $b\Omega$, and the solution operator $S$ of the (scalar) (\[BVP2\]). Then we have the following.
\[ellipticity\] The (\[BVP2\]) is an elliptic with trivial kernel, that is if $g_\ell =0$ for $\ell=0,\dots,s-1$, then $S(g_0,\dots,g_{s-1})=0$.
In order to prove that the (\[BVP2\]) is elliptic, we use the standard definition, see (10.1.1) in [@HO2]. Given any point $p\in b\Omega$ we need to consider a $C^\infty$ change of coordinates that takes $p$ into the origin, flattens the boundary, and such that the transformed vector fields at the origin coincide with the new basis vector fields. We write the new coordinates as $(x_0,x)\in [0,+\infty)\times{\Bbb R}^{2n-1}$. Then, the normal vector field is $\po$, and ${\partial}_1,\dots,{\partial}_{2n-1}$ are the tangential vector fileds. After taking the Fourier transform in the tangential directions, writing $\xi\in {\Bbb R}^{2n-1}$ for the variable dual to $x$, we need to show that the ordinary differential equation $$\label{ODE}
\begin{cases}
(-\po^2 +|\xi|^2)^s v & =0 \quad \text{on } [0,+\infty) \\
B_{s,\ell}\, v (0) & =0 \quad \ell=0,1,\dots,s-1
\end{cases}$$ admits the trivial solution as the only bounded solution on $[0,+\infty)$. Here $B_{s,\ell}$ denote the top order terms of the boundary operators in (\[BVP2\]) in our special chart, after freezing the coefficients and taking the Fourier transform.
We begin by describing the differential operators that give the initial conditions in (\[ODE\]). We then prove that the only bounded solution of (\[ODE\]) is in fact the trivial solution.
The boundary equations in (\[BVP2\]) arise from the identity (\[K-identity\]). By considering forms of the type $\phi_J
d\bar z^J$ we may reduce to the case of functions. We set $u=(\K\psi)_J$. Consider the top order terms in (\[K-identity\]), change coordinates, and freeze the coefficients. Write $\alpha=(k,\alpha')$ and notice that $\CP=\binom{s-1}{k}\CPp$. Then ${\partial}^\alpha =\po^k {\partial}^{\alpha'}$. Notice that the top order term in $T_{\alpha,|\alpha|-\ell}$ equals ${\partial}^{\alpha'}$, and that $T^*_{\alpha,|\alpha|-\ell}=(-1)^{|\alpha'|}{\partial}^{\alpha'}$. Then we have that $$\begin{aligned}
B_{s,\ell}
& = \sum_{|\alpha'|=0}^{s-1-\ell} \bn{|\alpha'|+\ell}{\ell} \CPp
(-1)^{|\alpha'|} {\partial}^{2\alpha'} \po^{\ell+1}
(-\Delta)^{s-1-\ell-|\alpha'|} \\
& = \sum_{j=0}^{s-1-\ell} \bn{j+\ell}{\ell}(-\Delta')^j
(-\Delta)^{s-1-\ell-j} \po^{\ell+1} ,\end{aligned}$$ where $\Delta'$ is the tangential Laplacian. Now write $\Delta=\po^2 +\Delta'$. We claim that the following identity holds true $$\label{combinatorics}
\sum_{j=0}^{s-1-k-\ell} \bn{\ell+j}{j}\bn{s-j-\ell-1}{k}
= \bn{s}{\ell+k+1}.$$ Assume the claim for now. Then, it turns out that $$B_{s,\ell} = \sum_{k=0}^{s-1-k} (-1)^k \bn{s}{\ell+k+1}
|\xi|^{2(s-1-\ell-k)}\po^{\ell+2k+1} .$$
Next, let $v=v_\xi$ be a bounded solution of (\[ODE\]) for $\xi\neq0$. Notice that $v=\bigl(\sum_{\ell=0}^{s-1}c_\ell x_0^\ell\bigr)e^{-|\xi|x_0}$. Let $f\in C^\infty_0 (\overline{{\Bbb R}^{2n-1}_+})$. Then for any $\xi\neq0$, by assumption and by integrating by parts we have $$\begin{aligned}
0 & = -\sum_{\ell=0}^{s-1} \po^\ell f (0,\xi) \overline{B_{s,\ell}
v_\xi (0)} +\int_0^\infty f(x_0,\xi)
\overline{(-\po^2 +|\xi|^2)^s v_\xi} dx_0 \\
& = -\sum_{\ell=0}^{s-1} \po^\ell f (0,\xi) \overline{B_{s,\ell}
v_\xi (0)} +\sum_{j=0}^{s} (-1)^j \bn{s}{j} |\xi|^{2(s-j)}
\int_0^\infty f(x_0,\xi) \overline{\po^{2j} v_\xi } dx_0 \\
& = -
\sum_{\ell=0}^{s-1} \po^\ell f (0,\xi) \overline{B_{s,\ell}
v_\xi (0)} + |\xi|^{2s} \int_0^\infty f(x_0,\xi)
\overline{v_\xi} dx_0 \\
& \qquad -\sum_{j=1}^{s} (-1)^j \bn{s}{j} |\xi|^{2(s-j)} \bigl(
|\xi|^{2(s-j)} f(0,\xi)\po^{2j-1} v_x (0)
+ \int_0^\infty \po f(x_0,\xi) \overline{\po^{2j-1} v_\xi } dx_0
\bigr) \\
& = -\sum_{\ell=1}^{s-1} \po^\ell f (0,\xi) \overline{B_{s,\ell}
v_\xi (0)}
+ |\xi|^{2s} \int_0^\infty f(x_0,\xi) \overline{v_\xi} dx_0 \\
& \qquad +\sum_{k=0}^{s-1} (-1)^k \bn{s}{k+
1} |\xi|^{2(s-k-1)}
\int_0^\infty \po f(x_0,\xi) \overline{\po^{2k+1} v_\xi } dx_0 .\end{aligned}$$ By applying integration by parts $(s-1)$ more times to the last term in the right hand side above, we obtain that $$\label{v-xi}
0= \sum_{j=0}^{s} \bn{s}{j} |\xi|^{2(s-j)}\int_0^\infty \po^j
f(x_0,\xi) \overline{\po^j v_\xi} dx_0$$ for all $\xi\neq0$.
Now, for each $\xi\neq0$ we can pick $f$ so that $f(\cdot,\xi) =v_\xi$. Substituting in (\[v-xi\]) we obtain that $$\sum_{j
=0}^{s} \bn{s}{j} |\xi|^{2(s-j)} \int_0^\infty |\po^j v_\xi
(x_0)|^2 dx_0 =0,$$ that is, $v_\xi=0$.
Thus, we only need to prove the claim. If, for $p\ge m$ we set $F_k (p,m):=\sum_{j=0}^{m} \binom{k+j}{j}\binom{p-j}{m-j}$, we wish to show that $$\label{claim}
F_k (p,m) =\bn{p+k+1}{m} .$$ Observe that (\[claim\]) holds true for $m=0,1$ and $p\ge1$, and for $p=m$, by direct computation and well known properties of binomial coefficients. Assume the statement true for $p-1$ and all $m\le p-1$. Since $$F_k (p,m)=F_k (p-1,m)+F_k (p-1,m-1),$$ equality (\[claim\]) follows by induction and the equality in the case $m=p$. This finishes the proof of the ellipticity of (\[ellipticity\]).
Finally, if all the boundary data $g_{\ell}$ in problem (\[ellipticity\]) are identically $0$, then the only solution of the boundary value problem is the trivial one. In fact, if $u$ is such a solution, the identity (\[K-identity\]) with $u$ in place of $\K \psi $ implies that $u$ is orthogonal in the $W^s$ sense to all $\phi \in C^{\infty} (\Omega)$, hence $u=0$.
Finally, we have:
[Proof of Corollary 3.4]{} Clearly, $\K$ is well defined as composition of differential operators, restriction to the boundary, and the operator $S$ solution of the in the previous Lemma.
Next, we use standard estimates for elliptic s, as in [@LiMa] Theorem 5.1, and Lemma \[ellipticity\]. Recall that $P^{(I)}_{s,k}$ is a differential operator of order $s+k$, containing $s$ at most derivatives in the normal direction. Then we see that for all $t>s+1/2$ $$\begin{aligned}
\| \K \psi\|_{t-1}
& \le C_t \sum_I \| (\K \psi)_I\|_{t-1} \\
& \le C_t \sum_{I}\sum_{k=1}^{s}
\| P^{(I)}_{s,k} \psi\|_{W^{t-1-
(s+k-1)-1/2}(b\Omega)}\\
& \le C_t \sum_{I}\sum_{k=1}^{s}
\| N^k \psi\|_{W^{t-k-1/2}(b\Omega)}\\
& \le C_t \sum_{I}\sum_{k=1}^{s} \|N^k \psi\|_{t-k}\\
& \le C_t \|\psi\|_t ,\end{aligned}$$ where we use the assumption $t>s+1/2$ in order to able be to apply the trace theorem.
Finally notice that $\psi\llcorner\dbar\varrho=0$ in a neighborhood of $b\Omega$, $P^{(I)}_{s,k}$ becomes an operator of one degree lower, i.e., of order $s+k-1$. Repeating the argument above, we obtain that, for $t>s+1/2$ $$\|\K\psi\|_{t-1} \le C_t \|\psi\|_{t-1}
.$$ This concludes the proof of the corollary.
[**Final Remarks.**]{} The results of Section 3 are obtained under a specific formulation of the Sobolev inner product. If we modify the formulation by choosing other positive coefficients $\gamma_\alpha$ in the definition of the inner product (\[Sobolev\]), results analogous to those presented here should still hold. It is also the case that the formulas that arise in these formulations of the norm are probably much less tractable.
The situation seems quite different if we take a generic equivalent norm. Consider, for instance, the weighted theory of the $\dbar$-Neumann problem, as developed by Kohn in [@Kohn]. Kohn showed that the regularity properties enjoyed by the canonical solution in the weighted case are in general much stronger than the ones enjoyed by the classical canonical solution (see also the aforementioned work of Christ \[Ch\]). Therefore, it is clear that much has still to be understood in the general case. We shall provide no details about the treatment of equivalent Sobolev topologies.
In the present paper we have worked with $(0,q)$ forms on a domain $\Omega$ in ${{\Bbb C}^n}$. These results hold true in the case of $(p,q)$ forms, with no change in the proofs. Routine modifications (see [@Folland-Kohn]) should allow one to work out the case of a smoothly bounded pseudoconvex domain $M'$ in a complex, or even an almost complex, manifold $M$.
Of course it is also of interest to work out sharp estimates for the $\dbars$ problem, and to calculate the full Hodge and spectral theories; we save that work for a future series of papers.
[BellBo]{}
D. Barrett, Behavior of the Bergman projection on the Diederich-Fornæss worm, [*Acta Math.*]{} [**168**]{} (1992), 1-10.
H. P. Boas, Holomorphic reproducing kernels in Reinhardt domains, [*Pac. J. Math.*]{} [**112**]{} (1984), 273-292.
, Sobolev space projections in strictly pseudoconvex domains, [*Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.*]{} [**288**]{} (1985), 227-240.
D. W. Catlin, Global regularity of the $\dbar$-Neumann problem, [*Proc. Symp. Pure Math.*]{} [**41**]{} (1984), 39-49.
M. Christ, Global $C^\infty$ irregularity of the $\dbar$-Neumann problem for worms domains, [*Journal of the Amer. Math. Soc.*]{}, to appear.
G. B. Folland and J. J. Kohn, [*The Neumann Problem for the Cauchy-Riemann Complex*]{}, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1972.
L. Fontana, M. M. Peloso, and S. G. Krantz, Hodge theory for the de Rham complex in Sobolev topology, [*Memoirs Amer. Math. Soc.*]{}, to appear.
, Hodge theory in the Sobolev topology for the de Rham complex on a smoothly bounded domain in Euclidean space, [*Electronic Research Announcements*]{} of the American Mathematical Society [**1**]{} (1995), 103-107.
G. Grubb, [*Boundary Value Problems for Pseudo-Differential Operators*]{}, Birkhäuser, Basel 1992 .
L. Hörmander, [*An Introduction to Complex Analysis in Several Complex Variables*]{}, North Holland, Amsterdam 1973.
, [*Linear Partial Differential Operators*]{}, Springer-Verlag, Berlin 1964.
J. J. Kohn, Global regularity for $\dbar$ on weakly pseudo-convex manifolds, [*Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.*]{} [**181**]{} (1973), 273-292.
J. L. Lions, E. Magenes, [ *Problèmes Aux Limites Non Homogènes*]{}, vol. 1, Dunon, Paris 1968.
[^1]: Krantz’s research was supported in part by Grant DMS-9531967 from the National Science Foundation. Research at MSRI is supported by NSF Grant DMS-9022140.
|
---
author:
- 'K. Sellgren'
- 'T. Y. Brooke'
- 'R. G. Smith'
- 'T. R. Geballe'
title: 'A New 3.25 Micron Absorption Feature toward Mon R2/IRS-3'
---
ApJ Letters, in press
**Abstract**
A new 3.2–3.5 $\mu$m spectrum of the protostar Mon R2/IRS-3 confirms our previous tentative detection of a new absorption feature near 3.25 $\mu$m. The feature in our new spectrum has a central wavelength of 3.256 $\mu$m (3071 cm$^{-1}$) and has a full-width at half maximum of 0.079 $\mu$m (75 cm$^{-1}$). We explore a possible identification with aromatic hydrocarbons at low temperatures, which absorb at a similar wavelength. If the feature is due to aromatics, the derived column density of C–H bonds is $\sim$1.8 $\times$ $10^{18}$ cm$^{-2}$. If the absorbing aromatic molecules are of roughly the same size as those responsible for aromatic emission features in the interstellar medium, then we estimate that $\sim$9% of the cosmic abundance of carbon along this line of sight would be in aromatic hydrocarbons, in agreement with abundance estimates from emission features.
Introduction
============
The C–H stretch absorptions of many of the organic molecules expected to be formed or condensed on molecular cloud dust lie in the 3.2–3.6 $\mu$m region, on the long wavelength side of the 3.1 $\mu$m H$_2$O ice band which dominates the spectrum of embedded sources. Sellgren, Smith, & Brooke (1994) recently reported a tentative detection of a new absorption feature at 3.25 $\mu$m (3078 cm$^{-1}$) toward Mon R2/IRS-3, a protostar in the Mon R2 star formation region (Beckwith et al. 1976). Their spectrum had a resolution $\lambda/\Delta\lambda \approx 720$ at 3.25 $\mu$m. Here, we present a new spectra of Mon R2/IRS-3 with a resolution of 1000 which confirms the presence of a 3.25 $\mu$m feature. Some possible identifications are discussed.
Observations
============
The latest observations of Mon R2/IRS-3 were made on 1994 October 8 at the United Kingdom Infrared Telescope (UKIRT) on Mauna Kea. The CGS4 long-slit spectrometer (Mountain et al. 1990) was used with the 75 lines mm$^{-1}$ grating in first order and the 300-mm focal length camera. This provided a wavelength resolution of 0.0033 $\mu$m ($\lambda/\Delta\lambda$ = 1000 at 3.25 $\mu$m). The spectrometer is designed to have only one resolution element per pixel, so improved sampling of the spectrum was obtained by moving the detector by one-third of a resolution element between individual spectra and repeating this until two resolution elements were observed by each pixel. The observations consist of two overlapping grating positions, at 3.16–3.37 $\mu$m and 3.34–3.55 $\mu$m. The pixel size was 1.55$''$. The spectrometer slit was 90$''$ $\times$ 1.55$''$ with the long direction oriented east-west. The sources were nodded $\sim$12$''$ along the slit for background subtraction. An argon spectrum in second order was used for wavelength calibration. We compared our spectrum of Mon R2/IRS-3 with the star HR 1948 (O9Iab:) for atmospheric cancellation. The airmass difference between Mon R2/IRS-3 and HR 1948 was always less than 0.03.
In the final spectra, several points at 3.313 – 3.321 $\mu$m affected by strong telluric CH$_4$ have been removed. We have also removed points near 3.297 $\mu$m which may have been affected by any photospheric Pfund $\delta$ feature in the O9Iab: atmospheric comparison star.
Results
=======
The new spectrum of Mon R2/IRS-3 is shown in Figure 1. The observations fall in the region of the 3.1 $\mu$m H$_2$O ice band and the broad absorption wing which peaks near 3.3–3.4 $\mu$m (Smith, Sellgren, & Tokunaga 1989). The intrinsic spectral shape of this absorption is uncertain. Thus the best continuum to use for deriving the optical depth of narrow absorption features in this region is a local continuum which passes smoothly through those parts of the spectrum not containing narrow absorption features. We have fit a second-order polynomial to the spectrum of Mon R2/IRS-3, excluding data at 3.2–3.3 $\mu$m and longward of 3.4 $\mu$m from the fit. The choice of excluded regions is the same as that used by Sellgren et al. (1994). Our adopted continuum is shown as a solid line in Figure 1.
The derived optical depth is also shown in Figure 1. We fit two Gaussians to the optical depth curve. The central wavelength, full width at half-maximum (FWHM), and optical depth of each Gaussian were varied to produce the best fit to our observations. We derive central wavelengths of 3.256 $\pm$ 0.003 $\mu$m and 3.484 $\pm$ 0.003 $\mu$m (3071 $\pm$ 3 cm$^{-1}$ and 2870 $\pm$ 2 cm$^{-1}$) for the 3.25 $\mu$m and 3.48 $\mu$m features, respectively. We also find FWHM values of 0.079 $\pm$ 0.007 $\mu$m and 0.117 $\pm$ 0.007 $\mu$m (75 $\pm$ 6 cm$^{-1}$ and 97 $\pm$ 6 cm$^{-1}$) for the 3.25 $\mu$m and 3.48 $\mu$m features, respectively. Our new measurements of the central wavelengths and widths agree well with those of Sellgren et al. (1994). The 3.25 $\mu$m optical depth we measure, 0.045, also agrees well with Sellgren et al. (1994). The 3.48 $\mu$m optical depth we derive, 0.058, does not agree with the value of 0.036 measured by Sellgren et al. (1994). However, the optical depth is sensitive to the choice of continuum, so the Sellgren et al. (1994) spectrum provides the most reliable value for the 3.48 $\mu$m optical depth because the current spectrum (Fig. 1) does not extend to long enough wavelengths to provide continuum on the long wavelength side of the 3.48 $\mu$m feature.
Discussion
==========
The 3.48 $\mu$m feature was first identified by Allamandola et al. (1992) toward four protostars. They attributed the feature to C–H bonds in hydrocarbons with “diamond-like” bonding. This feature in Mon R2/IRS-3 and other sources is discussed in more detail by Brooke, Sellgren, & Smith (1995).
Standard references on room temperature infrared spectra suggest that the 3.25 $\mu$m feature might be due to a C–H stretch of the =CH$_2$ group in an alkene, which occurs at 3.23–3.25 $\mu$m (e.g. Williams & Fleming 1987). An alkene identification, however, is unlikely because alkenes have a second, comparably strong, feature at 3.29–3.32 $\mu$m which is not observed toward Mon R2/IRS-3. We have searched the low temperature laboratory spectra of pure ices and ice mixtures with compositions thought to be appropriate to molecular clouds (d’Hendecourt & Allamandola 1986; Grim et al. 1989; Hudgins et al. 1993). These spectra reveal no obvious absorption features near 3.25 $\mu$m.
We suggested earlier (Sellgren et al. 1994) that the 3.25 $\mu$m feature may be due to absorption by aromatic hydrocarbons at low temperature, based on a similarity in wavelength to the C–H stretch of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) isolated in neon matrices at a temperature of 4.2 K (Joblin et al. 1994). The aromatic C–H stretch wavelength is a function of temperature, increasing with increasing temperature (Colangeli, Mennella, & Bussoletti 1992; Joblin et al. 1994, 1995). Aromatic hydrocarbons are a promising candidate for the 3.25 $\mu$m absorption feature, since aromatic emission features at 3.3, 6.2, 7.7, 8.6, and 11.3 $\mu$m have been observed throughout the interstellar medium of our own and other galaxies. Corresponding [*absorption*]{} features have been searched for, but until now have not been definitely detected in molecular clouds. The infrared emission features have been attributed to a variety of aromatic substances, including hydrogenated amorphous carbon (HAC) grains (Blanco, Bussoletti, & Colangeli 1988; Ogmen & Duley 1988), PAHs (Léger & Puget 1984; Allamandola, Tielens, & Barker 1985), quenched carbonaceous composite (QCC) grains (Sakata et al. 1987), and other aromatic materials (see Sellgren 1994 for a review of proposed identifications).
We compare in Table 1 the observed wavelength of the 3.25 $\mu$m feature toward Mon R2/IRS-3 with the wavelengths of several aromatic substances. We list in Table 1 the measured wavelengths of solid QCC (Sakata et al. 1990), the 3.3 $\mu$m interstellar aromatic emission feature (Tokunaga et al. 1991), the PAH molecule coronene in the condensed phase and the gas-phase (Flickinger, Wdowiak, & Gómez 1991), solid HAC (Biener et al. 1994), and the PAH molecules coronene and pyrene isolated in a neon matrix (Joblin et al. 1994).
Joblin et al. (1995) have examined the temperature dependence of the C–H stretch wavelength of gas-phase aromatic molecules in detail. They state that the wavelength increases with increasing temperature due to anharmonic coupling of the C–H stretch mode with excited longer wavelength modes. In Table 1 we also present the predicted wavelengths for each aromatic material, when shifted from the temperature at which the measurement was made to a temperature of 80 K, appropriate for the icy grains toward Mon R2/IRS-3 (Smith et al. 1989), using Eq. 5 of Joblin et al. (1995) and the assumption that the neon matrix does not introduce a wavelength shift from the gas phase. The temperature dependence of the aromatic C–H stretch wavelength (Joblin et al. 1995) was derived for gas-phase aromatic molecules, and we caution that solid-phase aromatics, such as HAC or QCC, may not follow the same relation.
In Figure 1, we compare the optical depth profile of the 3.25 $\mu$m absorption feature and the profile of the 3.3 $\mu$m aromatic interstellar emission feature in IRAS 21282+5050 (Nagata et al. 1988), after continuum subtraction (Tokunaga et al. 1991), and after shifting the center of the emission feature to the predicted wavelength at 80 K (see Table 1). The two feature profiles show reasonable agreement, although since the width of each feature is probably dominated by different processes, such agreement may be fortuitous.
The average of the observed feature wavelengths from this paper and Sellgren et al. (1994) is 3.253 $\pm$ 0.004 $\mu$m, which is shorter than the aromatic hydrocarbon wavelengths in Table 1 by 0.004–0.032 $\mu$m. The fact that the 3.25 $\mu$m absorption feature just barely overlaps the short wavelength side of the range of cold aromatic hydrocarbon wavelengths presents a problem, since moving the aromatic C–H vibration to shorter wavelengths (higher frequencies) means strengthening the C–H bond, something that seems difficult to achieve if the aromatic hydrocarbons are immersed in an ice matrix of some sort.
Any identification of the 3.25 $\mu$m feature at this time rests only on one absorption feature, and the wavelength match with aromatic hydrocarbons is not exact. A search for the longer wavelength features associated with aromatic hydrocarbons would provide one test of this identification.
If we assume that the 3.25 $\mu$m absorption feature is due to aromatic hydrocarbons, the column density of aromatic C–H bonds along the line of sight to Mon R2/IRS-3 can be estimated. Measurements of aromatic hydrocarbons in absorption are important because estimates of the abundance of aromatic hydrocarbons from the observed emission features (Allamandola et al. 1989; Puget & Léger 1989; Joblin, Léger, & Martin 1992) are much less straightforward.
To estimate the column density of aromatic C–H bonds, we use the relation, $N$ $\simeq$ $\tau
\Delta \nu$/$A$, where $\tau$ is the maximum optical depth of the 3.25 $\mu$m absorption feature, $\Delta
\nu$ is the feature FWHM in cm$^{-1}$, $A$ is the integrated absorbance, and $N$ is the derived column density of molecular bonds (Allamandola et al. 1992). An average of the results of this paper and Sellgren et al. (1994) gives $\tau$(3.25 $\mu$m) = 0.047 and $\Delta \nu$ = 66 cm$^{-1}$ for the 3.25 $\mu$m feature. For the three aromatic molecules, pyrene, coronene, and ovalene, studied by Joblin et al. (1994), the value of $A$ per aromatic C–H bond for the 3.25 $\mu$m feature was 0.7–1.4 $\times$ 10$^{-18}$ cm bond$^{-1}$ in the solid phase and 2.1–4.1 $\times$ 10$^{-18}$ cm bond$^{-1}$ in the gas phase. We average over all three molecules in both phases, to estimate an average value of $A$ = 1.7 $\times$ 10$^{-18}$ cm bond$^{-1}$. We thus derive a column density of aromatic C–H bonds of $N$(C–H) $\sim$ 1.8 $\times$ 10$^{18}$ bonds cm$^{-2}$ along the line-of-sight.
The abundance by number of aromatic C–H bonds, $X$(C–H), is the ratio of the column density of aromatic C–H bonds divided by the total hydrogen column density, $N_H$. We estimate $N_H$ in two ways. The silicate optical depth, $\tau$(9.7 $\mu$m) = 4.3, observed toward Mon R2/IRS-3 (Willner et al. 1982) implies $A_V$ = 80 mag assuming A$_V$/$\tau$(9.7 $\mu$m) = 18.5 (Mathis 1990). However, A$_V$/$\tau$(9.7 $\mu$m) is observed to vary by a factor of two (Mathis 1990). An independent estimate of $A_V$ comes from the 4.6 $\mu$m $^{13}$CO gas absorption observed toward Mon R2/IRS-3 (Mitchell 1995), which gives $N(^{13}$CO$)$ = 1.6 $\times$ 10$^{17}$ cm$^{-2}$. If we assume $A_V$/$N$($^ {13}$CO) = 4 $\times$ 10$^ {-16}$ cm$^2$ mag (Dickman 1978), then the $^{13}$CO gas column density implies $A_V$ = 64 for Mon R2/IRS-3, in good agreement with the value derived from the silicate feature. We then convert our average value of $A_V$ = 72 to $N_H$ by assuming $N_H$/A$_V$ = 1.9 $\times$ 10$^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$ mag$^{-1}$ (Mathis 1990). This implies $N_H$ = 1.4 $\times$ 10$^{23}$ cm$^{-2}$ for Mon R2/IRS-3. Again there is some uncertainty in this because the value of $N_H$/A$_V$ measured in the diffuse interstellar medium may not hold in molecular clouds. Our derived value of $N_H$ implies that $X$(C–H) = 1.3 $\times$ 10$^{-5}$ toward Mon R2/IRS-3. For a solar abundance of carbon, $X$(C)/$X$(H) = 3.6 $\times$ 10$^{-4}$ by number (Anders & Grevesse 1989), our estimate of $X$(C–H) implies that $\sim4$% of the total carbon along the line of sight toward Mon R2/IRS-3 is locked in aromatic C–H bonds.
The total number of carbon atoms in aromatic hydrocarbons will be larger. If the absorbing aromatic hydrocarbons have the same size distribution as the emitting aromatic hydrocarbons, then we can use model results for the interstellar emission features to estimate the fraction, $f$, of the number of carbon atoms in aromatic C–H bonds, compared to the total number of aromatic carbon atoms. The value of $f$ depends on the aromatic hydrocarbon size, with a smaller value for larger aromatic hydrocarbons. Désert, Boulanger, & Puget (1990) present a model of interstellar dust, including size distributions for different grain components and an analytic approximation for $f$ as a function of radius $a$ for PAH molecules. We have used their model, with $a$ = 4–12 Å for PAHs, to calculate a size-averaged value for $f$ of 0.40. The value of $f$ for the absorbing aromatic hydrocarbons also depends on the degree of dehydrogenation in the interstellar medium, but aromatic hydrocarbons are predicted to be fully hydrogenated in molecular clouds shielded from ultraviolet radiation (Allamandola, Tielens, & Barker 1989). Thus the total amount of carbon in aromatic hydrocarbons is roughly a factor of $\sim$2.5 times higher than the amount of carbon participating in aromatic C–H bonds. If the 3.25 $\mu$m feature is due to absorbing aromatic hydrocarbons with a size distribution similar to that adopted by Désert et al. (1990) for the emitting aromatic hydrocarbons in the interstellar medium, this would make the fraction of carbon in aromatic hydrocarbons $\sim$9%. If the absorbing aromatic C–H bonds are instead attached to larger structures, for instance if the aromatic absorption is due to hydrogen on the surfaces of large amorphous carbon grains while the aromatic emission is due to small PAH molecules, then the fraction of carbon in such structures would be much larger than we estimate from the Désert et al. (1990) model.
Our estimate of the carbon abundance in aromatic hydrocarbons of $\sim$9% falls within the range of previous estimates for the aromatic hydrocarbon abundance, which vary from 0.8% to 18% of the total carbon abundance (Lepp et al. 1988; Allamandola et al. 1989; Puget & Léger 1989; Joblin, Léger, & Martin 1992). Thus if the 3.25 $\mu$m feature is due to aromatic hydrocarbons, we estimate that a significant fraction of carbon remains in aromatic hydrocarbons in molecular cloud dust.
If the 3.25 $\mu$m feature is due to, or contains contributions from, non-aromatic species, then the abundances of aromatic hydrocarbons along the line-of-sight derived above become upper limits. If it can be shown that [*none*]{} of the feature is due to aromatic hydrocarbons, then the abundance of carbon trapped in aromatic hydrocarbon molecules may be much lower in molecular clouds than in photodissociation regions or the diffuse interstellar medium. Aggregation of aromatic hydrocarbon molecules into larger graphitic-like structures is one possible explanation.
The most pressing need is to detect the 3.25 $\mu$m feature in other sources, both protostars and field stars behind molecular clouds. Brooke et al. (1995) have recently detected the 3.25 $\mu$m feature toward the protostars NGC 7538/IRS-1 and S 140/IRS-1, but observations are needed over a wider range of physical conditions. This will determine whether the feature arises in circumstellar environments or in the surrounding molecular cloud, and constrain the volatility of the absorber.
We would like to thank Dolores Walther for assistance with these observations, which were obtained during UKIRT Service Observing. We also appreciate useful conversations with Lou Allamandola, Christine Joblin, Scott Sandford, and Alan Tokunaga.
[llrll]{}\
&Measured&Measured&Predicted $\lambda$\
Source&$\lambda$ ($\mu$m)&$T$ (K)&at 80 K ($\mu$m)&Ref.\
\
Mon R2/IRS-3&3.249 $\pm$ 0.004&80&3.249 $\pm$ 0.004&1\
Mon R2/IRS-3&3.256 $\pm$ 0.003&80&3.256 $\pm$ 0.003&2\
matrix-isolated coronene&3.257&4&3.257&3\
gas-phase coronene&3.276&698&3.258&4\
interstellar emission feature&3.289&1000&3.260&5\
hydrogenated amorphous carbon&3.271&300&3.266&6\
condensed coronene&3.290&788&3.268&4\
matrix-isolated pyrene&3.268&4&3.269&3\
quenched carbonaceous composite&3.289&300&3.285&7\
\
References— (1) Sellgren et al. (1994); (2) this paper; (3) Joblin et al. (1994); (4) Flickinger et al. (1991); (5) Tokunaga et al. (1991); (6) Biener et al. (1994); (7) Sakata et al. (1990).
Note: The wavelength of these aromatic substances at a temperature of 80 K, appropriate for Mon R2/IRS-3 (Smith et al. 1989), was predicted from the measured wavelength and the temperature at which the wavelength was measured, using the temperature-dependent wavelength shifts measured by Joblin et al. (1995) for pyrene (for pyrene) or coronene (for all other substances). For the interstellar aromatic emission feature, we assumed a particle temperature of $\sim$1000K (Sellgren, Werner, & Dinerstein 1983).
Allamandola, L. J., Tielens, A. G. G. M., & Barker, J. R. 1985, ApJ, 290, L25
Allamandola, L. J., Tielens, A. G. G. M., & Barker, J. R. 1989, , 71, 733
Allamandola, L. J., Sandford, S. A., Tielens, A. G. G. M., & Herbst, T. M. 1992, ApJ, 399, 134
Anders, E. & Grevesse, N. 1989, Geochim Cosmochim Acta, 53, 197
Beckwith, S., Evans, N. J., Becklin, E. E., & Neugebauer, G. 1976, ApJ, 208, 390
Biener, J., Schenk, A., Winter, B., Schubert, U. A., Lutterloh, C. & Küppers, J. 1994, Phys Rev B, 49, 17307
Blanco, A., Bussoletti, E., & Colangeli, L. 1988, , 334, 875
Brooke, T. Y., Sellgren, K. & Smith, R. G. 1995, ApJ, submitted
Colangeli, L., Mennella, V., & Bussoletti, E. 1992, ApJ, 385, 577
Désert, F. X., Boulanger, F., & Puget, J. L. 1990, A&A, 237, 215
d’Hendecourt, L. B., & Allamandola, L. J. 1986, A&AS, 64, 453
Dickman, R. L. 1978, ApJS, 37, 407
Flickinger, G. C., Wdowiak, T. J., & Gómez, P. L. 1991, ApJL, 380, L43
Grim, R. J. A., Greenberg, J. M., de Groot, M. S., Baas, F., Schutte, W. A., & Schmitt, B. 1989, A&AS, 78, 161
Hudgins, D. M., Sandford, S. A., Allamandola, L. J., & Tielens, A. G. G. M. 1993, ApJS, 86, 713
Joblin, C., Léger, A., & Martin, P. 1992, ApJL, 393, L79
Joblin, C., d’Hendecourt, L., Léger, A., & Défourneau, D. 1994, A&A, 281, 923
Joblin, C., Boissel, P., Léger, A., d’Hendecourt, L., & Défourneau, D. 1995, A&A, in press
L$\acute{{\rm e}}$ger, A., & Puget, J. L. 1984, A&A, 137, L5
Lepp, S., Dalgarno, A., van Dishoeck, E. F., & Black, J. H. 1988, ApJ, 329, 418
Mathis, J. S. 1990, ARAA, 28, 37
Mitchell, G. 1995, private communication
Mountain, C. M., Robertson, D. J, Lee, T. J., & Wade, R. 1990, in [*Instrumentation in Astronomy*]{}, ed. D. L. Crawford, SPIE, 1235, 25
Nagata, T., Tokunaga, A. T., Sellgren, K., Smith, R. G., Onaka, T., Nakada, Y., & Sakata, A. 1988, ApJ, 326, 157
Ogmen, M. & Duley, W. W. 1988, , 334, L117
Puget, J. L. & Léger, A. 1989, , 27, 161
Sakata, A., Wada, S., Onaka, T., and Tokunaga, A. T. 1990, ApJ, 353, 543
Sakata, A., Wada, S., Onaka, T., and Tokunaga, A. T. 1987, ApJ, 320, L63
Sellgren, K. 1994, in [*The Infrared Cirrus and Diffuse Interstellar Clouds*]{}, eds. R. M. Cutri and W. B. Latter (San Francisco: ASP), p. 243
Sellgren, K., Werner, M. W., & Dinerstein, H. L. 1983, ApJ, 271, L13
Sellgren, K., Smith, R. G., & Brooke, T. Y. 1994, ApJ, 433, 179
Smith, R. G., Sellgren, K., & Tokunaga, A. T. 1989, ApJ, 344, 413
Tokunaga, A. T., Sellgren, K., Smith, R. G., Nagata, T., Sakata, A., & Nakada, Y. 1991, ApJ, 380, 452
Williams, D. H., & Fleming, I. 1987, [*Spectroscopic Methods in Organic Chemistry*]{}, 4th ed. (McGraw-Hill: London), p. 41
Willner, S. P., et al. 1982, ApJ, 253, 174
**Figure Captions**
[**Figure 1—**]{} New observations of the protostar Mon R2/IRS-3. Gaps in the data near 3.30 $\mu$m and 3.32 $\mu$m are due to Pfund $\delta$ in the standard star and strong telluric methane absorption, respectively. [*Top*]{}: the 3.16–3.55 $\mu$m spectrum ([*histogram*]{}) with a resolution of 0.0033 $\mu$m ($\lambda$/$\Delta \lambda$ = 1000 at 3.25 $\mu$m). The units are flux density ($F _ \lambda$) in W cm$^{-2}$ $\mu$m$^{-1}$ vs. wavelength in microns. A third-order polynomial ([*solid curve*]{}) was fit to the observations, excluding 3.2–3.3 $\mu$m and 3.4–3.6 $\mu$m from the fit, to determine the continuum. [*Middle*]{}: the 3.16–3.55 $\mu$m optical depth ([*histogram*]{}), compared to the sum of two Gaussians ([*solid curve*]{}), centered at 3.256 $\mu$m and 3.484 $\mu$m. The central wavelengths, widths, and optical depths of these two Gaussians were varied to produce the best fit to the data. [*Bottom*]{}: the 3.16–3.55 $\mu$m optical depth ([*histogram*]{}), compared to the profile of the aromatic interstellar emission feature ([*solid curve*]{}) in IRAS 21282+5050 (Nagata et al. 1988), after continuum subtraction (Tokunaga et al. 1991). The emission feature profile was first shifted to bluer wavelengths by 0.0294 $\mu$m to correct for temperature (see text and Table 1), and then scaled by the ratio of the average 3.17–3.28 $\mu$m optical depth of Mon R2/IRS-3 to the average 3.17–3.28 $\mu$m feature profile of IRAS 21282+5050.
|
---
abstract: 'The fluctuation properties of nuclear giant resonance spectra are studied in the presence of continuum decay. The subspace of quasi-bound states is specified by one-particle one-hole and two-particle two-hole excitations and the continuum coupling is generated by a scattering ensemble. It is found that, with increasing number of open channels, the real parts of the complex eigenvalues quickly decorrelate. This appears to be related to the transition from power-law to exponential time behavior of the survival probability of an initially non-stationary state.'
address:
- |
Institute of Nuclear Physics, PL - 31-342 Kraków, Poland\
Institut für Kernphysik, Forschugszentrum Jülich, D-51425 Jülich, Germany
- 'Department of Physics, University of Illinois at Urbana, Illinois 61801'
author:
- 'S. Drożdż'
- 'A. Trellakis[@byline2] and J. Wambach[@byline2]'
title: Spectral Decorrelation of Nuclear Levels in the Presence of Continuum Decay
---
Level fluctuations, measured in terms of the nearest-neighbor-spacing-distribution (NNSD) and the $\Delta_3$-statistics, provide a commonly accepted tool for studying the quantum interplay between regular and chaotic dynamics. The standard treatment is restricted to bound states while, in many cases, the excited states are resonances embedded in the continuum. Already a generalization of the standard two-level repulsion theorem [@NW] to resonances [@Bre] shows that this may significantly modify the correlations between the states. Generically, chaotic dynamics leads to level repulsion but the presence of the continuum (open system), is expected [@MZ] to wash out the repulsion between the resonance energies. On the other hand, the lack of correlations between levels is normally interpreted as a manifestation of regular dynamics. It thus seems necessary to explore, on a fully quantitative level, what is the nature of the weakening of the repulsion due to openness and how it modifies the fluctuation characteristics.
The most practical way for describing an irreversible decay into the continuum is based on a scattering ensemble of non-hermitian random matrices [@SZ]. Such a treatment follows naturally from the projection-operator technique [@Fes] in which the subspace of asymptotically decaying states is formally eliminated. The resulting non-hermitian Hamiltonian $${\cal H}=H - {i\over 2} W
\label{eq:hnonh}$$ acts in the space of quasi-bound states and the coupling to the continuum is accounted for by the anti-hermitian operator $W$. Unitarity of the scattering matrix imposes on $W$ the following factorization condition: $$W={\bf A}{\bf A}^T.
\label{eq:W}$$ For an open quantum system with $N$ quasi-bound states, ${| {i} \rangle}$, ($i=1,...,N$) which decay into $k$ open channels $a$ ($a=1,...,k$), the $N \times k$ matrix ${\bf A}\equiv\{A^a_i\}$ denotes the amplitudes for connecting the states $|i\rangle$ to the reaction channels $a$. The diagonalization of $\cal H$ in the basis ${| {i} \rangle}$ yields $N$ quasi-stationary states with complex eigenvalues ${\cal E}_j = E_j - i \Gamma_j/2$, whose imaginary parts correspond to the ’escape width’. The factorization of $W$ guarantees that $\Gamma_j \ge 0$. An interesting effect [@SZ; @Rot] – due to the separable form of $W$ – is that, in the strong-coupling limit ($W\gg H$), one observes a segregation of the states: $k$ states accumulate most the total width, $\Gamma = \sum_j \Gamma_j$, while the remaining $N-k$ states have nearly vanishing widths (they become ’enslaved’ [@Rot]).
For systems, such as the atomic nucleus, whose dynamics is expected to be classically chaotic, it is natural to consider the hermitian- and the anti-hermitian parts of $\cal H$ to be statistically independent [@SZ]. Furthermore, the real and symmetric $N \times N$ matrix $H$ can be modeled [@SZ] as a member of the Gaussian orthogonal ensemble (GOE) of random matrices [@BFF; @Boh]. For large $N$ the matrix elements of $H$ obey the following pair contraction formula: $$\langle H_{ii'}H_{jj'} \rangle ={a^2 \over 4N}
(\delta_{ij}\delta_{i'j'} + \delta_{ij'}\delta_{i'j})
\label{eq:pair}$$ in the sense of GOE averaging. The constant $a$ is related to the mean level spacing, $D=2a/N$.
For a general Gaussian ensemble of complex random matrices $\cal H$ [@Gin] an analogous contraction formula for $\langle {\cal H}_{ij} {\cal H}_{i'j'} \rangle$ is obtained which implies that the real and imaginary parts of $\cal H$ commute on average. Consequently, the two hypersurfaces, representing the real and imaginary parts of the energy lie in orthogonal subspaces [@MH]. This, for sufficiently large $N$, may produce decorrelated spectra as seen from either the real or imaginary axes, in spite of a cubic repulsion on the complex plane.
However, this general Gaussian ensemble of complex random matrices is not applicable in the present case because of $S$-matrix unitarity. Instead, the anti-hermitian part of $\cal H$ is determined by the amplitudes $A^a_i$ via Eq. (\[eq:W\]). Based on the GOE character of internal dynamics and orthogonal invariance arguments [@SZ] the amplitudes $A^a_i$ can be assumed to be Gaussian distributed. The corresponding correlator reads: $$\langle A^a_i A^b_j \rangle = {1\over N} \gamma^a \delta^{ab}
\delta_{ij},~~~~~~~~~~ \langle A^a_i \rangle = 0
\label{eq:Acor}$$ implying that the average trace is $\langle Tr W \rangle =
\Sigma_a \gamma^a$. The diagonal elements $W_{ii}=\Sigma_{a=1}^k
(A^a_i)^2$ are then positive, statistically independent and obey a $\chi_k$-square distribution.
Unlike the amplitudes $A^a_i$ the matrix elements of $W$ are not statistically independent, however. The number of independent random parameters, $Nk - {1\over 2} k(k-1)$ for $k \le N$, is reduced by the second term as a consequence of the rotational invariance of $W_{ij}=\Sigma_{a=1}^k A^a_i A^a_j$ (the scalar product between $N$ $k$-dimensional vectors ${\bf A}_i$ in the channel space). Only for $k=N$ the correlations in $W$ are specified by ${1\over 2} N(N-1)$ parameters, as for the GOE. Thus a decorrelation of the projected spectra may result. In most realistic cases, however, the number of open channels $k$ is smaller than $N$. To assess the dependence on the number of open channels we perform a systematic numerical study of the spectral correlations as a function of $k$.
Since the nuclear interaction is predominantly two body in nature, the matrix representation of the nuclear Hamiltonian should be related to the so-called ’embedded’ Gaussian orthogonal ensemble (EGOE) [@BFF] rather than the GOE. Therefore, to make our study realistic from the nuclear physics point of view, we generate the hermitian part of $\cal H$ from the model in ref. [@DNSW] instead of using a GOE random ensemble. The Hamiltonian includes a mean-field part and a zero-range and density-dependent two-body interaction. The matrix representation of $H$ is expressed in the basis of one-particle one-hole (1p1h) and two-particle two-hole (2p2h) excitations generated by the mean-field part and by discretizing the continuum [@DNSW]. The spectral fluctuations of the corresponding real eigenvalues, measured in terms of the NNSD and $\Delta_3$, coincide with those of the GOE [@DNSW], even though significant deviations from the Gaussian distribution of the matrix elements are found [@TDW; @Fla].
Because of time-reversal invariance the anti-hermitian part of $\cal H$ is generated by a Gaussian ensemble of real amplitudes $A^a_i$ with correlator (\[eq:Acor\]), where $\gamma^a=1$, [*i.e.*]{} we assume that all channels are equivalent and the strength of the external coupling is comparable to the internal one. In the specific calculations presented below, we select quadrupole excitations ($J^{\pi}=2^+$) in $^{40}$Ca. To ensure acceptable statistics, in the quasi-bound-state space all 1p1h and 2p2h states up to an excitation energy of 40 MeV are included. This yields a $1661\times 1661$ Hamiltonian matrix. Fig. 1 shows the resulting eigenvalue distribution on the complex energy plane for an increasing number $k$ of open channels. For $k=10$ the majority of the energies lie very close to the real axis and only a few states acquire a significant width which is a trace of the ’collective synchronization’ discussed in ref. [@SZ; @Rot]. Increasing $k$, the distribution becomes more uniform and the width $\Delta_g$ of the empty strip between the cloud of eigenvalues and the real axis widens. This is understandable as $\Delta_g$ is equal to the ’correlation width’ which describes the asymptotic behavior of the decay process [@LSSS].
The NNSD on the plane can be determined by calculating the normalized distances $s_i=d_i \rho_n({\cal E}_i)^{1/2}$, where $d_i$ stands for the Euclidean distance between the eigenvalue ${\cal E}_i$ and its nearest neighbor, and $\rho_n({\cal E}_i)$ for the local density of eigenvalues determined from $n$ nearest neighbors of ${\cal E}_i$. Similarly as in ref. [@HIL], the choice $n=10$ turns out satisfactory and guarantees stability. The numerical results are compared to the Poisson distribution $P(s)=(\pi/2) s \exp(-\pi s^2/4)$ (dashed lines in the [*rh*]{} column of Fig. 1), which shows linear repulsion on the plane, and to the $P(s)= (81\pi^2/128) s^3 \exp(-9\pi s^2/16)$ with cubic repulsion (solid lines). The latter gives a good description for the NNSD of symmetric Gaussian random matrices [@TDW][@JMSS] and, for a large number of open channels, also fit our numerical results nicely. For a few open channels (upper right part of Fig 1.) we see a weaker then cubic repulsion, however .
Now we come to the central point namely the fluctuation properties of the real parts $E_i$ of the energy eigenvalues. The corresponding NNSD and $\Delta_3$-statistics are shown in Fig. 2. It is well known that, without coupling the continuum, the spectra show GOE characteristics for both measures [@DNSW]. However, for many open channels a decorrelation takes place. In fact, for large $k$ the results are well reproduced by a Poissonian shape of the NNSD (lower left part of Fig. 2). Quite surprisingly, this even holds for $k/N$ of a few percent (middle left part of Fig. 2). Already for ten open channels $(k/N=6*10^{-1})$, there is a visible deviation from the Wigner distribution (upper left part of Fig. 2). These numerical observations lead to the conclusion that the appropriate way of describing these deviations is to consider superpositions of Wigner and Poisson distributions rather than Wigner and Gaussian [@MZ].
The longer-range correlations (spectral rigidity) expressed by the $\Delta_3$-statistics show a similar tendency, although the transition is somewhat slower. In addition, as is seen in Fig. 2, the transition region $L_{max}$ from GOE to Poissonian characteristics is restricted to about 10 normalized distance units. This appears to be consistent with the findings in [@DS] for hermitian separable problems, where $L_{max}$ increases with increasing length of the string of eigenvalues. In the present case the string is comparatively short. On a more formal level [@Berry], the $\Delta_3$-statistics is known to be non-universal above a certain $L_{max}$. For systems with a known classical limit, $L_{max}$ is determined by the inverse of the period of the shortest periodic orbits. We wish to mention, without showing the results explicitly, that an analogous analysis for the imaginary parts of ${\cal E}_i$ show Poissonian fluctuations for any number of the open channels. This asymmetry in the statistical properties of $E_j$ and $\Gamma_j$ is related to the different properties of the real and imaginary parts of $\cal H$, especially for smaller values of $k$.
Another way of understanding the decorrelation of the resonance energies due to the presence of continuum decay comes from the relation between the wave-packet dynamics and the stationary states [@Heller]. The latter can be obtained via the Fourier transform of the time evolution of a generic wave packet. For a bound-state problem such a wave packet resides in the interaction region forever and thus, the structure of the corresponding phase space can be resolved with arbitrary accuracy. Consequently, for a chaotic system, the whole complexity (delocalization, random nodal pattern, scars, etc.) of stationary states can be reproduced. Coupling to the continuum, sets a limit for this process, however. As time progresses, the wave packet will leak out of the interaction region and makes it impossible to resolve all details of the dynamics. As a result the wave functions, projected onto the interaction region, look more regular than their counterparts in a closed system. The leakage is expected to occur faster with increasing $k$. A quantititive measure of the speed is the survival probability $P(t)$ of a randomly chosen wave packet ${| {F} \rangle}$, initially localized in the interaction region. As a convenient and experimentally motivated choice we consider a state excited by the isovector quadrupole operator $(|F\rangle={\hat F} |0\rangle$). When expanded ${| {F} \rangle}$ involves all the eigenstates $|\chi_i\rangle$ of $\cal H$ and $$P(t)=|\langle F(0)|F(t)\rangle|^2= |\sum_{j=1}^N \langle 0|\hat F|\chi_j\rangle
\langle \chi_j|\hat F|0\rangle e^{i {\cal E}_j t/\hbar}|^2
\label{eq:P}$$ (for a complex symmetric matrix the left and right eigenvectors are the same). In the absence of continuum coupling, $P(t)$ remains constant (on average) after a rapid initial dephasing due to the non-stationarity of $|F\rangle$ [@DNWS]. For an open system, on the other hand, a decay of $P(t)$ is to be expected. The most interesting feature is the dependence of the decay law on the number of open channels: For a small $k$ the decay is very slow and well represented by a power-law $(P(t) \sim t^{-z})$. For $k=1$ we find $z\approx -1/2$, in reasonable agreement with the estimates of ref. [@DHM]. As $k$ increases $z$ grows very fast and, for $k>100$, $P(t)$ drops exponentially on long time scales, [*i.e.*]{} $P(t) \sim \exp(-\eta t)$, with the decay constant $\eta$ growing rapidly with $k$ (Fig. 3). These observations go in parallel with the classical picture of open phase space phenomena such as a chaotic scattering [@DOS]: For a small number of the open channels the decay is governed by a power-law. This is associated with larger fractal dimensions of the set of singularities generating chaotic behavior than for many open channel cases which lead to an exponential decay.
In summary, the numerical analysis presented in this work shows that GOE correlated spectra of quasi-bound states become fully decorrelated in the presence of continuum coupling and when the number of open channels is large. This transition is accompanied by a change of the decay properties of the average survival probability of a non-stationary wave packet, turning from power-law to exponential. This appears to be consistent with the semiclassical relation [@BS] between the time-dependence of $P(t)$ and the structure of the resonances. An exponential behavior of $P(t)$ corresponds to the region of strongly overlapping resonances (Ericson fluctuations [@Eri]), while the power-law decay, with small power indices $z$ [@LFO], corresponds to isolated resonances, and it is this isolation which preserves the original fluctuations.
This work was supported in part by the Polish KBN Grant No. 2 P302 157 04 and by a grant from the National Science Foundation, NSF-PHY-94-21309.
=.0cm
also at: Institut für Kernphysik, Forschungszentrum Jülich, D-52425 Jülich, Germany.
J. von Neumann and E. Wigner, Z. Phys. [**30**]{}, 467(1929) P. von Brentano, Phys. Lett. [**238B**]{}, 1(1990); [*ibid*]{} [**265B**]{}, 14(1991) S. Mizutori and V.G. Zelevinsky, Z. Phys. [**A346**]{}, 1(1993) V.V. Sokolov and V.G. Zelevinsky, Phys. Lett. [**202B**]{}, 10(1988); Nucl. Phys. [**A504**]{}, 562(1989) H. Feshbach, Ann. Phys. (NY) [**5**]{}, 357(1958) P. Kleinwächter and I. Rotter, Phys. Rev. [**C32**]{}, 1742(1985); W. Iskra, M. Müller and I. Rotter, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. [**19**]{}, 2045(1993); [*ibid*]{} [**20**]{}, 775(1994) T.A. Brody, J. Flores, J.B. French, P.A. Mello, A. Pandey and S.S.M. Wong, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**53**]{}, 385(1981) R.V. Haq, A. Pandey and O. Bohigas, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**48**]{}, 1086(1982);O. Bohigas, M.J. Giannoni and C. Schmit, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**52**]{}, 1(1984) J. Ginibre, J. Math. Phys. [**6**]{}, 3(1965) A. Mondragón and E. Hernández, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. [**26**]{}, 5595(1993) S. Drożdż, S. Nishizaki, J. Speth and J. Wambach, Phys. Rev. [**C49**]{}, 867(1994) A. Trellakis, S. Drożdż and J. Wambach, to be published V.V. Flambaum, A.A. Gribakina, G.F. Gribakin and M.G. Kozlov, Phys. Rev. [**A50**]{}, 267(1994) N. Lehmann, D. Saher, V.V. Sokolov and H.-J. Sommers, Nucl. Phys. [**A582**]{}, 223(1995) F. Haake, F. Izrailev, N. Lehmann, D. Saher and H.-J. Sommers, Z. Phys. [**B88**]{}, 359(1992) W.John, B.Milek and H.Schanz, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**67**]{}, 1949(1991) F. Haake, Quantum Signatures of Chaos (Springer, 1991) S. Drożdż and J. Speth, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**67**]{}, 529(1991) M.V. Berry, Proc. R. Soc. London [**A400**]{}, 229(1985) E.J. Heller, in Chaos and Quantum Physics, Les Houches 1989, eds. M.-J. Giannoni, A. Voros and J. Zinn-Justin, (Elsevier, 1991), p. 548 S. Drożdż, S. Nishizaki, J. Wambach and J. Speth, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**74**]{}, 1075(1995) F.-M. Dittes, H.L. Harney and A. Müller, Phys. Rev. [**A45**]{}, 710(1992) S. Drożdż, J. Okolowicz and T. Srokowski, Phys. Rev. [**E48**]{}, 4851(1993) R. Blümel and U. Smilansky, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**60**]{}, 477(1988) T. Ericson, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**5**]{}, 430(1960) Y.-T. Lau, J.M. Finn and E. Ott, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**66**]{}, 978(1991)
[***Figure Captions***]{}
- Left column: The eigenvalue distribution of the non-hermitian Hamiltonian $\cal H$ defined in Eq. (1) for different number $k$ of open channels. The hermitian part $H$ is chosen as the Hamiltonian of \[12\] while the anti-hermitian part $W$ is given by Eq. (2) taking the amplitudes $A$ as members of the Gaussian ensemble \[4\]. Right column: the corresponding NNSD on the complex plane.
- The NNSD ([*lhs*]{}) and the $\Delta_3$ statistics ([*rhs*]{}) of the real parts $E_i$ for energy eigenvalues of ${\cal H}$ and different number k of open channels.
- The time dependence of the survival probability $P(t)$ of a wave packet, initialized by the isovector quadrupole operator, for various numbers of open channels.
|
---
author:
- |
Mario Amrehn, Stefan Steidl, Reinier Kortekaas, Maddalena Strumia,\
Markus Weingarten, Markus Kowarschik, Andreas Maier
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
title: 'A Semi-Automated Usability Evaluation Framework for Interactive Image Segmentation Systems'
---
[Amrehn : Usability Evaluation of Interactive Image Segmentation Systems]{}
at (current page.north east)
(fmogh) at (0pt, 0pt) [ **[ [Fork me on GitHub](https://github.com/mamrehn/interactive_image_segmentation_evaluation) ]{}** ]{}; (-25em,1.2em) rectangle (25em,-1.2em);
;
the best of our knowledge, there is not one publication in which user based scribbles are combined with standardized questionnaires in order to assess an interactive image segmentation system’s quality. This type of synergetic usability measure is a contribution of this work. In order to provide a guideline for an objective comparison of interactive image segmentation approaches, a prototype providing a pictorial user input, introduced in **Sec.**\[sec:semi-manual\_prototype\], is compared to a prototype with a guiding menu-driven [UI]{}, described in **Sec.**\[sec:guided\_prototype\]. Both evaluation results are analyzed with respect to a joint prototype, defined in **Sec.**\[sec:joint\_prototype\], incorporating aspects of both interface techniques. All three prototypes are built utilizing modern web technologies. An evaluation of the interactive prototypes is performed utilizing pragmatic usability aspects described in **Sec.**\[sec:results\_pragmatic\], as well as hedonic usability aspects analyzed in **Sec.**\[sec:results\_hedonic\].
Image Segmentation Systems
--------------------------
Image segmentation can be defined as the partitioning of an image into a finite number of semantically non-overlapping regions. A semantic label can be assigned to each region. In medical imaging, each individual region of a patients’ abdominal tissue might be regarded as healthy or cancerous. Segmentation systems can be grouped into three principal categories, each differing in the degree of involvement of an operating person (user): manual, automatic, and interactive. (1) During manual tumor segmentation, a user provides all elements $i$ in the image grid which have neighboring elements $N(i)$ of different labels than $i$. The system then utilizes this closed curve contour line information to infer the labels for remaining image elements via simple region growing. This minimal assistance by the system causes the overall segmentation process of one lesion to take up to several minutes of user interaction time. However, reaching an appropriate or even perfect segmentation result (despite noteworthy difference [@becker2017increased]) is feasible [@kim2016interobserver; @hong2014interobserver]. In practice, few manual segmentations are performed by domain experts, in order to utilize the results as a reference standard in radiotherapy planning [@moltz2011analysis]. (2) A fully automated approach does not involve a user’s interference with the system. The introduced deficiency in domain knowledge for accurately labeling regions may be restored partially by automated segmentation approaches. The maximum accuracy of the segmentation result is therefore highly dependent on the individual set of rules or amount of training data available. If the segmentation task is sufficiently complex, a perfect result may not be reachable. (3) Interactive approaches aim at a fast and exact segmentation by combining substantial assistance by the system with knowledge about a very good estimate of the true tumor extent provided by trained physicians during the segmentation process [@olabarriaga1997setting]. In contrast to fully automated solutions, prior knowledge is (also) provided during the segmentation process. Although, interactive approaches are also costly in terms of manual labor to some extent, they can supersede fully automated techniques in terms of accuracy. Due to their exact segmentation capabilities, interactive segmentation techniques are frequently chosen to outline pathologies during imaging assisted medical procedures, like hepatocellular carcinomata during trans-catheter arterial chemoembolization (see **Sec.**\[sec:tace\]).
Evaluation of Image Segmentation Systems
----------------------------------------
Performance evaluation is one of the most important aspects during the continuous improvement of systems and methodologies. With non-interactive computer vision and machine learning systems for image segmentation, an objective comparison of systems can be achieved by evaluating data sets for training and testing. Similarity measures between segmentation outcome and ground truth images are utilized to quantify the quality of the segmentation result.
With (), a complete ground truth data set would also consist of the adaptive user interactions which advance the segmentation process. Therefore, when comparing , the user needs to be involved in the evaluation process. User interaction data however is highly dependent on (1) the users’ domain knowledge and the unique learning effect of the human throughout a period of exposure to the problem domain, (2) the system’s underlying segmentation method and the users’ preferences toward this technique, as well as (3) the design and usability (the user experience [@hassenzahl2006user; @law2009understanding]) of the interface which is presented to the user during the interactive segmentation procedure [@caro1979inter; @hong2014interobserver]. This includes users’ differing preferences towards diverse interaction systems and tolerances for unexpected system behavior. Considering , an analytically expressed objective function for an interactive system is hard to define. Intuitively, the user wants to achieve a satisfying result in a short amount of time with ease [@kohli2012user]. A direct assessment of a system’s usability is enabled via standardized questionnaires, as described in **Sec.**\[sec:questionnaires\]. Individual usage of can be evaluated via the segmentation result’s similarity to the ground truth labeling according to the S[ø]{}rensen-Dice coefficient () [@dice1945measures] after each interaction. The interaction data utilized for these segmentations has to be representative in order to generalize the evaluation results.
Types of User Interaction
-------------------------
As described by Olabarriaga et al. [@olabarriaga2001interaction] as well as Zhao and Xie [@zhao2012interactive], user interactions can be categorized with regards to the type of interface an provides. The following categories are emphasized. (1) A pictorial mask image is the most intuitive form of user input. Humans use this technique when transferring knowledge via a visual medium [@puranik2011scribbles]. The mask overlayed on the visualization of the image to segment consists of structures called scribbles, where $w$ is the width and $h$ is the height of the image $\mathbf{I}$ in pixels. Scribbles are seed points, lines, and complex shapes, each represented as a set of individual seed points. One seed point is a tuple , where describes the position of the seed in image space. The class label of a scribble in a binary segmentation system is represented by . Scribbles need to be defined by the user in order to act as a representative subset $\mathbf{S}$ of the ground truth segmentation .
\(2) A menu-driven user input scheme as in [@rupprecht2015image; @udupa1997multiple] limits the user’s scope of action. Users trade distinct control over the segmentation outcome for more guidance provided by the system. The locations or the shapes of newly created scribbles are fixed before presentation to the user. It is challenging to achieve an exact segmentation result using a method from this category. Rupprecht et al. [@rupprecht2015image] describe significant deficits in finding small objects and outline a tendency of the system to automatically choose seed point locations near the object border, which cannot be labeled by most users’ visual inspection and would therefore not have been selected by the users themselves. Advantages of user input are the high level of abstraction of the process, enabling efficient guidance for inexperienced users in their decision which action to perform for an optimal segmentation outcome (regarding accuracy over time or number of interactions) [@olabarriaga1999human; @olabarriaga2001interaction].
Generation of Representative User Input
---------------------------------------
Nickisch et al. [@nickisch2010learning] describe crowd sourcing and user studies as two methods to generate plausible user input data. The cost efficient crowd sourcing method often lacks control and knowledge of the users’ motivation. Missing context information for crucial aspects of the data acquisition procedure creates a challenging task objectifying the evaluation results. Specialized fraud detection methods are commonly used in an attempt to pre-filter the recorded corpus and extract a usable subset of data. McGuinness and O’Connor [@mcguinness2010comparative] proposed an evaluation of via extensive user experiments. In these experiments, users are shown images with descriptions of the objects they are required to extract. Then, users mark foreground and background pixels utilizing a platform designed for this purpose. These acquisitions are more time-consuming and cost intensive than , since they require a constant involvement of users. However, the study’s creators are able to control many aspects of the data recording process, which enables detailed observations of user reactions. The data samples recorded are a representative subset of the focus group of the finalized system. A user study aims at maximizing repeatability of its results. In order to increase the objectivity of the evaluation in this work, a user study is chosen to be conducted. The study is described in **Sec.**\[sec:usability\_test\_setup\].
State-of-the-art Evaluation of Interactive Segmentation Systems
---------------------------------------------------------------
### Segmentation Challenges
In segmentation challenges like [@van20073d] (mainly) fully automated approaches are competing for the highest score regarding a predefined image quality metric. Semi-automatic methods are allowed for submission if the manual interaction with the test data is strictly limited to pre-processing and (single seed point) initialization of an otherwise fully automated process. may be included into the contests’ final ranking, but are regarded as non-competing, since the structure of the challenges is solely designed for automated approaches. The challenge [@litjens2014evaluation] had a separate category for proposed interactive approaches, where the user (in this case, the person also describing the algorithm) may add an unlimited number of hints during segmentation, without observing the experts’ ground truth for the test set. No group of experts was provided to operate the interactive method for comparative results. The submitted interactive methods’ scores in the challenge’s ranking are therefore highly dependent on the domain knowledge of single operating users and can not be regarded as an objective measure.
### Comparisons for Novel Segmentation Approaches
In principle, with every new proposal of an interactive segmentation algorithm or interface, the authors have to demonstrate the new method’s capabilities in an objective comparison with already established techniques. The effort spent for these comparisons by the original authors varies substantially. According to [@kohli2012user], many evaluation methods only consider a fixed input. This approach is especially unsuited for evaluation, without simultaneously defining an appropriate interface, which actually validates that a real person utilizing this [UI]{} is capable of generating similar input patterns to the ones provided. Although, there are some overview publications, which compare several approaches [@zhao2013overview; @olabarriaga2001interaction; @mcguinness2010comparative; @mcguinness2011toward; @amrehn2016comparative], the number of publications outlining new methods is disproportionately greater, leaving comparisons insufficiently covered. In **Tab.**\[tab:interactiveSegmentationEvaluationComparison\], a clustering of popular publications describing novel interactive segmentation techniques is depicted. The evaluation methods can be compared by the type of data utilized as user input. Note that there is a trend towards more elaborate evaluations in more recent publications.
Clinical Application for Interactive Segmentation {#sec:tace}
-------------------------------------------------
Hepatocellular carcinoma () is among the most prevalent malignant tumors worldwide [@chung2006transcatheter; @mcglynn2011global]. Only of cases are curable via surgery. Both, a patient’s and hepatic cirrhosis in advanced stages may lead on to the necessity of alternative treatment methods. For these inoperable cases, trans-catheter arterial chemoembolization () [@lewandowski2011transcatheter] is a promising and widely used minimally invasive intervention technique [@bruix2005management; @bruix2011management]. During , collateral vessels are occluded, which previously supplied the [HCC]{} with oxygenated blood. To locate these vessels, it is crucial to find the exact shape as well as the position of the tumor inside the liver. Interventional radiology is utilized to generate a volumetric cone-beam C-arm computed tomography () [@strobel20093d] image of the patient’s abdomen, which is processed to precisely outline and label the lesion. The toxicity of decreases, the less healthy tissue is labeled as pathologic. The efficacy of the therapy increases, the less cancerous tissue is falsely labeled as healthy [@lo2002randomized]. However, precisely outlining the tumor is challenging, especially due to its variations in size and shape, as well as a high diversity in X-ray attenuation coefficient values representing the lesion as illustrated in **Fig.**\[fig:hepatic\_tumor\_segmentation\_outcome\]. While fully automated systems may yield insufficiently accurate segmentation results, tend to be well suited for an application during .
Methods {#sec:methods}
=======
Segmentation Method {#sec:segmentation_method}
-------------------
[@vezhnevets2005growcut] is a seeded image segmentation algorithm based on cellular automaton theory. The automaton is a tuple , where $\mathbf{G}_\mathbf{I}$ is the $\mathbf{I}$, where the pixels/voxels act as nodes $\mathbf{v}_e$. The nodes are connected by edges on a grid defined by the Moore neighborhood system. $$\mbox{$\mathbf{Q}\ni\mathbf{Q}_e^t=\left((\mathbf{p}_e, \,\mathbf{\ell}_e^t), \,\mathbf{\Theta}_e^t, \,\mathbf{c}_e, \,\mathbf{h}_e^t\right)$}
\label{eq:growcutgraph}$$ of node $e$ at iteration $t$. the node’s characteristics. Here, we additionally define $\mathbf{h}_e^t \in \mathbb{N}^{0}$ as a counter for accumulated label changes of $e$ during the iteration, as described in [@amrehn2018ideal], with . is initialized with $1$ for scribbles, i.e. , and $0$ otherwise.
Iterations are performed utilizing local state transition rule $\delta$: starting from initial seeds, labels are propagated based on local intensity features $\mathbf{c}$. At each discrete time step $t$, each node $f$ attempts to conquer its direct neighbors. A node $e$ is conquered if $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{\Theta}_f^t\cdot\operatorname{g}(\mathbf{c}_e,\mathbf{c}_f)&>\mathbf{\Theta}_e^t\,,\ \text{where}\label{eq:growcutisconquered}\\
\operatorname{g}(\mathbf{c}_e,\mathbf{c}_f) &= 1 - \frac{\Vert\mathbf{c}_e-\mathbf{c}_f\Vert_2}{\max_{j,k}\Vert\mathbf{c}_j-\mathbf{c}_k\Vert_2}\end{aligned}$$ If node $e$ is conquered, the automaton’s state set is updated $$\mbox{$\mathbf{Q}_e^{t+1}=((\mathbf{p}_e,\mathbf{\ell}_f^t),\mathbf{\Theta}_f^t\cdot\operatorname{g}(c_e,c_f),\mathbf{c}_e,\mathbf{h}_e^t+1)$},
\label{eq:growcutupdatestate}$$ The process is guaranteed to converge with positive and bounded node strengths monotonously decreasing
Interactive Segmentation Prototypes {#sec:sgmentation_prototypes}
-----------------------------------
Three interactive segmentation prototypes with different were implemented for usability testing. The segmentation technique applied in all prototypes is based on the approach as described in **Sec.**\[sec:segmentation\_method\]. allows for efficient and parallelizable computation of image segmentations while providing an acceptable accuracy from only few initial seed points. It is therefore well suited for an integration into a highly interactive system.
All three user interfaces provided include an *undo* button to reverse the effects of the user’s latest action. A *finish* button is used to define the stopping criterion for the interactive image partitioning. The transparency of both, the contour line and seed mask displayed, is adjustable to one of five fixed values via the *opacity* toggle button. The image contrast and brightness (windowing) can be adapted with standard control sliders for the window width and the window center operating on the image intensity value range [@jin2001contrast]. All protoypes incorporate a *help* button used to provide additional guidance for the prototype’s usage during the segmentation task. The segmentation process starts with a set of pre-defined background-labels $\mathbf{S}^0$ along the edges of the image, since an object is assumed to be located in its entirety inside the displayed region of the image.
### Segmentation Prototype {#sec:semi-manual_prototype}
The of the prototype, depicted in **Fig.**\[fig:semi-manual\_prototype\], provides several interaction elements. A user can add seed points as an overlay mask displayed on top of the image. These seed points have a pre-defined label of either for the object or used for all other image elements. The label of the next brush strokes (scribbles) can be altered via the buttons named and . After each interaction , a new iteration of the seeded segmentation is started given the image $\mathbf{I}$ as well as the updated set of seeds as input.
![ segmentation prototype user interface. The current segmentation’s contour line (light blue) is [adjusted towards the user’s estimate of the ground truth segmentation]{} by manually adding foreground (blue) or background (red) seed points.[]{data-label="fig:semi-manual_prototype"}](images/semi-manual_segmentation_prototype_contrast.png){width="\columnwidth" height="0.61296534017\columnwidth"}
### Guided Segmentation Prototype {#sec:guided_prototype}
The system selects two seed point locations , each with the lowest label certainty values assigned by the previous segmentation process. The seed point locations are shown to the user in each iteration $n$, as depicted in **Fig.**\[fig:guided\_prototype\]. There are four possible labeling schemes for those points in the underlying classification problem, since each seed point has a label . The interface providing advanced user guidance displays the four alternative segmentation contour lines, which are a result of the four possible next steps during the iterative interactive segmentation with respect to the labeling of the new seed points $\mathbf{s}^n_1$ and $\mathbf{s}^n_2$. The user selects the only correct labeling, where all displayed object and background seeds are inside the object of interest and the image background, respectively. The alternative views on the right act as four buttons to define a selection. To further assist the user in their decision making, the region of interest, defined by $\mathbf{p}^n_1$ and $\mathbf{p}^n_2$, is zoomed in for the option view on the right and displayed as a cyan rectangle in the overview image on the left of the . The differences regarding the previous iteration’s contour line and one of the four new options each are highlighted by dotted areas in the four overlay mask images. After the user selects one of the labelings, the two new seed points are added to the current set of scribbles $\mathbf{S}^n$. The scribbles are utilized as input for the next iteration, on which basis two new locations are computed.
The system-defined locations of the additional seed points can be determined by , the location(s) with maximum number of label changes during segmentation. Frequent changes define specific image elements and areas in which the algorithm indicates uncertainty in finding the correct labels. Two locations in $\mathbf{h}^{t=\infty,{n-1}}$ are then selected as $\mathbf{p}^n_1$ and $\mathbf{p}^n_2$, which stated the most changes in labeling during the previous segmentation with input image $\mathbf{I}$ and seeds $\mathbf{S}^{n - 1}$.
![Guided segmentation prototype user interface. The current segmentation displayed on the upper left can be improved by choosing one of the four segmentation alternatives displayed on the right. The user is expected to choose the upper-right option in this configuration, [due to the two new seeds’ matching background and foreground labels]{}.[]{data-label="fig:guided_prototype"}](images/guided_segmentation_prototype_contrast.png){width="\columnwidth" height="0.61296534017\columnwidth"}
### Joint Segmentation Prototype {#sec:joint_prototype}
The joint prototype depicted in **Fig.**\[fig:joint\_prototype\] is a combination of a pictorial interaction scheme and a menu-driven approach. (1) A set of pre-selected new seeds is displayed in each iteration. The seeds’ initial labels are set automatically, based on whether their position is inside (foreground) or outside (background) the current segmentation mask. The user may toggle the label of each of the new seeds, which also provides an intuitive functionality. The automated suggestion process for new seed point locations is depicted in **Fig.**\[fig:joint\_prototype\_prob\_map\]. The seed points are suggested deterministically based on the indices of the maximum values in an element-wise sum of three approximated influence maps. These maps are the gradient magnitude image of $\mathbf{I}$, the previous label changes per element in $\mathbf{G}_\mathbf{I}$ weighted by an empirically determined factor of $17/12$, and an influence map based on the distance of each element in $\mathbf{I}$ to the current contour line. Note that for the guided prototype (see **Sec.**\[sec:guided\_prototype\]), only $\mathbf{h}$ was used for the selection of suggested seed point locations. This scheme was extended for the joint prototype, since extracting instead of only the top two points solely from $\mathbf{h}$ potentially introduces suggested point locations forming impractical local clusters instead of spreading out with higher variance in the image domain. This process approximates the true influence or entropy (information gain) of each possible location for a new seed.
When all seed points presented to the user are toggled to their correct label, the user may click on the *new points* button to initiate the next iteration with an updated set of seed points . Another set of seed points is generated and displayed.
\(2) In addition to pre-selected seeds, a single new seed point $\mathbf{s}^n_0$ can be added manually via a user’s long-press on any location in the image. A desired change in the current labeling of this region is interpreted given this user action. Therefore, the new seed point’s initial label is set by inverting the current label of the given location. A new segmentation is initiated by this interaction based on . Note that the labels of are still subject to change via toggle interactions until the button is pressed.
![Joint segmentation prototype user interface. The user toggles the labels of pre-positioned seed points[, which positions are displayed to them as colored circles,]{} to properly indicate their inclusion into the set of object or background representatives. New seeds can be added at the position of [current]{} interaction via a long-press on the overlay image. The segmentation result as well as [the]{} displayed contour line adapt accordingly after each interaction.[]{data-label="fig:joint_prototype"}](images/joint_segmentation_prototype_contrast.png){width="\columnwidth" height="0.61296534017\columnwidth"}
![The approximated influence map for new seed point locations [for the joint segmentation prototype]{}. The map is generated by a weighted sum of gradient magnitude image, number of cell changes [$h_e^{t=\infty}$ per cell $e$]{} obtained from [the]{} previous segmentation, [as well as the]{} distance to the contour line of the current segmentation. []{data-label="fig:joint_prototype_prob_map"}](images/prob_map_1.png){height="0.61296534017\columnwidth"}
Questionnaires {#sec:questionnaires}
--------------
### System Usability Scale () {#sec:questionnaires_sus}
The [@brooke1996sus; @lewis2009factor] is a widely used, reliable, and low-cost survey to assess the overall usability of a prototype, product, or service [@kortum2013usability]. Its focus is on pragmatic quality evaluation [@ISO92411998; @ISO92412018]. The survey is technology agnostic, which enables a utilization of the usability of many types of user interfaces and [@bangor2009determining]. The questionnaire consists of ten statements and an unipolar five-point Likert scale [@likert1932technique]. This allows for an assessment in a time span of about three minutes per participant. The statements are as follows:
1. I think that I would like to use this system frequently.
2. I found the system unnecessarily complex.
3. I thought the system was easy to use.
4. I think that I would need the support of a technical person to be able to use this system.
5. I found the various functions in this system were well integrated.
6. I thought there was too much inconsistency in this system.
7. I would imagine that most people would learn to use this system very quickly.
8. I found the system very cumbersome to use.
9. I felt very confident using the system.
10. I needed to learn a lot of things before I could get going with this system.
The Likert scale provides a fixed choice response format to these expressions. The choice in an Likert scale always is the neutral element. Using the scale, subjects are asked to define their degree of consent to each given statement. The fixed choices for the five-point scale are named *strongly disagree*, *disagree*, *undecided*, *agree*, and *strongly agree*. During the evaluation of the survey, these names are assigned values [$\mathbf{x}_i$ from zero to four]{} in the order presented, for statements with index . scores enable simple interpretation schemes, understandable also in multi-disciplinary project teams. The result of the survey is a single scalar value, in the range of zero to $100$ as a composite measure of the overall usability. The score is computed according to , given $S$ participants, where is the response to $i$ by subject $s$. $$\operatorname{sus}(\mathbf{x}) = \frac{2.5}{S} \sum_{s}\left[\, \sum_{\text{odd } i} \mathbf{x}^\text{SUS}_{s,i} + \sum_{\text{even } i} (4 - \mathbf{x}^\text{SUS}_{s,i})\, \right]
\label{eq:sus_score}$$ Although the score allows for straightforward comparison of the usability throughout different systems, there is no simple intuition associated with the resulting scalar value. In practice, a of less than $80$ is often interpreted as an indicator of a substantial usability problem with the system. Bangor et al. [@bangor2008empirical; @bangor2009determining] proposed an interpretation of the score in a seven-point scale. : *worst imaginable*, *awful*, *poor*, *OK*, *good*, *excellent*, and *best imaginable*. This mapping also enables an absolute interpretation of a single score.
![Mapping from a score to an adjective rating scheme proposed by Bangor et al. [@bangor2009determining][. Given a rating, the relative height of the Gaussian distributions approximate the probabilities for each adjective. Distributions’ $\mu$ and $\sigma$ were extracted evaluating]{} $959$ surveys [with added adjective rating as an 11th question]{}. []{data-label="fig:sus_adjective"}](images/sus/sus_adjective_rating "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}\
System usability scale () rating
### Semantic Differential {#sec:questionnaires_attrakdiff}
A semantic differential is a technique for the measurement of meaning as defined by Osgood et al. [@osgood1952nature; @osgood1957measurement]. Semantic differentials are based on the theory, that the implicit anticipatory response of a person to a stimulus object is regarded as the object’s meaning. Since these implicit responses themselves cannot be recorded directly, more apparent responses like verbal expressions have to be considered [@mehrabian1974approach; @fishbein1975belief]. These verbal responses have to be sensitive to and maximally dependent on meaningful states while independent from each other [@osgood1957measurement]. Hassenzahl et al. [@hassenzahl2003attrakdiff; @hassenzahl2000hedonic] defined a set of $28$ pairs of verbal expressions suitable to represent a subject’s opinion on the hedonic as well as pragmatic quality (both aspects of perception) and attractiveness (an aspect of assessment) of a given interactive system separately [@hassenzahl2001effect]. During evaluation, the pairs of complementary adjectives are clustered into four groups, each associated with a different aspect of quality. Pragmatic quality () is defined as the perceived usability of the interactive system, which is the ability to assist users to reach their goals by providing utile and usable functions [@hassenzahl2008user]. The attractiveness () quantizes the overall appeal of the system . The hedonic quality () [@diefenbach2008give] is separable into hedonic identity () and hedonic stimulus (). focuses on a user’s identification with the system and describes the ability of a product to communicate with other persons benefiting the user’s self-esteem [@hassenzahl2007hedonic]. describes the perceived novelty of the system. is associated with the desire to advance ones knowledge and proficiencies. The clustering into these four groups for the $28$ word pairs are defined as depicted in **Tab.**\[tab:attrakdiff\_statements\].
For each participant, the order of word pairs and order of the two elements of each pair are randomized prior to the survey’s execution. A bipolar [@mccroskey1989bipolar] seven-point Likert scale is presented to the subjects to express their relative tendencies toward one of the two opposing statements () of each expression pair, where index three denotes the neutral element. For the questionnaire’s evaluation for subject , each of the seven adjective pairs per group is assigned a score by each participant, reflecting their tendency towards the positive of the two adjectives. The overall ratings per group are the mean scores computed over all subjects $s$ and statements $i$, . Here, $S$ is the number of participants in the survey. $$\operatorname{attrakdiff}(\mathbf{x}, \,g) = \frac{1}{7 \cdot S} \sum_{s} \sum_{i} \mathbf{x}^g_{s,i}
\label{eq:attrakdiff_score}$$ Therefore, a neutral participant would produce an score of four. The final averaged score of each group $g$ ranges from one (worst) to seven (best rating).
An overall evaluation of the results can be conducted in the form of a portfolio representation [@hassenzahl2008user]. is the mean of a system’s and scores. [PQ]{} and [HQ]{} scores of a specific system and user are visualized as a point in a two-dimensional graph. The $95$% confidence interval is an estimate of plausible values for rating scores from additional study participants, and determines the extension of the rectangle around the described data point in each dimension. A small rectangle area represents a more homogeneous rating among the participants than a larger area. If a rectangle completely lies inside one of the seven fields with associated adjectives defined in [@hassenzahl2008user], this adjective is regarded as the dominant descriptor of the system. Otherwise, systems can be particularized by overlapping fields’ adjectives. If the confidence rectangles of two systems overlap in their one-dimensional projection on either or , their difference in scores in regards to this dimension is not significant.
Qualitative Measures {#sec:qualitative_measures}
--------------------
In order to collect, normalize, and analyze visual and verbal feedback given by the participants, a summative qualitative content analysis is conducted via abstraction [@hsieh2005three; @elo2008qualitative]. The abstraction method reduces the overall transcript material while preserving its substantial contents by summarization. The corpus retains a valid mapping of the recording. An essential part of abstraction is the formulation of macro operators like elimination, generalization, construction, integration, selection and bundling. The abstraction of statements is increased iteratively by the use of macro operators, which map statements of the current level of abstraction to the next, while clustering items based on their similarity [@mayring2014qualitative].
HCI Evaluation {#sec:hci_evaluation}
--------------
A user study is the most precise method for the evaluation of the quality of different interactive segmentation approaches [@nickisch2010learning]. Analytical measures as well as subjective measures can be derived from standardized user tests [@gao2013mental]. From interaction data recorded during the study, the reproducibility of segmentation results as well as the achievable accuracy with a given system per time can be estimated. The complexity and novelty of the system can be expressed via the observed convergence to the ground truth over time spent by the participants segmenting multiple images each. The user’s satisfaction with the interactive approaches is expressed by the analysis of questionnaires, which the study participant fills out immediately after their tests are conducted and before any discussion or debriefing has started. The respondent is asked to fill in the questionnaire as spontaneously as possible. Intuitive answers are desired as user feedback instead of well-thought-out responses for each item in the questionnaire [@brooke1996sus].
For the randomized A/B study, individuals are selected to approximate a representative sample of the intended users of the final system [@siroker2013b]. During the study, subjects are given multiple interactive segmentation tasks to fulfill each in a limit time frame. The user segments all $m$ images provided with two different methods (A and B). All subjects are given $2 \cdot m$ tasks in a randomized order to prevent a learning effect bias, which would allow for higher quality outcomes for the later tasks. Video and audio data of the subjects are recorded. Every user interaction recognized by the system and its time of occurrence are logged.
Experiments {#sec:experiments}
===========
Data Set for the Segmentation Tasks {#sec:study_data_sets}
-----------------------------------
In **Fig.**\[fig:study\_data\_sets\] the data set used for the usability test is depicted. For this evaluation, the colored images are converted to grayscale in order to increase similarity to the segmentation process of medical images acquired from . The conversion is performed in accordance with the [](https://www.itu.int/rec/R-REC-BT.709/en) recommendation [@recommendation1990basic] for the extraction of true luminance defined by the International Commission on Illumination () from contemporary cathode ray tube () phosphors via are the linear red, green, and blue color channels respectively. $$\mathbf{I} = 0.2126 \cdot \mathbf{I}'_R + 0.7152 \cdot \mathbf{I}'_G + 0.0722 \cdot \mathbf{I}'_B \label{eq:rgbtograyscale}$$ (b) is initially presented to the in order to familiarize themselves with the upcoming segmentation process. The segmentation tasks associated with images (a,c,d) are then displayed sequentially to the subjects in randomized order. The images are chosen to fulfill two goals of the study. (1) Ambiguity of the ground truth has to be minimized in order to suppress noise in the quantitative data. Each test person should have the same understanding and consent about the correct outline of the object to segment. Therefore, clinical images can only be utilized with groups of specialized domain experts. (2) The degree of complexity should vary between the images displayed to the users. Image (b), depicted in **Fig.**\[fig:study\_data\_sets\], of moderate complexity with regards to its disagreement coefficient [@hanneke2007bound], is displayed first to learn the process of segmentation with the given prototype. The complexity increases from (a) to (d), . The varying complexity enables a more objective and extended differentiation of subjects’ performances with given prototypes.
Usability Test Setup {#sec:usability_test_setup}
--------------------
Two separate user studies are conducted to test all prototypes described in **Sec.**\[sec:sgmentation\_prototypes\], in order to keep the time for each test short (less than ), thus retaining the focus of the participants, while minimizing the occurrence of learning effect artifacts in the acquired data. (1) The first user test is a randomized A/B test of the prototype (**Sec.**\[sec:semi-manual\_prototype\]) and the guided prototype (**Sec.**\[sec:guided\_prototype\]). Ten individuals are selected as test subjects due to their advanced domain knowledge in the fields of medical image processing and mobile input devices. The subjects are given the task to segment different images with varying complexity, which are described in **Sec.**\[sec:study\_data\_sets\], in random order. A fourth input image of medium complexity is provided for the users to familiarize themselves with the before the tests. As an interaction device, a mobile tablet computer is utilized, since the final segmentation method is intended for usage via such a medium. The small $10.1$ inch display and fingers utilized as a multi-touch pointing device further exacerbate the challenge to fabricate an exact segmentation for the participants [@norman2010gestural]. The user study environment is depicted in **Fig.**\[fig:study\_setup\]. Audio and video recordings are evaluated via a qualitative content analysis, described in **Sec.**\[sec:qualitative\_measures\], in order to detect possible improvements for the tested prototypes and their interfaces. After segmentation, each participant fills out the (**Sec.**\[sec:questionnaires\_sus\]) and (**Sec.**\[sec:questionnaires\_attrakdiff\]) questionnaires.
\(2) The second user test is conducted for the joint segmentation prototype (**Sec.**\[sec:joint\_prototype\]). The data set and test setup are the same as in the first user study and all test persons of study (1) also participated in study (2). One additional subject participated only in study (2). Two months passed between the conduction of the two studies, in which the former participants were not exposed to any of the prototypes. Therefore, the learning effect bias for the second test is neglectable.
![User testing setup for the usability evaluation of the prototypes. In this environment, a user performs an interactive segmentation on a mobile tablet computer while sitting. cameras record the hand motions on the input device and facial expressions of the participant. [In addition, each recognized input is recorded on the tablet device (the interaction log).]{} []{data-label="fig:study_setup"}](images/usability_test_setup_new_.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
Prediction of Questionnaire Results {#sec:prediction_of_questionnaire_results}
-----------------------------------
The questionnaires’ , , , , , and results are predicted, based on features extracted from the interaction log data. For the prediction, a regression analysis is performed. Stochastic Gradient Boosting Regression Forests () are an additive model for regression analysis [@friedman2001greedy; @friedman2002stochastic; @hastie2009boosting]. In several stages, shallow regression trees are generated. Such a tree is a weak base learner each resulting in a prediction error , with high bias $b$ and low variance $v$. These regression trees are utilized to minimize an arbitrarily differentiable loss function each on the negative gradient of the previous stage’s outcome, thus reducing the overall bias via boosting [@breiman1999using]. The Huber loss function [@huber1964robust] is utilized for this evaluation due to its increased robustness to outliers in the data with respect to the squared error loss. The collected data set of user logs is split randomly in a ratio of for training and testing. An exhaustive grid search over $20,480$ parameter combinations is performed for each of the six estimators (one for each questionnaire result) with scorings based on an eight-fold cross-validation on the training set.
### Feature Definition {#sec:feature_definition}
The collected data contains $31$ samples with $216$ possible features each. The $31$ questionnaire results (, , , , , ), are predicted based on features extracted from the interaction log data of the four images segmented with the system. Four features are the relative median seed positions per user and their standard deviation in two dimensions. $22$ additional features, like the number of undo operations () and number of interactions (), the overall computation time (), overall interaction time (), elapsed real time (), , and are reduced to one scalar value each by the mean and median, over the four segmentations per prototype and user, to obtain $48$ base features. Since these features each only correlate weakly with the questionnaire results, composite features are added in order to assist the model’s learning process for feature relations. Added features are composed of one base feature value divided by (the mean or median of) computation time, interaction time, or elapsed real time. The relations between those time values themselves are also added. In total, $216$ features directly related to the interaction log data are used. In addition, a principal component analysis () is performed in order to add $10$% ($22$) features with maximized variance to the directly assessed ones to further assist the feature selection step via .
### Feature Selection for Prediction {#sec:sus_prediction}
For the approximation of results, a feature selection step is added to decrease the prediction error by an additional three percent points: here, after the described initial grid search, $1$% (205) of the estimators, with the lowest mean deviance from the ground truth, are selected to approximate the most important features. From those estimators, the most important features for the are extracted via a *$1/\text{loss}$*-weighted feature importance voting. This feature importance voting by $205$ estimators ensures a more robust selection than deciding the feature ranking from only a single trained . After the voting, a second grid search over the same $20,480$ parameter combinations, but with a reduction from $238$ to only $25$ of the most important features is performed.
Results {#sec:results}
=======
Overall Usability {#sec:results_overall_usability}
-----------------
The result of the score is depicted in **Fig.**\[fig:result\_sus\]. According to the mapping (**Fig.**\[fig:sus\_adjective\]) introduced in **Sec.**\[sec:questionnaires\_sus\], the adjective rating of the and joint prototypes are *excellent* ($88$ respective $82$), the adjective associated with the guided prototype is *good* ($67$).
A graph representation of the similarity of individual usability aspects, based on the acquired questionnaire data, is depicted in **Fig.**\[fig:result\_questionnaire\_results\_correlation\]. Based on the Pearson correlation coefficients utilized as a metric for similarity, the score has the most similarity to the pragmatic () and attractiveness () usability aspects provided by the questionnaire.
Pragmatic Quality {#sec:results_pragmatic}
-----------------
The results of the questionnaire are illustrated in **Fig.**\[fig:result\_attrakdiff\]. The scores for , guided, and joint prototypes are $88$%, $50$%, and $74$% of the maximum score, respectively. Since each of the $95$% confidence intervals are non-overlapping, the prototypes’ ranking regarding are significant.
The quantitative evaluation of recorded interaction data is depicted in **Fig.**\[fig:result\_logs\]. Dice scores before the first interaction are zero, except for the guided prototype ($0.82\pm0.02$), where few fixed seed points had to be provided to initialize the system. Utilizing the prototype and starting from zero, a similar Dice measure to the guided prototype’s initialization is reached after about seven interactions, which takes $13.06\pm2.05$ seconds on average. The median values of final Dice scores per prototype are $0.95$ (), $0.94$ (guided), and $0.82$ (joint). The mean overall elapsed wall time in seconds spent for interactive segmentations per prototype are $73\pm11$ (), $279\pm36$ (), and $214\pm24$ (). Since segmenting with the guided version takes the longest time and does not yield the highest final Dice scores, the initial advantage from pre-existing seed points does not bias the top ranking of a prototype in this evaluation.
Hedonic Quality {#sec:results_hedonic}
---------------
### Identity and Stimulus
The questionnaire provides a measure for the of identity and stimulus introduced in **Sec.**\[sec:questionnaires\_attrakdiff\]. The scores for , guided, and joint prototypes are $72$%, $70$%, and $77$% of the maximum score, respectively. Since the $95$% confidence intervals are overlapping for all three prototypes, no system ranks significantly higher than the others. An overall evaluation of the results is conducted in the form of a portfolio representation depicted in **Fig.**\[fig:result\_attrakdiff\_portfolio\].
at (axis cs:2,2) [super-fluous]{}; at (axis cs:2,6) [too self-oriented]{}; at (axis cs:4,4) [neutral]{}; at (axis cs:4,6) [self-oriented]{}; at (axis cs:6,2) [too task-oriented]{}; at (axis cs:6,4) [task-oriented]{}; at (axis cs:6,6) [desired]{}; (axis cs:5.64106645752803,4.798427683218617) rectangle (axis cs:6.158933542471971,5.301572316781383); coordinates [(5.9,5.05)]{}; (axis cs:3.143832023165031,4.6750586928307385) rectangle (axis cs:3.856167976834969,5.167798450026405); coordinates [(3.5,4.921428571428572)]{}; (axis cs:4.696608735705655,4.953083574359387) rectangle (axis cs:5.446248407151487,5.389773568497756); coordinates [(5.071428571428571,5.171428571428572)]{}; coordinates [(6.4285714285714288, 3.8571428571428572)(6.1428571428571432, 6.0)(5.5714285714285712, 4.6428571428571432)(6.4285714285714288, 6.2142857142857144)(5.7142857142857144, 5.2857142857142856)(6.8571428571428568, 5.2857142857142856)(5.1428571428571432, 4.4285714285714288)(6.4285714285714288, 5.1428571428571432)(5.0, 4.6428571428571432)(5.2857142857142856, 5.0)]{}; coordinates [(2.0, 4.2857142857142856)(3.2857142857142856, 5.9285714285714288)(3.8571428571428572, 5.1428571428571432)(4.2857142857142856, 5.5)(2.7142857142857144, 4.7142857142857144)(5.5714285714285712, 5.1428571428571432)(4.7142857142857144, 4.0)(3.2857142857142856, 5.2142857142857144)(3.4285714285714284, 4.9285714285714288)(1.8571428571428572, 4.3571428571428568)]{}; coordinates [(5.1428571428571432, 4.7142857142857144)(4.8571428571428568, 5.0714285714285712)(5.8571428571428568, 5.5714285714285712)(4.4285714285714288, 4.3571428571428568)(6.0, 6.0)(5.2857142857142856, 4.7857142857142856)(5.7142857142857144, 6.3571428571428568)(2.1428571428571428, 4.8571428571428568)(6.4285714285714288, 5.0)(4.8571428571428568, 5.0)]{};
=5.25pt
---------------- ------- ------ ------- ------ ------- -------
Relative Error ATT HQ HQ-I HQ-S PQ SUS
\[1pt\] Mean 11.5% 7.4% 10.5% 8.0% 15.7% 10.4%
Median 8.9% 6.3% 9.4% 6.2% 13.7% 8.8%
Std 8.0% 5.5% 6.7% 6.9% 12.0% 7.1%
---------------- ------- ------ ------- ------ ------- -------
: Relative absolute prediction errors for and test set samples. Predictions are computed by six separately trained [Stochastic Gradient Boosting Regression Forests ()]{}, one for each figure of merit. Note that each training process only utilizes the interaction log data. Results displayed are the median values of $10^4$ randomly initialized training processes.[]{data-label="tab:prediction_results_gbrf"}
### Qualitative Content Analysis
A summative qualitative content analysis as described in **Sec.**\[sec:qualitative\_measures\] is conducted on the audio and video data recorded during the study. After generalization and reduction of given statements, the following user feedback is extracted with respect to three problem statements: positive usability aspects, negative usability aspects, and user suggestions concerning existing functions or new functions.
**Feedback for multiple prototypes**
1. Responsiveness: the most common statement concerning the and joint version is that the user expected the zoom function to be more responsive and thus more time efficient.
2. Visibility: $20$% of the participants had difficulties distinguishing between the segmentation contour line and either the background image or the foreground scribbles in the overlay mask, due to the proximity of their assigned color values.
3. Feature suggestion: deletion of individual seed points instead of all seeds from last interaction using *undo*.
**segmentation prototype**
1. Mental model: $30$% of test persons suggested clearly visible indication whether the label for the scribble drawn next will be foreground or background.
2. Visibility: hide previously drawn seed points, in order to prevent confusion with the current contour line and occultation of the underlying image.
**Guided segmentation prototype**
1. Responsiveness: $50$% of test persons suggested an indicator for ongoing computations during their time of waiting.
2. Control: users would like to influence the location of new seed points, support for manual image zoom, and fine grained control for the *undo* function.
**Joint prototype**
1. Visibility: $64$% of users intuitively found the toggle functionality for seed labels without prior explanation.
2. Visibility: $64$% of participants suggested visible instructions for manual seed generation.
Prediction of Questionnaire Results from Log Data {#sec:prediction_of_questionnaire_results_from_log_data}
-------------------------------------------------
The questionnaires’ results are predicted via a regression analysis, based on features extracted from the interaction log data. A visualization of the feature importances for the regression analysis with respect to the is depicted in **Fig.**\[fig:gbrf\_feature\_importance\]. An evaluation with the test set is conducted as depicted in **Tab.**\[tab:prediction\_results\_gbrf\]. The mean prediction errors for the questionnaires’ results are $15.7$% for and $7.4$% for . In both cases, the error of these (first) estimates is larger but close to the average $95$% confidence intervals of $5.5$% () and $4.0$% () for the overall questionnaire results in the portfolio representation.
The similarity graph for the acquired usability aspects introduced in **Fig.**\[fig:result\_questionnaire\_results\_correlation\] can be extended to outline the direct relationship between questionnaire results and recorded features. Such a graph is depicted in **Fig.**\[fig:feature\_correlations\_and\_feature\_importance\]. Notably, there is no individual feature, which strongly correlates with one of the questionnaire results. However, as the results of the regression analysis in **Tab.**\[tab:prediction\_results\_gbrf\] depict, there is a noteworthy dependence of the usability aspects measured by the and questionnaires and combinations of the recorded features. The most important features for the approximation of the questionnaire results are depicted in **Tab.**\[tab:most\_frequently\_used\_features\].
Discussion {#sec:discussion}
==========
Usability Aspects
-----------------
Altough the underlying segmentation algorithm is the interactive method for all three prototypes tested, the measured user experiences varied significantly. In terms of user stimulus a more innovative interaction system like the joint prototype is preferred to a traditional one. Pragmatic quality aspects, evaluated by as well as ’s , clearly outline that the approach has an advantage over the other two techniques. This conclusion also manifests in the [Dice]{} coefficient values’ fast convergence rate towards its maximum for this prototype. The normalized median spent for the overall segmentation of each image are $100$% (), $550$% (guided), and $380$% (joint). As a result, users prefer the simple, pragmatic interface as well as a substantial degree of freedom to control each iterative step of the segmentation. The less cognitively challenging approach is preferred [@ramkumar2016user]. The other methods provide more guidance for aspects which the user aims to control themselves. In order to improve the productivity of an , less guidance should be imposed in these cases, while providing more guidance on aspects of the process not apparent to the users’ focus of attention [@heron1957perception].
Usability Aspects Approximation
-------------------------------
For and , the most discriminative features selected by are the receiver operating characteristic area under the curve () of the final interactive segmentations over the elapsed real time which passed during segmentation (). The Jaccard index [@jaccard1912distribution] as well as the relative absolute area/volume difference () each divided by the computation time are most relevant for , respective . The pragmatic quality’s dominant features are composed of final Dice scores and time measurements per segmentation. The results, quantifying the overall usability of a prototype, is mainly predicted based on the features with the highest level of abstraction used. In the top $10$% ($22$) selected features, $45$% of top features are values, as indicated in **Tab.**\[tab:most\_frequently\_used\_features\] and **Fig.**\[fig:gbrf\_feature\_importance\](top). In comparison: $41$%, $36$%, $18$%, $14$%, and $9$%.
Conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
==========
For sufficiently complex tasks like the accurate segmentation of lesions during , fully automated systems are, by their lack of domain knowledge, inherently limited in the achievable quality of their segmentation results. may supersede fully automated systems in certain niches by cooperating with the human user in order to reach the common goal of an exact segmentation result in a short amount of time. The evaluation of interactive approaches is more demanding and less automated than the evaluation with other approaches, due to complex human behavior.
However, there are methods like extensive user studies to assess the quality of a given system. It was shown, that even a suitable approximation of a study’s results regarding pragmatic as well as hedonic usability aspects is achievable from a sole analysis of the users’ interaction recordings. Those records are straightforward to acquire during normal (digital) prototype usage and can lead to a good first estimate of the system’s usability aspects, without the need to significantly increase the temporal demands on each participant by a mandatory completion of questionnaires after each system usage.
This mapping of quantitative low-level features, which are exclusively based on measurable interactions with the system (like the final Dice score, computation times, or relative seed positions), may allow for a fully automated assessment of an interactive system’s quality.
[Outlook]{} {#sec:outlook}
===========
For proposed automation, a rule-based user model (robot user) like [@amrehn2017uinet; @amrehn2019interactive] or a learning-based user model could interact with the prototype system instead of a human user. This evaluation scheme may significantly reduce the amount of resources necessary to investigate each variation of a prototype’s features and segmentation methodologies.
Disclaimer {#disclaimer .unnumbered}
==========
The concept and software presented in this paper are based on research and are not commercially available. Due to regulatory reasons its future availability cannot be guaranteed.
Conflicts of Interest {#conflicts-of-interest .unnumbered}
=====================
The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
Thanks to Christian Kisker and Carina Lehle for their hard work with the data collection.
Example for Evaluation (**Eq.** \[eq:sus\_score\]) {#example-for-evaluation-eq.eqsus_score .unnumbered}
==================================================
The result of the survey is a single scalar value, in the range of zero to $100$ as a composite measure of the overall usability. The score is computed according to **Eq.**\[eq:sus\_score\], as outlined in [@brooke1996sus], given $S$ participants, where $\mathbf{x}^\text{SUS}_{s,i}$ is the response to the statement $i$ by subject $s$. $$\operatorname{sus}(\mathbf{x}) = \frac{2.5}{S} \sum_{s}\left[\, \sum_{\text{odd } i} \mathbf{x}^\text{SUS}_{s,i} + \sum_{\text{even } i} (4 - \mathbf{x}^\text{SUS}_{s,i})\, \right]$$
Let $S=3$ participants answer the $10$ questions (listed in of the SUS questionnaire as follows: $$\mathbf{x}^\text{SUS} = \left| \begin{array}{c}
\mathbf{x}^\text{SUS}_0 \\
\mathbf{x}^\text{SUS}_1 \\
\mathbf{x}^\text{SUS}_2 \end{array} \right| = \left| \begin{array}{cccccccccc}
0 & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 0 & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\
1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 0 & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 0 \\
2 & 3 & 4 & 0 & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 0 & 1 \end{array} \right|,$$
where $\mathbf{x}^\text{SUS}_s$ are rows in matrix $\mathbf{x}^\text{SUS}$. Then: $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname{sus}(\mathbf{x}) = \frac{2.5}{3} \cdot (&(0 + 3 + 2 + 1 + 4 + 4 + 1 + 2 + 3 + 0) + \\
& (1 + 2 + 3 + 0 + 0 + 3 + 2 + 1 + 4 + 4) + \\
& (2 + 1 + 4 + 4 + 1 + 2 + 3 + 0 + 0 + 3))\end{aligned}$$
Example for Evaluation (**Eq.** \[eq:attrakdiff\_score\]) {#example-for-evaluation-eq.eqattrakdiff_score .unnumbered}
=========================================================
For the questionnaire’s evaluation for subject , each of the seven adjective pairs per group is assigned a score by each participant, reflecting their tendency towards the positive of the two adjectives. The overall ratings per group are defined in [@hassenzahl2003attrakdiff] as the mean scores computed over all subjects $s$ and statements $i$, as depicted in **Eq.**\[eq:attrakdiff\_score\]. Here, $S$ is the number of participants in the survey. $$\operatorname{attrakdiff}(\mathbf{x}, \,g) = \frac{1}{7 \cdot S} \sum_{s} \sum_{i} \mathbf{x}^g_{s,i}$$ Let $S=3$ participants fill in the $28$ choices (listed in of the questionnaire as follows, where $\mathbf{x}^g_s$ are rows in matrix $\mathbf{x^g}$:
Group PQ: $$\mathbf{x}^\text{PQ} = \left| \begin{array}{c}
\mathbf{x}^\text{PQ}_0 \\
\mathbf{x}^\text{PQ}_1 \\
\mathbf{x}^\text{PQ}_2 \end{array} \right| = \left| \begin{array}{ccccccc}
1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 & 6 & 7 \\
2 & 3 & 4 & 5 & 6 & 7 & 7 \\
3 & 4 & 5 & 6 & 7 & 7 & 7 \end{array} \right|$$
Group ATT: $$\mathbf{x}^\text{ATT} = \left| \begin{array}{c}
\mathbf{x}^\text{ATT}_0 \\
\mathbf{x}^\text{ATT}_1 \\
\mathbf{x}^\text{ATT}_2 \end{array} \right| = \left| \begin{array}{ccccccc}
2 & 3 & 4 & 5 & 6 & 7 & 7 \\
3 & 4 & 5 & 6 & 7 & 7 & 7 \\
4 & 5 & 6 & 7 & 7 & 7 & 7 \end{array} \right|$$
Group HQ-I: $$\mathbf{x}^\text{HQ-I} = \left| \begin{array}{c}
\mathbf{x}^\text{HQ-I}_0 \\
\mathbf{x}^\text{HQ-I}_1 \\
\mathbf{x}^\text{HQ-I}_2 \end{array} \right| = \left| \begin{array}{ccccccc}
3 & 4 & 5 & 6 & 7 & 7 & 7 \\
4 & 5 & 6 & 7 & 7 & 7 & 7 \\
5 & 6 & 7 & 7 & 7 & 7 & 7 \end{array} \right|$$
Group HQ-S: $$\mathbf{x}^\text{HQ-S} = \left| \begin{array}{c}
\mathbf{x}^\text{HQ-S}_0 \\
\mathbf{x}^\text{HQ-S}_1 \\
\mathbf{x}^\text{HQ-S}_2 \end{array} \right| = \left| \begin{array}{ccccccc}
4 & 5 & 6 & 7 & 7 & 7 & 7 \\
5 & 6 & 7 & 7 & 7 & 7 & 7 \\
6 & 7 & 7 & 7 & 7 & 7 & 7 \end{array} \right|$$
After evaluation via **Eq.**\[eq:attrakdiff\_score\]: $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname{attrakdiff}(\mathbf{x}, \text{\makebox[2.6em][r]{PQ}}) = (&(1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7) + \\
& (2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 2 \cdot 7) + \\
& (3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 3 \cdot 7)) \,/\, 21 \\
\operatorname{attrakdiff}(\mathbf{x}, \text{\makebox[2.6em][r]{ATT}}) = (&(2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 2 \cdot 7) + \\
& (3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 3 \cdot 7) + \\
& (4 + 5 + 6 + 4 \cdot 7)) \,/\, 21 \\
\operatorname{attrakdiff}(\mathbf{x}, \text{\makebox[2.6em][r]{HQ-I}}) = (&(3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 3 \cdot 7) + \\
& (4 + 5 + 6 + 4 \cdot 7) + \\
& (5 + 6 + 5 \cdot 7)) \,/\, 21 \\
\operatorname{attrakdiff}(\mathbf{x}, \text{\makebox[2.6em][r]{HQ-S}}) = (&(4 + 5 + 6 + 4 \cdot 7) + \\
& (5 + 6 + 5 \cdot 7) + \\
& (6 + 6 \cdot 7)) \,/\, 21 \\\end{aligned}$$ In this case, , , , and . The confidence intervals $\operatorname{conf}(.)$ can then be extracted via the percent point function $\operatorname{ppf}(.)$ (also called quantile function or inverse cumulative distribution function) for the selected $95$% confidence interval. $$\begin{aligned}
z &= \operatorname{ppf}(0.95 \cdot 0.5) = 1.95996 \\
\operatorname{conf}(\mathbf{x}, \,g) &= \operatorname{mean}(\mathbf{x}^g) \pm z \cdot \frac{\operatorname{std}(\mathbf{x}^g)}{\sqrt{7 \cdot S}} \\\end{aligned}$$
|
---
abstract: 'We compute the length of geodesics on a Riemannian manifold by regular polynomial interpolation of the global solution of the eikonal equation related to the line element $ds^2=g_{ij}dx^idx^j$ of the manifold. Our algorithm approximates the length functional in arbitrarily strong Sobolev norms. Error estimates are obtained where the geometric information is used. It is pointed out how the algorithm can be used to get accurate approximation of solutions of parabolic partial differential equations leading obvious applications to finance and physics.'
author:
- 'Jörg Kampen $^{1}$'
title: How to compute the length of a geodesic on a Riemannian manifold with small error in arbitrary Sobolev norms
---
Introduction
============
Let $(M,g)$ is a Riemannian manifold, i.e. a differentiable $n$-dimensional manifold with a function $g$, which defines for all $p\in M$ a positive definite symmetric bilinear form $$g_p:T_pM\times T_pM\rightarrow {\mathbb R}$$ such that for any given vector fields $X,Y\in X(M)$ the map $$g(X,Y): M\rightarrow {\mathbb R},~p\rightarrow g(X,Y)(p):=g_p(X_p,Y_p)$$ is differentiable. The Riemannian metric $g$ allows to define a metric $d_M$ on $M$ via the length of curves $$d_M(x,y):=\inf_{\mbox{$\gamma$ diff.}}\left\lbrace L(\gamma)|\gamma :[0,1]\rightarrow M, \gamma(0)=x, \gamma(1)=y\right\rbrace,$$ with $$L(\gamma)=\int_0^1 \sqrt{g_{\gamma(t)}(\dot \gamma(t),\dot \gamma(t))} \,\mathrm dt.$$ With this definition any connected Riemannian manifold becomes a metric space, and it is well known that for any compact Riemannian manifold any two points $x,y\in M$ can be connected by a geodesic whose length is $d_M(x,y)$. If $\nabla$ denotes the Levi-Civita connection, then a geodesic $\gamma$ is characterized by the equation $$\nabla_{\dot\gamma}\dot\gamma=0,$$ which becomes (in terms of the coordinates of the values of the curve $\gamma$) $$\label{geo1}
\frac{d^2x^\lambda }{dt^2} + \Gamma^{\lambda}_{~\mu \nu }\frac{dx^\mu }{dt}\frac{dx^\nu }{dt} = 0\ ,$$ where the well-known Christoffel symbols are $$\label{geo2}
\Gamma^\kappa_{\; \mu \nu}=\frac{1}{2}g^{\kappa \rho} \left( \partial_\mu g_{\nu \rho}+\partial_\nu g_{\mu \rho}-\partial_\rho g_{\mu \nu} \right).$$ This is an $n$-dimensional nonlinear ordinary differential equation with values in ${\mathbb R}^n$ which is difficult to compute numerically in general (note the quadratic terms). For computing the length of a geodesic it is easier to compute the solution of a eikonal equation of the form $$\label{eik}
d^2=\frac{1}{4}\sum_{ij}a_{ij}(x)d^2_{x_i}d^2_{x_j}$$ (boundary conditions considered later), where $x\rightarrow a_{ij}(x)$ are functions such that at each $x\in{\mathbb R}^n$ the matrix $(a_{ij}(x))$ is the inverse of the positive matrix $(g_{ij}(x))$ at each point $x$. Here $f_{x_i}:=\frac{\partial f}{\partial x_i}$ denotes the derivative of $f$ with respect to the variable $x_i$. In general we shall write $\partial^{\alpha}f$, $\partial^{\alpha}_xf$ or $\frac{\partial}{\partial x^{\alpha}}f$ for the multivariate derivative with multiindex $\alpha=(\alpha_1,\cdots ,\alpha_n)$. The connection between the length of a geodesic which is given in local coordinates as in , and the length function $d^2$ defined by equation is considered in section 2. This way the problem of finding the length of a geodesic is reduced to solving a nonlinear first-order partial differential equation in some domain of Euclidean space.
The computation of $d^2$ is still far from trivial, however. Even if the data $g_{ij}$ are analytic functions, power series expansion typically lead to power series solutions for $d^2$ with small radius of convergence. Hence, the question is how we can approximate the function $d^2$ globally. Moreover, for some applications such as the accurate computation of diffusions we need the approximation of $d^2$ in strong norms (Sobolev norms of form $H^{s,p}$ for possibly any positive real $s$. For that matter recall that $H^{0,p}\left( {\mathbb R}^n\right) =L^p\left( {\mathbb R}^n\right)$ and that for any $s\in {\mathbb R}$ we may define $H^{s,p}$ to be the set of all tempered distributions $\phi\in {\cal S}'$ such that $I_{-s}\phi$ is a function in $L^p\left( {\mathbb R}^n\right)$, where $I_s$ is the pseudo-differential operator with symbol $\sigma_s(\xi)=\left(1+|\xi|^2\right)^{-\frac{s}{2}}$, i.e. $$I_s\phi ={\cal F}^{-1}\sigma_s{\cal F} \phi,~~\phi\in {\cal S}',$$ ${\cal F}$ denoting the Fourier transform. The goal of the present paper can then be formulated as follows: find for each $\epsilon >0$ and each real $s,p$ $(p\geq 1)$ an approximative solution $q^2_{s,p}$ to such that $$\|d^2-q_{s,p}^2\|_{s,p}\leq \epsilon .$$ We shall call $q_{s,p}^2$ an $H^{s,p}$ approximation to $d^ 2$ for reasons which will become apparent later. Let us motivate this ambitious task by looking at a specific application. There are a lot of applications for computations of the length of a geodesic, where applications to computations in general relativity are only one domain. Another important example is the leading term of the expansion of the fundamental solution of linear parabolic solutions (with variable coefficients). Varadhan showed that the fundamental solution of the diffusion equation $$\label{PPDE}
\begin{array}{l}
\frac{\partial u}{\partial t}=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i,j}a_{ij}\frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial x_i\partial x_j}+
\sum_i b_i\frac{\partial u}{\partial x_i},
\end{array}$$ (where the diffusion coefficients $a_{ij}$ and the first order coefficients $b_i$ in depend on the spatial variable $x$ only) is connected to the length $d$ of the geodesic with respect to the line element $ds^2=\sum_{ij}a^{ij}dx_idx_j$ ($a^{ij}$ being the inverse of $a_{ij}$) via the relation $$d^2(x,y)=\lim_{t\downarrow 0}t\ln p(t,x,y).$$
Solving equation we can assume that the matrix-valued function $x\rightarrow (a_{ij}(x))$ is symmetric, i.e. $a_{ij}(x)=a_{ji}(x)$ for all $1\leq i,j\leq n$. This is because $$\begin{array}{ll}
d^ 2(x,y)=&\frac{1}{4}\sum_{ij}a_{ij}d^ 2_{x_i}d^ 2_{x_j}=\frac{1}{4}\sum_{ij}\frac{1}{2}\left( a_{ij}+a_{ji}\right) d^ 2_{x_i}d^ 2_{x_j}\\
\\
&+\frac{1}{4}\sum_{ij}\frac{1}{2}\left( a_{ij}-a_{ji}\right) d^ 2_{x_i}d^ 2_{x_j}=\frac{1}{4}\sum_{ij}\frac{1}{2}\left( a_{ij}+a_{ji}\right) d^ 2_{x_i}d^ 2_{x_j},
\end{array}$$ so we can always substitute the matrix $a_{ij}$ by its symmetrization $\frac{1}{2}\left( a_{ij}+a_{ji}\right)$ without affecting the solution $d^ 2$.
In [@Ka] we have seen that for $C^{\infty}$ coefficient functions $x\rightarrow a_{ij}(x)$ and $x\rightarrow b_i(x)$ and if some boundedness conditions of the derivatives are satisfied the fundamental solution has the pointwise valid form $$\label{WKBrep}
p(t,x,y)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi t}^n}\exp\left(-\frac{d^2(x,y)}{2 t}+\sum_{k= 0}^{\infty}c_k(x,y)t^k\right),$$ where the functions $x\rightarrow c_k(x,y),~k\geq 0$ are solutions of recursively defined linear first order equations for each $y$. These equations can be solved by methods of characteristics or approximated by regular polynomial interpolation methods outlined in [@Ka2]. In the computation of the WKB-coefficients $d^2$ and $c_k,~k\geq 0$ the recursive relations for $c_{k+1}$ involve second order derivatives of $c_k$, and therefore implicitly derivatives of order $2k$ of the squared metric $d^2$. Hence it is of great interest to compute not only $d^2$ but also its derivatives up to a given order with high accuracy. The present work shows how his can be accomplished. In Section 2 we recapture some facts about the connection of the geodesic equation , and equation , and prove global existence, regularity and uniqueness of the latter (family) of equation(s) leading us to theorem 2.3. Then in Section 3 we provide further analysis of the family of eikonal equations which lead us to local representations of the solution. In Section 4 we construct first a weak approximation of the solution (in $L^p$ sense), and then extend this to a recursive construction of an $H^{s,p}$-approximation. In Section 5 we provide error estimates by using geometric information. Section 6 points out how the method may be applied for accurate approximation of diffusions, and we finish with a conclusion in Section 7.
Global existence and regularity of the squared Riemannian distance $d^2$
========================================================================
We shall only sketch the connection between geodesics and the eikonal equation . It is almost standard, and details can be found in [@Ka] and [@Jo]. Our interest here is that the eikonal equation together with careful chosen boundary conditions has a global and unique solution. We shall have two different arguments for uniqueness: one is via uniqueness of an associated diffusion and WKB-representations (or, alternatively, Varadhan’s result, cf. [@V]), but we will have the same insight from an other point of view when we look at local representations of the solution in the next Section. We consider Riemannian manifolds where any two points can be connected by a minimal geodesic. For our purposes it is sufficient to consider manifolds which are geodesically complete. Recall that a Riemannian manifold $M$ is geodesically complete if for all $p\in M$ the exponential map $\exp_p: T_pM\rightarrow M$ is defined globally on $T_pM$. Here, $T_pM$ denotes the tangential space of the manifold $M$ at $p\in M$. The Hopf-Rinow theorem provides conditions for Riemannian manifolds to be geodesically complete. Especially we have
For a Riemannian manifold $M$ the following statements are equivalent:
- $M$ is complete as a metric space.
- The closed and bounded sets of $M$ are compact.
- $M$ is geodesically complete.
Each of these equivalent statements implies that geodesics are curves of shortest length. Moreover, if $M$ is geodesically complete, then any two points of $M$ can be joined by a minimal geodesic.
The connection between the arclength and equation can be established as follows. First equations for minimal geodesics are obtained from variation of the length functional. Second Hamilton-Jacobi calculus shows that the length functional satisfies the eikonal equation . Since this is known we only sketch the main steps for convenience of the reader. Setting the variation of the length functional to zero we get $$L\frac{d}{dr}\left(\frac{1}{L}2g_{ij}\dot x^i \right)+g_{ij,k} \dot x^i \dot x^j=0$$ with $L\equiv \sqrt{g_{ij}(x(r))\dot x^i\dot x^j}$ and where we use Einstein summation. Parameterizing by arclength, i.e. setting $L\equiv 1$ (or $r=s$) we get $$2g_{ij}\ddot x^i +2g_{ij,l}\dot x^l\dot x^i +g_{ij,k} \dot x^i \dot x^j=0$$ which, upon multiplcation by $g^{mj}$ (entries of inverse of $(g_{mj})$) and rearranging becomes the geodesic equation ,. In order to show on the other hand that the squared length functional satisfies we may consider the length functional $$l(r,x,s,y)=\int_r^s L\left( x(u),\dot x(u)\right) du$$ and invoke Hamilton-Jacobi calculus. This is done by introducing the variables $p_i=L_{\dot x^i}$, and the associated Hamiltonian defined by $$H(x,p)=\dot x^ip_i-L(x,\dot x).$$ (here and henceforth we use Einstein summation if convenient). Then we may write $$x(t)\equiv x(t;r,x,s,y) \mbox{ and } p(t)\equiv p(t;r,x,s,y),$$ where $x(r;r,x,s,y)=x$ and $x(s;r,x,s,y)=y$. and compute $$\label{1ls}
l_s=-H(x(s),p(s)).$$ Then we may connect $p$ to $l_{y^k}$ by computing $$\label{ly}
\begin{array}{ll}
l_{y^k}=\int_r^s \left( \frac{\partial \dot x^i}{\partial y^k}p_i+\dot x^i\frac{\partial p_i}{\partial y^k}
-H_{x^i}\frac{\partial x^i}{\partial y^k}-H_{p_i}\frac{\partial p_i}{\partial y^k}\right) dt\\
\\
\int_r^s \stackrel{{\bf \cdot}}{\left( \frac{\partial x_i}{\partial y^k}p_i\right)}dt=\frac{\partial x_i}{\partial y^k}p_i \Big|^s_r=p_k(s;r,x,s,y).
\end{array}$$ by invoking the canonical system of equations. This leads to $$\frac{\partial l}{\partial s}+\sum_{ij}g^{ij}\frac{\partial l}{\partial y_i}\frac{\partial l}{\partial y_j}=0,$$ and a similar equation with respect to the variables $x$. Then we get the equations for $l^2$ and $d^2$, i. e. the equations and below.
Recall that a minimal geodesic is a global distance minimizing geodesic. This minimal geodesic which connects $x$ and $y$ characterizes the Riemannian distance $d(x,y)$ in an obvious way. Moreover smoothness of $(x,y)\rightarrow d(x,y)$ for smooth diffusion and drift coefficients $a_{ij},b_i$ follows from the following fact about ordinary differential equations.
Let $F:{\mathbb R}^n\times {\mathbb R}^n\rightarrow {\mathbb R}$ be a smooth map. Consider the differential system $$\frac{d^2x}{dt^2}=F\left( x,\frac{dx}{dt}\right),$$ where $x$ is a map $I\subset {\mathbb R}\rightarrow {\mathbb R}^n$. Then for each point $(x_0,y_0)$ there exists a neighborhood $U\times V$ of this point and $\epsilon >0$ such that for $(x,v)\in U\times V$ equation (2.69) has a unique solution $x_v:]-\epsilon,\epsilon[\rightarrow {\mathbb R}^n$ with initial conditions $x_v(0)=x$ and $x_v'(0)=v$. Moreover, the map $X:U\times V\times ]-\epsilon,\epsilon[\rightarrow {\mathbb R}^n$ defined by $(t,x,v)\rightarrow X(t,x,v):=x_v(t)$ is smooth.
Finally we get
Let $\Omega \subseteq {\mathbb R}^n$ be some domain. The function $d^2:\Omega\times \Omega \subseteq {\mathbb R}^n\times {\mathbb R}^n\rightarrow {\mathbb R}_+$ (the leading order term of the WKB-expansion of a parabolic equation with diffusion coefficients $a_{ij}$) is the unique function which satisfies the equations $$\label{lf}
d^2=\frac{1}{4}\sum_{ij}d_{x_i}^2a_{ij}d_{x_j}^2,$$ $$\label{lg}
d^2=\frac{1}{4}\sum_{ij}d_{y_i}^2a_{ij}d_{y_j}^2$$ for all $x,y\in {\mathbb R}^n$ and with the boundary condition $$\label{lh}
d(x,y)=0 \mbox{ iff $x=y$ for all $x,y\in {\mathbb R}^n$.}$$ Moreover, the squareroot $d$ is the Riemannian distance induced by $$\begin{array}{ll}
d(x,y):=\inf{\Bigg\{}\int_a^b&\sqrt{a^{ij}(\gamma)\stackrel{.}{\gamma}^i\stackrel{.}{\gamma}^j}dt|\gamma:[a,b]\rightarrow {\mathbb R}^n \mbox{ is piecewise } \\
&\mbox{ smooth with $\gamma(a)=x$ and $\gamma(b)=y$}{\Bigg \}}.
\end{array}$$ The function $d^2$ is a $C^{\infty}$-function with respect to both variables.
The variation of the length functional leads to the geodesic equation. On the other hand, Hamilton-Jacobi calculus leads us to the fact that the squared length functional $d^2$ satisfies the equation . It is clear that the squared length functional satisfies both equations and below. Moreover, it is clear that the squared length functional satisfies the initial condition . Uniqueness is a bit more subtle. In [@V] Varadhan showed that $$\label{V}
d^2(x,y)=\lim_{t\downarrow 0}2t\ln p(t,x,y),$$ where $p$ is the fundamental solution of a scalar parabolic equation with diffusion coefficient function $x\rightarrow a_{ij}(x)$. Since $p$ is unique for a strictly parabolic equation $d^2$ is uniquely determined by the equation . On the other hand one knows that for small $t>0$ $\ln p$ has for $C^{\infty}$ coefficients a representation of type is valid (cf. [@Gi; @Ka]). Plugging this into the correspondend parabolic equation leads to the eikonal equation which is, hence, satisfied by $d^2$. Moreover we know by $V$ and the fact that the squareroot of $d^2$ is a metric. Hence $d(x,y)=0$ if and only if $x=y$, and the same holds for $d^2$. Hence, we conclude that the global solution $d^2$ of the system of equations , and is unique. Moreover, from the preceding theorem we can conclude that the function $(x,y)\rightarrow d^2(x,y)$ is also smooth with respect to both variables.
Further analysis of the equation for the squared metric $d^2$
=============================================================
Next we observe that the local representation of the solution of the equations , with the boundary condition has a local representation which starts with the quadratic terms. This will be used in the construction of a global approximation. The analysis presented here gives us two other insights. First, a powere series ansatz leads atmost to local and not to global solutions. Even if there is a local power series representation of the solution at each point of the domain, we do not know how a global solution can be constructed from this information, because we do not know the location of the geodesic the length of which we want to compute. If we knew, then computing the length would be a rather trivial task. Even the derivatives of the length functional would be better computed from the explicit geodesic. However, as we mentioned the nonlinear ordinary differential equation describing the geodesic is harder to solve in general than the eikonal equation. Second, we shall see from an different point of view why the boundary condition leads to uniqueness of solutions $(x,y)\rightarrow d^2(x,y)$ of the system , , and . We have
The local representation $d^2$ satisfying the equations , , together with the boundary condition is of the form $$\label{loc}
\begin{array}{ll}
d^2(x,y)&=\sum_{ij}a^{ij}(y)\Delta x^i\Delta x^j + \sum_{|\alpha < M }\frac{d^2_{\alpha}(y)}{\alpha!}\Delta x^{\alpha}\\
\\
&+\sum_{|\gamma|=M}\int_0^1(1-\theta)^{M-1}\frac{\Delta x^{\gamma}}{\gamma !}\partial^{\gamma}d^2(y+\theta \Delta x,y)d\theta.
\end{array}$$ The coefficients $d_{\alpha}(y)$ are uniquely determined by a recursion obtained from the equations , . In coordinates with second order normal form, i.e. where $d^2$ is $\sum_{ij}\lambda_i(y)\Delta x^i\Delta x^j$ with $\lambda_i(y) , 1\leq i \leq n$ is the spectrum of $(a^{ij}(y))$, the multiindex recursion is $$\label{rec}
\begin{array}{ll}
d^2_{\beta}(y)=&\frac{1}{\left(1-\sum_i\beta_i\right)}{\Bigg (} \sum_i \left( \lambda^i_0\right)^2\frac{\lambda_i^{\beta\dot -2_i}}{(\beta\dot -2_i)!}1_{\left\lbrace \beta_i\geq 2\right\rbrace }\\
\\
&+\sum_i \sum_{|\alpha|\geq 1,|\gamma | \geq 3, \alpha+\gamma =\beta}\frac{\lambda_i^{\alpha}}{\alpha!} \lambda^i_0 d^2_{\gamma}(y)\gamma_i\\
\\
&+ \sum_i \sum_{\alpha\geq 0,|\delta|\geq 3,|\gamma| \geq 3,\alpha+\gamma+\delta\dot-2_i=\beta}\frac{\lambda_i^{\alpha}}{\alpha!} \delta_i \gamma_i d^2_{\delta}(y)d^2_{\gamma}(y){\Bigg )}.
\end{array}$$ This confirms uniqueness. (Note that there is no loss of generality if we choose the normal coordinates for the second order terms). In general the solution is not globally analytic in the sense that $d^2$ is not representable by a globally converging power series.
A smooth solution $d^2$ of the eikonal equation has the representation $$\begin{array}{ll}
d^2(x,y)&=d(y,y) + \nabla d(y,y)\cdot (x-y)\\
\\
&+\sum_{|\gamma|=2}\int_0^1(1-\theta)^{1}\frac{\Delta x^{\gamma}}{\gamma !}\partial^{\gamma}d^2(x+\theta \Delta x,y)d\theta.
\end{array}$$ We abbreviate $R(x,y)=\sum_{|\gamma|=2}\int_0^1(1-\theta)^{1}\frac{\Delta x^{\gamma}}{\gamma !}\partial^{\gamma}d^2(x+\theta \Delta x,y)d\theta.$ Since $d(y,y)=0$ we have $$\begin{array}{ll}
d^2(x,y)=\nabla d^2(y,y)\cdot (x-y)+R(x,y)
\end{array}$$ The ’only if’-condition of the boundary condition leads to $\nabla d^2(y,y)=0$. To see this assume that $\nabla d^2(y,y)\neq 0$. Since $R(x,y)\leq C\|\Delta x\|^2$ there is a small $\Delta x$ such that $\nabla d^2(y,y)\cdot \mu\Delta x >C\|\Delta x\|^2$ and $\nabla d^2(y,y)\cdot (-\mu)\Delta x <-C\|\Delta x\|^2$ for some $\mu\in (0,1]$. Hence there exists some $\rho$ such that with $x':=y+(\rho\mu)\Delta x$ $$d^2(x',y)=\nabla d^2(y,y)\cdot (\rho\mu)\Delta x + R(x',y)=0,$$ contradicting one part of the boundary condition $d^2(x,y)=0~\mbox{ iff }~x=y$. Next one computes that $\sum_{ij}a^{ij}(y)\Delta x^i\Delta x^j$ satisfies the equation $$d^2(x,y)=\frac{1}{4}\sum_{ij}a_{ij}(y)d^2_{x_i}d^2_{x_j},$$ and the uniqueness of theorem 2.3. (which we established by arguing with uniqueness of related diffusions and Varadhan’s result, in the Atiyah-Singer spirit of short-range analytic expansions) identifies the coefficients $a^{ij}(y)$ as the second order terms of local representations around $y$. Having obtained this the representation is just a multivariate version of Taylor’s theorem. Note, however, that we do not need to invoke the uniqueness of theorem 2.3. but just consider a recursion obtained from a power series ansatz starting with second order terms. However, this would complicate the matter a bit so we take advantage that we know the second order terms of a local representation by the preceding argument. Finally we have to establish the recursion in . The recursion shows directly that the higher order coefficients $d^2_{\beta}(y)$ for $|\beta|\geq 3$ are uniquely determined. Moreover, it is clear from that in general the convergence radius of the full power series is small (if not zero). Hence in general there is no globally analytic solution the function $d^ 2:\Omega\times \Omega \rightarrow {\mathbb R}$ globally analytic if for each $y\in \mathbb{R}^n$ the Taylor expansion of $d^2$ at $y\in \mathbb{R}^n$ and $x\in \mathbb{R}^n$ equals $d^2$ globally, i.e. $$\label{geolgth}
d^ 2(x,y)=\sum_{\alpha}\frac{\partial_{\alpha}d^2(y)}{\alpha !}(x-y)^ {\alpha}~~\mbox{forall}~x,y\in \mathbb{R}^n.$$ Invoking the implicit function theorem equation is equivalent to $$\label{eik2}
d^2=\frac{1}{4}\sum_{i}\lambda_{i}(x)d^2_{x_i}d^2_{x_i},$$ where $\lambda_i(x), 1\leq i\leq n$ is the spectrum of the positive $(a_{ij}(x))$. Since $d^2_{x_i}=2d d_{x_i}$ this is equivalent to $$\label{eik3}
1=\sum_{i}\lambda_{i}(x)d_{x_i}d_{x_i}$$ The latter equation is easier but there is no Taylor expansion around $y$ as can be seen in the case of constant coefficients (and hence constant eigenvalues $\lambda$), where the solution is $$d(x,y)=\sqrt{\sum_{i=1}^n \frac{\Delta x_i^2}{\lambda_i}}$$
We use equation mainly for the theoretical purposes of this corollary. In general it cannot be in general used for numerical purposes since this would imply that we have an efficient procedure to compute the eigenvalue functions of a space dependent matrix. Since we are looking for high precision in this paper, this is not possible in general. An exception is the case of dimension $n=2$ where we have $$\lambda_{1,2}(x)=\frac{\mbox{tr}(A)(x)}{2}\pm\sqrt{\left( \frac{\mbox{tr}(A)(x)}{2}\right) ^2-\mbox{det}(A)(x)}$$ where $A(x)=(a_{ij}(x))$.
Next we plug in the power series expansion $$d^2(x,y)=\sum_{i=1}^n\lambda^i_0\Delta x_i^2 +\sum_{|\beta |\geq 3 } d^2_{\beta}(y) \Delta x^{\beta}$$ We have $$d^2_{x_i}=2\lambda_0^i(y)\Delta x_i +\sum_{|\beta |\geq 3 } d^2_{\beta}(y) \beta_i \Delta x^{\beta \dot -1_i},$$ where for any multiindex $\beta$ we define $$\beta\dot-1_i=(\beta_1,\cdots,\beta_i,\cdots \beta_n)\dot-1_i:=\left\lbrace \begin{array}{ll} (\beta_1,\cdots,\beta_i-1,\cdots \beta_n) \mbox{ if } \beta_i\geq 1\\ (\beta_1,\cdots,0,\cdots \beta_n)~~\mbox{ else } \end{array}\right.$$ The term $\beta -2_i$ is defined analogously. Plugging in the power series ansatz and using the relation $\lambda^0_i\left( \lambda^i_0\right)^2=\lambda^0_i$, this leads to
$$\begin{array}{ll}
&\left( \sum_{|\beta |\geq 3} d^2_{\beta}(y)\Delta x^{\beta}\right) \left(1-\sum_i\beta_i \lambda_0^i\lambda^0_i\right) \\
\\
=&\left( \sum_{|\beta |\geq 3} d^2_{\beta}(y)\Delta x^{\beta}\right) \left(1-\sum_i\beta_i\right)\\
\\
=&\left( \sum_i \sum_{|\alpha|\geq 1}\frac{\lambda_i^{\alpha}}{\alpha!}\Delta x^{\alpha}\right)\left( \lambda^i_0\right)^2\Delta x_i^2+\\
\\
&+\left(\sum_i \sum_{|\alpha|\geq 1}\frac{\lambda_i^{\alpha}}{\alpha!}\Delta x^{\alpha} \right)\left( \lambda^i_0\sum_{|\beta| \geq 3}d^2_{\beta}(y)\beta_i\Delta x^{\beta}\right) \\
\\
&+\left( \sum_i \sum_{\alpha}\frac{\lambda_i^{\alpha}}{\alpha!}\Delta x^{\alpha}\right)\times\\
\\
&\left( \sum_{|\beta|\geq 3,|\gamma|\geq 3}\beta_i \gamma_i d^2_{\beta}(y)d^2_{\gamma}(y)\Delta x^ {\beta\dot-1}\Delta x^ {\gamma\dot-1}\right).
\end{array}$$
This leads to $$\begin{array}{ll}
&\sum_{|\beta |\geq 3} d^2_{\beta}(y)\Delta x^{\beta}\\
\\
=&\frac{1}{\left(1-\sum_i\beta_i\right)}{\Bigg (}\left( \sum_i \sum_{|\alpha|\geq 1}\frac{\lambda_i^{\alpha}}{\alpha!}\Delta x^{\alpha}\right)\left( \lambda^i_0\right)^2\Delta x_i^2+\\
\\
&+\left(\sum_i \sum_{|\alpha|\geq 1}\frac{\lambda_i^{\alpha}}{\alpha!}\Delta x^{\alpha} \right)\left( \lambda^i_0\sum_{|\beta| \geq 3}d^2_{\beta}(y)\beta_i\Delta x^{\beta}\right) \\
\\
&+\left( \sum_i \sum_{\alpha}\frac{\lambda_i^{\alpha}}{\alpha!}\Delta x^{\alpha}\right)\times\\
\\
&\left( \sum_{|\beta|\geq 3,|\gamma|\geq 3}\beta_i \gamma_i d^2_{\beta}(y)d^2_{\gamma}(y)\Delta x^ {\beta\dot-1}\Delta x^ {\gamma\dot-1}\right){\Bigg )}.
\end{array}$$ Simplifying and renaming multiindices in order to collect for multiindices of order $\beta$ we get $$\begin{array}{ll}
&\sum_{|\beta |\geq 3} d^2_{\beta}(y)\Delta x^{\beta} \\
\\
=&\frac{1}{\left(1-\sum_i\beta_i\right)}{\Bigg (} \sum_i \sum_{|\alpha|\geq 1}\left( \lambda^i_0\right)^2\frac{\lambda_i^{\alpha}}{\alpha!}\Delta x^{\alpha+2_i}+\\
\\
&+\sum_i \sum_{|\alpha|\geq 1}\sum_{|\gamma| \geq 3}\frac{\lambda_i^{\alpha}}{\alpha!} \lambda^i_0 d^2_{\gamma}(y)\gamma_i\Delta x^{\alpha +\gamma} \\
\\
&+ \sum_i \sum_{\alpha}\sum_{|\delta|\geq 3,|\gamma|\geq 3}\frac{\lambda_i^{\alpha}}{\alpha!} \delta_i \gamma_i d^2_{\delta}(y)d^2_{\gamma}(y)\Delta x^ {\alpha+\gamma+\delta\dot-2_i}{\Bigg )}.
\end{array}$$ The latter equation leads directly to .
Let us draw some consequences out of our theoretical considerations. There is neither an explicit solution nor leads a power series ansatz to a global solution in general. Neither does it help to have local solutions in terms of power series. Such representations are not sufficient for our purposes, since we are interested in a global solution for $x\rightarrow d^2(x,y)$ and do not know the intermediate points on the corresponding geodesic in order to compute the global $d^2$ by means of local power series representations. This motivates our later construction of regular polynomial interpolation of $d^2$ as seemingly unavoidable.
Regular polynomial interpolation algorithm for the Riemannian metric and its derivatives
========================================================================================
For the moment let us denote again an interpolation polynomial which approximates the squared Riemannian distance $d^2$ in the $L^p$-sense on some bounded domain $\Omega$ by $q_{0,p}^2$ and one that approximates the squared Riemannian distance $d^2$ in the $H^{s,p}$-sense (again on $\Omega$) by $q_{s,p}^2$. How can we check that a given polynomial is an approximation in either sense? The equation gives us itself a hint how an approximation $q_{s,p}^2$ of $d^2$ performs. In order to obtain the $L^p$ error of an $L^p$ approximation $q^2_{0,p}$ of $d^2$ we may plug in the approximation $q_{s,p}^2$ into the right side of equation and subtract the left side, i.e. we compute $$\frac{1}{4}\sum_{ij}a_{ij}(x)\frac{\partial q^2_{0,p}}{\partial x_i}\frac{\partial q^2_{0,p}}{\partial x_j}-q^2_{0,p}=r_{0,p}(x),$$ We shall see that $r_{0,p}\in O(h^3)$ locally (with $h$ the mesh size of the interpolation points) implies that $$\|d(x,y)-q_{0,p}\|_{L^p(\Omega)}$$ converges to zero as the number of interpolation points $N$ goes to infinity in such a way that the mesh size of the set of interpolation points $h$ goes to zero. Note that $q_{0,p}$ denotes the squareroot of $q_{0,p}^2$. We call an approximation $q^2_{s,p}$ an $H^{s,p}$-approximation if it approximates not only $d^2$ in the $L^p$ sense but can be plugged in into all the derivatives of of order $m$ (i.e. multivariate derivatives $\alpha$ for $|\alpha|\leq m$ of the eikonal equation) such that in $$\frac{\partial^{\alpha}}{\partial x^{\alpha}}\left(\frac{1}{4}\sum_{ij}a_{ij}(x)\frac{\partial q^2_{0,p}}{\partial x_i}\frac{\partial q^2_{0,p}}{\partial x_j} \right)-\frac{\partial^{\alpha}}{\partial x^{\alpha}}d^2(x,y)=:r_{\alpha ,p}$$ the right side staisfies $r_{0,p}\in O(h^{3+m})$ locally implies that $$\|d(x,y)-q_{0,p}\|_{H^{s,p}(\Omega)}$$ converges to zero as the number of interpolation points $N$ goes to infinity in such a way that the mesh size of the set of interpolation points $h$ goes to zero. Accordingly, we call such $q_{0,p}^2$ ($q_{s,p}^2$) an $L^p$- ($H^{s,p}$) approximation of the boundary value problem . In the next subsection we construct a $L^p$-approximation and refine the construction in the following subsection in order to construct $H^{s,p}$-approximations.
Polynomial interpolation of eikonal equation in $L^ p$ sense
------------------------------------------------------------
We may write the eikonal equation $$\label{eik0}
d^2(x,y)=\frac{1}{4}\sum_{ij}a_{ij}d^ 2_{x_i}d^ 2_{x_j}=\frac{1}{4}\left\langle \nabla d^2, A\nabla d^2\right\rangle.$$ Assume that $A=(a_{ij})$ is constant. The solution with the boundary condition $d^2(x,y)=0$ iff $x=y$ is $$d^2(x,y)=\left\langle \Delta x, A^ {-1}\Delta x\right\rangle,$$ where $\Delta x=(x-y)$, and $A^ {-1}=:(a^ {ij})$ denotes the inverse of the matrix $A$. This is easily verified by observing that $$\nabla d^ 2= 2 A^ {-1}x.$$ Define $$d^ 2_{A^ {-1}(x^j)}(x,y)=\sum_{ml} a^ {lm}(x_j)(x^ l-y^l)(x^ m-y^m),~~j=0,\cdots,N$$ we get the first recursively defined approximation algorithm for the Riemannian distance based on $N+1$ interpolation points $x^0=y, x^1, x^2, \cdots ,x^N$. Note that the squared distance is a function $$d^ 2:\Omega \times \Omega \subseteq {\mathbb R}^n\times {\mathbb R}^n \rightarrow {\mathbb R}_+,$$ where we define ${\mathbb R}_+:=\left\lbrace x| x\geq 0\right\rbrace $. There are several ways to approximate the function $d^2$. In order to approximate this function we approximate first the function $x\rightarrow d^2(x,y)$, then the function $x\rightarrow d^ 2(x, x^1)$ and so on up to $x\rightarrow d^ 2(x, x^N)$.
We start with the approximation of $x\rightarrow d^2(x,y)$. First define $$d_{00}^2(x,y)=d^ 2_{A^ {-1}(y)}(x,y)$$ Next define $$d_{10}^2(x,y)=d^ 2_{A^ {-1}(y)}(x,y)+c_{10}\Pi_{l=1}^n(x_l-y_l)^2d^ 2_{A^ {-1}(x_1)}(x,y),$$ and determine a real number $c_{10}$ such that $$d_1^2(x_1,y)=\frac{1}{4}\sum_{ij} a_{ij}(x_1) d^ 2_{1,x_i}(x_1,y)d^ 2_{1,x_j}(x_1,y),$$ i.e. the eikonal equation with respect to $x$ and fixed parameter $y$ is satisfied at $x_1$. Proceeding we get a series $d^2_{10}, d^2_{20}, \cdots, d^2_{k0},\cdots $ of approximations of the form $$d_{k0}^2(x,y)=d^ 2_{A^ {-1}(y)}(x,y)+\sum_{j=1}^kc_{j0}\Pi_{r=0}^j\Pi_{l=1}^n(x_l-x^r_l)^2d^ 2_{A^ {-1}(x^j)}(x,y).$$ Having determined the real numbers $c_{10},\cdots c_{(k-1)0}$ we obtain the real number $c_{k0}$ by solving $$\label{eikatk}
d_{k0}^2(x_k,y)=\frac{1}{4}\sum_{ij} a_{ij}(x_k) d^ 2_{k0,x_i}(x_k,y)d^ 2_{k0,x_j}(x_k,y).$$ for $c_{k0}$. Continuing this procedure for $N$ interpolation points we get a polynomial of the form $$\label{dN1}
d_{N0}^2(x,y)=d^ 2_{A^ {-1}(y)}(x,y)+\sum_{j=1}^Nc_{j0}\Pi_{r=0}^j\Pi_{l=1}^n(x_l-x^r_l)^2d^ 2_{A^ {-1}(x^j)}(x,y).$$ with $N$ real numbers $c_{j0}$ obtained recursively by plugging in $d^2_{j0}$ with one degree of freedom $c_{j0}$ into .
Analogous constructions are done to approximate $x\rightarrow d^2(x,x^j)$ for $k=1,\cdots ,N$ with $$\label{dNk}
d_{Nk}^2(x,x^k)=d^ 2_{A^ {-1}(y)}(x,x^k)+\sum_{j=1}^Nc_{jk}\Pi_{r=0}^j\Pi_{l=1}^n(x_l-x^r_l)^2d^ 2_{A^ {-1}(x^j)}(x,x^k),$$ with $c_{jk}$ computed analogously. The construction of the functions $d^2_{N0},\cdots , d^2_{NN}$ suffices to approximate $d^2$ (we do not need to synthesize these functions into one function, for example by a Lagrangian polynomial interpolation). Note that for $j=0,\cdots N$ the function $d^2_{Nk}$ satisfies the equation $$\label{bdpk}
\begin{array}{ll}
d^2(x,x^k)=\frac{1}{4}\sum_{ij}a_{ij}(x)d^2_{x_i}(x,x^k)d^2_{x_j}(x,x^k)\\
\\
\mbox{ with boundary condition }\\
\\
d^2(x,x^k)=0~\mbox{ iff }~x=x^k.
\end{array}$$ at all interpolation points $x^0,\cdots x^N$ by construction.
Note that in the preceding construction no restrictions on the choice of the interpolation points are made. This does not mean that one may search for an optimal choice of interpolation points and improve efficiency and convergence. We are free to choose a certain set of interpolation points (for example Chebyshev nodes). But these are purely computational aspects which will be exploited elsewhere.
Note that we have constructed an approximation of the squared metric $d^2$. The metric $d$ is then approximated naturally by the squareroot of the approximation of the squared metric, i.e. we consider the function $$x\rightarrow d_{Nk}(x,x^k):=\sqrt{d^2_{Nk}(x,x^k)}$$ to be the approximation of the metric function $x\rightarrow d(x,x^k)$.
Construction of $H^{s,p}$-approximations
----------------------------------------
We refine the construction of the preceding section by construction of an approximation which solves not only , (or the set of equations , with boundary conditions ), but also all multivariate derivatives of up to a given order $m$ at the interpolation points. It turns out then that these polynomials are $H^{s,p}$-approximations for $s\leq m$. The approximation is constructed recursively again. For a multiindex $\beta$ of order $|\beta|=m\geq 3$ we denote the approximations of order $ d^2_{M(\beta_m)^{n,N}}$ or just $d^2_{M(\beta_m)}$ if we do not want to refer to the number of interpolation points $N$ and the dimension of the problem $n$ explicitly. The choice of the mesh is free again (in principle). We just assume that a set $\left\lbrace x_1,\cdots ,x_N \right\rbrace$ of interpolation points is given. Again we may construct functions $x\rightarrow d^2_{M(\beta)0}(x,y)$, $x\rightarrow d^2_{M(\beta)0}(x,x^1)$,..., and $x\rightarrow d^2_{M(\beta)0}(x,x^N)$. We shall construct the first function $x\rightarrow d^2_{M(\beta)0}(x,y)$ for arbitrary multiindex $\beta$. The other functions can be constructed completely analogously. We start with the $L^p$-approximation. $$d_{N0}^2(x,y)=d^ 2_{A^ {-1}(y)}(x,y)+\sum_{j=1}^Nc_{j0}\Pi_{r=1}^j\Pi_{l=1}^n(x_l-x^r_l)^2d^ 2_{A^ {-1}(x_j)}(x,y),$$ where the numbers $c_{j1}$ have been determined according to section 4.1.. Next we define $d^2_{M(\beta)0}(x,x^N)$ for multiindices of order $|\beta|=3$. Let $\beta^0,\cdots, \beta^k,\cdots ,\beta^{R}$ a list of multiindices of order $3$. The length $R$ of this list is dependent of the dimension $n$ of course. Start with $\beta^0=(\beta^0_1,\cdots,\beta^0_n)$ and let $\gamma^0$ be an multiindex with $|\gamma|=2$ such that $\beta^0-\gamma =1_i$ for some index $i$. Define (recall that $x^0=y$) $$d^2_{\beta^0 0}(x,y)=d^2_{N0}(x,y)+\frac{1}{\beta^0!}c_{\beta^0}^0(x-y)^{\beta^0}.$$ Then plug $d^2_{\beta^0 0}(x,y)$ into the equation $$\label{beta0}
\begin{array}{ll}
\partial^{(\beta^0-\gamma^0)}_xd^2(x,y)=\partial^{(\beta^0-\gamma^0)}_x\left(\frac{1}{4}\sum_{ij}a_{ij}(x)\frac{\partial d^2}{\partial x_i}\frac{\partial d^2}{\partial x_j} \right),
\end{array}$$ evaluate at $x=x^0=y$ and solve for the real number $c_{\beta^0}^0$. Then proceed recursively: having defined the function $x\rightarrow d^2_{\beta^0 (k-1)}(x,y)$ define $$d^2_{\beta^0 k}(x,y)=d^2_{\beta^0 (k-1)}(x,y)+c_{\beta^0}^k\Pi_{l=0}^{k-1}(x-x^l)^{\beta^0+{\bf 1}}\frac{1}{\beta^0!}(x-x^k)^{\beta^0},$$ where ${\bf 1}=(1,1,\cdots,1)$. Then plug $d^2_{\beta^0 k}(x,y)$ into the equation , evaluate at $y$, and solve for $c_{\beta^0}^k$. When $k=N$ we have got the approximation $$d^2_{\beta^0 N}(x,y)=d^2_{N0}(x,y)+\sum_{k=0}^Nc_{\beta^0}^k\Pi_{l=0}^{k-1}(x-x^l)^{\beta^0+{\bf 1}}\frac{1}{\beta^0!}(x-x^k)^{\beta^0}.$$ with $N+1$ real numbers $c_{\beta^0}^k$ for $0\leq k\leq N$ determined recursively. Note that the function $x\rightarrow d^2_{\beta^0 k}(x,y)$ satisfies the equations and at all interpolation points $x^0,\cdots,x^N$. Then we take the next multiindex $\beta^1$ from the list of multiindices of order $3$ (i.e. $|\beta^1|=3$) where we may assume that $\beta^1-\gamma^1=1_k$ for some multiindex $\gamma^1$ with $|\gamma^1|=2$ and some index $k$. An analogous construction as in the case of $\beta^0$ can be done. The only difference is that we start with $d^2_{\beta^0 N}(x,y)$ instead of $d^2_{N0}(x,y)$. We get an approximation of the form $$d^2_{\beta^1 N}(x,y)=d^2_{\beta^0 k}(x,y)+\sum_{k=0}^Nc_{\beta^1}^k\Pi_{l=0}^{k-1}(x-x^l)^{\beta^1+1}\frac{1}{\beta^1!}(x-x^k)^{\beta^1}.$$ where the real numbers are computed recursively by plugging the current approximation into the equation $$\label{beta0}
\begin{array}{ll}
\partial^{(\beta^1-\gamma^1)}_xd^2=\partial^{(\beta^1-\gamma^1)}_x\left(\frac{1}{4}\sum_{ij}a_{ij}(x)\frac{\partial d^2}{\partial x_i}\frac{\partial d^2}{\partial x_j} \right),
\end{array}$$ evaluating at the current interpolation point and solving for the currently undetermined real number $c_{\beta^1}^k$. Doing this for all the multiindices of order $3$ in the list above we get the approximation $$d^2_{M(\beta_3)}(x,y):=d^2_{\beta^N N}(x,y).$$ Note that by construction the function $x\rightarrow d^2_{M(\beta_3)}(x,y)$ satisfies the equation and all its first order derivative equations $$\partial^{i}_xd^2=\frac{1}{4}\partial^{i}_x\left( \sum_{lm}a_{lm}(x)d^2_{x_l}d^2_{x_m}\right) ,~~1\leq i\leq n,$$ at all interpolation points $x^0=y,x^1,\cdots, x^N$. This completes the stage of construction for multiindices of order $3$. Next assume that the construction for the approximation $$x\rightarrow d^2_{M(\beta_m)}(x,y)$$ of order $m$ has been completed. Then we may list the multiindices of order $m+1$, i.e. consider a list of multiindices $\delta^0,\delta^1,\cdots, \delta^{R_{m+1}}$ such that $|\delta|=m+1$. The procedure is then quite similar as in the stage for multiindices of order $3$. Therefore we give a very short description. Starting with the multiindex $\delta^0$ there is a multiindex $\beta^k$ of order $m$ (i.e. $|\beta^k|=m$) such that $\delta^0-\beta^k=1_i$ for some index $i$. Then we get successive approximations $$d^2_{\delta^0 k}(x,y)=d^2_{M(\beta_m)}(x,y)+\sum_{r=0}^{k}c_{\delta^0}^r\Pi_{l=0}^{r-1}(x-x^l)^{\delta^0+{\bf 1}}\frac{1}{\delta^0!}(x-x^r)^{\delta^0},$$ where the real numbers $c_{\delta^0}^k$ are succesively determined by plugging in the function $x\rightarrow d^2_{\delta^0 k}(x,y)$ into the equation $$\partial^ {\beta^k}d^2=\frac{1}{4}\partial^ {\beta^k}\left( \sum_{lm}a_{lm}(x)d^2_{x_l}d^2_{x_m}\right) ,$$ evaluated at the interpolation point $x^k$ (Note that $\partial^{\beta^k}=\partial^ {\delta^0-1_i}$). After $N+1$ steps we get the approximation function $x\rightarrow d^2_{\delta^0 N}(x,y)$. Having defined $x\rightarrow d^2_{\delta^l N}(x,y)$ for $l=0,\cdots p-1$ the next multiindex $\delta^r$ may be such that there is an multiindex $\beta^h$ of order $m$ such that $\delta^{r}-\beta^h=1_i$ for some index $i$. We may then define $x\rightarrow d^2_{\delta^p k}(x,y)$ $$d^2_{\delta^p k}(x,y)=d^2_{M(\beta_m)}(x,y)+\sum_{r=0}^{k}c_{\delta^p}^r\Pi_{l=0}^{r-1}(x-x^l)^{\delta^p+{\bf 1}}\frac{1}{\delta^p!}(x-x^r)^{\delta^p},$$ and determine the constants $c_{\delta^p}^r$ by plugging in the function $x\rightarrow d^2_{\delta^r k}(x,y)$ into the equation $$\partial^ {\beta^h}d^2=\frac{1}{4}\partial^ {\beta^h}\left( \sum_{lm}a_{lm}(x)d^2_{x_l}d^2_{x_m}\right) ,$$ and evaluate at $x^k$. Finally, we get the approximation of order $m+1$, namely $$\label{betam}
d^2_{M(\beta_{m+1})}=d^2_{\delta^{R_{m+1}} N}(x,y).$$ Note that this approximation satisfies the eikonal equation and all its derivatives up to order $m+1$, i.e. all equations $$\partial^{\alpha}_x d^2=\frac{1}{4}\partial^{\alpha}_x \left( \sum_{lm}a_{lm}(x)d^2_{x_l}d^2_{x_m}\right)$$ with $|\alpha|\leq m+1$ at all interpolation points $x^1,\cdots x^N$.
Note that at some stage of the construction we may have a multiindex $\gamma$ such that $\gamma-\alpha=1_{i_0}$ for some $\alpha$ and some index $i_0$. Then the terms in the $\alpha$th derivative of the eikonal equation evaluated at $x^k$ that do not annihilate a term of form $c_{\gamma}^k\Pi_{l=0}^{k-1}(x-x^l)^{\gamma+{\bf 1}}(x-x^k)^{\gamma}$ are quite easily computed. For this reason the constants of the form $c_{\gamma}^k$ are quite easily computed. You can see very easily this by writing the $\alpha$th derivative of the eikonal equation invoking symmetry $a_{ij}=a_{ji}$. We have $$\label{alpha}
\begin{array}{ll}
\partial^{\alpha}d^2(x,y)=\partial^{\alpha}\left(\frac{1}{4}\sum_{ij}a_{ij}(x)\frac{\partial d^2}{\partial x_i}\frac{\partial d^2}{\partial x_j} \right)\\
\\
=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{ij}a_{ij}(x)\left( \partial^{\alpha}\frac{\partial d^2}{\partial x_i}\right) \frac{\partial d^2}{\partial x_j} +\frac{1}{4}\sum_{ij}\left(\frac{\partial^{\alpha}}{\partial x^{\alpha}} a_{ij}(x)\right) \frac{\partial d^2}{\partial x_i} \frac{\partial d^2}{\partial x_j}\\
\\
+\frac{1}{4}\sum_{ij}\sum_{\beta <\alpha}\sum_{\gamma \leq\beta}\binom{\alpha}{\beta}\binom{\beta}{\gamma}
\left( \partial^{\beta}a_{ij}(x)\right)
\left( \partial^{\alpha -\beta-\gamma}\frac{\partial d^2}{\partial x_i}\right) \partial^{\gamma} \frac{\partial d^2}{\partial x_j}
\end{array}$$ If the indicated approximation is plugged into and evaluated at $x^k$ only the terms $\frac{1}{2}\sum_{j}a_{i_0j}(x)\left( \partial^{\alpha}\frac{\partial d^2}{\partial x_{i_0}}\right) \frac{\partial d^2}{\partial x_j}$ (evaluated for approximations $d^2_{\gamma k}$ at interpolation point $x^k$) do not annihilate terms of form $c_{\gamma}^k\Pi_{l=0}^{k-1}(x-x^l)^{\gamma+{\bf 1}}(x-x^k)^{\gamma}$.
Error estimates for the regular polynomial interpolation algorithm
==================================================================
We first consider error estimates for $L^p$-approximations, and then extend our estimates to $H^{s,p}$-approximations. In the whole Section we consider a bounded domain $\Omega \subseteq {\mathbb R}^n$ and assume that the coefficient functions $a_{ij}$ are $C^{\infty}$.
Error estimates for $L^p$ approximation
---------------------------------------
We have
The approximations $d^2_{Nk}$ defined in are $L^p$- approximations of the boundary value problems of form , i.e. $L^p$- approximations for functions of form $x\rightarrow d^2(x,x^k)$ for $p>1$.
Let $x$ and $y$ be two points connected by a geodesic curve $\gamma$ given in local coordinates with values in ${\mathbb R}^n$. Let us assume also that $x$ and $y$ are interpolation points. We have no solution for the curve $\gamma$ in general, but there are lets say $k$ points $z^0=x,z^1 \cdots z^k=y$ in the image of the curve $\gamma$ with Euclidean distance less than a certain mesh size $h$. Clearly, $$d(x,y)=\sum_{i=0}^N d(z^i,z^{i+1})$$ Next define an approximative distance along the geodesic of form $$d_g(x,y)=\sum_{i=0}^n d_g(z^i,z^{i+1}),$$ where $d_g$ is the squareroot of $d_g^2(z^{i},z^{i+1}):=\sum_{lm}a^{lm} (z^i_m-z^{i+1}_m)(z^i_l-z^{i+1}_l)$. Since $y$ is fixed $d$ is approximated by $d_{N0}$ and we estimate $$\label{metest}
d(x,y)-d_{N0}(x,y)=d(x,y)-d_g(x,y)+d_g(x,y)-d_{N0}(x,y)$$ Our analysis showed that the local approximation of $d^2$ by $d_g^2$ is of order $O(h^3)$ hence the approximation of $d$ by $d_g$ is of order $O\left( h^{\frac{3}{2}}\right)$, hence with generic constant $C$ we have for the first summand on the right hand side of $$|d(x,y)-d_g(x,y)|=\sum_{i=0}^N |\left( d(z^i,z^{i+1})-d_g(z^i,z^{i+1})\right)|\leq C\sqrt{h}$$ The modulus of the first summand on the right hand side can be estimated by $$|d(x,y)-d^g(x,y)|\leq C\sqrt{h}$$ Since $\Omega$ is a compact bounded domain, the $C^{\infty}$ coefficient functions $a^{ij}$ are Lipschitz Only locally Lipschitz is needed). Assuming a suitable choice of the points on the geodesic for the second summand we get by an elementary argument that $$\|d_g(x,y)-d_{N0}(x,y)\|_{L^p}\leq \sum_{i=0}^N \|d(z^i,z^{i+1})-d_{g}(z^i,z^{i+1})\|_{L^p}
\leq Ch^{p-1}.$$
Error estimates for $H^{s,p}$ approximation
-------------------------------------------
The approximations $d^2_{M(\beta_m)}$ defined in are $H^{s,p}$- approximations of the boundary value problems of form for $s\leq m$, i.e. $H^{s,p}$- approximations for functions of form $x\rightarrow d^2(x,x^k)$ for $p>1$.
For fixed $y$ the function $x\rightarrow d^2(x,y)$ and the function $x\rightarrow d^2_{M(\beta_m)}(x,y)$ both satisfy the eikonal equation and its derivatives at any interpolation point by construction. That means that for all interpolation points $x_j,~1\leq j\leq N$ and all derivatives $\gamma\leq m$ we have $$\partial^{\gamma}_xd^2(x_j,y)=\partial^{\gamma}_x d^2_{M(\beta_m)}(x_j,y).$$ Next recall a multivariate version of Taylor’s theorem
If $f\in C^{\infty}$, then for all positive integers $M$ we have $$\begin{array}{ll}
f(x+y)=\sum_{|\alpha|<M}\frac{(\partial{\alpha}f)(x)}{\alpha!}y^{\alpha}\\
\\
+M\sum_{|\gamma| =M}\frac{y^{\gamma}}{\gamma !}\int_0^1(1-\theta)^{M-1}(\partial^{\gamma}f)(x+\theta y)d\theta
\end{array}$$
Applying this formula, we see from our construction of $x\rightarrow d^2_{M(\beta_m)}(x,y)$ that the local order of approximation of $x\rightarrow d^2(x,y)$ is $O(h^{3+m})$. A similar reasoning as in the preceding Section leads to the result. Note here that the same reasoning holds when $y$ is replaced by another interpolation point $x^j$.
(Sharper error estimates) A little analysis shows that the local order of approximation is $$d^2(x,y)-d^2_{M(\beta_m)}(x,y)\leq C
P\frac{h^{m}}{m !},$$ where $P$ is the number of multiindices of order $m$ and $$C:=2\max\left\lbrace \sum_{|\gamma| =M}\sup_{x\in \Omega}\partial^{\gamma}d^2(x,y),\sum_{|\gamma| =M}\sup_{x\in \Omega}\partial^{\gamma}d^2_{M(\beta)}(x,y)\right\rbrace$$ Similarly for $|\beta | \leq m $ we get $$\partial^{\beta}d^2(x,y)-\partial^{\beta}d^2_{M(\beta_m}(x,y)\leq C
\frac{h^{m -|\beta|}}{(m -|\beta |) !},$$ Since we are working on a bounded domain and $d^2$ is $C^{\infty}$ there is some bound $C$, but not a priori known. However bounds for $C$ may be obtained from a priori estimates by inspection of the eikonal equation. It is clear that $$d^2=\frac{1}{4}\sum_{ij}a_{ij}d^2_{x_i}d^2_{x_j}.$$ is equivalent to $$d^2=\frac{1}{4}\sum_{i}\lambda_{i}d^2_{x_i}d^2_{x_i},$$ and, hence $$|d^2_{x_i}|\leq \frac{4d^2}{\lambda_{\min}},$$ where $\lambda_{\min}=\min_i \inf_{x\in \Omega}\lambda(x)$. Further a priori estimates for the derivatives may be obtained from derivatives of the eikonal equation.
Analytic approximations of the fundamental solution of parabolic equations
==========================================================================
Consider the parabolic equation $$\frac{\partial p}{\partial t}-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{ij}a_{ij}(x)\frac{\partial^2 p}{\partial x_i\partial x_j}-\sum_i b_i(x)\frac{\partial p}{\partial x_i}=0$$ on some domain $(0,T)\times \Omega \subseteq (0,T)\times {\mathbb R}^n$, and where $x\rightarrow (a_{ij}(x))$ is a matrix-valued $C^{\infty}$-function with symmetric positive matrix $(a_{ij}(x))$ for all $x\in \Omega$, and $x\rightarrow b(x)$ is also a $C^{\infty}$-function. Plugging in the Ansatz $$\label{WKBrep}
p(t,x,y)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi t}^n}\exp\left(-\frac{d^2(x,y)}{2 t}+\sum_{k= 0}^{\infty}c_k(x,y)t^k\right),$$ leads to the recursive equation for $d^2$. Given $d^2$ the first order recursive equation $$\label{c01e}
-\frac{n}{2}+\frac{1}{2}Ld^2+\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i} \left( \sum_j\left( a_{ij}(x)+a_{ji}(x)\right) \frac{d^2_{x_j}}{2}\right) \frac{\partial c_{0}}{\partial x_i}(x,y)=0,$$ together with the boundary condition $$\label{c01b}
c_0(y,y)=-\frac{1}{2}\ln \sqrt{\mbox{det}\left(a^{ij}(y) \right) }$$ determines $c_0$ uniquely for each $y\in {\mathbb R}^n$. Furthermore, having computed all WKB-coefficient functions $c_l$ up to order $k$, for $k+1\geq 1$ the coefficient function $c_{k+1}$ can be computed via the first order equation $$\label{1gaa}
\begin{array}{ll}
(k+1)c_{k+1}(x,y)+\frac{1}{2}\sum_{ij} a_{ij}(x)\Big(
\frac{d^2_{x_i}}{2}\frac{\partial c_{k+1}}{\partial x_j}
+\frac{d^2_{x_j}}{2} \frac{\partial c_{k+1}}{\partial x_i}\Big)\\
\\
=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{ij}a_{ij}(x)\sum_{l=0}^{k}\frac{\partial c_l}{\partial x_i} \frac{\partial c_{k-l}}{\partial x_j}
+\frac{1}{2}\sum_{ij}a_{ij}(x)\frac{\partial^2 c_k}{\partial x_i\partial x_j}
+\sum_i b_i(x)\frac{\partial c_{k}}{\partial x_i},
\end{array}$$ with the boundary conditions $$\label{Rk}
c_{k+1}(x,y)=R_k(y,y) \mbox{ if }~~x=y,$$ $R_k$ being the right side of . We will show in a subsequent paper that equations , and , can be solved or approximated to higher order if is solved or approximated to higher order. We have
In order to compute the WKB-approximation up to order $k$ a $H^{s,p}$ approximation of $d^2$ for $s\geq 2k$ is sufficient.
In each recursion step an operator of order $2$ is applied to the previously computed WKB-coefficients.
Conclusion and final remarks on computational issues
====================================================
We have established a stable algorithm for efficient computation of the length of geodesics as a function of two arbitrary points on $C^k$- Riemannian manifold with minimal geodesic as well as of partial derivatives of the length functional (of principally any order) accurately. We established error estimates in arbitrary Sobolev norms. We showed how the algorithm can be applied in order to compute fundamental solutions of irreducible linear parabolic equations. There are many obvious applications to mathematical physics and finance as well as to statistics, e.g. to the maximum log-likelihood method, to option pricing, computing transition amplitudes etc.. Finally, we remark that the interpolation polynomials should not be evaluated in the way they are constructed. Here careful implementation of Horner schemes is needed. But this computational issues will be considered in a subsequent paper.
[19]{}
|
---
abstract: 'A classical particle in a constant magnetic field undergoes cyclotron motion on a circular orbit. At the quantum level, the fact that all classical orbits are closed gives rise to degeneracies in the spectrum. It is well-known that the spectrum of a charged particle in a constant magnetic field consists of infinitely degenerate Landau levels. Just as for the $1/r$ and $r^2$ potentials, one thus expects some hidden accidental symmetry, in this case with infinite-dimensional representations. Indeed, the position of the center of the cyclotron circle plays the role of a Runge-Lenz vector. After identifying the corresponding accidental symmetry algebra, we re-analyze the system in a finite periodic volume. Interestingly, similar to the quantum mechanical breaking of CP invariance due to the $\theta$-vacuum angle in non-Abelian gauge theories, quantum effects due to two self-adjoint extension parameters $\theta_x$ and $\theta_y$ explicitly break the continuous translation invariance of the classical theory. This reduces the symmetry to a discrete magnetic translation group and leads to finite degeneracy. Similar to a particle moving on a cone, a particle in a constant magnetic field shows a very peculiar realization of accidental symmetry in quantum mechanics.'
author:
- |
M. H. Al-Hashimi and U.-J. Wiese\
\
Institute for Theoretical Physics, Bern University\
Sidlerstrasse 5, CH-3012 Bern, Switzerland\
\
title: Discrete Accidental Symmetry for a Particle in a Constant Magnetic Field on a Torus
---
Introduction
============
The fact that for some physical systems all bound classical orbits are closed leads to accidental degeneracies in the discrete energy spectrum of the corresponding quantum systems. Accidental symmetries are familiar from a particle moving in a $1/r$ or $r^2$ potential. In $d$ spatial dimensions the system then has an $SO(d)$ rotational symmetry. In case of the $1/r$ potential, this symmetry is dynamically enhanced to an accidental $SO(d+1)$ symmetry, and for the $r^2$ harmonic oscillator potential it is enhanced to $SU(d)$. The accidental symmetries give rise to additional degeneracies in the discrete energy spectrum of the corresponding quantum systems, beyond the degeneracies one would expect based on rotation invariance alone [@Foc35; @Bar36]. The components of the Runge-Lenz vector [@Len24] are the generators of the accidental symmetry algebras. The subject of accidental symmetry has been reviewed, for example, by McIntosh [@McI71]. Recently, we have further investigated the phenomenon of accidental symmetries, by studying a particle confined to the surface of a cone and bound to its tip by a $1/r$ or $r^2$ potential [@Has07]. When the deficit angle of the cone is a rational fraction of $2 \pi$, again all bound classical orbits are closed and there are accidental degeneracies in the energy spectrum of the quantum system. In this case the Runge-Lenz vector does not act as a self-adjoint operator in the domain of the Hamiltonian. Remarkably, as a consequence of this unusual property, the accidental $SU(2)$ symmetry has unusual multiplets with fractional (i.e. neither integer nor half-integer) spin.
An interesting example of an accidental symmetry involving a vector potential is cyclotron motion [@Lan30; @Joh49]. Also in this case, there is a deep connection between the fact that all bound classical orbits are closed and additional degeneracies in the discrete energy spectrum of the corresponding quantum system. As was already noted in [@Joh49], the center of the circular cyclotron orbit is a conserved quantity analogous to the Runge-Lenz vector in the Kepler problem. Also the radius of the cyclotron orbit is a conserved quantity directly related to the energy. Interestingly, while the two coordinates of the center are not simultaneously measurable, the radius of the circle has a sharp value in an energy eigenstate. In the cyclotron problem, translation invariance disguises itself as an “accidental” symmetry. As a consequence, the symmetry multiplets — i.e. the Landau levels — are infinitely degenerate. In order to further investigate the nature of the accidental symmetry, in [@Dul66] the charged particle in the magnetic field was coupled to the origin by an $r^2$ harmonic oscillator potential. This explicitly breaks translation invariance and thus reduces the degeneracy to a finite amount, while rotation invariance remains intact. In this paper, we do the opposite, i.e. we explicitly break rotation invariance, while leaving translation invariance (and hence the accidental symmetry) intact by putting the system on a torus. Interestingly, the Polyakov loops, which are a consequence of the non-trivial holonomies of the torus, give rise to non-trivial Aharonov-Bohm phases which are observable at the quantum but not at the classical level. Analogous to the quantum mechanical breaking of CP invariance due to the $\theta$-vacuum angle in non-Abelian gauge theories, here two self-adjoint extension parameters $\theta_x$ and $\theta_y$ explicitly break the continuous translation invariance of the classical problem down to a discrete magnetic translation group [@Zak64]. This reduces the degeneracy to a finite amount, and allows us to further investigate the nature of the accidental symmetry. In particular, just like for motion on a cone [@Has07], symmetry manifests itself in a rather unusual way in this quantum system. In particular, due to its relevance to the quantum Hall effect, the Landau level problem has been studied very extensively (for a recent review see [@Ste08]). For example, the problem has already been investigated on a torus in [@Che95; @Zai89], however, without emphasizing the accidental symmetry aspects. In this paper, we concentrate entirely on those aspects, thus addressing an old and rather well-studied problem from an unconventional point of view.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In section 2 the cyclotron problem is reviewed in the infinite volume, with special emphasis on its oscillator algebras and accidental symmetry generators. In section 3 the system is put on a torus and the unusual manifestation of the accidental symmetry is worked out. Section 4 contains our conclusions.
Particle in the Infinite Volume
===============================
In this section we review the standard knowledge about a non-relativistic particle moving in a constant magnetic field in the infinite volume. We proceed from a classical to a semi-classical, and finally to a fully quantum mechanical treatment. In particular, we emphasize the symmetry aspects of the problem with a focus on accidental symmetries. This section is a preparation for the case of a finite periodic volume to be discussed in the next section. In the following, we will use natural units in which $\hbar = c = 1$.
Classical Treatment
-------------------
Ignoring its spin, we consider a non-relativistic electron of mass $M$ and electric charge $-e$ moving in a constant magnetic field $\vec B = B \vec e_z$, which we realize through the vector potential $$A_x(\vec x) = 0, \ A_y(\vec x) = B x, \ A_z(\vec x) = 0.$$ Since the motion along the direction of the magnetic field is trivial, we restrict ourselves to 2-dimensional motion in the $x$-$y$-plane. Obviously, this is just standard cyclotron motion. To get started, in this subsection we treat the problem classically. The particle then experiences the Lorentz force $$\vec F(t) = - e \vec v(t) \times B \vec e_z,$$ which forces the particle on a circular orbit of some radius $r$. It moves along the circle with an angular velocity $\omega$, which implies the linear velocity $v = \omega r$ and the acceleration $a = \omega^2 r$. Hence, Newton’s equation takes the form $$m \omega^2 r = e \omega r B \ \Rightarrow \ \omega = \frac{e B}{M},$$ with the cyclotron frequency $\omega$ being independent of the radius $r$. Obviously, for this system all classical orbits are closed. The same is true for a particle moving in a $1/r$ or $r^2$ potential. In those cases, the fact that all bound classical orbits are closed is related to the conservation of the Runge-Lenz vector which generates a hidden accidental dynamical symmetry.
Let us now investigate the question of accidental symmetry for the particle in the constant magnetic field. The Lagrange function then takes the form $$L = \frac{M}{2} \vec v^2 - e \vec A(\vec x) \cdot \vec v =
\frac{M}{2} \left(\dot x^2 + \dot y^2\right) - e B x \dot y,$$ and the corresponding conjugate momenta are $$p_x = \frac{{\partial}L}{{\partial}\dot x} = M \dot x = M v_x, \
p_y = \frac{{\partial}L}{{\partial}\dot y} = M \dot y - e B x = M v_x - e B x.$$ First of all, in the gauge that we picked, $y$ is a cyclic coordinate and hence the canonically conjugate momentum $p_y$ is conserved as a consequence of translation invariance in the $y$-direction. Despite the fact that the system is translation invariant also in the $x$-direction, $x$ itself is not a cyclic coordinate and hence $p_x$ is not conserved. Still, using Noether’s theorem one can identify the corresponding conserved quantity as $P_x = p_x + e B y$. Interestingly, the Lagrange function is not invariant under a shift in the $x$-direction but changes by a total derivative (which leaves the classical equations of motion unchanged).
The classical Hamilton function takes the form $$\label{Hamiltonian}
H = \vec p \cdot \vec v - L =
\frac{1}{2 M}\left[\vec p + e \vec A(\vec x)\right]^2 =
\frac{1}{2 M}\left[p_x^2 + \left(p_y + e B x\right)^2\right].$$ It is straightforward to convince oneself that $H$ has vanishing Poisson brackets, $\{H,P_x\} = \{H,P_y\} = \{H,L\} = 0$, with the three symmetry generators $$P_x = p_x + e B y, \ P_y = p_y, \
L = x \left(p_y + \frac{e B}{2} x\right) -
y \left(p_x + \frac{e B}{2} y\right).$$ One can identify $P_x$, $P_y$, and $L$ as the gauge-covariant generators of translations and rotations. In particular, one obtains $$\{L,P_x\} = P_y, \ \{L,P_y\} = - P_x,$$ as one would expect for the rotation properties of the vector $(P_x,P_y)$. As is well-known, however, in a magnetic field the two translations $P_x$ and $P_y$ do not commute, i.e. $$\{P_x,P_y\} = e B.$$ How can these standard symmetry considerations be related to an accidental symmetry due to a Runge-Lenz vector? The Runge-Lenz vector is familiar from the Kepler problem. It points from the center of force to the perihelion position, and is conserved because all bound classical orbits are closed. Similarly, the orbit of a charged particle in a constant magnetic field is a closed circle with a fixed center. Indeed, in this case the position of this center plays the role of the conserved Runge-Lenz vector and is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{RP}
&&R_x = x - \frac{v_y}{v} r = x - \frac{v_y}{\omega} =
x - \frac{1}{M \omega}\left(p_y + e B x\right) =
- \frac{p_y}{M \omega} = - \frac{P_y}{e B}, \nonumber \\
&&R_y = y + \frac{v_x}{v} r = y + \frac{v_x}{\omega} =
y + \frac{p_x}{M \omega} = \frac{P_x}{e B}.\end{aligned}$$ Interestingly, the position $(R_x,R_y)$ of the center of the cyclotron circle is, at the same time, proportional to $(- P_y,P_x)$, i.e. it is orthogonal to the generators of spatial translations. Consequently, we can write $$\label{poisson1}
\{R_x,P_x\} = - \frac{1}{e B} \{P_y,P_x\} = 1, \
\{R_y,P_y\} = \frac{1}{e B} \{P_x,P_y\} = 1, $$ as well as $$\label{poisson2}
\{R_x,P_y\} = - \frac{1}{e B} \{P_y,P_y\} = 0, \
\{R_y,P_x\} = \frac{1}{e B} \{P_x,P_x\} = 0.$$ While eqs.(\[poisson1\]) and (\[poisson2\]) look like the usual Poisson brackets of position and momentum, one should not forget that $R_x$ and $R_y$ are just multiples of $P_y$ and $P_x$, and should hence not be mistaken as independent variables. In particular, one also obtains the relation $$\{R_x,R_y\} = \frac{1}{e B}.$$ Hence, just like the two generators of translations, the $x$- and $y$-components of the Runge-Lenz vector do not have a vanishing Poisson bracket. At the quantum level, this will imply that the $x$- and $y$-components of the center of a cyclotron circle are not simultaneously measurable with absolute precision.
Another conserved quantity is the radius $r$ of the circular cyclotron orbit which can be expressed as $$r^2 = (x - R_x)^2 + (y - R_y)^2 = \frac{1}{M^2 \omega^2}
\left(p_y + e B x\right)^2 + \frac{p_x^2}{M^2 \omega^2} =
\frac{2 H}{M \omega^2}.$$ Since $r^2$ is proportional to the energy, it obviously is indeed conserved.
Semi-classical Treatment
------------------------
Next, we consider the same problem semi-classically, i.e. by using Bohr-Sommerfeld quantization, which, in this case, is equivalent to the quantization of angular momentum, i.e. $L = n$. For a cyclotron orbit of radius $r$, it is easy to convince oneself that $$L = \frac{e B}{2} r^2 = n \ \Rightarrow \ r = \sqrt{\frac{2 n}{e B}}.$$ Consequently, in the semi-classical treatment the allowed radii of cyclotron orbits are now quantized. Using eq.(\[Hamiltonian\]) one finds for the energy $$E = H = \frac{1}{2} M \omega^2 r^2 = n \omega.$$ As is well-known, up to a constant $\frac{\omega}{2}$, the semi-classically quantized energy values are those of a harmonic oscillator with the cyclotron frequency $\omega$.
Quantum Mechanical Treatment
----------------------------
Finally, we consider the problem fully quantum mechanically. The Schrödinger equation then takes the form $$- \frac{1}{2 M} \left[\partial_x^2 +
\left(\partial_y + i e B x\right)^2\right] \Psi(\vec x) =
E \Psi(\vec x).$$ We now make the factorization ansatz $$\label{factorization}
\Psi(\vec x) = \psi(x) \exp(i p_y y),$$ and we obtain $$\left[- \frac{{\partial}_x^2}{2 M} +
\frac{1}{2} M \omega^2 \left(x + \frac{p_y}{M \omega}\right)^2\right]
\psi(x) = E \psi(x).$$ Indeed, this is the Schrödinger equation of a shifted harmonic oscillator. Hence, the quantum mechanical energy spectrum takes the form $$E = \omega \left(n + \frac{1}{2}\right).$$ Interestingly, the energy of the charged particle is completely independent of the transverse momentum $p_y$. As a result, the quantized Landau levels have a continuous infinite degeneracy. The energy eigenstates are shifted one-dimensional harmonic oscillator wave functions $\psi_n(x)$, i.e. $$\label{eigenstates}
\langle \vec x|n p_y \rangle = \psi_n\left(x + \frac{p_y}{M \omega} \right)
\exp(i p_y y).$$ Similarly, one can construct eigenstates of the generator $P_x = - i {\partial}_x + e B y$ of infinitesimal translations (up to a gauge transformation) in the $x$-direction $$\label{eigenx}
\langle \vec x|n p_x \rangle = \psi_n\left(y - \frac{p_x}{M \omega} \right)
\exp(i p_x x) \exp(- i e B x y).$$ It is straightforward to show that the two sets of eigenstates $\langle \vec x|n p_y\rangle$ and $\langle \vec x|n p_x\rangle$ span the same subspace of localized states in the Hilbert space.
Since all classical orbits are closed and the center of the cyclotron orbit plays the role of a Runge-Lenz vector, it is natural to ask whether the degeneracy is caused by an accidental symmetry. Of course, since the Runge-Lenz vector plays a dual role and is also generating translations (up to gauge transformations), in this case the “accidental” symmetry would just be translation invariance. Indeed, in complete analogy to the classical case, it is easy to convince oneself that $[H,R_x] = [H,R_y] = [H,L] = 0$, with the Runge-Lenz vector and the angular momentum operator given by $$\begin{aligned}
&&R_x = - \frac{P_y}{e B} = \frac{i {\partial}_y}{e B}, \
R_y = \frac{P_x}{e B} = y - \frac{i {\partial}_x}{e B},
\nonumber \\
&&L = x \left(- i {\partial}_y + \frac{e B x}{2}\right) -
y \left(- i {\partial}_x + \frac{e B y}{2}\right).\end{aligned}$$ As in the classical case, the radius of the cyclotron orbit squared is given by $$r^2 = (x - R_x)^2 + (y - R_y)^2 = \left(x - \frac{i {\partial}_y}{e B}\right)^2
- \frac{ {\partial}_x^2}{e^2 B^2} = \frac{2 H}{M \omega^2},$$ and is thus again a conserved quantity. In particular, we can express the Hamiltonian as $$H = \frac{1}{2} M \omega^2 r^2.$$ Remarkably, although the two coordinates $R_x$ and $R_y$ of the center of the cyclotron circle are not simultaneously measurable, its radius $r$ has a definite value in an energy eigenstate.
As it should, under spatial rotations the Runge-Lenz vector $(R_x,R_y)$ indeed transforms as a vector, i.e. $$[L,R_x] = i R_y, \ [L,R_y] = - i R_x.$$ These relations suggest to introduce $$R_\pm = R_x \pm i R_y,$$ which implies $$[L,R_\pm] = \pm R_\pm.$$ Hence, $R_+$ and $R_-$ act as raising and lowering operators of angular momentum. Still, it is important to note that $R_x$, $R_y$, and $L$ do not form an $SU(2)$ algebra. This follows because, in analogy to the classical case $$[R_x,R_y] = \frac{i}{e B},$$ i.e. $R_x$ and $R_y$ are generators of a Heisenberg algebra. As a consequence one obtains $$[R_+,R_-] = \frac{2}{e B}.$$
Creation and Annihilation Operators
-----------------------------------
Since the particle in the magnetic field leads to the spectrum of a 1-dimensional harmonic oscillator (however, with infinite degeneracy), it is natural to ask how one can construct corresponding creation and annihilation operators such that $$H = \omega \left(a^\dagger a + \frac{1}{2}\right), \ [a,a^\dagger] = 1.$$ Remarkably, the creation and annihilation operators are closely related to the Runge-Lenz vector, i.e. the vector that points to the center of the classical cyclotron orbit. Since we have seen that $$H = \frac{1}{2} M \omega^2 r^2 =
\frac{1}{2} M \omega^2 \left[(x - R_x)^2 + (y - R_y)^2\right],$$ one is led to identify $$a = \sqrt{\frac{M \omega}{2}} \left[x - R_x - i (y - R_y)\right], \
a^\dagger = \sqrt{\frac{M \omega}{2}} \left[x - R_x + i (y - R_y)\right],$$ which indeed have the desired properties. One also finds that $$[L,a] = - a, \ [L,a^\dagger] = a^\dagger,$$ which implies that $a^\dagger$ and $a$ also raise and lower the angular momentum. Interestingly, we have seen before that $$[L,R_\pm] = \pm R_\pm, \ [R_+,R_-] = \frac{2}{e B} = \frac{2}{M \omega}.$$ Hence, $R_+$ and $R_-$ also act as raising and lowering operators of the angular momentum. Indeed, we can identify another set of creation and annihilation operators $$b = \sqrt{\frac{M \omega}{2}} R_+, \ b^\dagger = \sqrt{\frac{M \omega}{2}} R_-,$$ which obey $$[L,b] = b, \ [L,b^\dagger] = - b^\dagger.$$ As a result, $b$ raises and $b^\dagger$ lowers the angular momentum by one unit. It is straightforward to derive the commutation relations $$[a,b] = [a^\dagger,b] = [a,b^\dagger] = [a^\dagger,b^\dagger] = 0, \
[b,b^\dagger] = 1.$$ Interestingly, just like a 2-dimensional harmonic oscillator, the particle in a magnetic field is described by two sets of commuting creation and annihilation operators. However, in contrast to the 2-dimensional harmonic oscillator, the Hamiltonian of the particle in a magnetic field contains only $a^\dagger a$, but not $b^\dagger b$.
Alternative Representation of the Hamiltonian
---------------------------------------------
Interestingly, the Hamiltonian can also be expressed as $$H = \frac{1}{2} M \omega^2 \left(R_x^2 + R_y^2\right) + \omega L =
\omega \left(b^\dagger b + \frac{1}{2} + L\right) = H_0 + \omega L.$$ Here we have introduced the Hamiltonian of an ordinary 1-dimensional harmonic oscillator $$H_0 = \omega \left(b^\dagger b + \frac{1}{2}\right),$$ and the angular momentum operator has been identified as $$L = a^\dagger a - b^\dagger b.$$ Interestingly, the creation and annihilation operators $b^\dagger$ and $b$ commute with the total energy $H$ because they raise (lower) $H_0$ by $\omega$, while they lower (raise) $L$ by 1, such that indeed $$[H,b] = [H_0,b] + \omega [L,b] = 0, \
[H,b^\dagger] = [H_0,b^\dagger] + \omega [L,b^\dagger] = 0.$$
Energy Spectrum and Energy Eigenstates
--------------------------------------
Since the algebraic structure of the problem (but not the exact form of the Hamiltonian) is the same as for the 2-dimensional harmonic oscillator, we can construct the physical states accordingly. First of all, we construct a state $|0 0\rangle$ that is annihilated by both $a$ and $b$, i.e. $$a|0 0\rangle = b|0 0\rangle = 0.$$ Then we define states $$|n n'\rangle = \frac{\left(a^\dagger\right)^{n}}{\sqrt{n!}}
\frac{\left(b^\dagger\right)^{n'}}{\sqrt{n'!}} |0 0\rangle,$$ which are eigenstates of the total energy $$H |n n'\rangle = \omega \left(n + \frac{1}{2}\right) |n n'\rangle,$$ as well as of the angular momentum $$L |n n'\rangle = (n - n') |n n'\rangle = m |n n'\rangle.$$ It should be noted that the quantum number $n \in \{0,1,2,...\}$ (which determines the energy) is non-negative, while the quantum number $m = n - n' \in {{\mathbb{Z}}}$ (which determines the angular momentum) is an arbitrary integer. The infinite degeneracy of the Landau levels is now obvious because states with the same $n$ but different values of $n'$ have the same energy.
One may wonder why in subsection 2.3 we found an infinite degeneracy labeled by the continuous momentum $p_y$ and now we only find a countable variety of degenerate states (labeled by the integer $m$). This apparent discrepancy is due to the implicit consideration of two different Hilbert spaces. While the states in the discrete variety labeled by $m$ are normalizable in the usual sense, the continuous variety of plane wave states labeled by $p_y$ is normalized to $\delta$-functions and thus belongs to an extended Hilbert space.
It is remarkable that a quantum mechanical system containing just a single particle has an even infinitely degenerate ground state. The existence of infinitely degenerate ground states is usually associated with the spontaneous breakdown of a continuous global symmetry in systems with infinitely many degrees of freedom. Does the infinite degeneracy of the single-particle Landau levels have anything to do with the spontaneous breakdown of translation invariance? The usual breaking of a continuous global symmetry is associated with the occurrence of massless Goldstone bosons. For example, when translation invariance is spontaneously broken by the formation of a crystal lattice, phonons arise as massless excitations. In the quantum mechanical system studied here, there is no room for phonons because it has only a finite number of degrees of freedom. Indeed, the infinitely degenerate ground states are separated from the rest of the spectrum by a gap $\omega$. Still, just like a system with spontaneous symmetry breaking, the charged particle in a magnetic field may chose spontaneously from a continuous variety of degenerate ground states.
Coherent States
---------------
Coherent states are well-known from the harmonic oscillator, and have also been constructed for the Landau level problem [@Fel70]. As usual, the coherent states are constructed as eigenstates of the annihilation operators, i.e. $$a |\lambda \lambda'\rangle = \lambda |\lambda \lambda'\rangle, \
b |\lambda \lambda'\rangle = \lambda' |\lambda \lambda'\rangle, \
\lambda, \lambda' \in {{\mathbb{C}}}.$$ In coordinate space, the coherent states can be expressed as $$\langle \vec x|\lambda \lambda' \rangle = A
\exp\left[- \frac{M \omega}{4} (x^2 + 2 i x y + y^2) +
\sqrt{\frac{M \omega}{2}}
\left(x (\lambda + \lambda') + i y (\lambda - \lambda')\right)\right].$$ Some expectation values in the coherent state $|\lambda \lambda'\rangle$ are given by $$\begin{aligned}
&&\langle R_x \rangle = \sqrt{\frac{2}{M \omega}} \ \mbox{Re}\lambda', \
\Delta R_x = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 M \omega}}, \nonumber \\
&&\langle R_y \rangle = \sqrt{\frac{2}{M \omega}} \ \mbox{Im}\lambda', \
\Delta R_y = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 M \omega}}, \nonumber \\
&&\langle x - R_x \rangle = \sqrt{\frac{2}{M \omega}} \ \mbox{Re}\lambda, \
\Delta (x - R_x) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 M \omega}}, \nonumber \\
&&\langle y - R_y \rangle = - \sqrt{\frac{2}{M \omega}} \ \mbox{Im}\lambda, \
\Delta (y - R_y) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 M \omega}}, \nonumber \\
&&\langle M v_x \rangle =
\left\langle p_x + e A_x \right\rangle =
\sqrt{2 M \omega} \ \mbox{Im}\lambda, \
\Delta(M v_x) = \sqrt{\frac{M \omega}{2}}, \nonumber \\
&&\langle M v_y \rangle =
\left\langle p_y + e A_y \right\rangle =
\sqrt{2 M \omega} \ \mbox{Re}\lambda, \
\Delta(M v_y) = \sqrt{\frac{M \omega}{2}}, \nonumber \\
&&\langle H \rangle = \omega \left(|\lambda|^2 + \frac{1}{2}\right), \
\Delta H = \omega |\lambda|.\end{aligned}$$ Here $\Delta O = \sqrt{\langle O^2 \rangle - \langle O \rangle^2}$ describes the quantum uncertainty. In all cases $\Delta O/\langle O \rangle$ is proportional to $1/|\lambda|$ or $1/|\lambda'|$, which implies that the relative uncertainty goes to zero in the classical limit.
Just as in the ordinary harmonic oscillator, the time-dependent Schrödinger equation $i {\partial}_t |\Psi(t)\rangle = H |\Psi(t)\rangle$ with an initial coherent state $|\Psi(0)\rangle = |\lambda(0) \lambda' \rangle$ is (up to an irrelevant phase) solved by $|\lambda(t) \lambda'\rangle$ with $$\lambda(t) = \lambda(0) \exp(- i \omega t).$$ As expected, the state remains coherent during its time-evolution. In particular, this implies $$\begin{aligned}
&&\langle x - R_x \rangle(t) =
\frac{|\lambda|}{\sqrt{2 M \omega}} \cos(\omega t), \
\langle M v_x \rangle(t) = - \sqrt{2 M \omega} \ |\lambda| \sin(\omega t),
\nonumber \\
&&\langle y - R_y \rangle(t) =
\frac{|\lambda|}{\sqrt{2 M \omega}} \sin(\omega t), \
\langle M v_y \rangle(t) = \sqrt{2 M \omega} \ |\lambda| \cos(\omega t).\end{aligned}$$ Hence, the coherent state represents a Gaussian wave packet moving around a circular cyclotron orbit just like a classical particle. This is obvious from the coordinate representation of the probability density $$\begin{aligned}
&&|\langle \vec x|\Psi(t)\rangle|^2 = A \exp\left(- \frac{M \omega}{2}
\left[(x - \langle x \rangle(t))^2 +
(y - \langle y \rangle(t))^2\right]\right), \nonumber \\
&&\langle x \rangle(t) = \langle R_x \rangle +
\sqrt{\frac{2}{M \omega}} |\lambda| \cos(\omega t), \
\langle y \rangle(t) = \langle R_y \rangle +
\sqrt{\frac{2}{M \omega}} |\lambda| \sin(\omega t).\end{aligned}$$
It is interesting to note that the coherent states $|0 \lambda'\rangle$ with $\lambda = 0$ (but with arbitrary $\lambda' = \sqrt{M \omega/2} (\langle R_x \rangle + i \langle R_y \rangle)$ form an overcomplete set of degenerate ground states with the energy $\omega/2$. These states represent Gaussian wave packets centered at the points $(\langle R_x \rangle,\langle R_y \rangle)$ determined by $\lambda'$. Unlike for a free particle, these Gaussian wave packets do not spread. Semi-classically speaking, the charged particle is in a “circular orbit” of quantized sharp radius $\sqrt{2/M \omega} |\lambda| = 0$ with an uncertain position $(\langle R_x \rangle,\langle R_y \rangle)$ of the center. Since the ground state is infinite degenerate, the charged particle can spontaneously select any average position $(\langle R_x \rangle,\langle R_y \rangle)$ at which it can stay with average velocity zero in a state of minimal uncertainty. Again, this is reminiscent of the spontaneous breakdown of translation invariance.
Particle on a Torus
===================
In this section we put the problem in a finite periodic volume. This explicitly breaks rotation invariance, but leaves translation invariance intact (at least at the classical level), and leads to an energy spectrum with finite degeneracy. In order to clarify some subtle symmetry properties, we also discuss issues of Hermiticity versus self-adjointness of various operators.
Constant Magnetic Field on a Torus
----------------------------------
In this subsection we impose a torus boundary condition over a rectangular region of size $L_x \times L_y$. This will lead to a quantization condition for the magnetic flux. Since the magnetic field is constant, it obviously is periodic. On the other hand, the vector potential of the infinite volume theory $A_x(x,y) = 0$, $A_y(x,y) = B x$ obeys the conditions $$\begin{aligned}
&&A_x(x + L_x,y) = A_x(x,y), \nonumber \\
&&A_y(x + L_x,y) = A_y(x,y) + B L_x = A_y(x,y) + {\partial}_y (B L_x y), \nonumber \\
&&A_x(x,y + L_y) = A_x(x,y), \nonumber \\
&&A_y(x,y + L_y) = A_y(x,y).\end{aligned}$$ As a gauge-dependent quantity, the vector potential is periodic only up to gauge transformations, i.e. $$A_i(x + L_x,y) = A_i(x,y) - {\partial}_i \varphi_x(y), \
A_i(x,y + L_y) = A_i(x,y) - {\partial}_i \varphi_y(x).$$ The gauge transformations $\varphi_x(y)$ and $\varphi_y(x)$ are transition functions in a fiber bundle which specify the boundary condition. In our case the transition functions are given by $$\varphi_x(y) = \frac{\theta_x}{e} - B L_x y, \
\varphi_y(x) = \frac{\theta_y}{e}.$$
Besides the field strength, gauge theories on a periodic volume possess additional gauge invariant quantities — the so-called Polyakov loops — which arise due to the non-trivial holonomies of the torus. For an Abelian gauge theory the Polyakov loops are defined as $$\Phi_x(y) = \int_0^{L_x} dx \ A_x(x,y) - \varphi_x(y), \
\Phi_y(x) = \int_0^{L_y} dy \ A_y(x,y) - \varphi_y(x).$$ In our case, they are given by $$\Phi_x(y) = B L_x y - \frac{\theta_x}{e}, \
\Phi_y(x) = B L_y x - \frac{\theta_y}{e}.$$
In order to respect gauge invariance of the theory on the torus, under shifts the wave function must also be gauge transformed accordingly $$\begin{aligned}
\label{boundary}
&&\Psi(x + L_x,y) = \exp\left(i e \varphi_x(y)\right) \Psi(x,y) =
\exp\left(i \theta_x - i e B L_x y\right) \Psi(x,y),
\nonumber \\
&&\Psi(x,y + L_y) = \exp\left(i e \varphi_y(x)\right) \Psi(x,y) =
\exp\left(i \theta_y\right) \Psi(x,y).\end{aligned}$$ The angles $\theta_x$ and $\theta_y$ parametrize a family of self-adjoint extensions of the Hamiltonian on the torus. Applying the boundary conditions from above in two different orders one obtains $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi(x + L_x,y + L_y)&=&
\exp\left(i \theta_x - i e B L_x (y + L_y)\right)
\Psi(x,y + L_y) \nonumber \\
&=&\exp\left(i \theta_x + i \theta_y -
i e B L_x (y + L_y)\right) \Psi(x,y), \nonumber \\
\Psi(x + L_x,y + L_y)&=&\exp\left(i \theta_y\right) \Psi(x + L_x,y)
\nonumber \\
&=&\exp\left(i \theta_x + i \theta_y - i e B L_x y \right) \Psi(x,y).\end{aligned}$$ Hence, consistency of the boundary condition requires $$\exp\left(- i e B L_x L_y \right) = 1 \ \Rightarrow \
B = \frac{2 \pi n_\Phi}{e L_x L_y}, \ n_\Phi \in {{\mathbb{Z}}}.$$ The total magnetic flux through the torus $$\Phi = B L_x L_y = \frac{2 \pi n_\Phi}{e},$$ is hence quantized in integer units of the elementary magnetic flux quantum $2 \pi/e$. Interestingly, the spectrum of a charged particle in a constant magnetic field is discrete (but infinitely degenerate) already in the infinite volume. As we will see, in the finite periodic volume it has only a finite $|n_\Phi|$-fold degeneracy determined by the number of flux quanta.
A quantum mechanical charged particle is sensitive to the complex phases defined by the Polyakov loops $$\exp(i e \Phi_x(y)) = \exp(i e B L_x y - i \theta_x), \
\exp(i e \Phi_y(x)) = \exp(i e B L_y x - i \theta_y),$$ which are measurable in Aharonov-Bohm-type experiments. Remarkably, the Polyakov loops explicitly break the translation invariance of the torus at the quantum level. This is reminiscent of the quantum mechanical breaking of CP invariance due to the $\theta$-vacuum angle in non-Abelian gauge theories. The complex phases from above are invariant under shifts by integer multiples of $$a_x = \frac{2 \pi}{e B L_y} = \frac{L_x}{n_\Phi}, \
a_y = \frac{2 \pi}{e B L_x} = \frac{L_y}{n_\Phi},$$ in the $x$- and $y$-directions, respectively. Hence, at the quantum level the continuous translation group of the torus is reduced to a discrete subgroup which plays the role of the accidental symmetry group.
In this paper, we treat the gauge field as a classical background field, while only the charged particle is treated quantum mechanically. It is interesting to note that, once the gauge field is also quantized, the transition functions $\varphi_x(y)$ and $\varphi_y(x)$ become fluctuating physical degrees of freedom of the gauge field. Still, as a consequence of $$\begin{aligned}
A_i(x + L_x,y + L_y)&=&A_i(x,y + L_y) - {\partial}_i \varphi_x(y + L_y) \nonumber \\
&=&A_i(x,y) - {\partial}_i \varphi_x(y + L_y) - {\partial}_i \varphi_y(x), \nonumber \\
A_i(x + L_x,y + L_y)&=&A_i(x + L_x,y) - {\partial}_i \varphi_y(x + L_x) \nonumber \\
&=&A_i(x,y) - {\partial}_i \varphi_y(x + L_x) - {\partial}_i \varphi_x(y).\end{aligned}$$ and of $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi(x + L_x,y + L_y)&=&\exp(i e \varphi_x(y + L_y)) \Psi(x,y + L_y)
\nonumber \\
&=&\exp(i e \varphi_x(y + L_y) + i e \varphi_y(x)) \Psi(x,y), \nonumber \\
\Psi(x + L_x,y + L_y)&=&\exp(i e \varphi_y(x + L_x)) \Psi(x + L_y,y)
\nonumber \\
&=&\exp(i e \varphi_y(x + L_x) + i e \varphi_x(y)) \Psi(x,y),\end{aligned}$$ the transition functions must obey the cocycle consistency condition $$\varphi_y(x + L_x) + \varphi_x(y) - \varphi_x(y + L_y) - \varphi_y(x) =
\frac{2 \pi n_\Phi}{e}.$$ In this case, the magnetic flux $n_\Phi$ specifies a super-selection sector of the theory. Analogous to the ${{\mathbb{Z}}}(N)^d$ center symmetry of non-Abelian $SU(N)$ gauge theories on a $d$-dimensional torus [@tHo79; @tHo81], Abelian gauge theories coupled to charged matter have a global ${{\mathbb{Z}}}^d$ center symmetry. The self-adjoint extension parameters $\theta_x$ and $\theta_y$ then turn into conserved quantities (analogous to Bloch momenta) of the global ${{\mathbb{Z}}}^2$ symmetry on the 2-dimensional torus. In this sense, $\theta_x$ and $\theta_y$ are analogous to the $\theta$-vacuum angle of non-Abelian gauge theories, which also distinguishes different super-selection sectors of the theory. The $\theta$-vacuum angle is a quantum mechanical source of explicit CP violation. At the classical level, on the other hand, CP invariance remains intact because $\theta$ does not affect the classical equations of motion. Similarly, for a charged particle on the torus the angles $\theta_x$ and $\theta_y$ characterize the explicit breaking of continuous translation invariance down to a discrete subgroup. Just like CP invariance for a non-Abelian gauge theory, for a charged particle on the torus the full continuous translation symmetry remains intact at the classical level, because $\theta_x$ and $\theta_y$ do not appear in the classical equations of motion.
In this paper, we treat the charged particle as a test charge which does not surround itself with its own Coulomb field. This would change, once one would derive the charged particle from its own quantum field. For example, if one considers full-fledged QED, a single electron cannot even exist on the torus because the Coulomb field that surrounds it is incompatible with periodic boundary conditions. Indeed, as a consequence of the Gauss law, the total charge on a torus always vanishes. To cure this problem, one could compensate the charge of the electron by a classical background charge homogeneously spread out over the torus. In our present calculation this is not necessary, because the charged particle is treated as a test charge without its own surrounding Coulomb field.
Discrete Magnetic Translation Group
-----------------------------------
As we have seen, in order to respect gauge invariance, on the torus the wave function must obey eq.(\[boundary\]), which can be re-expressed as $$\label{condition}
\Psi(x + L_x,y) = \exp\left(i \theta_x - \frac{2 \pi i n_\Phi y}{L_y}\right)
\Psi(x,y), \ \Psi(x,y + L_y) = \exp(i \theta_y) \Psi(x,y).$$ It is interesting to note that a factorization ansatz for the wave function as in eq.(\[factorization\]) is inconsistent with the boundary condition. Let us consider the unitary shift operator generating translations by a distance $a_y$ in the $y$-direction as well as a $\theta_y$-dependent phase-shift $$T_y = \exp\left(i P_y a_y - \frac{i \theta_y}{n_\Phi}\right) =
\exp\left(i \frac{P_y L_y - \theta_y}{n_\Phi}\right),$$ which acts as $$T_y \Psi(x,y) = \exp\left(- \frac{i \theta_y}{n_\Phi}\right) \Psi(x,y + a_y).$$ Obviously, $T_y$ commutes with the Hamiltonian because $P_y$ does. Indeed, the shifted wave function does obey the boundary condition eq.(\[condition\]), i.e. $$\begin{aligned}
T_y \Psi(x + L_x,y)&=&
\exp\left(- \frac{i \theta_y}{n_\Phi}\right) \Psi(x + L_x,y + a_y) \nonumber \\
&=&\exp\left(- \frac{i \theta_y}{n_\Phi}\right)
\exp\left(i \theta_x - \frac{2 \pi i n_\Phi (y + a_y)}{L_y}\right)
\Psi(x,y + a_y)
\nonumber \\
&=&\exp\left(i \theta_x - \frac{2 \pi i n_\Phi y}{L_y}\right) T_y \Psi(x,y),\end{aligned}$$ which is the case only because $$a_y = \frac{L_y}{n_\Phi} \ \Rightarrow \
\exp\left(- \frac{2 \pi i n_\Phi a_y}{L_y}\right) = 1.$$ Furthermore, we also have $$\begin{aligned}
T_y \Psi(x,y + L_y)&=&
\exp\left(- \frac{i \theta_y}{n_\Phi}\right) \Psi(x,y + a_y + L_y) \nonumber \\
&=&\exp\left(i \theta_y - \frac{i \theta_y}{n_\Phi}\right) \Psi(x,y + a_y) =
\exp(i \theta_y) T_y \Psi(x,y).\end{aligned}$$ Hence, as we argued before, the translations in the $y$-direction are reduced to the discrete group ${{\mathbb{Z}}}(n_\Phi)$. In particular, all translations $T_y^{n_y}$ compatible with the boundary conditions can be expressed as the $n_y$-th power of the elementary translation $T_y$. According to eq.(\[RP\]), $P_y = - e B R_x$, such that $$T_y = \exp\left(i \frac{L_y P_y - \theta_y}{n_\Phi}\right) =
\exp\left(- i \frac{e B L_y R_x + \theta_y}{n_\Phi}\right) =
\exp\left(- i \left(\frac{2 \pi i R_x}{L_x} +
\frac{\theta_y}{n_\Phi}\right)\right).$$ Similarly, up to gauge transformations the operator $$\begin{aligned}
T_x&=&\exp\left(i P_x a_x - \frac{i \theta_x}{n_\Phi}\right) =
\exp\left(i e B R_y a_x - \frac{i \theta_x}{n_\Phi}\right) \nonumber \\
&=&\exp\left(\frac{2 \pi i n_\Phi R_y a_x}{L_x L_y} -
\frac{i \theta_x}{n_\Phi}\right) =
\exp\left(i \left(\frac{2 \pi i R_y}{L_y} -
\frac{\theta_x}{n_\Phi}\right)\right)\end{aligned}$$ generates translations in the $x$-direction. Since on the torus the Runge-Lenz vector component $R_y$, which determines the $y$-coordinate of the center of the cyclotron orbit, is defined only modulo $L_y$, it is indeed natural to consider the translation operator $T_x$. In fact, although it formally commutes with the Hamiltonian, the operator $R_y$ itself is no longer self-adjoint in the Hilbert space of wave functions on the torus. The operator $T_x$, on the other hand, does act as a unitary operator in the Hilbert space. It is worth noting that, at least in the gauge we have picked, the operator $R_x$ is still self-adjoint. However, this would not be the case, for example, in the symmetric gauge, and it is hence most natural to work with $T_x$ and $T_y$ instead of $R_x$ and $R_y$ or equivalently $P_x$ and $P_y$.
The boundary condition of eq.(\[condition\]) can now be expressed as $$\label{conditionT}
T_x^{n_\Phi} \Psi(x,y) = \Psi(x,y), \ T_y^{n_\Phi} \Psi(x,y) = \Psi(x,y).$$ As a consequence of the commutation relation $[R_x,R_y] = i/e B$, one obtains $$\label{Tcom}
T_y T_x = \exp\left(\frac{2 \pi i}{n_\Phi}\right) T_x T_y.$$ This implies that $$T_x \Psi(x,y) = \exp\left(\frac{2 \pi i y}{L_y} - \frac{i \theta_x}{n_\Phi}
\right) \Psi(x + \frac{L_x}{n_\Phi},y),$$ i.e., up to a periodic gauge transformation $\exp(2 \pi i y/L_y - i \theta_x/n_\Phi)$, $T_x$ translates the wave function by a distance $L_x/n_\Phi$.
Remarkably, although at the classical level the torus has two continuous translation symmetries, the corresponding infinitesimal generators $P_x$ and $P_y$ are not self-adjoint in the Hilbert space of wave functions on the torus. Only the finite translations $T_x$ and $T_y$ are represented by unitary operators, which, however, do not commute with each other. The two operators $T_x$ and $T_y$ generate a discrete translation group ${\cal G}$ consisting of the elements $$\begin{aligned}
&&g(n_x,n_y,m) = \exp\left(\frac{2 \pi i m}{n_\Phi}\right) T_y^{n_y} T_x^{n_x},
\nonumber \\
&&n_x, n_y, m \in \{0,1,2,...,n_\Phi - 1\}.\end{aligned}$$ The group multiplication rule takes the form $$g(n_x,n_y,m) g(n_x',n_y',m') =
g(n_x + n_x',n_y + n_y',m + m' - n_x n_y'),$$ with all summations being understood modulo $n_\Phi$. Obviously, the unit element is represented by $${{\mathbbm{1}}}= g(0,0,0),$$ while the elements $$z_m = g(0,0,m) = \exp\left(\frac{2 \pi i m}{n_\Phi}\right),$$ form the cyclic Abelian subgroup ${{\mathbb{Z}}}(n_\Phi) \subset {\cal G}$. The inverse of a general group element $g(n_x,n_y,m)$ is given by $$g(n_x,n_y,m)^{-1} = g(- n_x,- n_y,- m - n_x n_y),$$ because $$g(n_x,n_y,m) g(- n_x,- n_y,- m - n_x n_y) = g(0,0,- n_x n_y + n_x n_y) =
g(0,0,0) = {{\mathbbm{1}}}.$$ It is interesting to consider the conjugacy class of a group element $g(n_x,n_y,m)$ which consists of the elements $$\begin{aligned}
&&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!g(n_x',n_y',m') g(n_x,n_y,m) g(n_x',n_y',m')^{-1} =
\nonumber \\
&&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!g(n_x' + n_x,n_y' + n_y,m' + m - n_x' n_y)
g(- n_x',- n_y',- m' - n_x' n_y') = \nonumber \\
&&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!g(n_x,n_y,m - n_x'(n_y + n_y') + (n_x' + n_x) n_y') =
g(n_x,n_y,m + n_x n_y' - n_x' n_y).\end{aligned}$$ In particular, as one would expect, the elements $g(0,0,m) = z_m \in {{\mathbb{Z}}}(n_\Phi)$ are conjugate only to themselves and thus form $n_\Phi$ single-element conjugacy classes. Obviously, multiplication by a phase $z_m$ is just a global gauge transformation and thus leaves the physical state invariant. Hence, the conjugacy classes correspond to gauge equivalence classes.
The elements $g(0,0,m) = z_m$ commute with all other elements and thus form the center ${{\mathbb{Z}}}(n_\Phi)$ of the group ${\cal G}$. Since the individual elements of the center form separate conjugacy classes, the center is a normal subgroup and can hence be factored out. The center itself represents global phase transformations of the wave function, and hence factoring it out corresponds to identifying gauge equivalence classes. Physically speaking, the quotient space ${\cal G}/{{\mathbb{Z}}}(n_\Phi) = {{\mathbb{Z}}}(n_\Phi) \times {{\mathbb{Z}}}(n_\Phi)$ corresponds to discrete translations up to gauge transformations. It should be pointed out that ${\cal G}$ is not simply given by the direct product ${{\mathbb{Z}}}(n_\Phi) \times {{\mathbb{Z}}}(n_\Phi) \times {{\mathbb{Z}}}(n_\Phi)$. In fact, the quotient space ${{\mathbb{Z}}}(n_\Phi) \times {{\mathbb{Z}}}(n_\Phi)$ is not a subgroup of ${\cal G}$, and hence ${\cal G}$ is also not the semi-direct product of ${{\mathbb{Z}}}(n_\Phi) \times {{\mathbb{Z}}}(n_\Phi)$ and ${{\mathbb{Z}}}(n_\Phi)$. All we can say (besides defining the group ${\cal G}$ as done before) is that it is a particular central extension of ${{\mathbb{Z}}}(n_\Phi) \times {{\mathbb{Z}}}(n_\Phi)$ by the center subgroup ${{\mathbb{Z}}}(n_\Phi)$.
Spectrum and Degeneracy on the Torus
------------------------------------
Let us first discuss the classical problem on the torus. In that case, the magnetic flux need not be quantized. Also the values of the Polyakov loop are not detectable at the classical level because they have no effect on the motion of a test charge, which is entirely determined by the Lorentz force. The classical orbits of a charged particle in a constant magnetic field on the torus still are closed circles. However, as illustrated in figure 1, the circle may close only after wrapping around the periodic boundary.
Since all classical orbits are still closed, one expects that on the torus the accidental symmetry is still present.
It should be pointed out that on the torus the Hamiltonian is identically the same as in the infinite volume. It now just acts on the restricted set of wave functions obeying the boundary condition eq.(\[condition\]). In particular, the finite volume wave functions are appropriate linear combinations of the infinitely many degenerate states of a given Landau level. As a result, the energy spectrum remains unchanged, but the degeneracy is substantially reduced.
Let us use the fact that $T_y$ commutes with the Hamiltonian to construct simultaneous eigenstates of both $H$ and $T_y$. Since for states on the torus $T_y^{n_\Phi} = {{\mathbbm{1}}}$, the eigenvalues of $T_y$ are given by $\exp(2 \pi i l_y/n_\phi)$ with $l_y \in \{0,1,...,n_\Phi - 1\}$, while the eigenvalues of $H$ are still given by $E_n = \omega(n + \frac{1}{2})$. Hence, we can construct simultaneous eigenstates $|n l_y\rangle$ such that $$H |n l_y\rangle = \omega \left(n + \frac{1}{2}\right) |n l_y\rangle, \
T_y |n l_y\rangle = \exp\left(\frac{2 \pi i l_y}{n_\Phi}\right)
|n l_y\rangle.$$ The states $|n l_y\rangle$ are the finite-volume analog of the states $|n p_y \rangle$ of eq.(\[eigenstates\]) with $p_y = (2 \pi l_y + \theta_y)/L_y$. In coordinate representation these states are given by the wave functions $$\begin{aligned}
\langle \vec x|n l_y\rangle&=&A \sum_{n_x \in {{\mathbb{Z}}}}
\psi_n\left(x + \left(n_\Phi n_x + l_y + \frac{\theta_y}{2 \pi}\right)
\frac{L_x}{n_\Phi}\right) \nonumber \\
&\times&
\exp\left(\frac{2 \pi i y}{L_y}\left(n_\Phi n_x + l_y + \frac{\theta_y}{2 \pi}
\right) - i \theta_x n_x\right).\end{aligned}$$ As a special case, let us consider the ground state for $n_\Phi = 1$, which is non-degenerate $$\begin{aligned}
\langle \vec x|n = 0,l_y = 0\rangle&=&A \sum_{n_x \in {{\mathbb{Z}}}}
\psi_0\left(x + \left(n_x + \frac{\theta_y}{2 \pi}\right) L_x\right)
\nonumber \\
&\times&\exp\left(\frac{2 \pi i y}{L_y}\left(n_x + \frac{\theta_y}{2 \pi}
\right) - i \theta_x n_x\right).\end{aligned}$$
In this state the probability density, which is illustrated in figure 2, has its maximum at $(- L_x \theta_y/2 \pi,L_y \theta_x/2 \pi)$. This shows once again that the self-adjoint extension parameters $\theta_x$ and $\theta_y$ indeed explicitly break translation invariance.
As a consequence of eq.(\[Tcom\]) one obtains $$T_y T_x |n l_y\rangle = \exp\left(\frac{2 \pi i}{n_\phi}\right) T_x T_y
|n l_y\rangle = \exp\left(\frac{2 \pi i (l_y + 1)}{n_\Phi}\right)
T_x |n l_y\rangle,$$ from which we conclude that $$T_x |n l_y\rangle = |n (l_y + 1)\rangle.$$ Since $[T_x,H] = 0$, the $n_\Phi$ states $|n l_y\rangle$ with $l_y \in 0,1,...,n_\Phi - 1$ thus form an irreducible representation of the magnetic translation group. Using $n_\Phi = 4$ as a concrete example, a matrix representation of the two generators of ${\cal G}$ is given by $$T_x = \left(\begin{array}{cccc} 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\ 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \end{array}\right), \
T_y = \left(\begin{array}{cccc} 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & i & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & - 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & - i \end{array} \right).$$
Similarly, one can construct simultaneous eigenstates $|n l_x\rangle$ of $H$ and $T_x$ $$H |n l_x\rangle = \omega \left(n + \frac{1}{2}\right) |n l_x\rangle, \
T_x |n l_x\rangle = \exp\left(\frac{2 \pi i l_x}{n_\phi}\right)
|n l_x\rangle.$$ The states $|n l_x\rangle$ are the finite-volume analog of the states $|n p_x \rangle$ of eq.(\[eigenx\]) with $p_x = (2 \pi l_x + \theta_x)/L_x$. In coordinate representation these states are given by the wave functions $$\begin{aligned}
\langle \vec x|n l_x\rangle&=&A \sum_{n_y \in {{\mathbb{Z}}}}
\psi_n\left(y - \left(n_\Phi n_y + l_x + \frac{\theta_x}{2 \pi}\right)
\frac{L_y}{n_\Phi}\right) \nonumber \\
&\times&
\exp\left(\frac{2 \pi i x}{L_x}\left(n_\Phi n_y + l_x + \frac{\theta_x}{2 \pi} -
\frac{n_\Phi y}{L_y}\right) + i \theta_y n_y\right).\end{aligned}$$ It is worth noting that $$T_y |n l_x\rangle = |n (l_x - 1)\rangle.$$ Similar to the infinite volume case, it is straightforward to show that the two sets of eigenstates $\langle \vec x|n l_y\rangle$ and $\langle \vec x|n l_x\rangle$ span the same subspace of the Hilbert space. In particular, for $n_\Phi = 1$ the ground state is non-degenerate and one can show that $$|n = 0, l_x = 0\rangle = |n = 0, l_y = 0\rangle.$$
As we have seen, on the torus continuous translation invariance is explicitly broken down to the discrete magnetic translation group ${\cal G}$ by the self-adjoint extension parameters $\theta_x$ and $\theta_y$. Still, all states (including the ground state) remain degenerate. However, unlike in the infinite volume, the degeneracy is reduced to a finite amount $n_\Phi$. Only when one varies $\theta_x$ and $\theta_y$ one recovers the infinite degeneracy of the infinite system. As in the infinite volume, one may ask if the degenerate ground state indicates that the discrete magnetic translation group ${\cal G}$ is spontaneously broken. While there are striking similarities with spontaneous symmetry breaking, there are also important differences. First of all, when a system with a broken symmetry is put in a finite volume, the symmetry is usually restored dynamically. For example, this is the case for the spontaneously broken $SU(2)_L \otimes SU(2)_R$ chiral symmetry in QCD as well as for the spontaneously broken $SU(2)_s$ spin symmetry in antiferromagnets. An important exception are ferromagnets for which the ground state remains exactly degenerate even in a finite volume. This is a consequence of the fact that the magnetization order parameter of a ferromagnet is a conserved quantity, while the staggered magnetization order parameter of an antiferromagnet is not conserved. In this sense, the charged particle in a magnetic field behaves like a ferromagnet. The “order parameter” that signals the “spontaneous breakdown” of translation invariance is the Runge-Lenz vector $(R_x,R_y)$ pointing to the center of the cyclotron circle, which is indeed a conserved quantity.
Coherent States on the Torus
----------------------------
It is interesting to construct coherent states $|\lambda \lambda'\rangle_T$ for the particle on the torus. This is achieved by superposition of shifted copies of the coherent state $|\lambda \lambda'\rangle$ of the system in the infinite volume $$|\lambda \lambda'\rangle_T = A \sum_{n_x, n_y \in {{\mathbb{Z}}}}
T_x^{n_\Phi n_x} T_y^{n_\Phi n_y} |\lambda \lambda'\rangle.$$ By construction, this state obeys the boundary condition eq.(\[conditionT\]). The factor $A$ is determined from the normalization condition $$\begin{aligned}
_T\langle\lambda \lambda'|\lambda \lambda'\rangle_T&=&
|A|^2 \sum_{m_x,m_y \in {{\mathbb{Z}}}} (-1)^{n_\Phi m_x m_y}
\exp\left(- \frac{\pi^2}{M \omega} \left(\frac{n_\Phi^2 m_x^2}{L_y^2}
+ \frac{n_\Phi^2 m_y^2}{L_x^2} \right)\right) \nonumber \\
&\times&
\exp\left(i \left(\frac{2 \pi \langle R_y \rangle}{L_y} -
\frac{\theta_x}{n_\Phi}\right) n_\Phi m_x\right)
\exp\left(- i \left(\frac{2 \pi \langle R_x \rangle}{L_y} +
\frac{\theta_y}{n_\Phi}\right) n_\Phi m_y \right) \nonumber \\
&=& 1.\end{aligned}$$ It is easy to see that a finite-volume coherent state remains coherent during the time-evolution. Just as in the infinite volume, $\lambda(t) =
\lambda(0) \exp(- i \omega t)$, while $\lambda'$ is time-independent. In the infinite volume $\lambda' = \sqrt{M \omega/2} (\langle R_x \rangle + i
\langle R_y \rangle)$ determines the position of the center of the cyclotron circle. On the torus, this center is well-defined only up to shifts by multiples of $L_x$ or $L_y$. Indeed one finds $$\begin{aligned}
\label{expectT}
&&_T\langle\lambda \lambda'|T_x^{l_x}|\lambda \lambda'\rangle_T = B_{l_x}
\exp\left(i \left(\frac{2 \pi \langle R_y \rangle}{L_y} -
\frac{\theta_x}{n_\Phi}\right) l_x\right), \nonumber \\
&&_T\langle\lambda \lambda'|T_y^{l_y}|\lambda \lambda'\rangle_T = B_{l_y}
\exp\left(- i \left(2 \pi \frac{\langle R_x \rangle}{L_x} +
\frac{\theta_y}{n_\Phi}\right) l_y\right),\end{aligned}$$ which shows that (together with $\theta_x$ and $\theta_y$) the expectation values $\langle R_x \rangle$ and $\langle R_y \rangle$ of the infinite volume coherent state determine the position of the center of the cyclotron circle (the Runge-Lenz vector) modulo the periodicity lengths $L_x$ and $L_y$ of the torus. The prefactors in eq.(\[expectT\]) take the form $$\begin{aligned}
B_{l_x}&=&|A|^2 \sum_{m_x,m_y \in {{\mathbb{Z}}}} (-1)^{(n_\Phi m_x + l_x) m_y}
\exp\left(- \frac{\pi^2}{M \omega} \left(\frac{(n_\Phi m_x + l_x)^2}{L_y^2}
+ \frac{n_\Phi^2 m_y^2}{L_x^2} \right)\right) \nonumber \\
&\times&\exp\left(i \left(\frac{2 \pi \langle R_y \rangle}{L_y} -
\frac{\theta_x}{n_\Phi}\right) n_\Phi m_x \right)
\exp\left(- i \left(\frac{2 \pi \langle R_x \rangle}{L_y} +
\frac{\theta_y}{n_\Phi}\right) n_\Phi m_y \right), \nonumber \\
B_{l_y}&=&|A|^2 \sum_{m_x,m_y \in {{\mathbb{Z}}}} (-1)^{(n_\Phi m_y + l_y) m_x}
\exp\left(- \frac{\pi^2}{M \omega} \left(\frac{n_\Phi^2 m_x^2}{L_y^2}
+ \frac{(n_\Phi m_y + l_y)^2}{L_x^2} \right)\right) \nonumber \\
&\times&\exp\left(i \left(\frac{2 \pi \langle R_y \rangle}{L_y} -
\frac{\theta_x}{n_\Phi}\right) n_\Phi m_x \right)
\exp\left(- i \left(\frac{2 \pi \langle R_x \rangle}{L_y} +
\frac{\theta_y}{n_\Phi}\right) n_\Phi m_y \right). \nonumber \\ \,\end{aligned}$$ Finally, let us consider the coherent states with $\lambda = 0$ but arbitrary $\lambda'$. Just as in the infinite volume, these states are ground states with minimal energy $\omega/2$. Indeed, for $n_\Phi = 1$ (i.e. when there is no degeneracy) one can show that $$|\lambda = 0,\lambda'\rangle = |n = 0,l_x = 0\rangle = |n = 0,l_y = 0\rangle,$$ (provided that the arbitrary complex phase of $|\lambda = 0,\lambda'\rangle$ is chosen appropriately).
Conclusions
===========
We have re-investigated an old and rather well-studied problem in quantum mechanics — a charged particle in a constant magnetic field — from an unconventional accidental symmetry perspective. The fact that all classical cyclotron orbits are closed circles identifies the center of the circle as a conserved quantity analogous to the Runge-Lenz vector of the Kepler problem. Remarkably, (up to gauge transformations) the corresponding “accidental” symmetry is just translation invariance. In particular, the coordinates $(R_x,R_y) = (- P_y,P_x)/eB$ of the center of the cyclotron circle simultaneously generate infinitesimal translations $- P_y$ and $P_x$ (up to gauge transformations) in the $y$- and $x$-directions, respectively. As is well-known, in a constant magnetic field translations in the $x$- and $y$-directions do not commute, i.e. $[P_x,P_y] = i e B$, and thus the two coordinates $R_x$ and $R_y$ of the center of the cyclotron circle are also not simultaneously measurable at the quantum level. In contrast, the radius of the cyclotron circle has a sharp value in an energy eigenstate. The accidental symmetry leads to the infinite degeneracy of the Landau levels.
In order to further investigate the nature of the accidental symmetry, we have put the system in a finite rectangular periodic volume. Obviously, this breaks rotation invariance, but leaves translation invariance (and thus the accidental symmetry) intact — at least at the classical level. Interestingly, at the quantum level continuous translation invariance is explicitly broken down to a discrete magnetic translation group, due to the existence of two angles $\theta_x$ and $\theta_y$ which parametrize a family of self-adjoint extensions of the Hamiltonian on the torus. In a field theoretical context, in which the gauge field is dynamical (and not just treated as a classical background field), the parameters $\theta_x$ and $\theta_y$ characterize super-selection sectors. In this sense, they are analogous to the vacuum angle $\theta$ of non-Abelian gauge theories. Just as the $\theta$-vacuum angle explicitly breaks CP invariance at the quantum level but is classically invisible, the angles $\theta_x$ and $\theta_y$ lead to a quantum mechanical explicit breaking of continuous translation invariance down to the discrete magnetic translation group. The magnetic translation group ${\cal G}$ itself, which plays the role of the accidental symmetry in the periodic volume, is a particular central extension of ${{\mathbb{Z}}}(n_\Phi) \otimes {{\mathbb{Z}}}(n_\Phi)$ by the center subgroup ${{\mathbb{Z}}}(n_\Phi)$, where $n_\Phi$ is the number of magnetic flux quanta trapped in the torus. We find it remarkable that the simple fact that all classical cyclotron orbits are closed circles has such intricate effects at the quantum level.
We have also discussed the relation of ground state degeneracy with the possible spontaneous breakdown of translation invariance. Indeed the Runge-Lenz vector (which points to the center of the cyclotron orbit) acts as a corresponding “order parameter”. Just like the magnetization in a ferromagnet (but unlike the staggered magnetization in an antiferromagnet), the Runge-Lenz vector is a conserved quantity. Consequently, the ground state remains degenerate even in a finite volume. Furthermore, just as the three components of the magnetization vector do not commute with each other, the two components of the Runge-Lenz vector are also not simultaneously measurable. Still, unlike a ferromagnet, a single charged particle in a magnetic field has just a finite number of degrees of freedom and can thus not display all features usually associated with spontaneous symmetry breaking. In particular, in the system discussed in this paper there is no room for massless Goldstone excitations.
While many aspects of the Landau level problem are well-known, we hope that we have painted a picture of cyclotron motion that reveals new aspects of this fascinating system, which behaves in a unique and sometimes counter-intuitive manner.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We like to thank Nathan Habegger for an illuminating discussion about the theory of discrete groups. This work is supported in parts by the Schweizerischer Nationalfonds.
[10]{}
V. Fock, Z. Physik 98 (1935) 145.
V. Bargmann, Z. Physik 99 (1936) 576.
W. Lenz, Z. Physik 24 (1924) 197.
H. V. McIntosh, in Group Theory and its Applications, Vol. 2 (1971) 75, Academic Press, Inc. New York and London.
M. H. Al-Hashimi and U.-J. Wiese, Ann. Phys. 323 (2008) 82.
L. D. Landau, Z. Physik 64 (1930) 629.
M. H. Johnson and B. A. Lippmann, Phys. Rev. 76 (1949) 828.
V. A. Dulock and H. V. McIntosh, J. Math. Phys. 7 (1966) 1401.
J. Zak, Phys. Rev. 134 (1964) A1602.
A. Stern, Ann. Phys. 323 (2008) 204.
G.-H. Chen, L.-M. Kuang, and M.-L. Ge, Phys. Rev. B53 (1996) 9540.
H. Zainuddin, Phys. Rev. D40 (1989) 636.
A. Feldman and A. H. Kahn, Phys. Rev. B12 (1970) 4584.
G. ’t Hooft, Nucl. Phys. B153 (1979) 141.
G. ’t Hooft, Commun. Math. Phys 81 (1981) 267.
|
---
abstract: 'As is typical in other fields of application of high throughput systems, radiology is faced with the challenge of interpreting increasingly sophisticated predictive models such as those derived from radiomics analyses. Interpretation may be guided by the learning output from machine learning models, which may however vary greatly with each technique. Whatever this output model, it will raise some essential questions. How do we interpret the prognostic model for clinical implementation? How can we identify potential information structures within sets of radiomic features, in order to create clinically interpretable models? And how can we recombine or exploit potential relationships between features towards improved interpretability? A number of statistical techniques are explored to assess (possibly nonlinear) relationships between radiological features from different angles.'
author:
- 'Eric Wolsztynski[^1] [^2]'
bibliography:
- 'bib\_pet.bib'
title: Statistical Exploration of Relationships Between Routine and Agnostic Features Towards Interpretable Risk Characterization
---
Introduction
============
Building and interpretation of radiomics-based predictive models is discussed in many reports [@Aerts14; @Soussan14; @Buvat15; @Desseroit16; @Gillies16; @Hatt17a; @Hatt17b], which all highlight the difficulty of converting the model-based risk assessment into practical decision-making pathways for routine implementation–a necessary condition to the clinical implementation of machine learning and artificial intelligence solutions in radiology. Several types of methodologies are considered in the literature to better understand potential for feature recombination towards this goal.
Conventional models such as the lasso, random forests or neural networks [@Tibshirani97; @Gevrey03; @ESL2009; @Hatt19] are usually used to build predictive models. Combined with preliminary feature elimination, these techniques provide feature set reduction methodologies geared towards a particular endpoint of interest, whether for prognosis (e.g. overall or two-year patient survival) or tumor characterization (e.g. tumor grading, subtyping, etc.) [@Gillies16; @Asselin12; @Rahim14; @Alic14; @Ypsilantis15; @Lian16; @Wolsztynski18; @Wolsztynski19]. Interpretation of the model is directly derived from its structure (which describes the interaction between its covariates), and is determined in the context of the endpoint of interest. For example, a linear model for 2-year survival may indicate that an increase of 1 standard unit in both SUVmax and GLCM entropy may contribute to a 3-fold increase in the risk of death within the next two years. In this illustration, the linear interaction between SUVmax and GLCM entropy is directly associated with worse prognosis at the 2-year horizon, but this finding provides only limited insight in terms of the role of GLCM entropy in a prognostic context or in terms of tumor characteristics.
Microarray data analysis encompasses another family of techniques for the discovery of features with high predictive potential. In this framework, multiple statistical testing of association with endpoint is performed to select features of interest [@Aerts14; @Gillies16; @Parmar15]. Interpretation of the selected group of predictors is thus also directly linked to the endpoint of interest and may include assessment of joint association between a number of features in this context.
Nonparametric (i.e. model-free) multidimensional methods such as Principal Components Analysis (PCA) and clustering are also employed to identify relevant sets of prognostic features. These techniques are common to other high-throughput fields including genomics and proteomics [@Aerts14; @Parmar15; @Mathe16], and consist in detecting relationships between potential predictors before their grouped association with a particular endpoint is established (this is done as a second step). They therefore provide ways to identify associations between features that are not endpoint-dependent. Their scope is however limited by their construction; for example PCA may be used to identify linear associations but not nonlinear ones [@Falissard99].
Ultimately, an output set of predictive features is considered for use in (future) clinical settings [@Zhao19]. For further interpretation, association of a small number of radiological features with phenotype or other clinical assessment, through e.g. logistic regression [@Soussan14], can be performed. Texture and other radiomic features are sometimes clustered on the basis of correlation heat maps [@Gillies16]. The clinical relevance of cluster consensus maps can be assessed [@Parmar15], and used to measure predictive ability of radiomic features for specific clinical, biological and functional pathways [@Grossmann17]. Patients may also be clustered on the basis of texture features heat maps, and availability of gene-analysis data allows for association of radiomic signature features and gene expression using gene-set enrichment analysis, by scoring radiomic signatures [@Aerts14]. In many studies, composite radiomic variables are defined for each patient via a linear combination of selected features and used as additional variables alongside routine clinical or other variables [@Zhao19]; these can also be interpreted based e.g. on their mathematical construction.
A large number of statistical techniques are thus at hand to build predictive models and find relevant associations within feature sets. Biological interpretation of the output multivariate associations of radiologic features however remains challenging, due to the complex and diverse nature of most of these variables, and of cancer itself. Opacity of machine learning frameworks, often used as black boxes, also adds to this difficulty. They can however be used to gather insight and simplify radiomic summaries in view to facilitate further interpretation. Finding direct, statistically strong associations among features, as illustrated hereafter, can provide a mechanism to simplify such models and facilitate explainability.
Methods
=======
The dataset
-----------
We consider radiological summaries derived for a set of FDG-PET sarcoma studies in a previous analysis, as reported in [@Wolsztynski18]. This dataset of primary sarcoma tumors was acquired at the University of Washington in Seattle, United States, between August 1993 and January 2003, after patients were diagnosed by biopsy. The final cohort comprised of 197 studies, including 88 deaths before loss to follow up. The tumors consisted of 130 soft tissue, 51 bone, and 16 cartilage sarcomas, in patients aged between 17 and 86 years of age (median 45), of which 86 females and 111 males, with 99 high-grade, 66 intermediate, and 32 low-grade tumors. In this report we present the results of analyses carried out on the cohort of 130 soft tissue sarcomas (STS) from this dataset; all other subtypes have been excluded from analysis.
Quantitations were obtained for a fixed-threshold segmentation, with a threshold value set for each study based on the subsample of the lower 15% of uptake values (so as to include background and healthy tissue activity only). For a given study, the segmentation threshold was thus defined as the mean subsample value plus three standard deviations of this subsample. Given the near-homogeneous voxel dimensions of the output images (voxel size of 4.30 mm $\times$ 4.30 mm in the transverse plane and slice thicknesses of 4.25 mm), no interpolation was performed prior to VoI resegmentation for texture analysis. Uptake values were requantized into 32 grey levels by fixed bin number transformation.
A total of 43 variables were considered and may be identified in three frames: (i) routine clinical variables (tumor grade, clinical volume, patient age, patient sex, maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax), mean uptake value (SUVmean) and total lesion glycolysis (TLG) were collected for this cohort); (ii) structural features including heterogeneity $\mathcal{H}_0$ and $\mathcal{H}_1$ as defined in [@Wolsztynski18], and associated spatial uptake gradients; and (iii) a set of image summaries including morphologic and texture features, all computed as per definitions provided by the Image Biomarker Standardization Initiative (Version 1.5) [@IBSI; @IBSI5]. More specifically, this third set of features included volume asphericity, morphological descriptors for ellipsoidal characteristics, intensity- and histogram-based first-order statistics, GLCM features, as well as two GLSZM features evaluating the numbers and sizes of contiguous homogeneous regions of equal (discretized) grey level.
Overall scope
-------------
The objective here is not to propose predictive models of patient risk or tumour characterization, but rather to look for and identify patterns among features typically used in radiomic analyses. To this end a number of multivariate data exploration and modelling techniques are used as follows:
1. Correlation and partial correlation analysis, to inspect correlation structures present in the image analysis data;
2. Multivariate decomposition and clustering, to identify natural groupings of features;
3. Regularized multilinear modeling of features, to identify small (2 or 3) subsets of features that can “explain” (i.e. predict) a given feature of interest.
We can use any of the above exploratory analyses to recombine features into composite predictive variables (based e.g. on partitional clustering techniques as in other works cited earlier), which allows for increased statistical power and data-based evaluation of model interpretability. An illustration of this step is also provided in the next section, demonstrating statistical prognostic potential of composite variables derived from these analyses on the sarcoma cohort and discussing their interpretation.
Correlation and partial correlation analyses
--------------------------------------------
Correlation may be induced by one of several causes. It may result from the mathematical construction of the features; for example it would be reasonable to think that $$\mbox{mean}_{\mbox{\tiny{HIST}}} = \sum_{i=1}^{N_g} i p_i$$ and $$\mbox{energy}_{\mbox{\tiny{HIST}}} = \sum_{i=1}^{N_g} p_i^2$$ are closely related since uptake histograms tend to be right-skewed, with $p_i$ decreasing as $i$ increases. The same principle applies to second-order quantitations; for example the GLCM matrix yielding joint probabilities $p_{ij}$ for voxel grey levels $i, j=1,\dots,Q$ typically exhibits a bell-shaped structure with monotonic variations in $p_{ij}$ across the probability surface. Figure \[fig:distributions\] illustrates such structural variations in the first- and second-order distributions. Another example, considering the rough approximation $log(p_i)\approx p_i-1$ for small values of $p_i$, exposes the numerical proximity between entropy$_{HIST}$ and energy$_{HIST}$ as follows: $$\mbox{entropy}_{\mbox{\tiny{HIST}}} = -\sum_{i=1}^{N_g} p_i \log(p_i) \approx -\sum_{i=1}^{N_g} p_i (p_i-1) \approx 1 - \mbox{energy}_{\mbox{\tiny{HIST}}}$$ Figure \[fig:associations\] illustrates the relationships observed in the sarcoma dataset for these two examples.
In other instances, correlation may be caused e.g. by tomography-related aspects (for example relating to noise or dose levels, or the reconstruction filtering process), in which case correlation characteristics would change with scanner, or by underlying biological characteristics. Correlation analysis would not provide information on cause, but it constitutes a valuable tool in identifying associations and, therefore, potential pathways for feature set simplification.
![Illustration of grey level distributions from a requantized FDG-PET sarcoma image. Inset, top: mid-volume transverse slice of the requantized FDG-PET data. Top: the histogram exhibits a clear relationship between voxel grey level $i$ and likelihood. Bottom: level curve representation of the GLCM matrix depicts the ellipsoidal footprint that is typical of joint uptake distribution structures. []{data-label="fig:distributions"}](ex_intensity_distributions_vertical.pdf){width=".7\columnwidth"}
![Examples of (nonlinear) associations between texture features in the sarcoma feature set, which result from their mathematical construction.[]{data-label="fig:associations"}](ex_related_features_vertical.pdf){width=".8\columnwidth"}
The correlation matrix (e.g. using Pearson correlation, as done here) is often considered for exploratory purposes, but also for preliminary feature elimination. In the latter case, groups of highly correlated features are identified and a single feature is kept as unique representative for each group. How the other variables are eliminated may be guided by clinical or practical considerations but may also be, and often is, arbitrary.
The overlap in information with other variables within the dataset, due e.g. to confounding or mathematical construction, contributes to the value of the correlation coefficient calculated between two variables. Gaussian graphical models (GGMs) [@Falissard99; @Yuan07; @Giraud09] provide a way of analysing partial correlation between variables instead. GGMs can be used to highlight direct relationships (the edges in the graph, as illustrated in Figure \[fig:GGM\]) between features that are conditionally dependent given all other variables. Dependence is evaluated here as a non-negligible partial correlation between the two features.
Multivariate exploration
------------------------
Here we considered Principal Component Analysis (PCA) for multidimensional exploration of the feature set. It also consists in analyzing the correlation structure of the feature set, but provides a more elaborate tool for assessment of multivariate associations. Note that PCA applies to quantitative features (we therefore excluded categorical features from the analysis), but variations on this approach may be used for mixed quantitative and descriptive feature sets, allowing for inclusion of categorical agnostic variables.
Partition-based clustering was applied as in [@Wolsztynski18] to the PCA projection matrix (i.e. the matrix of eigenvectors obtained from spectral decomposition of the feature set correlation matrix) in order to identify groupings of variables in the feature set. The features projected via PCA can be used directly as composite predictor variables, as detailed for example in [@Wolsztynski18]. These linear recombinations can however be difficult to interpret. Subsequent clustering analysis of feature groupings in the information space can be exploited to recreate alternative composite variables with meaningful clinical interpretation.
Multilinear analysis of features
--------------------------------
The above methodologies are mechanisms used to isolate groupings of variables based on the correlation (or partial correlation) structure of the feature set. Direct association of features can also be identified and exploited via multivariate modelling, using one feature as the dependent variable explained by subset of other features. Here we considered multilinear modelling and used lasso models to identify a group of 2 or 3 features in order to describe (i.e. predict) each feature in the dataset.
$N_{test}$=30 observations were randomly taken out of the original STS dataset for use as an independent test set. Repeated 5-fold cross-validation (CV), using two repetitions, was applied to the remaining $N_{CV}$=100 observations, which was performed using each one of the continuous variables in the STS feature successively as the dependent variable, and all other variables as predictors in a lasso model. (No preliminary feature elimination was performed.) In total P=41 lasso models of the form (for some i.i.d. zero-mean Gaussian noise $\varepsilon$) $$\label{eq:lasso}
X_j = \beta_0+\beta_1X^{(-j)}_1 + \dots + +\beta_{P-1}X^{(-j)}_{P-1} +\varepsilon$$ were therefore fitted to each feature of interest $X_j$ via CV using the remaining P-1 features $\{X^{(-j)}_{1},\dots,X^{(-j)}_{P-1}\}$ as predictors, from the CV sample of $N_{CV}$ observations, i.e. $X_j=\{X_{j,1}, \dots, X_{j,N_{CV}}\}$. In other words each of the 41 continuous features available (that is, all features except for tumor grade and patient sex) was thus modelled by fitting a lasso model to the remainder of the feature set.
Feature selections and model fits from the CV training sets were then analysed. The feature selection scheme provided by lasso was used to eliminate weaker contributions. The remaining predictors were inspected and those with an estimated effect $\hat{\beta}$ of a magnitude of at least 20% of the overall sum of estimated effects $\sum_{j=1}^{P-1} \hat{\beta}_j$ from (\[eq:lasso\]) were retained as final predictors of that dependent variable. The choice of a 20% cutoff was arbitrary but aimed to reduce the model to a few (possibly strong) predictors. In any case (i.e. even when all estimated coefficients were under this cutoff point of 20% of the cumulative effect in magnitude) the two covariates with highest estimated effect $\hat{\beta}$ were retained as a final model.
A final lasso model was fitted to the whole CV sample (using all $N_{CV}=100$ observations) using only these (typically two or three) most popular features as determined by CV. This final prediction model was then applied independently to the test set (using the $N_{test}=30$ remaining observations) for final prediction performance assessment for each of the features available.
Results
=======
Correlation and partial correlation analyses
--------------------------------------------
Figure \[fig:GGM\] illustrates the output of a GGM, which provides guidance for the understanding of direct relationships between some of the features based on their partial correlations. It highlights several characteristics of this feature space. For instance, it indicates no direct correlation between age and any of the features and exhibits the expected relationships between SUVmax and SUVmean, and between SUVmean, TLG and volume. It also exhibits a cluster of uptake gradients (lower left) which was also expected due to their construction–these quantities are successive quantiles of the sample of normalized uptake gradients [@Wolsztynski18]. Moreover this graph provides information on direct associations between some of the conventional radiomic features. Skewness, kurtosis and other summaries of the histogram of requantized intensities, unsurprisingly, tend to cluster together (top right), with significant partial correlation found among this group of features. The graph also highlights direct correlation among a group of GLCM features comprising of entropy, dissimilarity, contrast, homogeneity and a few other metrics.
These direct associations may be at least partially explained by their mathematical construction; however they may also be partially driven by other factors that may be pertaining to biological or physiological aspects of the disease. Many of these relationships can be directly exploited in further multivariate modelling of the features to assess prediction potential for this set of features, as considered further below.
![Gaussian graphical model obtained for the sarcoma feature set, showing direct associations between features as defined by partial correlation.[]{data-label="fig:GGM"}](GGM.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
Principle Component Analysis
----------------------------
The principle components (PC’s) derived from PCA of the STS feature set consist of linear recombinations of the input features. The first 12 PC’s (on the arbitrary basis that the first 12 PCs captured over 95% of the variance in the feature set) were used as composite risk predictors in a multivariate Cox proportional hazard model. This analysis demonstrated the prognostic potential of this multilinear recombination of the original STS feature set, with 3 of the 12 PC’s found statistically significant prognostic variables at the 5% significance level (Figure \[tab:PCA\_Cox\]). Figure \[fig:PCA\_KM\] further illustrates this potential in terms of Kaplan-Meier risk stratification for overall survival, comparing this model to a baseline clinical model comprising of tumor grade, patient age and SUVmax. Note that here the low- and high-risk survival curves are separated so as to optimize the log-rank test statistic.
![P-values for the multivariate Cox proportional hazard model for overall survival copmrising of the frst 12 principal components, with associated concordance index $\mathcal{C}$=0.75.[]{data-label="tab:PCA_Cox"}](PCA_Cox_table.pdf){width=".7\columnwidth"}
![Kaplan-Meier analysis showing risk stratifications obtained from baseline clinical assessment based on grade, age and SUVmax (red, dashed lines) and by using the first 12 principal components together for multivarate risk prediction (blue, solid lines).[]{data-label="fig:PCA_KM"}](PCA_KM.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
This PCA output was subsequently analysed by k-means clustering using 12 clusters (thus arbitrarily matching our use of the first 12 PCs for risk prediction). This determined the clusters of features in the PCA projection space illustrated by Figure \[fig:PCA\]. Makeup of the clusters is detailed in Figure \[tab:PCA\_clusters\]. The right-most column in this table provides tentative fields of interpretability for each cluster. This is included here solely as an illustration of the potential for explainable PCA-derived models that is facilitated by clustering analysis of the PCA output. Thorough, rigorous investigations would be required in order to establish suitable clinical interpretation guidelines from such feature clusters.
![Biplot of the features in the PCA projection space, along the first two eigenvectors ($e_1$ and $e_2$). Colour-code and grey dots respectively indicate clusters and cluster centroids obtained from k-means clustering of the projected features (i.e. analysing the eigenvector coordinates).[]{data-label="fig:PCA"}](PCA_clusters.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
![Clusters of features obtained from combined PCA and k-means analysis of the STS feature set. A tentative indication for interpretability is provided here only for the purpose of illustrating the potential for explainable PCA-derived models facilitated by the clustering analysis.[]{data-label="tab:PCA_clusters"}](cluster_table.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
Multilinear modelling
---------------------
Lasso modelling of the features determined that in many cases, a radiomic feature could be predicted with high accuracy. Figures \[fig:associations1\] and \[fig:associations2\] show eight examples of such predictions on the 30 test datapoints. GLCM autocorrelation, for example, was predicted extremely well using only mean$_{HIST}$ and variance$_{HIST}$, which suggests this second-order feature may be replaced with, or interpreted by more easily explainable first-order features.
In some cases clinical variables were found useful in predicting agnostic features; for example Figure \[fig:associations1\] depicts reasonable prediction of GLCM max.probability using GLCM uniformity and SUVmax.
We also note that age and $\mathcal{H}_1$ were selected to predict GLCM correlation however with poor performance (Figure \[fig:associations2\]). This aligns with previous findings (from the above correlation analysis and also from [@Wolsztynski18]) of reasonable separation between model-derived features ($\mathcal{H}_0$, $\mathcal{H}_1$ and related uptake gradients) and conventional radiomic features. Overall, however, many of the 41 features considered were predicted with high accuracy from a small number of other features.
For many of these features, it was observed that the predictors selected via cross-validated lasso modelling were connected to the dependent feature in the GGM representation; in other words lasso often selected predictors with strong partial correlation with the dependent variable (which could be expected from this multilinear modelling technique).
![Prediction performance based on lasso modelling for homogeneity, contrast, autocorrelation and maximum probability (all GLCM features) successively (clockwise from top-left), with associated MSE between predicted and observed values, for the STS test set ($N_{test}$=30). The two or three features used as predictors in each case are indicated in inset.[]{data-label="fig:associations1"}](relationships_1.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
![Prediction performance as in Figure \[fig:associations1\], but here for entropy, uniformity correlation and dissimilarity GLCM features respectively.[]{data-label="fig:associations2"}](relationships_2.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
Conclusion
==========
Identifying and understanding associations between radiomic features and routine variables, such as grade or other clinically interpretable forms of assessment, is a key step towards integration of models obtained from machine learning analyses. Some works do establish links between specific texture features and tumor biologic heterogeneity for example; but the generalization of this understanding to all such agnostic features will enable integration of full AI systems within the field of radiology. Here we promote discussion on some possible statistical analysis pathways towards this goal.
Most reports of radiomics studies focus on the clustering of agnostic features and assess their potential alignment with routine variables *a posteriori*, to analyze the clustering output. Potential interactions between agnostic and routine variable can also be explored more directly by allowing any such feature to describe any other, as is done in this work via lasso modelling.
This pilot analysis highlighted numerous substantial feature associations. Many of 41 clinical and radiomic features considered here were predicted with high accuracy using a small number of other features, via lasso modelling, focusing on linear interactions. The majority of these associations were noticed to coincide with groupings of features obtained on the basis of a high partial correlation, as exposed in a Gaussian graphical model representation.
This didactic presentation aimed at demonstrating methodologies of interest for exploration of strong direct associations within a radiological feature set. More extensive analyses of such associations are currently underway and will be presented in follow-on reports for sarcoma, NSCLC and other cancer types. This work will explore opportunities for simplification of prognostic models on the basis of relationships found within the combined clinical and agnostic feature set.
[^1]: This work was presented at the 2019 IEEE Medical Imaging Conference, 2 November, Manchester, UK. This work was supported in part by Science Foundation Ireland under Grants No. 12/RC/2289-P2 and SFI-PI 11/1047.
[^2]: E. Wolsztynski is with the School of Mathematical Sciences, University College Cork, T12 XY86, and the Insight Centre for Data Analytics, Ireland (e-mail: eric.w@ucc.ie).
|
---
author:
- 'J. M. Brader$^1$, M. E. Cates$^2$ and M. Fuchs$^1$'
title: |
A First-Principles Constitutive Equation for Suspension Rheology:\
Supplementary Material
---
In this supplementary material we first provide additional details of our integration through transients approach to the constitutive equation and distorted microstructure, clarifying the approximations required to obtain Eqs.(11) and (12). We then present an exact result for the friction kernel and details of the approximations leading to Eqs.(13)-(15). Finally, we provide additional comments regarding two continuum mechanics principles from the standpoint of the present work.
Integration Through Transients
==============================
Central to our integration through transients approach is Eq.(10) which enables averages of functions of the particle coordinates to be calculated \[7\]. Applying (10) to a general function $f$ of the phase space coordinates yields the time-dependent average $$\begin{aligned}
\langle f \rangle(t)
= \langle f \rangle + \int_{-\infty}^{t}\!\!dt'
\langle{\rm Tr}\{{\boldsymbol{\kappa}}(t')\hat{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}\}
e_-^{\int_{t'}^t ds\,\Omega^{\dagger}(s)}
f \rangle.
\notag\end{aligned}$$ The time-ordered exponential function $e_{-}$ generalizes the exponential function for (differential) operators [@vankampen]. Choosing $f=\hat\sigma_{\alpha\beta}/V$, where $V$ is the system volume, yields directly an exact generalized Green-Kubo relation for the stress tensor $${\boldsymbol \sigma}(t) = \frac{1}{V} \int_{-\infty}^{t}\!\!\!\!\! dt'\,
\langle
{\rm Tr}\{{\boldsymbol{\kappa}}(t')\hat{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}\}
e_-^{\int_{t'}^t ds\,\Omega^{\dagger}(s)} \hat{\boldsymbol \sigma}\rangle.
\notag
\label{exact_stress}$$ This equation is nonlinear in ${\boldsymbol{\kappa}}(t)$ due to the appearance of $\Omega^{\dagger}(t)$ in the exponent. The stress autocorrelation function $\langle\,\cdot\,\rangle$ appearing in the above expression is the overlap between a stress fluctuation at time $t'$ and a second fluctuation at later time $t$ which has evolved under a combination of shear-driven and internal motion. This correlation function is approximated by calculating overlaps of the stress fluctuations with density fluctuations describing slow structural relaxation of the dense system. The lowest order non-zero projection of the dynamics is onto pairs of density fluctuations and is achieved using the pair projector $$\begin{aligned}
P_{2}=\sum_{{\bf k}>{\bf p}}\rho^{}_{{\bf k}}\rho^{}_{{\bf p}}\rangle
\frac{1}{N^2 S_{k}S_{p}}
\langle\,\rho^{*}_{{\bf k}}\rho^{*}_{{\bf p}}.
\notag\end{aligned}$$ Insertion of this projector either side of the time-ordered exponential function followed by factorization of a fourth moment in density fluctuations into the product of second moments (viz. the correlators) leads to an approximate expression for the stress tensor. The time evolution of stress fluctuations is thus represented by the transient density correlator $\Phi_{\bf k}(t,t')$. Within our approach the static structure factor $S_k$ serves to represent the direct potential interactions. For glassy states ageing leads to a residual time dependence of $S_k$ which cannot be resolved within our approach. We therefore employ an extrapolation of the equilibrium $S_k$ when working above the glass transition.
In order to calculate the distorted structure factor we use our general result (10) to calculate the average of $\Delta\rho^*_{\bf k}\rho^{}_{\bf k}=\rho^*_{\bf k}\rho^{}_{\bf k}
- \langle\rho^*_{\bf k}\rho^{}_{\bf k}\rangle$ $$\begin{aligned}
S_{\bf k}(t;{\boldsymbol{\kappa}})
\!=\! \langle \rho^*_{\bf k}\rho^{}_{\bf k} \rangle \!+\! \int_{-\infty}^{t}\!\!dt'
\langle{\rm Tr}\{{\boldsymbol{\kappa}}(t')\hat{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}\}
e_-^{\int_{t'}^t ds\,\Omega^{\dagger}(s)}
\Delta\rho^*_{\bf k}\rho^{}_{\bf k} \rangle.
\notag\end{aligned}$$ As for the stress we can apply the projection operator $P_2$ to approximate the average in the integrand, leading to the expression (11) for the distorted structure factor. We note that in calculating $S_{\bf k}(t;{\boldsymbol{\kappa}})$ we require Baxter’s result $
\langle \rho^{*}_{\bf k}\rho^{}_{\bf k}\rho^{}_{\bf 0} \rangle =
NS_0 \left( S_k + n\frac{\partial S_k}{\partial n} \right)
$ to treat the three point function which arises as a result of the projection operator steps [@baxter].
Equation of Motion
==================
In order to close our constitutive theory we require an equation of motion for the transient density correlator. The advected wavevector appearing in the definition of $\Phi_{\bf k}(t,t')$ may be reformulated as $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_{\bf k}(t,t')&=&
\frac{1}{N S_{k}}
\langle\,\rho^*_{\bf k}
e_{-}^{\int_{t'}^t ds\,\Omega^{\dagger}(s)}
\rho_{\bar{{{\bf k}}}(t,t')} \rangle \notag\\
&=&
\frac{1}{N S_{k}}
\langle\,\rho^*_{\bf k}
e_{-}^{\int_{t'}^t ds\,\Omega^{\dagger}(s)}
e_{-}^{-\int_{t'}^t ds\,\delta\Omega^{\dagger}(s)}
\rho_{{{{\bf k}}}} \rangle
\notag\end{aligned}$$ where we introduce $\delta\Omega^{\dagger}(t) = \sum_i{{\bf r}}_i\cdot{\boldsymbol{\kappa}}^T(t)\cdot{\boldsymbol{\partial}}_i$. Exact operator identities generalizing \[7\] lead directly to the first equation of motion $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\Phi_{\bf q}(t,t_0) &+&
\Gamma_{\bf q}(t,t_0)\Phi_{\bf q}(t,t_0) \notag\\
&&\hspace*{-0.3cm}+ \int_{t_0}^{t}dt' \,M_{\bf q}(t,t',t_0)\Phi_{\bf q}(t',t_0)
=\Delta_{\bf q}(t,t_0).
\notag\end{aligned}$$ The initial decay rate is given explicitly by $\Gamma_{\bf q}(t,t_0)=\bar{q}^2(t,t_0)/S_{\bar{q}(t,t_0)}$. Exact formal expressions are obtained for both the generalized diffusion kernel $M_{\bf q}(t,t',t_0)$ and correction function $\Delta_{\bf q}(t,t_0)$. Regarding the first equation of motion as a Volterra integral equation of the second kind enables the final exact form for the equation of motion to be formulated $$\begin{aligned}
\hspace*{0.cm}
\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\Phi_{\bf q}(t,t_0)
&+& \Gamma_{\bf q}(t,t_0)\bigg(
\Phi_{{{\bf q}}}(t,t_0)
\notag\\
&&\hspace*{-1cm}+
\int_{t_0}^t dt' \,m_{{{\bf q}}}(t,t',t_0) \frac{\partial}{\partial t'} \Phi_{{{\bf q}}}(t',t_0)
\bigg) = \tilde\Delta_{\bf q}(t,t_0).
\notag\end{aligned}$$
The generalized friction kernel and modified correction function are given formally by $$\begin{aligned}
m_{\bf q}(t,t',t_0)&=&
\frac{
\langle
\rho^*_{\bf q} \Omega_a^{\dagger}(t',t_0) U_i(t,t',t_0)
\Omega^{\dagger}_r(t,t_0)\rho_{\bf q}
\rangle}
{
NS_{\bar{q}(t',t_0)} \Gamma_{\bf q}(t',t_0) \Gamma_{\bf q}(t,t_0)
},\notag\\
\tilde\Delta_{\bf q}(t,t')&=&
\frac{\langle \rho^{*}_{\bf q} U_i(t,t',0)\,\Omega^{\dagger}_r(t)\rho^{}_{\bf q} \rangle}{NS_q},
\notag\end{aligned}$$ where we have introduced the operators $$\begin{aligned}
\Omega_a^{\dagger}(t',t_0)&=&
e_-^{\int_{t_0}^{t'} ds \,\overline{\delta\Omega}^{\dagger}(s)}
\Omega_e^{\dagger}\,
e_+^{-\int_{t_0}^{t'} ds \,\delta\Omega^{\dagger}(s)},
\notag\\
\Omega^{\dagger}_r(t,t_0)&=&
e_-^{\int_{t_0}^{t} ds \,\delta\Omega^{\dagger}(s)}
Q(t,t_0)\Omega^{\dagger}_e\,
e_-^{-\int_{t_0}^{t} ds \,\delta\Omega^{\dagger}(s)},\notag\\
\Omega_i^{\dagger}(t,t_0) &=& \Omega^{\dagger}_r(t,t_0)
\left( 1
- \frac{\rho^{}_{\bf q}\rangle\langle\,\rho^{*}_{\bf q}\Omega_a^{\dagger}(t,t_0)}
{\langle \,\rho^{*}_{\bf q}\,\Omega_{a}^{\dagger}(t,t_0)\,\rho^{}_{\bf q} \rangle}\right),
\notag\end{aligned}$$ which depend upon $\overline{\delta\Omega}^{\dagger}(t)=
\sum_i{{\bf r}}_i\cdot{\boldsymbol{\kappa}}^T(t)\cdot({\boldsymbol{\partial}}_i + {\bf F}_i)$ and $Q(t,t_0) \!=\! 1 \!-\! \sum_{\bf q}
\rho^{}_{\bar{\bf q}(t,t_0)}\,\rangle
\frac{1}{NS_{\bar{q}(t,t_0)}}
\langle\,\rho^{*}_{\bar{\bf q}(t,t_0)}$. The irreducible part of the dynamics is contained in $$\begin{aligned}
U_i(t,t',t_0)=
e_-^{\int_{t'}^{t} ds \,\Omega_i^{\dagger}(s,t_0)}.
\notag\end{aligned}$$
All results are at this stage formally exact. Approximation of the friction kernel proceeds via two steps and is based on the assumption that $U_{i}(t,t',t_0)$ contains slow dynamics only because of coupling to higher density modes describing structural relaxation. Firstly, we project the average in the numerator onto density pairs using the time dependent projection operator $$\begin{aligned}
P_{2}(t,t_0)=\sum_{{\bf k}>{\bf p}}\frac{\rho^{}_{\bf \bar{k}(t,t_0)}\rho^{}_{\bf \bar{p}(t,t_0)}\rangle
\langle\,\rho^{*}_{{\bf \bar{k}}(t,t_0)}\rho^{*}_{{\bf \bar{p}(t,t_0)}}}
{N^2 S_{\bar{k}(t,t_0)}S^{}_{\bar{p}(t,t_0)}}.
\notag\end{aligned}$$ This reduces the problem to the calculation of a four point correlation function. The second step is to approximate this correlator, in the spirit of quiescent mode coupling theory, by a product of pair correlators. The modified correction function makes a negligable contribution for small accumulated strains which suggests the approximation $\tilde\Delta(t,t_0)\!=\!0$ [@future]. We thus arrive at Eqs.(14) and (15) given in the main text.\
Continuum Mechanics Principles
==============================
The principle of material objectivity states that the relationship between the stress and strain tensors should be independent of the rotational state of either the sample or the observer \[11,16,17\]. This is satisfied by the Smoluchowski equation which neglects inertial effects. That this invariance is preserved in our approximate equations can be explicitly confirmed by considering the imposition of a time dependent rotation onto an arbitrary flow. The shear gradient, deformation gradient, left and right Cauchy-Green tensors in the rotating frame are thus given by $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{{\boldsymbol{\kappa}}}(t) &=& {\boldsymbol{R}}(t){\boldsymbol{\kappa}}(t){\boldsymbol{R}}^T(t)+\dot{{\boldsymbol{R}}}(t){\boldsymbol{R}}^T(t)\notag\\
\hat{{\boldsymbol{F}}}(t,t')&=& {\boldsymbol{R}}(t){\boldsymbol{F}}(t,t'){\boldsymbol{R}}^T(t')\notag\\
\hat{{\boldsymbol{B}}}(t,t')&=& {\boldsymbol{R}}(t){\boldsymbol{B}}(t,t'){\boldsymbol{R}}^T(t)\notag\\
\hat{{\boldsymbol{C}}}^{-1}(t,t')&=& {\boldsymbol{R}}(t'){\boldsymbol{C}}^{-1}(t,t'){\boldsymbol{R}}^T(t'),\notag\end{aligned}$$ where ${\boldsymbol{R}}(t)$ is a time-dependent rotation matrix. It is a straightforward but laborious exercise to substitute the transformed tensors into expressions (8),(9),(11-14) in order to obtain the required invariance result for the stress tensor $\hat{{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}}(t)={\boldsymbol{R}}(t)\,{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}(t){\boldsymbol{R}}^{T}(t).$
An invariance requirement often implicitly employed in continuum modeling is Oldroyd’s [*principle of local action*]{} \[11\] which states that only neighbouring particles are involved in determining the stress at any given point. The ${\bf k}$ integrals in (11) and (12) are insensitive to the low-$k$ behavior of the integrands. In this sense local action is substantiated by the present microscopic theory.
N.G. van Kampen, Chapter XV Section 3, in [*Stochastic Processes in Physics and Chemistry*]{} (North-Holland, Amsterdam, New York, Oxford 1981).
R.J. Baxter, J.Chem.Phys. [**41**]{} 553 (1964).
M. Fuchs and M.E. Cates, (in preparation).
|
---
abstract: |
Given a random quantum state of multiple (distinguishable or indistinguishable) particles, we provide an algorithm, rooted in symplectic geometry, to compute the joint probability distribution of the eigenvalues of its one-body reduced density matrices, and hence some associated physical invariants of the state.
As a corollary, by taking the support of this probability distribution, which is a convex polytope, we recover a complete solution to the one-body quantum marginal problem, i.e., the problem of characterizing the one-body reduced density matrices that arise from some multi-particle quantum state. In the fermionic instance of the problem, which is known as the one-body $N$-representability problem, the famous Pauli principle amounts to one linear inequality in the description of the convex polytope.
We obtain the probability distribution by reducing to computing the corresponding distribution of diagonal entries (i.e., to the quantitative version of a classical marginal problem), which is then determined algorithmically. This reduction applies more generally to symplectic geometry, relating invariant measures for a compact Lie group action to that for the maximal torus action; we state and prove our results in this more general symplectic setting. Our approach is in striking contrast to the existing solution to the computation of the supporting polytope by Klyachko and by Berenstein and Sjamaar, which made crucial use of non-Abelian features.
In algebraic geometry, Duistermaat–Heckman measures correspond to the asymptotic distribution of multiplicities of irreducible representations in the associated coordinate ring. In the case of the one-body quantum marginal problem, these multiplicities include bounded height Kronecker and plethysm coefficients. A quantized version of the Abelianization procedure provides an efficient algorithm for their computation.
address:
- 'Matthias Christandl, Institute for Theoretical Physics, ETH Zürich, Wolfgang–Pauli–Strasse 27, CH-8093 Zürich, Switzerland'
- 'Brent Doran, Department of Mathematics, ETH Zürich, Rämistrasse 101, CH-8092 Zürich, Switzerland'
- 'Stavros Kousidis, Institute for Theoretical Physics, ETH Zürich, Wolfgang–Pauli–Strasse 27, CH-8093 Zürich, SwitzerlandInstitute of Physics, University of Freiburg, Rheinstrasse 10, 79104 Freiburg, Germany'
- 'Michael Walter, Institute for Theoretical Physics, ETH Zürich, Wolfgang–Pauli–Strasse 27, CH-8093 Zürich, Switzerland'
author:
- Matthias Christandl
- Brent Doran
- Stavros Kousidis
- Michael Walter
bibliography:
- 'dhmeasure.bib'
title: Eigenvalue Distributions of Reduced Density Matrices
---
Introduction
============
The pure state of a quantum system is described by a vector in a complex Hilbert space, or more precisely by a point in the corresponding projective space. Herein we consider the finite dimensional case, for instance a spin system. Since the Hilbert space for multiple particles is given by the tensor product of the Hilbert spaces of the individual particles, its dimension grows exponentially with the number of particles. This exponential behavior is therefore the key obstruction to classical modeling of quantum systems. The observation is as old as quantum theory itself, and physicists ever since have tried to find ways around it. In that spirit, our paper presents an effective method to extract those physical features that “only depend on the one-body eigenvalues” associated to randomly-chosen quantum states of any fixed number of particles. Our methods are rooted in geometry, and so further a nascent dialog between algebraic and symplectic geometry on the one hand, and the theory of quantum computation and quantum information on the other, with new results for each subject. We therefore begin with some context, and make an effort in the body of the paper to build a correspondence in terminologies.
Typically, to address the aforementioned exponential complexity, physicists make use of a very simple yet powerful observation: Important properties such as energy and entropy often do not depend on the whole wavefunction but rather on only a small part, namely the *reduced density matrix*, or quantum marginal, of a few particles. For instance, the binding energy of a molecule is given as a minimization over two-electron reduced density matrices arising from $N$-electron wavefunctions. Mathematically, the reduced density matrix is given as the contraction of (or trace over) the indices of the projection operator onto the wavefunction over the remaining particles (see for the precise definition). The problem of characterizing the set of possible reduced density matrices, known as the *quantum marginal problem* in quantum information theory and as the $N$-representability problem in quantum chemistry [@ruskai69; @colemanyukalov00], has therefore been considered one of the most fundamental problems in quantum theory [@stillinger95]. The general problem is computationally intractable, even on a quantum computer; more precisely it is QMA-complete and NP-hard [@liu06; @liuchristandlverstraete07]. However, the characterization of the one-body reduced density matrices of a pure global quantum state [@klyachko04; @daftuarhayden04; @klyachko06] admits a very elegant mathematical interpretation: it amounts to a description of the possible eigenvalues of the reduced density matrices; and this, just as for Horn’s problem, requires the computation of moment polytopes for coadjoint orbits of unitary groups, as first observed in [@christandlmitchison06; @daftuarhayden04; @klyachko04]. An interesting consequence is that defining linear inequalities for the polytope can have physical interpretation: for instance, the Pauli principle is simply one linear inequality bounding the polytope of a fermionic system (see [@coleman63; @borlanddennis72; @ruskai07; @klyachkoaltunbulak08; @klyachko09] and [@higuchi03; @higuchisudberyszulc03; @bravyi04] for further examples).
Random states play a fundamental role in physics. In classical *statistical mechanics*, the canonical state (or, “canonical ensemble”) is the marginal probability distribution (Gibbs measure, or Boltzmann distribution) of states of the system arising from a uniformly random configuration of system and bath, subject to an energy constraint and fixed particle numbers for both system and bath [@huang90]. In quantum statistical mechanics, the canonical state of the system is the reduced density matrix of the uniform state on a subspace (encoding the energy constraint) of system and bath. In fact it can be shown that the canonical state almost always approximates the reduced density matrix of a random pure state in this subspace, as for large systems a concentration of measure occurs [@popescushortwinter06; @lloyd06; @goldsteinlebowitztumulkaetal06]. Earlier, and also out of thermodynamic considerations, Lloyd and Pagels in a seminal work computed the distribution of eigenvalues of the reduced density matrix of the system when system and bath are in a random pure state [@lloydpagels88], i.e., in the simplest case of two large “particles”, one representing the system and one the bath. In this paper we are concerned with computing exact eigenvalue distributions for any number of particles, rather than with asymptotic results or with simple model systems of two particles. More precisely, we are concerned with the following question:
> *What is the probability distribution of the eigenvalues of the one-body reduced density matrices of a pure many-particle quantum state drawn at random from the unitarily invariant distribution?*
In this article, we answer this question completely by describing an explicit algorithm to compute the joint eigenvalue distribution of the reduced density matrices for an arbitrary number of particles of any statistics (distinguishable, Bose, Fermi). As a special case we easily recover the Lloyd–Pagels result for two distinguishable particles. As a corollary, our work naturally leads to a solution of the one-body quantum marginal problem in terms of a finite union of polyhedral chambers, thereby providing a complementary perspective on the work of Klyachko and of Berenstein–Sjamaar, and more recently of Ressayre, who each instead provided procedures based on geometric invariant theory (in particular the Hilbert–Mumford criterion) to list characterizing linear inequalities [@berensteinsjamaar00; @klyachko04; @ressayre10] for the moment polytope.
We emphasize that the computed eigenvalue distributions can be directly used to infer distributions of Rényi and von Neumann entropies, both of which play a fundamental role in statistical physics and quantum information theory and are functions of the eigenvalues only. In particular, one can recover the average entropy of a subsystem [@lubkin78; @page93], which featured in an analysis of the black hole entropy paradox [@page94; @HaydenPreskill]. For applications to the study of quantum entanglement, see .
From a mathematical perspective, the eigenvalue distributions that we compute are *Duistermaat–Heckman measures*, which are defined using the push-forward of the Liouville measure on a symplectic manifold along the moment map (see for the precise definition which we use in this article) [@heckman82; @guilleminsternberg82b; @guilleminsternberg84; @guilleminlermansternberg88; @guilleminlermansternberg96; @guilleminprato90]. The support of such a measure is a moment polytope, which in our physical context is the solution to the one-body quantum marginal problem. We will work and establish our results in this more general symplectic setting, in similar spirit to the existing solution to the one-body quantum marginal problem [@berensteinsjamaar00; @klyachko04]. We remark that, in particular, the one-body quantum marginal problem subsumes the well-known Horn’s problem, which asks for the possible eigenvalues of the sum $A + B$ of two Hermitian matrices $A$, $B$ with fixed eigenvalues [@helmkerosenthal95; @klyachko98; @knutsontao99; @fulton00; @knutsontao01; @knutsontaowoodward03]. The corresponding eigenvalue distribution for randomly-chosen matrices $A$ and $B$ has also been studied in the literature, and our methods allow us to recover the main results of [@dooleyrepkawildberger93] (); see also [@frumkingoldberger06] for a more concrete approach.
However, one striking difference between existing approaches to the one-body quantum marginal problem and the corollary to our approach is that the subtleties associated with the non-Abelian nature of their solutions can be completely bypassed. For instance, their reliance upon cohomology of Schubert cycles, and the interplay of different Weyl groups and sub-tori that feature because of repeated use of the Hilbert–Mumford criterion, may be seen as incidental. The problem, even in the full generality of the symplectic setting, is at heart an Abelian one whose essential combinatorics is encoded in the maximal torus action together with taking finitely many explicit derivatives. Remarkably, this is more than philosophy, as it has real import for computation.
The first mathematical contribution of this paper is an effective technique for providing explicit Duistermaat–Heckman measures under rather weaker assumptions than appear in the literature (). The fact that this subsumes our main question above, and in particular the one-body quantum marginal problem, while the existing literature does not, is the crucial second point of this work (). A third feature is our statement of the Abelianization procedure via the derivative principle for invariant measures (); though we have not seen this principle so formulated in the literature, there certainly are predecessors and the result should be equivalent to one of Harish-Chandra [@harishchandra57]. That a “quantized” version of our algorithm can be used to compute (efficiently, unlike existing algorithms, see ) multiplicities for the branching problem of representation theory may be seen as the fourth mathematical consequence of our approach.
The basic strategy we follow to address our main question above is a sequence of reductions. Firstly, our general quantum problem is replaced by an equivalent but more tractable one by “purification” of the quantum state (). This reduced problem is seen to satisfy a weak non-degeneracy assumption, so that the image of the moment map does not lie entirely on a wall in the relevant Weyl chamber. Under this assumption we can reduce via a *derivative principle* to the Duistermaat–Heckman measure for the maximal torus action (), which we evaluate by a “single-summand” algorithm along the lines of Boysal–Vergne [@boysalvergne09] ().
This derivative principle holds for more general $K$-invariant measures on the dual of the Lie algebra, $\mathfrak k^*$: Every invariant measure can be reconstructed from its projection onto the dual of the Lie algebra of the maximal torus by taking partial derivatives in the direction of negative roots (). Again, we remark that such a reduction is not possible on the level of the supports of the Duistermaat–Heckman measures, i.e., on the moment polytopes. We also remark that in the case of the one-body quantum marginal problem, the Duistermaat–Heckman measure for the maximal torus action is the joint distribution of the diagonal entries of the one-body reduced density matrices (as opposed to their eigenvalues). Amusingly, this distribution can be viewed as the solution to the quantitative version of a classical marginal problem ().
The single-summand algorithm alluded to above is an effective method for computing Duistermaat–Heckman measures for torus actions on projective spaces (). Its name stems from the fact that it amounts to evaluating a single summand of the kind that occurs in the well-known Heckman formula of Guillemin–Lerman–Sternberg [@guilleminlermansternberg88], which expresses the measure as an alternating sum of iterated convolutions of Heaviside measures. We also describe an algorithm based on this latter formula () that can in particular be applied to projections of coadjoint orbits (), and hence to the setting of Berenstein–Sjamaar [@berensteinsjamaar00].
Whenever a Hamiltonian group action can be quantized in a certain technical sense, Duistermaat–Heckman measures have an interpretation as the asymptotic limit of associated representation-theoretic quantities [@heckman82; @guilleminsternberg82b; @sjamaar95; @meinrenken96; @meinrenkensjamaar99; @vergne98]. In the second part of this article ( and ), we thus study the representation theory connected to the one-body quantum marginal problem; here, the relevant multiplicities include the Kronecker coefficients, which play a major role in the representation theory of the unitary and symmetric groups [@fulton97], as well as in Mulmuley and Sohoni’s geometric complexity theory approach to the P vs. NP problem in computer science [@mulmuleysohoni01; @mulmuleysohoni08; @mulmuley07; @burgisserlandsbergmaniveletal11]. It has been observed that the existence of a pure tripartite quantum state with given marginal eigenvalue spectra is equivalent to the asymptotic non-vanishing of an associated sequence of Kronecker coefficients [@christandlmitchison06; @klyachko04; @christandlharrowmitchison07], see also [@daftuarhayden04; @knutson09; @burgisserchristandlikenmeyer11; @burgisserchristandlikenmeyer11b]. For a similar connection in the context of Horn’s problem and Littlewood–Richardson coefficients, see [@lidskii82; @knutson00; @christandl08].
Our main results in this context are quantized versions of our earlier theorems: Kronecker coefficients can be computed by applying finite difference operators to weight multiplicities which are related to the classical marginal problem: Instead of measuring the volume of a polytope, one has to count the number of lattice points in the polytope. This can be computed efficiently using Barvinok’s algorithm [@barvinok94], and so leads to an efficient algorithm for computing Kronecker coefficients for Young diagrams with bounded height. Again, we shall establish the results in greater generality and recover the version for Kronecker coefficients as a special case.
Notation and Conventions {#notation}
------------------------
Throughout this article, $K$ will denote a compact, connected Lie group with maximal torus $T \subseteq K$, rank $r = \dim T$, Weyl group $W$, respective Lie algebras $\mathfrak k$ and $\mathfrak t$, and integral lattice $\Lambda = \ker {\left.\exp\vphantom{\big|}\right|_{\mathfrak t}}$ [@cartersegalmacdonald95; @kirillov08]. We write $\pi_{K,T} \colon \mathfrak k^* \rightarrow \mathfrak t^*$ for the projection dual to the inclusion $\mathfrak t \subseteq \mathfrak k$. We will think of weights as elements of the dual lattice, $\Lambda^* = \operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathbb Z}}(\Lambda, {\mathbb Z}) \subseteq \mathfrak t^*$, and identify a character $\chi \colon T \rightarrow \operatorname{U}(1)$ with the weight $d\chi/{2 \pi i} \in \mathfrak t^*$. We denote by $d\lambda$ the Lebesgue measure on $\mathfrak t^*$ that is normalized in such a way that any fundamental domain of the weight lattice $\Lambda^*$ has unit measure. Let us also choose a positive Weyl chamber $\mathfrak t^*_+ \subseteq \mathfrak t^*$; this determines a set of positive roots $\{ \alpha > 0 \} = \{ \alpha_1, \ldots, \alpha_R \} \subseteq \mathfrak t^*$. The set of negative roots is by definition $\{ -\alpha : \alpha > 0 \}$. We write $\mathfrak t^*_{>0}$ for the interior of the positive Weyl chamber, which contains the strictly dominant weights. We will often identify $\mathfrak k$ and its dual $\mathfrak k^*$, as well as $\mathfrak t$ and $\mathfrak t^*$, via some fixed $K$-invariant inner product $\braket{-,-}$ on $\mathfrak k$.
For the special unitary group $\operatorname{SU}(d)$, which we always take to be the group of unitary $d\times{}d$-matrices with unit determinant, we use the maximal torus consisting of diagonal matrices, on which the Weyl group $S_d$ acts by permuting diagonal entries. The Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{su}}(d)$ consists of anti-Hermitian matrices with trace zero, and our choice of invariant inner product is $\braket{X, Y} = -{\mathrm{tr}\left(X Y\right)}$. Using it to identify $\mathfrak t$ and $\mathfrak t^*$, a positive Weyl chamber $\mathfrak t^*_+$ is given by the set of diagonal matrices $\lambda = \operatorname{diag}(\lambda_1, \ldots, \lambda_d)$ with purely imaginary entries, summing to zero and arranged in such a way that $i \lambda_1 \geq \ldots \geq i \lambda_d$. This corresponds to choosing the positive roots $\alpha_{j,k}(\lambda) = i(\lambda_j - \lambda_k)$ with $j < k$. The points in the interior $\mathfrak t^*_{>0}$ are those $\lambda \in \mathfrak t^*_+$ with all distinct eigenvalues, i.e., $i \lambda_1 > \ldots > i \lambda_d$.
Let $M$ be a compact, connected Hamiltonian $K$-manifold of dimension $2n$, with symplectic form $\omega_M$ and a choice of moment map $\Phi_K \colon M \rightarrow \mathfrak k^*$ [@cannasdasilva08; @guilleminsternberg84]. The intersection $\Delta_K(M) = \Phi_K(M) \cap \mathfrak t^*_+$ of its image with the positive Weyl chamber is a compact convex polytope, called the *moment polytope* or *Kirwan polytope* [@guilleminsternberg82; @kirwan84b; @guilleminsjamaar05]. If $M$ is a coadjoint $K$-orbit $\mathcal O_\lambda$ through some $\lambda \in \mathfrak t^*_+$, it will always be equipped with the Kirillov–Kostant–Souriau symplectic form and the moment map induced by the inclusion $\mathcal O_\lambda \subseteq \mathfrak k^*$. Evidently, $\Delta_K(\mathcal O_\lambda) = \{\lambda\}$.
Throughout this article, we will always impose the following non-degeneracy condition:
\[main assumption\] The moment polytope $\Delta_K(M)$ has non-empty intersection with the interior of the positive Weyl chamber, $\mathfrak t^*_{>0}$.
In view of [@lermanmeinrenkentolmanetal98 Lemma 3.9] and well-known facts about compact Lie group actions, this assumption in fact implies the following: The set $\Phi_K^{-1}(K \cdot \mathfrak t^*_{>0})$ is an open, dense subset of $M$ whose complement has Liouville measure zero. We show in that does *not* restrict the applicability of our techniques to the problem of computing eigenvalue distributions of reduced density matrices.
The *Duistermaat–Heckman measure* $\operatorname{DH}^K_M$ is then defined as follows [@duistermaatheckman82]: Push forward the Liouville measure $\mu_M = \omega_M^n / ((2 \pi)^n n!)$ on $M$ along the moment map $\Phi_K$, compose with the push-forward along the quotient map $\tau_K \colon \mathfrak k^* \rightarrow \mathfrak t^*_+$ which sends all points in a coadjoint orbit $\mathcal O_\lambda$ to $\lambda$ in the positive Weyl chamber; then divide the resulting measure by the polynomial $p_K(\lambda) = \prod_{\alpha > 0} {\langle \lambda, \alpha \rangle} / {\langle \rho, \alpha \rangle}$, where $\rho$ is half the sum of positive roots. That is, $$\label{definition duistermaat-heckman measure}
\operatorname{DH}^K_M = \frac 1 {p_K} (\tau_K)_* (\Phi_K)_* (\mu_M).$$ ensures that $\operatorname{DH}^K_M$ is a locally finite measure on the interior of the positive Weyl chamber. Its support is equal to the moment polytope. Note that $p_K(\lambda)$ is equal to the Liouville volume of a maximal-dimensional coadjoint orbit $\mathcal O_\lambda$ [@berlinegetzlervergne03 Proposition 7.26]. Therefore, the above is a natural definition to use in our context: It is normalized so that the Duistermaat–Heckman measure associated with the action of $K$ on a generic coadjoint orbit $\mathcal O_\lambda$ is a probability distribution concentrated at the point $\lambda$.
If $H$ is another compact, connected Lie group, with Lie algebra $\mathfrak h$, acting on $M$ via a group homomorphism ${\varphi}\colon H \rightarrow K$, then this action is also Hamiltonian, with a moment map given by the composition $$\label{restriction to subgroups}
\Phi_H = (d{\varphi})^* \circ \Phi_K \colon M \rightarrow \mathfrak k^* \rightarrow \mathfrak h^*.$$ This in turn determines a Duistermaat–Heckman measure $\operatorname{DH}^H_M$. In particular, we can associate moment maps and Duistermaat–Heckman measures with all closed subgroups of $K$. In the case of the maximal torus $T \subseteq K$, we shall call $\Phi_T$ the *Abelian moment map* and $\operatorname{DH}^T_M$ the *Abelian Duistermaat–Heckman measure*, in order to distinguish them from the *non-Abelian moment map* $\Phi_K$ and the *non-Abelian Duistermaat–Heckman measure* $\operatorname{DH}^K_M$, respectively. Explicitly, $$\label{definition duistermaat-heckman measure abelian}
\operatorname{DH}^T_M = (\Phi_T)_* (\mu_M) = (\pi_{K,T})_* (\Phi_K)_* (\mu_M).$$
Throughout this paper we shall assume for simplicity that the Abelian moment polytope $\Delta_T(M)$ is of maximal dimension. This can always be arranged for by replacing $T$ by the quotient $T / \bigcap_{m \in M} T_m$, where $T_m$ denotes the $T$-stabilizer of a point $m \in M$. If $T$ is the maximal torus of a semisimple Lie group, it follows already from that $\Delta_T(M)$ is of maximal dimension. As a consequence, $T$ acts locally freely on a dense, open subset whose complement has Liouville measure zero [@duistermaatheckman82 Lemma 3.1]. In particular, generic points in $M$ are regular for the Abelian moment map. Therefore the Abelian Duistermaat–Heckman measure is absolutely continuous with respect to Lebesgue measure on $\mathfrak t^*$. By the Duistermaat–Heckman Theorem, $\operatorname{DH}^T_M$ in fact has a polynomial density function of degree at most $n-r$ on each connected component of the set of regular values [@duistermaatheckman82 Corollary 3.3]. We shall call these components the *regular chambers*, and one can show that, except for the unbounded one, every such chamber is an open convex polytope. If the closures of two regular chambers have a common boundary of maximal dimension (i.e., of codimension one) then we shall say that the two chambers are *adjacent* and call the common boundary a *singular wall*.
All Hilbert spaces which we consider in this article are complex and finite-dimensional. We write $P_\psi$ for the orthogonal projection onto a one-dimensional subspace ${\mathbb C}\psi$, and ${\lVertX\rVert}_2 = \sqrt{{\mathrm{tr}\left(X^*X\right)}} = \sum_j s_j^2$ for the Hilbert–Schmidt norm of an operator $X$ with singular values $(s_j)$. We use $\braket{-,-}$ to denote inner products as well as the pairing between measures (or more general distributions) and test functions. We write $\delta_p$ for the *Dirac measure* at $p$, i.e., the probability measure concentrated at the point $p$, and $H_\omega$ for the *Heaviside measure* which is defined by $\langle H_\omega, f \rangle = \int_0^\infty f(t \omega) dt$. We sometimes use the letter ${\mathbf P}$ for probability distributions.
Throughout the paper when we speak of the quantum marginal problem we always refer to its one-body version as described in .
Finally, we offer a word of caution for people acquainted with the theory of geometric quantization [@guilleminsternberg77; @woodhouse92]: Our quantum states do not arise via some quantization procedure from a classical symplectic phase space. In contrast, herein, as detailed in below, the spaces of quantum states themselves are Hamiltonian manifolds. Probability distributions can be realized as quantum states of a special form, and the passage from quantum to classical is related to passing from a non-Abelian group to its maximal torus (see for precise statements). The “semiclassical limit” well-known in geometric quantization does not have an analogous physical meaning in our setting; its significance is solely to connect the symplectic geometry with representation theory (see ).
Density Matrices and Purification {#math phys dictionary}
=================================
The applicability of symplectic geometry to the quantum marginal problem relies on the close relation between the Lie algebra of $\operatorname{SU}(d)$ and the density matrices of quantum mechanics, and on the fact that restricting to certain subgroups has the physical meaning of passing to reduced density matrices, which describe the quantum state of subsystems. In this section we will describe this relationship in some detail (, ), and show how one can reduce the general problem of computing joint eigenvalue distributions of reduced density matrices to the case of globally pure quantum states, that is, to the Duistermaat–Heckman measure for a projective space (). We briefly discuss how probability distributions and the classical marginal problem are embedded in our setup () and describe some immediate physical applications ().
Density Matrices {#density matrices}
----------------
A *density matrix* is a positive-semidefinite Hermitian operator $\rho$ of trace one acting on a finite-dimensional Hilbert space $\mathcal H$. We will often choose coordinates and think of $\rho$ as a matrix. If $\rho$ is the orthogonal projection onto a one-dimensional subspace then we say that $\rho$ is a *pure state*; otherwise, it is a *mixed state*. An *observable* is an arbitrary Hermitian operator acting on $\mathcal H$.
Density matrices on $\mathcal H$ describe the state of a quantum system modeled by the Hilbert space $\mathcal H$: According to the postulates of quantum mechanics, the expectation value of an observable $O$ is given by the pairing ${\mathrm{tr}\left(O \rho\right)} \in {\mathbb R}$. Of course, $\rho$ is characterized by these expectation values, even if we use anti-Hermitian observables instead and restrict to trace zero (since the trace of $\rho$ is fixed). That is, we have an injection $$\label{density matrices to functionals}
\rho \mapsto \left( X \mapsto i {\mathrm{tr}\left(X \rho\right)} \right) \in {\mathfrak{su}}(\mathcal H)^*$$ which extends to an isomorphism between the affine space of trace-one Hermitian operators on $\mathcal H$ and ${\mathfrak{su}}(\mathcal H)^*$. This isomorphism is $\operatorname{SU}(\mathcal H)$-equivariant; its inverse sends a coadjoint orbit $\mathcal O_\lambda$ to the set of Hermitian operators with eigenvalues $$\label{spectra to positive weyl chamber}
\hat\lambda_j = \frac 1 {\dim \mathcal H} + i \lambda_j
\quad
(j=1,\ldots,\dim \mathcal H),$$ where the $\lambda_j$ are the eigenvalues of $\lambda$ (eigenvalues are repeated according to their multiplicity). Let us choose coordinates $\mathcal H \cong {\mathbb C}^d$ and identify $\operatorname{SU}(\mathcal H) \cong \operatorname{SU}(d)$ accordingly. Then the eigenvalues $\lambda_i$ are just the diagonal entries of the matrix $\lambda \in \mathfrak t^*_+$ labeling the coadjoint orbit (see for our conventions). It follows that defines a bijection between the positive Weyl chamber $\mathfrak t^*_+$ and the set of eigenvalue spectra of trace-one Hermitian operators, which we think of as elements of the set $\{ \hat\lambda \in \mathbf R^d : \hat\lambda_1 \geq \ldots \geq \hat\lambda_d, \sum_j \hat\lambda_j = 1 \}$.
Note that the set of pure states is identified with the coadjoint orbit through the highest weight of the defining representation of $\operatorname{SU}(\mathcal H)$, that is, with projective space ${\mathbb P}(\mathcal H)$: The density matrix corresponding to a point $[\psi] \in {\mathbb P}(\mathcal H)$ is simply the orthogonal projection $P_\psi$ onto ${\mathbb C}\psi$.
Moreover, the Liouville measure on a coadjoint orbit $\mathcal O_\lambda$ is identified via with the unique $\operatorname{SU}(\mathcal H)$-invariant measure on the set of Hermitian matrices with spectrum $\hat\lambda$, normalized to total volume $$\label{volume coadjoint su orbit}
p_{\operatorname{SU}(\mathcal H)}(\lambda) =
\prod_{j < k} \frac{i (\lambda_j - \lambda_k)}{k - j} =
\prod_{j < k} \frac{(\hat\lambda_j - \hat\lambda_k)}{k - j}.$$ The non-Abelian Duistermaat–Heckman measure of $\mathcal O_\lambda$ corresponds to the Dirac measure at $\hat\lambda$, while the Abelian Duistermaat–Heckman measure corresponds to the distribution of the diagonal entries of a density matrix with spectrum $\hat\lambda$ chosen according to the invariant measure.
\[bloch ball\] The Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{su}}(2)$ is three-dimensional, generated by $-\frac i 2$ times the Pauli matrices $\sigma_x, \sigma_y, \sigma_z$. Functionals in its dual ${\mathfrak{su}}(2)^*$ can be identified with points in ${\mathbb R}^3$ by evaluating them at these generators. In this picture, the inverse of associates to a vector $\vec r = (x,y,z)$ the Hermitian matrix $\rho(\vec r) = \frac 1 2 ( {\mathbf 1}+ \vec r \cdot \vec\sigma )$, where $\vec\sigma$ is the Pauli vector $(\sigma_x, \sigma_y, \sigma_z)$. The $z$-axis is identified with the Lie algebra of the maximal torus, ${\mathbb R}\sigma_z$, its positive half-axis with our choice of positive Weyl chamber $\mathfrak t^*_+$, and $(0,0,2)$ with the corresponding positive root $\alpha > 0$. The coadjoint action of elements in $\operatorname{SU}(2)$ amounts to rotating the *Bloch vector* $\vec r$ via the two-fold covering map $\operatorname{SU}(2) \rightarrow \operatorname{SO}(3)$. Therefore, coadjoint orbits are spheres, commonly called *Bloch spheres* in quantum mechanics. They can be labeled by their radius $r$, that is, by their intersection with the positive half of the $z$-axis. Points on such a sphere correspond to Hermitian matrices with eigenvalue spectrum $(\frac {1+r} 2, \frac {1-r} 2)$. Note that $\rho(\vec r)$ is positive-semidefinite (i.e., a density matrix) if and only if $\vec r$ is contained in the unit ball of ${\mathbb R}^3$.
The non-Abelian moment map is just the inclusion map of a Bloch sphere into ${\mathbb R}^3$. Hence its composition with the quotient map $\tau_{\operatorname{SU}(2)}$ sends all points in a Bloch sphere of radius $r > 0$ to $r$, while the Abelian moment map projects all points onto the $z$-axis. The Liouville measure is equal to the usual round measure, normalized to total volume $r$. Therefore, the non-Abelian Duistermaat–Heckman measure of a Bloch sphere with radius $r$ is equal to the Dirac measure $\delta_r$, while the Abelian Duistermaat–Heckman measure is obtained by pushing forward the Liouville measure onto the $z$-axis (see ). As already observed by Archimedes, any two zones of the same height on a sphere have the same area. Hence this latter measure is proportional to Lebesgue measure on the interval $[-r,r]$. An analogous statement holds for arbitrary projective spaces ().
![A Bloch sphere, its height function and the induced measure: a generic coadjoint $\operatorname{SU}(2)$-orbit, its Abelian moment map and the Abelian Duistermaat–Heckman measure.[]{data-label="bloch ball figure"}](blochsphere.png){width="6cm"}
Observe that the components $\braket{X, \Phi_{\operatorname{SU}(\mathcal H)}} \colon \mathcal O_\lambda \rightarrow {\mathbb R}$ of the moment map send a quantum state to the expectation value of the corresponding observable $-i X$. Without loss of generality, we may assume that $X$ generates a one-dimensional torus and that $X$ has one-dimensional eigenspaces. Then $\braket{X, \Phi_{\operatorname{SU}(\mathcal H)}}$ is just the moment map for the action of the torus generated by $X$ and its distribution can be computed immediately by using the Abelian Heckman formula (). This gives a short and conceptual proof of the formula derived recently in [@venutizanardi12].
Reduced Density Matrices {#reduced density matrices}
------------------------
Composite quantum systems are modeled by the tensor product of the Hilbert spaces describing their constituents. It is useful to think of these subsystems as individual particles, although they can be of more general nature; for instance, the subsystems can describe different degrees of freedom such as position and spin. Depending on whether the particles are in principle distinguishable or indistinguishable, we distinguish two basic classes of composite systems, which are of fundamentally different nature.
If the quantum system is composed of $N$ *distinguishable particles*, its global quantum state is described by a density matrix on the tensor product $\mathcal H = \mathcal H_1 \otimes \ldots \otimes \mathcal H_N$, where the $\mathcal H_j$ are the Hilbert spaces describing the individual particles. Quantum mechanics also tells us that observables $O_j$ acting on a single subsystem $\mathcal H_j$ correspond to tensor product observables ${\mathbf 1}_{\mathcal H_1 \otimes \ldots \otimes \mathcal H_{j-1}} \otimes O_j \otimes {\mathbf 1}_{\mathcal H_{j+1} \otimes \ldots \otimes \mathcal H_N}$, which act by the identity on all other subsystems. By non-degeneracy of the inner product, there exists a unique density matrix $\rho_j$ on $\mathcal H_j$ such that $$\label{definition reduced density matrix}
{\mathrm{tr}\left(({\mathbf 1}_{\mathcal H_1 \otimes \ldots \otimes \mathcal H_{j-1}} \otimes O_j \otimes {\mathbf 1}_{\mathcal H_{j+1} \otimes \ldots \otimes \mathcal H_N}) \rho\right)} = {\mathrm{tr}\left(O_j \rho_j\right)}$$ for all observables $O_j$. It describes the quantum state of the $j$-th subsystem.
The density matrix $\rho_j$ is called the *(one-body) reduced density matrix* or *quantum marginal* for the $j$-th particle of the quantum system.
Note that we can embed $\operatorname{SU}(\mathcal H_j)$ into $\operatorname{SU}(\mathcal H)$ by $U_j \mapsto {\mathbf 1}_{\mathcal H_1 \otimes \ldots \otimes \mathcal H_{j-1}} \otimes U_j \otimes {\mathbf 1}_{\mathcal H_{j+1} \otimes \ldots \otimes \mathcal H_N}$. This induces an embedding on the level of Lie algebras. The dual projection ${\mathfrak{su}}(\mathcal H)^* \rightarrow {\mathfrak{su}}(\mathcal H_j)^*$, given by restricting functionals to the subalgebra, is identified by with the map $\rho \mapsto \rho_j$. Similarly, the group homomorphism from the Cartesian product $\operatorname{SU}(\mathcal H_1) \otimes \ldots \otimes \operatorname{SU}(\mathcal H_N)$ to $\operatorname{SU}(\mathcal H)$ given by $(U_1,\ldots,U_N) \mapsto U_1 \otimes \ldots \otimes U_N$ induces the map $\rho \mapsto (\rho_1,\ldots,\rho_N)$ sending a density matrix to the tuple of all its one-body reduced density matrices.
The *(one-body) quantum marginal problem for distinguishable particles* asks for the possible tuples of one-body reduced density matrices $(\rho_1, \ldots, \rho_N)$ of an arbitrary density matrix $\rho$ with fixed spectrum, or, equivalently, for the possible tuples of their eigenvalues. By the above discussion, this is precisely equivalent to determining the moment polytope $\Delta_K(M)$ associated with the Hamiltonian action of the subgroup $K = \operatorname{SU}(\mathcal H_1) \otimes \ldots \otimes \operatorname{SU}(\mathcal H_N)$ on a coadjoint orbit $M = \mathcal O_{\tilde\lambda}$ for $\operatorname{SU}(\mathcal H)$, with moment map as defined in . The quantum marginal problem for globally pure states is the special case where $M = {\mathbb P}(\mathcal H)$. Moreover, the *joint eigenvalue distribution of reduced density matrices* we set out to compute in this article corresponds to the non-Abelian Duistermaat–Heckman measure $\operatorname{DH}^K_M$ as defined in : Up to the identification $\hat\lambda \mapsto \lambda$ between spectra of trace-one Hermitian operators and the positive Weyl chamber as defined in , it is given by $$\label{eigenvalue distribution dist}
(\tau_K)_* (\Phi_K)_*\left(\frac {\mu_M} {\operatorname{vol}M}\right) =
\frac 1 {\operatorname{vol}M} p_K \operatorname{DH}^K_M.$$ Note that we divide by the Liouville volume of $M$, which is just $p_{\operatorname{SU}(\mathcal H)}(\tilde\lambda)$, to obtain a probability measure.
Similarly, the joint distribution of the diagonal entries of the reduced density matrices corresponds to the Abelian Duistermaat–Heckman measure $\operatorname{DH}^T_M$.
If the quantum system is composed of *indistinguishable particles*, each particle is of course modeled by the same Hilbert space $\mathcal H_1$. The global state of the system is described by a density matrix supported on an irreducible sub-representation $\mathcal H \subseteq \mathcal H_1^{\otimes N}$, namely $\mathcal H = \operatorname{Sym}^N(\mathcal H_1)$ for *bosons* and ${\Lambda}^N(\mathcal H_1)$ for *fermions* (but we can in principle also consider other irreducible sub-representations which correspond to more exotic statistics). Note that since every such density matrix commutes with permutations, all the one-body reduced density matrices are equal.
Note that we can let single-particle observables $O$ act more intrinsically by the symmetric expression $\frac 1 N (O \otimes {\mathbf 1}_{\mathcal H_1^{\otimes (N-1)}} + \ldots + {\mathbf 1}_{\mathcal H_1^{\otimes (N-1)}} \otimes O)$, without changing their expectation values. Up to a factor $N$, this corresponds to the embedding of Lie algebras induced by the diagonal map $U \mapsto U \otimes \ldots \otimes U$, which is of course precisely the action of $\operatorname{SU}(\mathcal H_1)$ on the representation $\mathcal H$. This embedding therefore induces the map $\rho \mapsto \sum_j \rho_j = N \rho_1$ in the same way as described above. It follows that the *(one-body) quantum marginal problem for indistinguishable particles* amounts to determining $\frac 1 N \Delta_K(M)$ for the induced action of $K = \operatorname{SU}(\mathcal H_1)$ on a coadjoint orbit $M = \mathcal O_{\tilde\lambda}$ of $\operatorname{SU}(\mathcal H)$, and that, up to the identification $\hat\lambda \mapsto \lambda$, the *eigenvalue distribution of the reduced density matrix* is given by $$\label{eigenvalue distribution indist}
\kappa_* (\tau_K)_* (\Phi_K)_*\left(\frac {\mu_M} {\operatorname{vol}M}\right) =
\frac 1 {\operatorname{vol}M} p_K \kappa_*(\operatorname{DH}^K_M),$$ where the linear map $\kappa(\lambda) = \frac \lambda N$ counteracts the factor $N$ in the moment map.
Setting Hilbert space $\mathcal H$ Group $K$
------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
$N$ distinguishable particles ${\mathbb C}^{d_1} \otimes \ldots \otimes {\mathbb C}^{d_N}$ $\operatorname{SU}(d_1) \times \ldots \times \operatorname{SU}(d_N)$
$N$ bosons $\operatorname{Sym}^N({\mathbb C}^d)$ $\operatorname{SU}(d)$
$N$ fermions ${\Lambda}^N({\mathbb C}^d)$ $\operatorname{SU}(d)$
: The quantum marginal problem is modeled by the action of the group $K$ on a coadjoint $\operatorname{SU}(\mathcal H)$-orbit $M = \mathcal O_{\tilde\lambda}$.[]{data-label="QMP summary table"}
In we have summarized the groups and spaces relevant for the quantum marginal problems of main physical interest, and we will focus on these in the remainder of this article. One can also combine both cases, e.g., to describe a quantum system composed of two different sorts of indistinguishable particles (as happens for the purified double of a bosonic or fermionic quantum marginal problem as defined in below), or a number of indistinguishable particles each of which have multiple internal degrees of freedom. In the latter case, arbitrary irreducible representations of the special unitary group can appear if one restricts to the reduced density matrices corresponding to only some of the degrees of freedom (see, e.g., [@klyachkoaltunbulak08]).
Purification
------------
Let $\mathcal H$ be an arbitrary finite-dimensional Hilbert space. It is well-known that every density matrix $\rho$ on $\mathcal H$ is the reduced density matrix of a pure state in $[\psi] \in {\mathbb P}(\mathcal H \otimes \mathcal H)$, called a *purification* of the quantum state $\rho$. Indeed, if $\rho = \sum_i p_i P_{v_i}$ is the spectral decomposition of $\rho$ then we can simply choose $\psi = \sum \sqrt{p_i} v_i \otimes v_i$. In this sense, the global state of a quantum system can always be described by a pure state; reduced density matrices occur only in the description of the states of its subsystems. This motivates the following definition:
For any unitary $K$-representation $\mathcal H$, we define the *purified double* to be the Hamiltonian $K \times \tilde K$-manifold ${\mathbb P}(\mathcal H \otimes \mathcal H)$, where $\tilde K = \operatorname{SU}(\mathcal H)$, equipped with the moment map constructed in the usual way by embedding into $\mathfrak u(\mathcal H \otimes \mathcal H)^*$ and “restricting” the functionals to elements in $\mathfrak k \oplus \mathfrak {\tilde k}$.
Observe that if $\mathcal H$ is one of the representations of modeling a setup of the quantum marginal problem, then the purified double corresponds to the pure-state quantum marginal problem where one has adjoined a single distinguishable particle modeled by $\mathcal H$.
The purification $[\psi] \in {\mathbb P}(\mathcal H \otimes \mathcal H)$ of a quantum state $\rho$ on $\mathcal H$ is unique up to a unitary acting on the second copy of $\mathcal H$. Evidently, such operations do not change the reduced density matrix $\rho = (P_\psi)_1$ and they leave the eigenvalue spectrum of $(P_\psi)_2$ invariant. In particular, the eigenvalue spectra of the reduced density matrices $(P_\psi)_1$ and $(P_\psi)_2$ are always equal. This implies that we can reduce the quantum marginal problem to the case of globally pure states, both for distinguishable and indistinguishable particles:
\[purification polytope\] Let $\mathcal O_{\tilde\lambda}$ be a coadjoint orbit of $\tilde K = \operatorname{SU}(\mathcal H)$, with $\tilde\lambda \in \mathfrak {\tilde t}^*_+$ corresponding to the eigenvalue spectrum of a density operator. Then $\lambda \in \Delta_K(\mathcal O_{\tilde\lambda})$ if and only if $(\lambda,\tilde\lambda) \in \Delta_{K \times \tilde K}({\mathbb P}(\mathcal H \otimes \mathcal H))$.
In other words, $$\Delta_{K \times \tilde K}({\mathbb P}(\mathcal H \otimes \mathcal H)) = \bigcup_{\tilde\lambda \in \tilde\Delta} \Delta_K(\mathcal O_{\tilde\lambda}) \times \{\tilde\lambda\},$$ where $\tilde\Delta = \{ \tilde\lambda \in \mathfrak {\tilde t}^*_+ : \widehat{\tilde\lambda}_j \geq 0 \}$ is the convex subset of the positive Weyl chamber corresponding to the eigenvalue spectra of density operators. We can similarly reduce the problem of determining the joint eigenvalue distribution to the case of globally pure states: For this, let us define probability measures $$\begin{aligned}
\label{measures to be purified}
{\mathbf P}&= (\tau_{K \times \tilde K})_* (\Phi_{K \times \tilde K})_* \left( \frac {\mu_{{\mathbb P}(\mathcal H \otimes \mathcal H)}} {\operatorname{vol}{\mathbb P}(\mathcal H \otimes \mathcal H)} \right),\\
{\mathbf P}_{\tilde\lambda} &= (\tau_K)_* (\Phi_K)_* \left( \frac {\mu_{\mathcal O_{\tilde\lambda}}} {\operatorname{vol}O_{\tilde\lambda}} \right),
\end{aligned}$$ where $\operatorname{vol}$ denotes the Liouville volume.
\[purification measure\] The measures in are related by $$\langle {\mathbf P}, f \rangle
= \frac 1 Z \int_{\tilde\Delta} d\tilde\lambda ~
p^2_{\tilde K}(\tilde\lambda) ~
\langle {\mathbf P}_{\tilde\lambda}, f(-,\tilde\lambda) \rangle,$$ for all test functions $f \in C_b(\mathfrak t^*_+ \oplus \mathfrak {\tilde t^*}_+)$, where $d\tilde\lambda$ is Lebesgue measure on $\mathfrak {\tilde t}^*_+$ and $Z$ a suitable normalization constant.
Each of the one-body reduced density matrices of a Liouville-distributed bipartite pure state in ${\mathbb P}(\mathcal H \otimes \mathcal H)$ is distributed according to the Hilbert–Schmidt measure restricted to the set of density matrices. In particular, its eigenvalues are distributed according to the well-known formula of [@lloydpagels88; @zyczkowskisommers01], so that $$(\tau_{\tilde K})_* (\Phi_{\tilde K})_* \left( \frac {\mu_{{\mathbb P}(\mathcal H \otimes \mathcal H)}} {\operatorname{vol}{\mathbb P}(\mathcal H \otimes \mathcal H)} \right)
= \frac 1 Z \, p^2_{\tilde K}(\tilde\lambda) \, {\mathbf 1}_{\tilde\Delta}(\tilde\lambda) \, d\tilde\lambda,$$ with ${\mathbf 1}_{\tilde\Delta}$ the indicator function of $\tilde\Delta$ and $Z$ a suitable normalization constant. We have just seen that both reduced density matrices necessarily have equal eigenvalue spectrum. This implies that $$\langle (\Phi_{\tilde K \times \tilde K})_* \left( \frac {\mu_{{\mathbb P}(\mathcal H \otimes \mathcal H)}} {\operatorname{vol}{\mathbb P}(\mathcal H \otimes \mathcal H)} \right), g \rangle
= \frac 1 Z \int_{\tilde\Delta} d\tilde\lambda \int_{\mathcal O_{\tilde\lambda} \times \mathcal O_{\tilde\lambda}} g.$$ See for an independent derivation using the techniques of this paper. It follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\langle {\mathbf P}, f \rangle
&= \langle (\tau_{K \times \tilde K})_* (\Phi_{K \times \tilde K})_* \left( \frac {\mu_{{\mathbb P}(\mathcal H \otimes \mathcal H)}} {\operatorname{vol}{\mathbb P}(\mathcal H \otimes \mathcal H)} \right), f \rangle \\
&= \langle (\tau_{K} \Phi_{K} \times \tau_{\tilde K})_* (\Phi_{\tilde K \times \tilde K})_* \left( \frac {\mu_{{\mathbb P}(\mathcal H \otimes \mathcal H)}} {\operatorname{vol}{\mathbb P}(\mathcal H \otimes \mathcal H)} \right), f \rangle\\
&= \frac 1 Z \int_{\tilde\Delta} d\tilde\lambda \int_{\mathcal O_{\tilde\lambda} \times \mathcal O_{\tilde\lambda}} (\tau_{K} \Phi_{K} \times \tau_{\tilde K})^* \big( f \big)\\
&= \frac 1 Z \int_{\tilde\Delta} d\tilde\lambda ~ p_{\tilde K}(\tilde\lambda) ~ \int_{\mathcal O_{\tilde\lambda}} (\tau_{K} \Phi_{K})^* \left( f(-,\tilde\lambda) \right)\\
&= \frac 1 Z \int_{\tilde\Delta} d\tilde\lambda ~ p^2_{\tilde K}(\tilde\lambda) ~ \langle {\mathbf P}_{\tilde\lambda}, f(-,\tilde\lambda) \rangle.
\qedhere
\end{aligned}$$
Note that ${\mathbf P}_{\tilde\lambda}$, and in particular the eigenvalue distributions and , vary continuously with the global spectrum $\tilde\lambda$. therefore implies that we can reconstruct them from the eigenvalue distribution for the purified double by taking limits. If the latter distribution has a continuous Lebesgue density, as will often be the case, then we can simply restrict this density function to the global spectrum $\tilde\lambda$ of interest.
We will now show that is always satisfied when working with the purified double. In quantum-mechanical terms, we have to show that there exists a global pure state $[\psi] \in {\mathbb P}(\mathcal H \otimes \mathcal H)$ such that the eigenvalue spectra of all the reduced density matrices are non-degenerate (with respect to the quantum marginal problem where we have added a single distinguishable particle with Hilbert space $\mathcal H$).
For distinguishable particles, where $\mathcal H \cong {\mathbb C}^{d_1} \otimes \ldots \otimes {\mathbb C}^{d_N}$, this follows from the following general criterion, since the purified double is constructed by adding an additional Hilbert space of dimension $d_{N+1} = \dim \mathcal H = d_1 \cdots d_N$:
\[main assumption qmp\] Let $N \geq 1$ and $d_1 \leq \ldots \leq d_N \leq d_{N+1}$. Then there exists a global pure state in ${\mathbb P}({\mathbb C}^{d_1} \otimes \ldots \otimes {\mathbb C}^{d_N} \otimes {\mathbb C}^{d_{N+1}})$ whose one-body reduced density matrices have non-degenerate eigenvalue spectra if and only if $$d_{N+1} \leq \left( \prod_{i=1}^N d_i \right) + 1.$$
The condition is clearly necessary, since it follows from the singular value decomposition that at most $\prod_{i=1}^N d_i$ eigenvalues of $\rho_{N+1}$ can be non-zero.
For sufficiency, let us construct a state with the desired property: For this, we consider the standard tensor product basis vectors $e_{i_1} \otimes \ldots \otimes e_{i_N}$ of ${\mathbb C}^{d_1} \otimes \ldots \otimes {\mathbb C}^{d_N}$, labelled by integers $i_j \in \{1,\ldots,d_j\}$, $j=1,\ldots,N$. We choose a subset of $d_{N+1}-1$ many such basis vectors $e_{i_1(k)} \otimes \ldots \otimes e_{i_N(k)}$ in such a way that, for each subsystem $j=1,\ldots,N$, at least $d_j - 1$ of the $d_j$ integers occur. This clearly is possible by our assumptions. Finally, we set $$\psi = \sum_{k=1}^{d_{N+1}-1} 2^{-k} e_{i_1(k)} \otimes \ldots \otimes e_{i_N(k)} \otimes e_k.$$ Then $[\psi]$ is a pure state such that all of its one-body reduced density matrices have non-degenerate eigenvalue spectrum.
For bosons and fermions, we will use the following lemma to show that is satisfied:
\[boson fermion lemma\] The convex hull of the weights of $\operatorname{Sym}^N({\mathbb C}^d)$ has maximal dimension. The same is true for ${\Lambda}^N({\mathbb C}^d)$ if $N<d$.
In the following we write $\omega_j$ for the weight corresponding to the character $\operatorname{diag}(t_1, \ldots, t_d) \mapsto t_j$, with $j=1, \ldots, d$.
\(1) $\operatorname{Sym}^N({\mathbb C}^d)$: The vectors $e_j \otimes \ldots \otimes e_j$ are weight vectors of weight $N \omega_j$, with $j=1,\ldots,d$. Clearly, the convex hull of these weights already has maximal dimension.
\(2) ${\Lambda}^N({\mathbb C}^d)$, where $1 \leq N < d$: It is well-known that the weights are given by $\sum_{j \in J} \omega_j$ for all $N$-element subsets $J \subseteq \{1,\ldots,d\}$. (The corresponding weight vectors are the well-known occupation number basis vectors for fermions.) Fix any such weight, say, the one corresponding to $J = \{1,\ldots,N\}$. The difference vectors between this weight and the weights obtained by replacing a single element of $J$ are proportional to the positive roots $\alpha_{j,k}(\lambda) = i(\lambda_j - \lambda_k)$ with $j \in J$ and $k \in \{1,\ldots,d\} \setminus J$. There are at least $d-1$ such roots, and they form a basis of $\mathfrak t^*$.
implies that is also satisfied for the purified double of the bosonic and fermionic quantum marginal problems: Indeed, it clearly suffices to show that in each case there exists a density operator $\rho$ on $\mathcal H$ such that both $\rho$ and its one-body reduced density matrix $\rho_1$ have non-degenerate eigenvalue spectrum (then any purification of $\rho$ has the desired properties). By , there exists a convex combination of weights $\sum_k p_k \omega_k \in \mathfrak t^*_{>0}$. By perturbing slightly, we can arrange for the weights $(p_k)$ to be mutually disjoint. Choose corresponding (orthogonal) weight vectors $v_k \in \mathcal H$ and consider the density matrix $\rho = \sum_k p_k P_{v_k}$. Clearly, both $\rho$ and its one-body reduced density matrix $\rho_1$have non-degenerate eigenvalue spectrum.
To summarize, we have shown that the problem of computing the joint eigenvalue distribution of reduced density matrices is equivalent to the computation of Duistermaat–Heckman measures associated with certain Hamiltonian group actions (cf. ). Moreover, by passing to the purified double, we can always reduce to the case where $M = {\mathbb P}(\mathcal H)$ is a projective space satisfying .
Probability Distributions {#classical}
-------------------------
Under the identification , elements of the dual of the Lie algebra of the maximal torus correspond to diagonal density matrices. These are precisely the diagonal matrices with non-negative entries summing to one, and can therefore be interpreted as *probability distributions* of a random variable $Z$ with values in the orthonormal basis $(e_i)$ we have chosen. This interpretation is in agreement with quantum mechanics: If we perform an actual measurement of a density matrix $\rho$ with respect to this orthonormal basis then the probability of getting outcome $e_i$ is given precisely by the diagonal element ${\mathrm{tr}\left(P_{e_i} \rho\right)} = \braket{e_i, \rho \, e_i} = \rho_{i,i}$.
Note that the moment map for the action of the maximal torus $\tilde T \subseteq \operatorname{SU}(\mathcal H)$ on the projective space ${\mathbb P}(\mathcal H)$ corresponds to sending a pure state $[\psi]$ onto its diagonal. As we vary $[\psi]$ over all pure states in ${\mathbb P}(\mathcal H)$, the diagonal entries attain all possible probability distributions. In other words, the Abelian moment polytope $\Delta_{\tilde T}({\mathbb P}(\mathcal H))$ is just the simplex $\tilde\Delta$ defined in . The corresponding Duistermaat–Heckman measure is equal to a suitably normalized Lebesgue measure on $\tilde\Delta$ (this is a special case of below).
Now consider as in the case of $N$ distinguishable particles. Choose orthonormal bases to identify $\mathcal H_k \cong {\mathbb C}^{d_k}$, and therefore $\mathcal H \cong {\mathbb C}^{d_1} \otimes \ldots \otimes {\mathbb C}^{d_N}$ using the tensor product basis. Note that we can interprete diagonal density matrices $\rho$ on $\mathcal H$ as the joint probability distribution of a tuple of random variables $(Z_1,\ldots,Z_N)$, where each $Z_k$ takes values in the standard basis of the corresponding ${\mathbb C}^{d_k}$, by setting $${\mathbf P}(Z_1 = e_{i_1}, \ldots, Z_N = e_{i_N}) =
{\mathrm{tr}\left(P_{e_{i_1} \otimes \ldots \otimes e_{i_N}} \rho\right)}.$$ The marginal distributions of the random variables $Z_k$ in the sense of probability theory are then given by $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbf P}(Z_k = e_{i_k})
&= \sum_{i_1, \ldots, \check{i_k}, \ldots, i_N} {\mathrm{tr}\left(P_{e_{i_1} \otimes \ldots \otimes e_{i_N}} \rho\right)}\\
&= {\mathrm{tr}\left( \left( {\mathbf 1}_{{\mathbb C}^{d_1} \otimes \ldots \otimes {\mathbb C}^{d_{k-1}}} \otimes P_{e_{i_k}} \otimes {\mathbf 1}_{{\mathbb C}^{d_{k+1}} \otimes \ldots \otimes {\mathbb C}^{d_N}} \right) \rho\right)}
= {\mathrm{tr}\left(P_{e_{i_k}} \rho_k\right)},\end{aligned}$$ where for the second identity we have used that $\rho$ is a diagonal matrix. That is, the marginal distributions of the $Z_k$ are precisely described by the reduced density matrices $\rho_k$ (i.e., by the quantum marginals), which are also diagonal if $\rho$ is diagonal.
Accordingly, the moment polytope $\Delta_T({\mathbb P}(\mathcal H))$ for the action of the maximal torus $T \subseteq \operatorname{SU}(d_1) \times \ldots \operatorname{SU}(d_N)$ on the set of pure states describes the tuples of marginal probability distributions that arise from joint distributions of the $(Z_1,\ldots,Z_N)$. This *(univariate) classical marginal problem* is of course trivial, since there are no constraints on the joint distribution. However, its quantitative version, which corresponds to computing the Abelian Duistermaat–Heckman measure $\operatorname{DH}^T_{{\mathbb P}(\mathcal H)}$, is interesting and not at all trivial to solve. In fact, the problem of computing joint eigenvalue distributions of reduced density matrices, which we set out to solve in this article, can be reduced to the computation of $\operatorname{DH}^T_{{\mathbb P}(\mathcal H)}$. This reduction, or rather the generalization which we describe in below, is at the core of the algorithms presented in .
Physical Applications {#physical applications}
---------------------
As indicated in the introduction, the eigenvalue distributions and have direct applications to quantum physics. In quantum statistical mechanics, among others, one typically studies bipartite setups $\mathcal H = \mathcal H_S \otimes \mathcal H_E$ composed of a system $S$ and an environment (or bath) $E$. Randomly-chosen pure states give rise to a distribution of reduced density matrices $\rho_S$, whose properties vary with the size of the environment. Physical motivations have lead to the computation of the corresponding eigenvalue distribution [@lloydpagels88], which we can easily re-derive using the techniques of this paper (). Note that many basic physical quantities are functions of the eigenvalues, such as the *von Neumann entropy* $$H(S) = H(\rho_S) = -{\mathrm{tr}\left(\rho_S \log \rho_S\right)} = \sum_j -\hat\lambda_j \log \hat\lambda_j,$$ where $(\hat\lambda_j)$ are the eigenvalues of $\rho_S$, or more general Rényi entropies and purities (cf. ). The average von Neumann entropy of a subsystem [@lubkin78; @page93] in particular has featured in the analysis of the black hole entropy paradox [@HaydenPreskill].
We can also consider other coadjoint orbits such as Grassmannians: Here, the density matrix corresponding to a $d$-dimensional subspace $\mathcal H' \subseteq \mathcal H_A \otimes \mathcal H_E$ is the normalized projection operator $\rho = {\mathbf 1}_{\mathcal H'}/d$, and the reduced density matrix $\rho_A$ is interpreted as a *canonical state* in the sense of statistical mechanics [@popescushortwinter06; @lloyd06; @goldsteinlebowitztumulkaetal06]. The probability distributions we compute can therefore be used to analyze the typical behavior of canonical states.
The tripartite case, in itself already interesting from the perspective of the quantum marginal problem, is also highly relevant to applications: It corresponds to the situation where $S$ itself is composed of two particles $A$ and $B$, so that $\mathcal H = \mathcal H_A \otimes \mathcal H_B \otimes \mathcal H_E$. In the study of quantum entanglement, remarkable recent progress has been made by analyzing the entanglement properties of the two-body reduced density matrix $\rho_{AB}$ of a randomly-chosen pure state in large dimensions, where the concentration of measure phenomenon occurs [@HaydenRandomizing; @haydenleungwinter06; @aubrunszarekye11b; @aubrunszarekye11; @collinsnechitaye11]. In particular, a negative resolution of the additivity conjecture of quantum information theory [@shor-additivity] has recently been obtained by related methods [@hastings-additivity; @aubrun-hastings]. The joint eigenvalue distribution of the reduced density matrices in particular determines *quantum conditional entropies* and *quantum mutual informations*, that is, the quantities $$\begin{aligned}
H(A|B) &= H(AB) - H(B) = H(E) - H(B),\\
I(A:B) &= H(A) + H(B) - H(AB) = H(A) + H(B) - H(E),\end{aligned}$$ since the eigenvalue spectra of $\rho_{AB}$ and $\rho_E$ are equal (cf. ). They have immediate applications to entanglement theory; for example, the quantum mutual information provides an upper bound on the amount of entanglement that can be distilled from a quantum state [@christandlwinter04].
In all these applications, most known results are for large Hilbert spaces, since the techniques employed rely on asymptotic features such as measure concentration. Our algorithms require no such assumption. In particular, they are well-suited for low-dimensional systems, which previously remained inaccessible.
Derivative Principle for Invariant Measures {#derivative principle}
===========================================
In this section we will describe a fundamental property of $K$-invariant measures on $\mathfrak k^*$ that are concentrated on the union of the maximal-dimensional coadjoint orbits (that is, on $K \cdot \mathfrak t^*_{>0}$). Every such invariant measure can be reconstructed from its projection onto $\mathfrak t^*$ by taking partial derivatives in the direction of negative roots (). In particular, this implies that the non-Abelian Duistermaat–Heckman measure $\operatorname{DH}^K_M$ can be recovered from the Abelian Duistermaat–Heckman measure $\operatorname{DH}^T_M$ ().
For the invariant probability measure supported on a single coadjoint orbit of maximal dimension, this follows from a well-known formula of Harish-Chandra, as was already observed by Heckman:
\[ableitungsformel coadjoint orbit\] Let $\mathcal O_\lambda$ be a coadjoint orbit through $\lambda \in \mathfrak t^*_{>0}$. Then, $${\left.\left( \prod_{\alpha > 0} \partial_{-\alpha} \right) \operatorname{DH}^T_{\mathcal O_\lambda}\vphantom{\big|}\right|_{\mathfrak t^*_{>0}}} = \delta_\lambda,$$ where the partial derivatives and the restriction are in the sense of distributions.
Harish-Chandra’s formula for the Fourier transform of a coadjoint orbit states that $$\langle \operatorname{DH}^T_{\mathcal O_\lambda}, e^{i \langle -, X \rangle} \rangle =
\sum_{w \in W} (-1)^{l(w)} e^{i \langle w\lambda, X \rangle} \prod_{\alpha > 0} \frac 1 {i \langle \alpha, X \rangle}$$ for every $X \in \mathfrak t$ which is not orthogonal to a root (see [@berlinegetzlervergne03 Corollary 7.25] for a recent account). Here, $l(w)$ is the length of the Weyl group element $w$. This implies that the Abelian Duistermaat–Heckman measure is given by the following alternating sum of convolutions $$\label{harish chandra}
\operatorname{DH}^T_{\mathcal O_\lambda} = \sum_{w \in W} (-1)^{l(w)} \delta_{w \lambda} \star H_{-\alpha_1} \star \ldots \star H_{-\alpha_R}.$$ Recall that $H_\omega$ is the Heaviside measure defined in by $\langle H_\omega, f \rangle = \int_0^\infty f(t \omega) dt$. By the fundamental theorem of calculus, we have $\partial_\omega H_\omega = \delta_0$. Therefore, $$\label{harish chandra derivative}
\left( \prod_{\alpha > 0} \partial_{-\alpha} \right) \operatorname{DH}^T_{\mathcal O_\lambda} = \sum (-1)^{l(w)} \delta_{w \lambda},$$ and the assertion follows if we restrict to the interior of the positive Weyl chamber.
Every Bloch sphere of radius $r > 0$ is a coadjoint orbit of maximal dimension (cf. ). We have seen that $\operatorname{DH}^T_{\mathcal O_r}$ is equal to $\frac 1 2 {\mathbf 1}_{[-r,r]}(z) dz$, where $dz$ is Lebesgue measure on the $z$-axis. In agreement with , we observe that $${\left.\partial_\alpha \operatorname{DH}^T_{O_r}\vphantom{\big|}\right|_{\mathfrak t^*_{>0}}} =
{\left.\partial_z {\mathbf 1}_{[-r,r]}(z) dz\vphantom{\big|}\right|_{{\mathbb R}_{> 0}}} =
\delta_r.$$
\[main theorem measures\] Let $\nu$ be a $K$-invariant Radon measure on $\mathfrak k^*$ satisfying $\nu(\mathfrak k^* \setminus K \cdot \mathfrak t^*_{>0}) = 0$. Then, $${\left.\left(\prod_{\alpha > 0} \partial_{-\alpha} \right) (\pi_{K,T})_*(\nu)\vphantom{\big|}\right|_{\mathfrak t^*_{>0}}} =
{\left.\frac 1 {p_K} (\tau_K)_*(\nu)\vphantom{\big|}\right|_{\mathfrak t^*_{>0}}},$$ where the partial derivatives and the restriction are in the sense of distributions.
Let $f \in C_c^\infty(\mathfrak t^*_{>0})$ be a test function, which we extend by zero to all of $\mathfrak t^*$, and set $g := (\pi_{K,T})^*\left(\left(\prod_{\alpha > 0} \partial_\alpha \right) f\right)$. By definition and assumption, respectively, $$\langle {\left. \left(\prod_{\alpha > 0} \partial_{-\alpha} \right) (\pi_{K,T})_*(\nu)\vphantom{\big|}\right|_{\mathfrak t^*_{>0}}}, f \rangle =
\langle \nu, g \rangle =
\langle {\nu}\big|_{K \cdot \mathfrak t^*_{>0}}, g \rangle.$$ Since $\nu$ is a $K$-invariant measure, we can use Fubini’s theorem to replace $g$ by its $K$-average. On each maximal-dimensional coadjoint orbit $\mathcal O_\lambda \subseteq K \cdot \mathfrak t^*_{>0}$, this average is given by $$\frac 1 {\operatorname{vol}\mathcal O_\lambda} \langle \mu_{\mathcal O_\lambda}, g \rangle =
\frac 1 {p_K(\lambda)} \langle \mu_{\mathcal O_\lambda}, (\pi_{K,T})^*\left(\left(\prod_{\alpha > 0} \partial_\alpha \right) f\right) \rangle =
\frac 1 {p_K(\lambda)} \langle \left(\prod_{\alpha > 0} \partial_{-\alpha} \right) \operatorname{DH}^T_{\mathcal O_\lambda}, f \rangle,$$ which by is precisely equal to ${f(\lambda)}/{p_K(\lambda)}$. In other words, the averaged function is on $K \cdot \mathfrak t^*_{>0}$ equal to the pullback $(\tau_K)^* \left( f/{p_K} \right)$. We conclude that $$ \langle {\nu}\big|_{K \cdot \mathfrak t^*_{>0}}, g \rangle =
\langle {\nu}\big|_{K \cdot \mathfrak t^*_{>0}}, (\tau_K)^* \left( \frac f {p_K} \right) \rangle =
\langle {\left.\frac 1 {p_K} (\tau_K)_* (\nu)\vphantom{\big|}\right|_{\mathfrak t^*_{>0}}}, f \rangle.
\qedhere$$
\[main theorem\] The Duistermaat–Heckman measures as defined in are related by $${\left.\left(\prod_{\alpha > 0} \partial_{-\alpha} \right) \operatorname{DH}^T_M\vphantom{\big|}\right|_{\mathfrak t^*_{>0}}} =
{\operatorname{DH}^K_M}\bigg|_{\mathfrak t^*_{>0}}.$$
guarantees that we can apply to the push-forward of the Liouville measure along the non-Abelian moment map $\Phi_K$.
This is the *derivative principle* alluded to in the title of this section. As we shall see in the following, it is a powerful tool for lifting results about the Duistermaat–Heckman measure for torus actions to general compact Lie group actions.
According to [@woodward05 §3.5], was already known to Paradan and also follows from a different result of Harish-Chandra. In we will describe another way to establish it by using the connection between Duistermaat–Heckman measures in algebraic geometry and multiplicities in group representations.
Note that completely determines the measure $\nu$ from its projection onto $\mathfrak t^*$, since $\nu$ is by assumption concentrated on the union of the coadjoint orbits of maximal dimension. Similarly, the non-Abelian Duistermaat–Heckman measure $\operatorname{DH}^K_M$ can be fully reconstructed from $\operatorname{DH}^T_M$ by using .
We stress that it is oftentimes not necessary to explicitely compute the non-Abelian Duistermaat-Heckman measure. Indeed, is of course by definition equivalent to $$\langle \operatorname{DH}^K_M, f \rangle = \langle \operatorname{DH}^T_M, \left(\prod_{\alpha > 0} \partial_\alpha \right) f \rangle$$ for all $f \in C_c^\infty(\mathfrak t^*_{>0})$, so that we can reduce the computation of averages over $\operatorname{DH}^K_M$ directly to integrations with respect to the Abelian Duistermaat–Heckman measure (cf. proof of ).
\[finite union of regular chambers\] It follows from and the discussion in that, on each (open) regular chamber, the non-Abelian Duistermaat–Heckman measure also has a polynomial density, namely the partial derivative in the directions of the negative roots of the density of the Abelian measure. However, there could still be non-zero measure on the singular walls separating the regular chambers. If we would like to exclude this then we need to understand the smoothness properties of the Abelian density function in the vicinity of singular walls, or, equivalently, the nature of the term by which the polynomial density changes when crossing a singular wall. If this jump term vanishes to order at least $R$ on the wall, then the Abelian density function is at least $R$-times weakly differentiable in the vicinity of the wall, and therefore the non-Abelian Duistermaat–Heckman density is also absolutely continuous there. This vanishing condition can be checked explicitly for each singular wall using the jump formula described in .
In case the vanishing condition is satisfied, the non-Abelian moment polytope $\Delta_K(M)$ is equal to the closure of a finite union of regular chambers for the Abelian moment map: Indeed, on each regular chamber the density polynomial is either equal to zero, or it is non-zero on an open, dense subset.
We cannot resist giving an easy application of to the generalized Horn’s problem: Here, the goal is to describe the sum of two coadjoint orbits $\mathcal O_\lambda + \mathcal O_\mu$ (Horn’s original problem referred to coadjoint orbits of the special unitary group). In other words, one considers the diagonal action of $K$ on $\mathcal O_\lambda \times \mathcal O_\mu$, which is Hamiltonian with moment map $(X,Y) \mapsto X+Y$, and one would like to describe the associated moment polytope or Duistermaat–Heckman measure.
\[main theorem horn\] Let $\lambda \in \mathfrak t^*_{>0}$ and $\mu \in \mathfrak t^*_+$. Then, $$\operatorname{DH}^K_{\mathcal O_\lambda \times \mathcal O_\mu} =
\sum_{w \in W} (-1)^{l(w)} \delta_{w \lambda} \star \operatorname{DH}^T_{\mathcal O_\mu},$$ where $l(w)$ is the length of the Weyl group element $w$.
Clearly, since $T$ is Abelian, $$\operatorname{DH}^T_{\mathcal O_\lambda \times \mathcal O_\mu} =
\operatorname{DH}^T_{\mathcal O_\lambda} \star \operatorname{DH}^T_{\mathcal O_\mu}.$$ Since $\lambda + \mu \in \mathfrak t^*_{>0}$, is satisfied. Therefore, is applicable, and the assertion follows together with , $$\operatorname{DH}^K_{\mathcal O_\lambda \times \mathcal O_\mu} =
\left( \prod_{\alpha > 0} \partial_{-\alpha} \right) \operatorname{DH}^T_{\mathcal O_\lambda} \star \operatorname{DH}^T_{\mathcal O_\mu} =
\sum_{w \in W} (-1)^{l(w)} \delta_{w \lambda} \star \operatorname{DH}^T_{\mathcal O_\mu}.
\qedhere$$
The general case where both $\lambda$ and $\mu$ are contained in the boundary of the positive Weyl chamber can be treated as in [@dooleyrepkawildberger93] by taking limits. Of course we can also expand $\operatorname{DH}^T_{\mathcal O_\mu}$ as an alternating sum of convolutions by using or its version for lower-dimensional coadjoint orbits [@berlinegetzlervergne03 Theorem 7.24].
Algorithms for Duistermaat–Heckman Measures {#algorithms}
===========================================
In this section we present two algorithms for computing Duistermaat–Heckman measures. Both algorithms are based on the derivative principle from , in that they first compute the Abelian measure and then take partial derivatives according to .
The first algorithm, the *Heckman algorithm*, is based on the Heckman formula by Guillemin, Lerman and Sternberg, which expresses the Abelian measure as an alternating sum of iterated convolutions of Heaviside measures. The density function of each such convolution is piecewise polynomial and can be evaluated inductively using recent work of Boysal and Vergne. While very useful for computing low-dimensional examples, the resulting algorithm is rather inefficient due to the large number of summands.
Our second algorithm, the *single-summand algorithm*, is based on another formula for the Abelian Duistermaat–Heckman measure in the case where $M$ is the projective space of an arbitrary finite-dimensional representation. It turns out that this formula is equivalent to evaluating a single iterated convolution of the above form (hence the name of the algorithm). It can therefore be computed in a similar way, but much more efficiently. Since by passing to the purified double the quantum marginal problem can always be reduced to the case where $M$ is a projective space (), this solves the problem of computing eigenvalue distributions of reduced density matrices in complete generality.
Heckman Algorithm {#heckman}
-----------------
Before stating the Heckman formula by Guillemin, Lerman and Sternberg, let us recall the following renormalization process as described in [@guilleminlermansternberg88]:
Suppose that there are only finitely many fixed points of the action of the maximal torus $T$ on $M$. For each such fixed point $p \in M^T$, consider the induced representation of $T$ on the tangent space $T_p M$. The weights of this representation are called isotropy weights and we can always choose a vector $\gamma \in \mathfrak t^*$ which is non-orthogonal to all isotropy weights (for all tangent spaces). The process of multiplying by $-1$ those isotropy weights that have negative inner product with $\gamma$ is then called *renormalization*, and the resulting weights are called renormalized weights. See for a discussion of the case where $M$ is a projective space and for examples.
\[abelian heckman\] Suppose that there are only finitely many torus fixed points $p \in M^T$. Denote by $n_p$ the number of isotropy weights in $T_p M$ that are multiplied by $-1$ during renormalization and by $\hat\omega_{p,1}, \ldots, \hat\omega_{p,n}$ the resulting renormalized weights. Then, $$\operatorname{DH}^T_M = \sum_{p \in M^T} (-1)^{n_p} \delta_{\Phi_T(p)} \star H_{\hat\omega_{p,1}} \star \ldots \star H_{\hat\omega_{p,n}},$$ with $H_{\hat\omega}$ the Heaviside measure defined by $\langle H_{\hat\omega}, f \rangle = \int_0^\infty dt f(\hat\omega t)$.
In other words, the stationary phase approximation for the Fourier transform of an Abelian Duistermaat–Heckman measure is exact. This generalizes the Harish-Chandra formula for coadjoint orbits , which we used to establish .
Observe that each summand of the Heckman formula can be written as the push-forward of the standard Lebesgue measure $dt$ on ${\mathbb R}^n_{\geq 0}$ along a linear map of the form $\hat P \colon (t_k) \mapsto \sum_{k=1}^n t_k \hat\omega_k$, translated by $\Phi_T(p)$, since $$\label{convolution translation}
H_{\hat\omega_1} \star \ldots \star H_{\hat\omega_n} =
{\hat P}_*(H_{e_1} \star \ldots \star H_{e_n}) =
{\hat P}_*({\left.dt\vphantom{\big|}\right|_{{\mathbb R}^n_{\geq 0}}}).$$ In a recent paper [@boysalvergne09], Boysal and Vergne have analyzed general push-forward measures of this form under the assumption that the vectors $\hat\omega_k$ span a proper convex cone (i.e., a convex cone of maximal dimension that does not contain any straight line). This ensures that the measure is locally finite and absolutely continuous with respect to Lebesgue measure on $\mathfrak t^*$. This assumption is certainly satisfied for the renormalized isotropy weights occurring in the Heckman formula (by the very definition of renormalization and our assumption that the Abelian moment polytope has maximal dimension).
Let us briefly review their results: It is well-known that the push-forward measure has a piecewise homogeneous polynomial density function of degree $n-r$. Here, the *chambers* are the connected components of the complement of the cones spanned by at most $r-1$ of the weights $(\hat\omega_k)$. Except for the unbounded chamber, they are open convex cones. *Walls* are by definition the convex cones spanned by $r-1$ linearly independent weights.[^1] Similarly to , if the common boundary of the closure of two chambers is of maximal dimension then this common boundary is a wall; moreover, every wall arises in this way. Note that the union of the walls is precisely the complement of the union of the chambers.[^2]
Let $\hat\Delta_\pm$ be two adjacent chambers which are separated by a wall $\hat W$, and choose a normal vector $\hat\xi \in \mathfrak t^*$ pointing from $\hat\Delta_-$ to $\hat\Delta_+$. Order the weights such that precisely $\hat\omega_1, \ldots, \hat\omega_m$ lie on the linear hyperplane spanned by $\hat W$. In the following, we shall freely identify differential forms and the measures induced by them. Denote by $d\hat w$ the Lebesgue measure on the hyperplanes parallel to $\hat W$, normalized in such a way that $$\label{wall quotient measure cone}
d\lambda = d\hat w \wedge d\hat\xi,$$ where $d\hat\xi$ is the pullback of the standard volume form of ${\mathbb R}$ along the coordinate function $\langle -, \hat\xi\rangle$. Denote by $\hat f_\pm$ the homogeneous polynomials describing the density function $\hat f$ on $\hat\Delta_\pm$. Finally, consider the push-forward of Lebesgue measure on ${\mathbb R}^m_{\geq 0}$ along the linear map $\hat P_{\hat W} \colon (u_k) \mapsto \sum_{k=1}^m u_k \hat\omega_k$. Its density with respect to $d\hat w$ is given by a single homogeneous polynomial on the wall $\hat W$, since $\hat W$ is always contained in the closure of a chamber for $\hat P_{\hat W}$. Denote by $\hat f_{\hat W}$ any polynomial function extending it to all of $\mathfrak t^*$. Then the result of Boysal and Vergne is the following [@boysalvergne09 Theorem 1.1]: The jump of the density function across the wall is given by $$\label{boysal vergne}
\hat f_+(\hat\lambda) - \hat f_-(\hat\lambda)
= {\left.\operatorname{Res}\vphantom{\big|}\right|_{z=0}} \left(
\hat f_{\hat W}(\partial_{\hat x})
\frac
{e^{\langle \hat\lambda, {\hat x} + z\hat\xi \rangle}}
{\prod_{k=m}^n \langle \hat\omega_k, {\hat x} + z \hat\xi \rangle}
\right)_{{\hat x}=0},$$ where ${\left.\operatorname{Res}\vphantom{\big|}\right|_{z=0}} g = a_{-1}$ is the residue of a formal Laurent series $g = \sum_k a_k z^k$. (The residue appears as part of an inversion formula for the Laplace transform.)
In the case where only a minimal number of weights lie on the linear hyperplane spanned by $\hat W$ ($m=r-1$), the wall polynomial $\hat f_{\hat W}$ can be chosen as a constant, since the corresponding push-forward map is merely a change of coordinates:
\[minimal wall jump cones\] Suppose that precisely $r-1$ weights $\hat\omega_1, \ldots, \hat\omega_{r-1}$ lie on $\operatorname{span}{\hat W}$. Then, $$\hat f_{\hat W}^{-1} \equiv |d\lambda\left(\hat\omega_1, \ldots, \hat\omega_{r-1}, \frac {\hat\xi} {{\lVert\hat\xi\rVert}^2}\right)|.$$
Since the map $\hat P_{\hat W} \colon {\mathbb R}^{r-1} \rightarrow \operatorname{span}\hat W, (u_k) \mapsto \sum_{k=1}^{r-1} u_k \hat\omega_k$ along which we push forward is a linear isomorphism, the polynomial $\hat f_{\hat W}$ can be chosen as the constant of proportionality between the push-forward of Lebesgue measure on ${\mathbb R}^{r-1}$ and the measure $dw$. We can compute its value by comparing the volume of the parallelotope spanned by the $(\hat\omega_k)$ with respect to the two measure. For the former measure, this is of course one, while for the latter it follows from that $$d\lambda(\hat\omega_1, \ldots, \hat\omega_{r-1}, \hat\xi) =
dw(\hat\omega_1, \ldots, \hat\omega_{r-1}) \,{\lVert\hat\xi\rVert}^2.
\qedhere$$
This immediately gives rise to the following inductive algorithm:
\[boysal vergne algorithm\] The following algorithm computes the piecewise polynomial density of the push-forward of Lebesgue measure on ${\mathbb R}^n_{\geq 0}$ along $(t_k) \mapsto \sum_{k=1}^n t_k \hat\omega_k$:
1. Start with the unbounded chamber, where $\hat f \equiv 0$.
2. Iteratively jump over walls $\hat W$ separating the current chamber with an adjacent chamber:
1. Denote by $\hat\omega_1, \ldots, \hat\omega_m$ the weights which lie on the hyperplane through $\hat W$.
2. If the wall is minimal ($m=r-1$), compute $\hat f_{\hat W}$ via .
3. Otherwise, recursively apply to compute the piecewise polynomial density of the push-forward of Lebesgue measure on ${\mathbb R}^m_{\geq 0}$ along $(u_k) \mapsto \sum_{k=1}^m u_k \hat\omega_k$.[^3] On $\hat W$ itself, it is given by a single homogeneous polynomial. Choose any polynomial extension $\hat f_{\hat W}$ to all of $\mathfrak t^*$.
4. Compute the density on the adjacent chamber using .
By combining with the Heckman formula, we arrive at the following algorithm for computing Duistermaat–Heckman measures. We shall call it the *(Abelian) Heckman algorithm*.
\[abelian heckman algorithm\] Under the assumptions and using the notation of , the following algorithm computes the piecewise polynomial density function of the Abelian Duistermaat–Heckman measure:
1. Compute the density of each of the $|M^T|$ iterated convolutions $\delta_{\Phi_K(p)} \star H_{\hat\omega_{p,1}} \star \ldots \star H_{\hat\omega_{p,n}}$ using .
2. Form their alternating sum according to .
The non-Abelian Duistermaat–Heckman measure can then be computed via . By passing to its support, we can also determine the non-Abelian moment polytope (cf. ).
The algorithm as we have stated it assumes that the fixed-point data is part of the input. Let us describe it in the situations we are interested in:
\[fixed-point data projective space\] Consider the projective space $M = {\mathbb P}(V)$ associated with an arbitrary finite-dimensional, unitary $K$-representation $V$. Torus fixed points in $M$ correspond to weight vectors in $V$. Therefore, $M^T$ is finite if and only if all the weight spaces of $V$ are one-dimensional. If this is the case, let $V = \bigoplus_{k=0}^n {\mathbb C}v_k$ be the weight-space decomposition, with $v_k$ weight vectors of pairwise distinct weight $\omega_k$, so that the torus fixed points are precisely the points $[v_0], \ldots, [v_n] \in M$. Then, *before renormalization*, the isotropy weights in $T_{[v_k]} M$ are given by the vectors $\omega_l - \omega_k$ for $l \neq k$.
Note that the representations associated with the pure-state quantum marginal problems displayed in indeed have one-dimensional weight spaces, so that is directly applicable: This is obvious for ${\mathbb C}^{d_1} \otimes \ldots \otimes {\mathbb C}^{d_N}$ and can also be verified for $\operatorname{Sym}^N({\mathbb C}^d)$ and ${\Lambda}^N({\mathbb C}^d)$ (e.g., by observing that any single-row or single-column semistandard tableaux is already determined by its weight vector). However, other irreducible representations of $\operatorname{SU}(d)$, which correspond to indistinguishable particles of more exotic statistics, typically have weight spaces of dimension larger than one [@fulton97].
\[heckman for coadjoint orbit reductions\] Consider more generally the action of $T$ on a coadjoint $\tilde K$-orbit $M = \mathcal O_{\tilde\lambda}$ induced by a group homomorphism $\varphi \colon T \rightarrow \tilde T \subseteq \tilde K$. Even though this action might have infinitely many fixed points, there is an obvious way to write down an alternating sum formula for $\operatorname{DH}^T_{\mathcal O_{\tilde\lambda}}$: Note that it follows directly from that $$\operatorname{DH}^T_{\mathcal O_{\tilde\lambda}} =
\pi_* \operatorname{DH}^{\tilde T}_{\mathcal O_{\tilde\lambda}},$$ where $\pi = (d\varphi)^*$ is the dual map $\mathfrak {\tilde t}^* \rightarrow \mathfrak t^*$. Therefore, we can simply take the Abelian Heckman formula for the $\tilde T$-action (which is always applicable since the fixed point set of $\tilde T$ is the Weyl orbit of $\tilde\lambda$, hence finite), and push forward each summand along $\pi$. In the case of a maximal-dimensional coadjoint orbit and for a suitable choice of renormalization direction, the result is just the push-forward of the Harish-Chandra formula , $$\label{heckman for maximal dimensional coadjoint orbit reductions}
\operatorname{DH}^T_{\mathcal O_{\tilde\lambda}} = \sum_{\tilde w \in \tilde W} (-1)^{l(\tilde w)} \delta_{\pi(\tilde w \tilde\lambda)} \star H_{-\pi(\tilde \alpha_1)} \star \ldots \star H_{-\pi(\tilde \alpha_{\tilde R})},$$ with $\tilde\alpha_1, \ldots, \tilde\alpha_{\tilde R}$ the positive roots of $\tilde K$. The formula for lower-dimensional coadjoint orbits can be obtained by using [@berlinegetzlervergne03 Theorem 7.24] instead of .
In particular, this approach allows the computation of the Abelian Duistermaat–Heckman measure for arbitrary setups of the quantum marginal problem by an obvious variant of .
While and the variant described in are useful for computing low-dimensional examples, any approach relying on the Heckman formula has the major problem that the number of summands in the Heckman formula is typically very large (e.g., it is exponential in the number of distinguishable particles or fermions). Moreover, even though the Boysal–Vergne algorithm computes the density of a single summand chamber-by-chamber, this is less straightforward for the alternating sum, where all summands have to be evaluated in parallel. In below we will therefore derive an algorithm which does not suffer from these problems.
There is also a non-Abelian Heckman formula due to Guillemin and Prato [@guilleminprato90] (which suffers from the same problems). It can be deduced directly from the Abelian one by applying the derivative principle:
\[non-abelian heckman\] Suppose that there are only finitely many torus fixed points $p \in M^T$ and that in each tangent space $T_p M$ each positive root $\alpha > 0$ or its negative occurs as an isotropy weight. Denote by $n_p$ the number of isotropy weights in $T_p M$ that are multiplied by $-1$ during renormalization. For each positive root $\alpha > 0$ and in each $T_p M$, remove either $\alpha$ or $-\alpha$ from the list of renormalized isotropy weights. Denote the remaining weights by $\hat\omega_{p,1}, \ldots, \hat\omega_{p,n-R}$, and let $k_p$ be the number of negative roots that have been removed. Then, $$\operatorname{DH}^K_M = \sum_{p \in M^T} (-1)^{n_p+k_p} \delta_{\Phi_K(p)} \star H_{\hat\omega_{p,1}} \star \ldots \star H_{\hat\omega_{p,n-R}} \Big|_{\mathfrak t^*_+}.$$ In particular, the second assumption is satisfied when the moment map $\Phi_K$ sends each torus fixed points to the interior of a Weyl chamber.
Since $\partial_{\hat\omega} H_{\pm{\hat\omega}} = \pm\delta_0$ (cf. the proof of ), the asserted formula follows at once by combining with .
Only the final remark needs elaboration: As observed by Guillemin and Prato, the assumption that $\Phi_K(p) \in W \cdot \mathfrak t^*_{>0}$ implies that the $K$-stabilizer at each fixed point $p$ is precisely $T$, so that the infinitesimal action of $K$ generates a copy of $\mathfrak k / \mathfrak t$ inside the tangent space $T_p M$. Therefore, at any fixed point $p$, each positive root $\alpha > 0$ or its negative occurs as an isotropy weight.
This gives rise to an obvious non-Abelian variant of :
\[non-abelian heckman algorithm\] Under the assumptions and using the notation of , the following algorithm computes the non-Abelian Duistermaat–Heckman measure:
1. Compute the $|M^T|$ iterated convolutions $\delta_{\Phi_K(p)} \star H_{\hat\omega_{p,1}} \star \ldots \star H_{\hat\omega_{p,n-R}}$ using (see ).
2. Form their alternating sum according to .
By passing to its support, we can also determine the non-Abelian moment polytope (cf. ).
\[subtle remark\] There is a slight subtlety involved with the formulation of step (1) of : In case the renormalized isotropy weights $\hat\omega_{p,1}, \ldots, \hat\omega_{p,n-R}$ in some $T_p M$ do not span all of $\mathfrak t^*$, the corresponding iterated convolution is of course not absolutely continuous with respect to $d\lambda$, and cannot be applied directly (see, e.g., the first proof of ). Instead, we need to replace $\mathfrak t^*$ by the span of the $\hat\omega_{p,k}$ and apply accordingly.
In we will use both the Abelian and the non-Abelian version of the Heckman algorithm to compute the eigenvalue distribution of the reduced density matrices of a random pure state of two qubits () and of $N$ bosonic qubits (), as well as of random mixed states of two qubits ().
Single-Summand Algorithm for Projective Space {#projective space}
---------------------------------------------
We will now derive explicit formulas for the Duistermaat–Heckman measure associated with a projective space, $M = {\mathbb P}(V)$, where $V$ is a $(n+1)$-dimensional unitary representation of $K$, and where $M$ is equipped with the Fubini–Study symplectic form $\omega_\text{FS}$, normalized in such a way that its Liouville measure is equal to $\frac 1 {n!}$. The $K$-action is Hamiltonian, and a canonical moment map is given by [@kirwan84] $$\label{projective space non-abelian moment map}
\Phi_K \colon
{\mathbb P}(V) \rightarrow \mathfrak k^*, \quad
[v] \mapsto \left( X \mapsto \frac 1 i \frac {\langle v, X v \rangle} {\langle v, v \rangle} \right).$$
We start by decomposing the representation $V$ into one-dimensional weight spaces, $V = \bigoplus_{k=0}^n {\mathbb C}v_k$, where $v_k$ is a weight vector of weight $\omega_k$ (repetitions allowed). In the corresponding homogeneous coordinates, the Abelian moment map has the following simple form, $$\label{projective space abelian moment map}
\Phi_T \colon {\mathbb P}(V) \rightarrow \mathfrak t^*, \quad
[z_0 : \ldots : z_n] \mapsto \frac {\sum_{k=0}^n |z_k|^2 \omega_k} {\sum_{k=0}^n |z_k|^2},$$ and it is straightforward to see that the Abelian Duistermaat–Heckman measure can be written as the push-forward of Lebesgue measure on the standard simplex along a linear map:
\[projective space abelian via standard simplex\] We have $$\operatorname{DH}^T_{{\mathbb P}(V)} = P_*({\left.dp\vphantom{\big|}\right|_{\Delta_n}}).$$ Here, $P$ is the linear map ${\mathbb R}^{n+1} \rightarrow \mathfrak t^*, (t_k) \mapsto \sum_k t_k \omega_k$, and $dp$ is Lebesgue measure on the affine hyperplane ${\mathbf H}:= \{ (t_k) : \sum_k t_k = 1 \} \subseteq {\mathbb R}^{n+1}$, normalized in such a way that the standard simplex $\Delta_n := \{ (p_k) : p_k \geq 0, \sum_{k=0}^n p_k = 1 \}$ has measure $\frac 1 {n!}$.
The Fubini-Study measure is the push-forward of the usual round measure on the unit sphere $S^{2n+1} \cong \{ (z_0,\ldots,z_n) : {\lvertz_0\rvert}^2 + \ldots + {\lvertz_n\rvert}^2 = 1 \} \subseteq V$ along the quotient map $(z_0,\ldots,z_n) \mapsto [z_0:\ldots:z_n]$, normalized to total volume $\frac 1 {n!}$. On the other hand, the round measure on the unit sphere also induces Lebesgue measure on the standard simplex by pushing forward along the map $(z_0,\ldots,z_n) \mapsto (|z_0|^2,\ldots,|z_n|^2)$, since $dx dy = d(r^2) d\theta$ in polar coordinates. The claim follows from comparing with $P \colon (t_k) \mapsto \sum_{k=0}^n t_k \omega_k$.
can also be established by applying the Heckman formula as described in .
Denote by $dp/d\lambda$ a differential form corresponding to Lebesgue measure on the affine subspaces $P^{-1}(\lambda) \cap {\mathbf H}$, normalized in such a way that $$\label{quotient form polytope}
dp = dp/d\lambda \wedge P^*(d\lambda)$$ when restricted to the affine hyperplane ${\mathbf H}$.
\[density in polytope picture\] The density function $f \colon \mathfrak t^* \rightarrow [0,\infty)$ of the Abelian Duistermaat–Heckman measure is given by $$f(\lambda) = \operatorname{vol}\, \{ p_k \geq 0 : \sum_{k=0}^n p_k \omega_k = \lambda, \sum_{k=0}^n p_k = 1 \},$$ where the volume is measured with respect to the measure induced by $dp/d\lambda$ on $P^{-1}(\lambda) \cap {\mathbf H}$.
For all test functions $g \in C_b(\mathfrak t^*)$, we have $$\langle \operatorname{DH}^T_{{\mathbb P}(V)}, g \rangle =
\int_{\Delta_n} dp \, g(P(p)) =
\int_{\mathfrak t^*} d\lambda \left( \int_{P^{-1}(\lambda) \cap \Delta_n} dp/d\lambda \right) g(\lambda),$$ by using and Fubini’s theorem for the fibration ${\left.P\vphantom{\big|}\right|_{{\mathbf H}}}$ [@guilleminsternberg77 pp. 307].
That is, the Abelian Duistermaat–Heckman density measures the volume of a family of convex polytopes parametrized by $\mathfrak t^*$. This is also true for the density of the iterated convolutions studied in (see below). There are exact numerical schemes that can be used to compute the polynomial density functions on each regular chamber which have already been implemented in software packages, e.g., the parametric extension of Barvinok’s algorithm [@barvinok93] described in [@verdoolaegeseghirbeylsetal07; @verdoolaegebruynooghe08]. We will not pursue this route any further. However, in we will show that its “quantized” counterpart gives rise to an efficient way of computing the corresponding representation-theoretic quantities (in particular, the Kronecker coefficients).
In the following, we will instead describe a combinatorial algorithm based on the same principles as our Heckman algorithm. Before doing so, let us determine explicitly the regular chambers for the Abelian moment map, i.e., the connected components of the set of regular values of $\Phi_T$, each on which the measure is given by a polynomial. For this, we define the *support* of a point $p = [v] \in {\mathbb P}(V)$ as the set of weights which contribute to the weight-space decomposition of $v$, $$\operatorname{supp}p := \{ \omega_k : z_k \neq 0, p = [z_0 : \ldots : z_n] \}.$$ The significance of this definition is that the support of a point already fully determines whether it is regular or singular:
\[regular points\] Let $p \in P(V)$. Then $p$ is a regular point of the Abelian moment map if and only if $$\operatorname{span}\{ \omega - \omega' : \omega, \omega' \in \operatorname{supp}p \} = \mathfrak t^*.$$
It follows readily from the definition of the moment map that a point $p$ is regular if and only if $\mathfrak t_p$, the Lie algebra of its stabilizer, is trivial [@guilleminsternberg82 Lemma 2.1]. But $\mathfrak t_p$ is already determined by the support of $p$: $$\mathfrak t_p = \{ X \in \mathfrak t: \omega(X) = \omega'(X) \quad \forall \omega, \omega' \in \operatorname{supp}p \}$$ This is the annihilator of the linear span in the statement of the lemma.
We arrive at the following characterization of the set of singular values of the Abelian moment map:
\[singular values\] The set of singular values of $\Phi_T$ is the union of all convex hulls of subsets containing (at most) $r$ weights, $$\bigcup_{\#I = r} \operatorname{conv}\{ \omega_k : k \in I \} =
\bigcup_{\#I \leq r} \operatorname{conv}\{ \omega_k : k \in I \}.$$
It is clear from and that the convex hull of any subset of weights of cardinality at most $r$ consists of singular values. The converse follows from Carathéodory’s theorem.
In particular, the singular walls are convex hulls of $r$ weights in general position. From this description we can easily determine the regular chambers. Observe again that there is a single unbounded regular chamber.
We will now use the result of Boysal and Vergne described in to derive intrinsic formulas for the jumps of the Duistermaat–Heckman density when crossing a singular wall. Recall that the measures they consider are push-forwards of Lebesgue measure on the convex cone ${\mathbb R}^{n+1}_{\geq 0}$ rather than of Lebesgue measure on the standard simplex $\Delta_n$, which is of course the intersection of ${\mathbb R}^{n+1}_{\geq 0}$ with the affine hyperplane ${\mathbf H}= \{ (t_k) : \sum_{k=0}^n t_k = 1 \}$. It is however straightforward to translate between both pictures: In order to avoid confusion, we shall use the same convention as in that hatted quantities correspond to the Boysal–Vergne picture. Let us consider the “extended” weights $\hat\omega_k := (\omega_k,1) \in \mathfrak t^* \oplus {\mathbb R}$ ($k=0,\ldots,n$) together with the corresponding linear map $$\hat P \colon {\mathbb R}^{n+1} \rightarrow \mathfrak t^* \oplus {\mathbb R}, \quad (t_k) \mapsto \sum_{k=0}^n t_k \hat\omega_k = (P(t_0, \ldots, t_n), \sum_{k=0}^n t_k).$$ Denote by $dt$ standard Lebesgue measure on ${\mathbb R}^{n+1}$ and equip $\mathfrak t^* \oplus {\mathbb R}$ with the measure $d\hat\lambda = d\lambda ds$, where $ds$ is standard Lebesgue measure on ${\mathbb R}$. Choose a differential form $dt/d\hat\lambda$ inducing Lebesgue measure on the fibers of $\hat P$, normalized in such a way that $$\label{quotient form cone}
dt = dt/d\hat\lambda \wedge {\hat P}^*(d\hat\lambda) = dt/d\hat\lambda \wedge P^*(d\lambda) \wedge (dt_0 + \ldots + dt_N).$$ Then one can establish just as in the proof of the following formula for the density function of the push-forward of Lebesgue measure on ${\mathbb R}^{n+1}_{\geq 0}$ along $\hat P$ with respect to $d\hat\lambda = d\lambda ds$, $$\label{single summand density}
\hat f(\lambda, s) = \operatorname{vol}\, \{ t_k \geq 0 : \sum_{k=0}^n t_k \omega_k = \lambda, \sum_{k=0}^n t_k = s \},$$ where the volume is measured with respect to $dt/d\hat\lambda$. But comparing and and noting that $dt = dp \wedge (dt_0 + \ldots + dt_N)$ on ${\mathbf H}$, we see that in fact $dt/d\hat\lambda$ and $dp/d\lambda$ induce the same measure on the fibers $P^{-1}(\lambda) = \hat P^{-1}(\lambda, 1)$, so that $$\label{density transfer eqn}
\operatorname{DH}^T_{{\mathbb P}(V)} =
f(\lambda) \, d\lambda =
\hat f(\lambda, 1) \, d\lambda.$$ This shows that we can work equivalently in the convex cone picture of Boysal and Vergne.[^4]
We shall now describe the jump formula. Let $W$ be a singular wall separating regular chambers $\Delta_\pm \subseteq \mathfrak t^*$, and choose a normal vector $\xi \in \mathfrak t^*$ pointing from $\Delta_-$ to $\Delta_+$. Order the weights such that precisely $\omega_0, \ldots, \omega_{m-1}$ lie on $W$. Denote by $dw$ Lebesgue measure on the hyperplanes parallel to $W$, normalized in such a way that $$\label{wall quotient measure polytope}
d\lambda = dw \wedge d\xi,$$ where $d\xi$ is the pullback of the standard volume form of ${\mathbb R}$ along the coordinate function $\langle -, \xi\rangle$. Denote by $f_\pm$ the polynomials describing the density function $f$ on the regular chambers $\Delta_\pm$. Finally, consider the Duistermaat–Heckman measure for the action of $T$ on the projective space over $V_W = \bigoplus_{k=0}^{m-1} {\mathbb C}v_k$, the direct sum of the weight spaces corresponding to the weights which lie on the hyperplane through $W$. Its density with respect to $dw$ is given by a single polynomial on the singular wall $W$, since $W$ is always contained in the closure of a regular chamber for ${\mathbb P}(V_W)$. Choose any polynomial function $f_W$ extending it to all of $\mathfrak t^*$.
\[wall jump abelian\] The jump of the Abelian Duistermaat–Heckman density across the singular wall is given by $$f_+(\lambda) -f_-(\lambda)
= {\left.\operatorname{Res}\vphantom{\big|}\right|_{z=0}} \left(
\hat f_{\hat W}(\partial_x, \partial_y)
\frac
{e^{z \langle \lambda - \omega_0, \xi \rangle + \langle \lambda, x \rangle + y}}
{\prod_{k=m}^n z \langle \omega_k - \omega_0, \xi \rangle + \langle \omega_k, x \rangle + y}
\right)_{x=0, y=0}.$$ Here, $\hat f_{\hat W}(\lambda,s) = s^{m-r} f_W(\frac \lambda s)$ is the homogeneous “extension” of $f_W$ to $\mathfrak t^* \oplus {\mathbb R}$.
The convex cones $\hat\Delta_\pm$ through $\Delta_\pm \times \{1\}$ are chambers in the sense of Boysal and Vergne. They are separated by a wall $\hat W$, namely the convex cone through $W \times \{1\}$. Note that $\hat\xi = (\xi,-\braket{\omega_0,\xi})$ is a normal vector to $\hat W$. Denote by $\hat f_\pm$ the homogeneous polynomials describing the density function of the push-forward of Lebesgue measure on ${\mathbb R}^{n+1}_{\geq 0}$ along $\hat P$. It is clear that $d\hat w = ds \wedge dw$ induces Lebesgue measure on $\hat W$ and that it is normalized in such a way that $d\hat\lambda = d\hat w \wedge d\hat\xi$. By and the jump formula of Boysal and Vergne, we have $$\begin{aligned}
f_+(\lambda) - f_-(\lambda)
= \hat f_+(\lambda, 1) - \hat f_-(\lambda, 1)
= {\left.\operatorname{Res}\vphantom{\big|}\right|_{z=0}} \left(
\hat f_{\hat W}(\partial_{\hat x})
\frac
{e^{z \langle (\lambda, 1), \hat x + z \hat \xi \rangle}}
{\prod_{k=m}^n \langle \hat\omega_k, \hat x + z \hat\xi \rangle}
\right)_{\hat x=0}.
\end{aligned}$$ The polynomial $\hat f_{\hat W}$ as defined above agrees with its original definition in , since it is a homogeneous polynomial and can thus be reconstructed from $f_W$, which by is its restriction to the slice $\mathfrak t^* \times \{1\}$, by the formula given above. Writing $\hat x = (x,y) \in \mathfrak t^* \oplus {\mathbb R}$ and expanding the hatted quantities, we arrive at the assertion.
As in , the case where only a minimal number of weights lie on the affine hyperplane through $W$ is particularly simple to evaluate:
\[minimal wall jump constant polytope\] Suppose that precisely $r$ weights $\omega_0, \ldots, \omega_{r-1}$ lie on the affine hyperplane through $W$. Then, $$\hat f_{\hat W}^{-1} \equiv f_W^{-1} \equiv |d\lambda\left(\omega_1-\omega_0, \ldots, \omega_{r-1}-\omega_0, \frac{\xi}{{\lVert\xi\rVert}^2}\right)|.$$
We argue as in the proof of : In view of and the minimality assumption, the map $(q_k) \mapsto \sum_{k=0}^{r-1} q_k \omega_k$ along which we push forward is an isomorphism, and $f_W$ is equal to the constant of proportionality between the push-forward of Lebesgue measure on ${\mathbf H}$ (normalized in such a way that the standard simplex has measure $\tfrac 1 {d!}$) and the measure $dw$. We can compute this constant by comparing the volume of the parallelotope spanned by the $(\omega_k)$: For the former measure this constant is one (by its very normalization), while for the latter it follows from that $$d\lambda(\omega_1-\omega_0, \ldots, \omega_{r-1}-\omega_0, \xi) = d\omega(\omega_1-\omega_0, \ldots, \omega_{r-1}-\omega_0) \,{\lVert\xi\rVert}^2. \qedhere$$
These results give rise to the following inductive algorithm for computing the Abelian and non-Abelian Duistermaat–Heckman measure of a projective space. We will call it the *single-summand algorithm*, since in view of it amounts to computing a push-forward measure that is equivalent to a single summand of the Abelian Heckman formula (cf. ).
\[projective space algorithm\] The following algorithm computes the piecewise polynomial density function of the Abelian Duistermaat–Heckman measure of the projective space ${\mathbb P}(V)$:
1. Start with the unbounded regular chamber, where $f \equiv 0$.
2. Iteratively jump over singular walls $W$ separating the current regular chamber with an adjacent regular chamber:
1. Denote by $\omega_0, \ldots, \omega_{m-1}$ the weights which lie on the hyperplane through $W$.
2. If the wall is minimal ($m=r$), compute $f_W$ via .
3. Otherwise, recursively apply to compute the piecewise polynomial density of the Abelian Duistermaat–Heckman measure of ${\mathbb P}(V_W)$, where $V_W = \bigoplus_{k=0}^{m-1} {\mathbb C}v_k$ is the direct sum of the weight spaces for the weights in (a).[^5] On $W$ itself, it is given by a single polynomial. Choose any polynomial extension $f_W$ to all of $\mathfrak t^*$.
4. Compute the density on the adjacent chamber using .
The non-Abelian Duistermaat–Heckman measure can then be computed via . By passing to its support, we can also determine the non-Abelian moment polytope (cf. ).
\[complete solution\] In view of and and by passing to the purified double (), solves the problem of computing the eigenvalue distribution of reduced density matrices in complete generality.
We conclude this section by explicitly stating the Abelian and non-Abelian jump formula for the case where only a minimal number of weights lie on the affine hyperplane through the wall. They will be used later for computing examples.
\[minimal wall jump abelian\] Suppose that precisely $r$ weights $\omega_0, \ldots, \omega_{r-1}$ lie on the affine hyperplane through the singular wall $W$. Then the jump of the Abelian Duistermaat–Heckman density across the wall is given by $$f_+(\lambda) - f_-(\lambda) =
f_W
\left( \prod_{k=r}^n \langle \omega_k - \omega_0, \xi \rangle \right)^{-1}
\frac{\langle \lambda - \omega_0, \xi \rangle^{n-r}}{(n-r)!},$$ where $f_W$ is the constant from .
This follows immediately from by pulling out the constant $f_W$, setting $x = y = 0$ and evaluating the residue at $z=0$.
The non-Abelian formula follows directly by applying :
\[minimal wall jump non-abelian\] Suppose that precisely $r$ weights $\omega_0, \ldots, \omega_{r-1}$ lie on the affine hyperplane through the singular wall $W$, and that $n-r \geq R$, so that the non-Abelian Duistermaat–Heckman measure of ${\mathbb P}(V)$ is absolutely continuous in the vicinity of $W$. Denote by $f^K_\pm$ the polynomials describing its density on the regular chambers. Then the jump across the wall is given by $$\begin{aligned}
f^K_+(\lambda) - f^K_-(\lambda)
= f_W
\left( \prod_{k=r}^n \langle \omega_k - \omega_0, \xi \rangle \right)^{-1}
\left( \prod_{\alpha > 0} - \langle \alpha, \xi \rangle \right)
\frac{\langle \lambda - \omega_0, \xi \rangle^{n-r-R}}{(n-r-R)!},
\end{aligned}$$ where $f_W$ is the constant from .
has already been established in [@guilleminlermansternberg88], where the authors also envisaged an algorithm similar to our Heckman algorithm. They did however not have a general jump formula such as at their avail. Instead, they had to resort to an inexact formula which in general only holds in highest order (in the distance to the wall).
Examples
========
In this section we illustrate our algorithms by computing some eigenvalue distributions of reduced density matrices. The global quantum states will always be chosen according to one of the invariant probability measures described in . Many of our examples will involve *qubits*, i.e., quantum systems modeled by two-dimensional Hilbert spaces, so that the algorithms can be nicely visualized. But of course our algorithms can be used to determine the eigenvalue distributions for arbitrary instances of the quantum marginal problem (see ).
Pure States of Multiple Qubits {#pure states qubits}
------------------------------
We start by considering pure states of $N$ qubits, where $K = \operatorname{SU}(2)^N$ acts on $M = {\mathbb P}(({\mathbb C}^2)^{\otimes N})$ by tensor products (cf. ). It will be convenient to identify $\mathfrak t^* \cong {\mathbb R}^N$ in such a way that the positive Weyl chamber corresponds to the cone ${\mathbb R}^N_{\geq 0}$ and the fundamental weights to the standard basis vectors $e_j = (\delta_{j,k})$ ($k=1,\ldots,N$). That is, if $\lambda = (\lambda^{(j)}) \in \mathfrak t^*$ then we will by slight abuse of notation identify $\lambda^{(j)}$ with the scalar $i(\lambda^{(j)}_1 - \lambda^{(j)}_2) =$ $2 i \lambda^{(j)}_1$. It follows that $d\lambda$ is simply the usual Lebesgue measure on ${\mathbb R}^N$, that the symplectic volume polynomial is given by $p_K(\lambda) = \lambda^{(1)} \cdots \lambda^{(N)}$, and that the positive roots are $2 e_1, \ldots, 2 e_N$ (cf. and ). Moreover, amounts to assigning to a point $(\lambda^{(j)}) \in {\mathbb R}^N$ the tuple $(\rho_1,\ldots,\rho_N)$ of diagonal density matrices acting on ${\mathbb C}^2$, where $\rho_j$ has maximal eigenvalue $\hat\lambda^{(j)}_{\max} = \frac 1 2 + i \lambda^{(j)}_1 = \tfrac {1+\lambda^{(j)}} 2$.
We first discuss in detail the toy example of $N=2$ qubits, demonstrating both the non-Abelian Heckman algorithm and the single-summand algorithm.
$$\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[help lines] (-1.3,-1.3) grid (1.3,1.3);
\draw[->] (-1.6,0) -- (1.6,0) node[right] {\tiny $\lambda^{(1)}$};
\draw[->] (0,-1.6) -- (0,1.6) node[left] {\tiny $\lambda^{(2)}$};
\draw[fill=gray,opacity=0.3] (1,1) -- (-1,1) -- (-1,-1) -- (1,-1) -- (1,1);
\draw[very thick] (1,1) -- (-1,1);
\draw[very thick] (1,-1) -- (-1,-1);
\draw[very thick] (1,-1) -- (1,1);
\draw[very thick] (-1,-1) -- (-1,1);
\draw[very thick] (1,1) -- (-1,-1);
\draw[very thick] (-1,1) -- (1,-1);
\draw(1,1) node[below right] {\tiny $(1,1)$};
\draw(1,-1) node[below right] {\tiny $(1,-1)$};
\draw(-1,1) node[below left] {\tiny $(-1,1)$};
\draw(-1,-1) node[below left] {\tiny $(-1,-1)$};
\end{tikzpicture}$$
\[two qubits non-abelian\] The non-Abelian Duistermaat–Heckman measure for the action of $\operatorname{SU}(2) \times \operatorname{SU}(2)$ on ${\mathbb P}({\mathbb C}^2 \otimes {\mathbb C}^2)$ is given by $$\langle \operatorname{DH}^{\operatorname{SU}(2) \times \operatorname{SU}(2)}_{{\mathbb P}({\mathbb C}^2 \otimes {\mathbb C}^2)}, f \rangle =
\frac 1 2 \int_0^1 f(t,t) dt,$$ i.e., by a one-dimensional Lebesgue measure supported on the diagonal between the origin and $(1,1)$.
The four fixed points of the action correspond to the standard basis vectors $e_j \otimes e_k$ ($j,k=1,2$), which are weight vectors of weight $(\pm 1, \pm 1)$ using the conventions fixed above (the vertices of the grey rectangle in ). Let us choose the direction $\gamma = (-2,-1)$ for renormalization. After removal of the positive and negative roots, $(\pm 2,0)$ and $(0,\pm 2)$, only a single renormalized isotropy weight remains at each fixed point (cf. ). Therefore, shows that the non-Abelian Duistermaat–Heckman measure is given by the restriction to the positive Weyl chamber of $$\delta_{(1,1)} \star H_{(-2,-2)}
- \delta_{(1,-1)} \star H_{(-2,2)}
+ \delta_{(-1,1)} \star H_{(-2,2)}
- \delta_{(-1,-1)} \star H_{(-2,-2)}.$$ Only the first summand contributes to the positive Weyl chamber, and its restriction is given precisely by the formula displayed above (cf. ).
Note that the non-Abelian wall jump formula () is not directly applicable, since $n-r \not\geq R$. Indeed, as we have seen above, the non-Abelian measure does not have a Lebesgue density, since it is concentrated on the diagonal.
Therefore, we will follow , which uses the Abelian wall jump formula, and afterwards takes partial derivatives in direction of the negative roots according to : The decomposition of $\mathfrak t^*$ into regular chambers is indicated in . We start in the unbounded chamber, where the density is equal to the zero polynomial and cross the horizontal singular wall at the top. Evaluating the Abelian jump formula (; say, with $\omega_0 = (1,1)$ and $\xi = (0,-1)$), we find that the density polynomial on the upper regular chamber is equal to $\frac 1 8 (1 - \lambda^{(2)})$. Next, we cross the diagonal singular wall separating the upper and the right-hand side regular chamber. Using the Abelian jump formula once again, we see that the density polynomial changes by $\frac 1 8 (\lambda^{(2)} - \lambda^{(1)})$. Therefore, the Abelian Duistermaat–Heckman measure has the following piecewise polynomial density on the positive Weyl chamber: $$\frac 1 8 \left( 1 - \max(\lambda^{(1)}, \lambda^{(2)}) \right)$$ Taking partial derivatives in the direction of the negative roots, $(-2,0)$ and $(0,-2)$, we arrive at the measure asserted above.
\[two qubits marginals\] The joint distribution ${\mathbf P}_{\operatorname{eig}}$ of the maximal eigenvalues of the reduced density matrices of a randomly-chosen pure quantum state of two qubits is given by $$\langle {\mathbf P}_{\operatorname{eig}}, f \rangle = 24 \int_{\frac 1 2}^1 f(s, s) \left( s - \frac 1 2 \right)^2 ds,$$ for all test functions $f(\hat\lambda^{(1)}_{\max}, \hat\lambda^{(2)}_{\max})$.
According to , multiply the non-Abelian Duistermaat–Heckman measure by the symplectic volume polynomial $p_{\operatorname{SU}(2) \times \operatorname{SU}(2)}(\lambda) = \lambda^{(1)} \lambda^{(2)}$, divide by $\frac 1 {3!}$, the volume of ${\mathbb P}({\mathbb C}^2 \otimes {\mathbb C}^2)$. Finally, push forward along $(\lambda^{(j)}) \mapsto (\hat\lambda^{(j)}_{\max} = \tfrac {1+\lambda^{(j)}} 2)$.
This eigenvalue distribution is in fact known more generally for bipartite pure states chosen at random [@lloydpagels88; @zyczkowskisommers01]. We will later show how to compute its generalization using the techniques of this paper ().
For higher tensor powers, evaluating the Heckman formula quickly becomes unwieldy. However, it can still be used to compute the Duistermaat–Heckman measure locally:
\[n qubits local\] The non-Abelian Duistermaat–Heckman measure for the action of $\operatorname{SU}(2)^N$ on ${\mathbb P}(({\mathbb C}^2)^{\otimes N})$ is on the closures of the regular chambers that contain the vertex $(1,\ldots,1)$ given by the convolution product $$\delta_{(1,\ldots,1)} \star H_{\omega_1} \star \ldots \star H_{\omega_{2^N-N-1}},$$ where $\{ \omega_k \}$ is the set of weights of the form $(-2,\ldots,-2,0,\ldots,0)$ (at least two non-zero entries) as well as their $S_N$-permutations.
If we renormalize with respect to the direction $\gamma \approx (-1,\ldots,-1)$ then just as in the first proof of only a single summand in the non-Abelian Heckman formula contributes in the vicinity of the vertex $(1,\ldots,1)$ and, moreover, this summand is of the above form: Indeed, the weights $\{ \omega_k \}$ are precisely the isotropy weights with the negative roots removed (cf. ). Since the density function of $\operatorname{DH}^K_M$ is polynomial on each regular chamber adjacent to the vertex, we can extend the local formula to their closures.
It is in fact easy to see that the domain of validity of this formula is the intersection of the half-space $$\left\{ \lambda : \sum_{j=1}^N \lambda^{(j)} \geq N-2 \right\}$$ with the positive Weyl chamber (the regular chambers not adjacent to $(1,\ldots,1)$ lie in the complement of this half-space).
gives a local description of the non-Abelian moment polytope, namely by the cone based at $(1,\ldots,1)$ and spanned by the rays with direction vectors $\{\omega_k\}$. By convexity, its intersection with the positive Weyl chamber is an outer approximation to the moment polytope.
Let us specialize to the case $N=3$: Here, precisely the rays with the direction vectors $(-2,-2,0)$, $(-2,0,-2)$ and $(0,-2,-2)$ are extremal. Their intersection with the positive Weyl chamber has to be contained in the non-Abelian moment polytope: Otherwise, there would be additional vertices in the interior of the positive Weyl chamber — but only $(1,1,1)$ is the image of a torus fixed point. Since also the origin is contained in the moment polytope (the Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger state, $[\psi] = [e_1 \otimes e_1 \otimes e_1 + e_2 \otimes e_2 \otimes e_2]$, is a preimage of the origin [@greenbergerhornezeilinger89]), we conclude that the convex hull $$\operatorname{conv}\{ (0,0,0), (1,0,0), (0,1,0), (0,0,1), (1,1,1) \}$$ is an inner approximation to the moment polytope. Both approximations are in fact equal and therefore describe the moment polytope precisely (). Inequalities characterizing the moment polytope for $N$ qubits have been determined in [@higuchisudberyszulc03].
\(O) at (0,0,0); (W) at (0.3333,0.3333,0.3333); (W1) at (1,0,0); (W2) at (0,1,0); (W3) at (0,0,1); (SEP) at (1,1,1);
(-0.3,0,0) – (1.3,0,0); (0,-0.3,0) – (0,1.3,0); (0,0,-0.3) – (0,0,1.3); (1,-0.15,0) – (1,1.15,0); (-0.15,1,0) – (1.15,1,0); (1,1,-0.15) – (1,1,1.15);
(-0.15,1,1) – (1.15,1,1); (0,-0.15,1) – (0,1.15,1); (0,1,-0.15) – (0,1,1.15);
\(W) – (W1); (W) – (W2); (W) – (W3); (W) – (O); (W) – (W1); (W) – (W2); (W) – (W3); (W) – (SEP); (O) – (W1) – (W2) – cycle; (SEP) – (W1) – (W2) – cycle; (SEP) – (W2) – (W3) – cycle; (O) – (W3) – (W1) – cycle; (SEP) – (W3) – (W1) – cycle;
(W1) node\[below\][$(1,0,0)$]{}; (W2) node\[left\][$(0,1,0)$]{}; (W3) node\[left\][$(0,0,1)$]{}; (SEP) node\[anchor=west\][$(1,1,1)$]{}; (O) node\[below left\][$0$]{};
\[three qubits non-abelian density\] The non-Abelian Duistermaat–Heckman measure for the action of $\operatorname{SU}(2)^3$ on ${\mathbb P}({\mathbb C}^2 \otimes {\mathbb C}^2 \otimes {\mathbb C}^2)$ has the piecewise linear Lebesgue density $$\begin{cases}
\frac{1}{16} \min \lambda^{(j)} & \text{in the lower pyramid},\\
\frac{1}{32} \left( 1 - \sum_{j=1}^3 \lambda^{(j)} + 2 \min \lambda^{(j)} \right) & \text{in the upper pyramid},\\
0 & \text{otherwise}
\end{cases}$$ (compare ).
By , the non-Abelian Duistermaat–Heckman measure is on the closures of the regular chambers containing $(1,1,1)$ given by the convolution $$\delta_{(1,1,1)} \star H_{(-2,-2,-2)} \star H_{(-2,-2,0)} \star H_{(-2,0,-2)} \star H_{(0,-2,-2)}.$$ Using we can readily compute its density: $$\begin{aligned}
&\int_0^\infty dt_1 \cdots \int_0^\infty dt_4 \, \delta\big({\left(\begin{smallmatrix}1\\1\\1\end{smallmatrix}\right)} + t_1 {\left(\begin{smallmatrix}-2\\-2\\-2\end{smallmatrix}\right)} + t_2 {\left(\begin{smallmatrix}-2\\-2\\0\end{smallmatrix}\right)} + t_3 {\left(\begin{smallmatrix}-2\\0\\-2\end{smallmatrix}\right)} + t_4 {\left(\begin{smallmatrix}0\\-2\\-2\end{smallmatrix}\right)} - \lambda\big)\\
= &\frac{1}{32} \int_0^\infty ds_1 \int_{-\infty}^\infty ds_2 \cdots \int_{-\infty}^\infty ds_4 \, {\mathbf 1}_C(s_2,s_3,s_4) \, \delta\big((1-s_1) {\left(\begin{smallmatrix}1\\1\\1\end{smallmatrix}\right)} - {\left(\begin{smallmatrix}s_2\\s_3\\s_4\end{smallmatrix}\right)} - \lambda\big)\\
= &\frac{1}{32} \int_0^\infty ds_1 \, {\mathbf 1}_C\big((1-s_1) {\left(\begin{smallmatrix}1\\1\\1\end{smallmatrix}\right)} - \lambda\big)\\
= &\frac{1}{32} \max \{ 0, 1 - \sum_{j=1}^3 \lambda^{(j)} + 2 \min(\lambda^{(j)}) \},
\end{aligned}$$ where ${\mathbf 1}_C$ is the indicator function of the cone spanned by ${\left(\begin{smallmatrix}1\\1\\0\end{smallmatrix}\right)}$, ${\left(\begin{smallmatrix}1\\0\\1\end{smallmatrix}\right)}$, and ${\left(\begin{smallmatrix}0\\1\\1\end{smallmatrix}\right)}$, i.e., $${\mathbf 1}_C(a,b,c) =
\begin{cases}
1 &\text{ if } a+b \geq c \text{ and } a+c \geq b \text{ and } b+c \geq a,\\
0 &\text{ otherwise}.
\end{cases}$$ We have therefore established the claimed density on the complement of the lower pyramid.
According to , the jump across the hyperplane separating the upper and the lower pyramid is given by $$\frac 1 4 \left(- \frac 1 {64}\right) 8 \left(1 - \sum_{j=1}^3 \lambda^{(j)} \right) = \frac 1 {32} \left(\sum_{j=1}^3 \lambda^{(j)} - 1 \right)
$$ (the left-hand side terms are ordered just like in the jump formula). This is precisely the difference between the densities on the upper and lower pyramid as asserted in the statement of the proposition.
It is straightforward to deduce from this the eigenvalue distribution (cf. the proof of ):
\[three qubits marginals\] The joint distribution of the maximal eigenvalues of the reduced density matrices of a randomly-chosen pure quantum state of three qubits has Lebesgue density $$8! \left( \prod_{j=1}^3 \hat\lambda^{(j)}_{\max} - \frac 1 2 \right)
\begin{cases}
\min \hat\lambda^{(j)}_{\max} - \frac 1 2 & \text{if } \sum_{j=1}^3 \hat\lambda^{(j)}_{\max} \leq 2,\\
\max \left\{ 0, \frac 1 2 \left( 1 - \sum_{j=1}^3 \hat\lambda^{(j)}_{\max} \right) + \min \hat\lambda^{(j)}_{\max} \right\} & \text{if } \sum_{j=1}^3 \hat\lambda^{(j)}_{\max} \geq 2,
\end{cases}$$ on the space of maximal eigenvalues $(\hat\lambda^{(j)}_{\max}) \in [\frac 1 2,1]^3$.
Our use of the local convolution formula () and of the non-Abelian wall jump formula () were merely convenient shortcuts: It is clear that we could have completely algorithmically computed the measure by following .
Mixed States of Two Qubits {#bravyi example}
--------------------------
We will now use the non-Abelian Heckman algorithm to treat the case of random two-qubit states with fixed, non-degenerate global eigenvalue spectrum. That is, we consider the action of $K = \operatorname{SU}(2) \times \operatorname{SU}(2)$ on a coadjoint $\operatorname{SU}(4)$-orbit through a point $\tilde\lambda$ contained in the interior of the positive Weyl chamber. Recall that the Weyl group of $\operatorname{SU}(4)$ is the symmetric group $S_4$, with $(-1)^{l(\tilde w)}$ equal to the signum of a permutation $\tilde w \in S_4$. By , $$\label{bravyi abelian}
\operatorname{DH}^{T}_{\mathcal O_{\tilde\lambda}} = \sum_{\tilde w \in S_4} \operatorname{sign}(\tilde w) \, \delta_{\pi(\tilde w \tilde\lambda)} \star H_{-\pi(\tilde\alpha_1)} \star \ldots \star H_{-\pi(\tilde\alpha_6)},$$ where $\tilde\alpha_1, \ldots, \tilde\alpha_6$ are the positive roots of $\operatorname{SU}(4)$ (see for our conventions), and where $\pi$ is the restriction map $\mathfrak {\tilde t}^* \rightarrow \mathfrak t^*$, with $\mathfrak {\tilde t}^*$ the dual of the Lie algebra of the maximal torus of $\operatorname{SU}(4)$. With respect to our identification $\mathfrak t^* \cong {\mathbb R}^2$ fixed in , the map $\pi$ is given by $$\label{bravyi projection}
\pi \colon
\mathfrak {\tilde t}^* \rightarrow {\mathbb R}^2, \quad
(\tilde\lambda_1,\ldots,\tilde\lambda_4) \mapsto
2i(\tilde\lambda_1+\tilde\lambda_2, \tilde\lambda_1+\tilde\lambda_3).$$ One computes readily that the $-\pi(\tilde\alpha_k)$ are precisely the weights $(-2,2)$, $(-2,0)$ (twice), $(-2,-2)$ and $(0,-2)$ (twice). In particular, the two negative roots of $\operatorname{SU}(2) \times \operatorname{SU}(2)$ are contained in this list (each of them is in fact contained twice). By applying we arrive at the following formula:
\[bravyi non-abelian\] The non-Abelian Duistermaat–Heckman measure for the action of $\operatorname{SU}(2) \times \operatorname{SU}(2)$ on a coadjoint $\operatorname{SU}(4)$-orbit $\mathcal O_{\tilde\lambda}$ with $\tilde\lambda \in \mathfrak {\tilde t}^*_{>0}$ is given by $$\operatorname{DH}^{\operatorname{SU}(2) \times \operatorname{SU}(2)}_{\mathcal O_{\tilde\lambda}} =
{\left.
\left( \sum_{\tilde w \in S_4} \operatorname{sign}(\tilde w) \, \delta_{\pi(\tilde w \tilde\lambda)} \right) \star H_{(-2,2)} \star H_{(-2,0)} \star H_{(-2,-2)} \star H_{(0,-2)}
\vphantom{\big|}\right|_{\mathfrak t^*_+}}.$$
Following , we evaluate the right-hand side iterated convolution using . The result is the following:
\[bravyi convolution\] The measure $H_{(-2,2)} \star H_{(-2,0)} \star H_{(-2,-2)} \star H_{(0,-2)}$ has Lebesgue density $$f(\lambda^{(1)}, \lambda^{(2)}) =
\begin{cases}
0 & \text{in chamber 0},\\
\frac 1 {64} \left( \lambda^{(1)} + \lambda^{(2)} \right)^2 & \text{in chamber 1},\\
\frac 1 {64} \left( \left( \lambda^{(1)} \right)^2 + 2 \lambda^{(1)} \lambda^{(2)} - \left( \lambda^{(2)} \right)^2 \right) & \text{in chamber 2},\\
\frac 1 {32} \left( \lambda^{(1)} \right)^2 & \text{in chamber 3}.
\end{cases}$$ See for the labelling of the chambers and an illustration of the density.
(-2.3,-2.3) grid (1.3,2.3); (-2.6,0) – (1.6,0) node\[right\] [$\lambda^{(1)}$]{}; (0,-2.6) – (0,2.6) node\[above\] [$\lambda^{(2)}$]{}; (0,0) node\[below right\] [$0$]{}; (1,0) node\[below\] [$1$]{}; (0,1) node\[left\] [$1$]{}; (0,0) – (-2.3,2.3); (0,0) – (-2.3,0); (0,0) – (-2.3,-2.3); (0,0) – (0,-2.3); (0,0) – (-2.3,2.3) – (-2.3,-2.3) – (0,-2.3) – (0,0); (-0.5,1.5) circle (0.15) node [$0$]{}; (-1.5,0.5) circle (0.15) node [$1$]{}; (-1.5,-0.5) circle (0.15) node [$2$]{}; (-0.5,-1.5) circle (0.15) node [$3$]{}; (0,-3) node [ ]{};
The density of the non-Abelian Duistermaat–Heckman measure is thus given by the restriction to the positive Weyl chamber of an alternating sum of $24$ copies of the density described in , one copy attached to each of the points $\pi(\tilde w \tilde\lambda)$. In view of the geometry of the support of the latter density, it is clear that in fact only summands for points in the right halfplane $\{\lambda^{(1)} > 0\}$ contribute (i.e., at most half of the points). Using , one finds that the points $\pi(\tilde w \tilde\lambda)$ are the six points whose coordinates are equal to any two out of the three values $c_1 = |2i(\tilde\lambda_1+\tilde\lambda_4)|$, $c_2 = 2i(\tilde\lambda_1+\tilde\lambda_3)$, or $c_3 = 2i(\tilde\lambda_1+\tilde\lambda_2)$ (without repetitions), as well as their Weyl conjugates. See for illustration.
(-0.3,-0.3) grid (5.3,5.3); (-0.6,0) – (5.6,0) node\[right\] [$\lambda^{(1)}$]{}; (0,-0.6) – (0,5.6) node\[above\] [$\lambda^{(2)}$]{}; (0,0) node\[below left\] [$0$]{}; (5,0) node\[below\] [$1$]{}; (0,5) node\[left\] [$1$]{}; (1,0) node\[below\] [$c_1$]{}; (2,0) node\[below\] [$c_2$]{}; (4,0) node\[below\] [$c_3$]{}; (0,1) node\[left\] [$c_1$]{}; (0,2) node\[left\] [$c_2$]{}; (0,4) node\[left\] [$c_3$]{}; (4,1) – (3,0) – (0,0) – (0,3) – (1,4) – (2,4) – (4,2) – (4,1); (4,1) – (3,0) – (0,0) – (0,3) – (1,4) – (2,4) – (4,2) – (4,1);
(4,2) circle (0.15) node [$+$]{}; (4,1) circle (0.15) node [$-$]{}; (2,1) circle (0.15) node [$+$]{}; (2,4) circle (0.15) node [$-$]{}; (1,4) circle (0.15) node [$+$]{}; (1,2) circle (0.15) node [$-$]{};
Moreover, we can deduce that the non-Abelian moment polytope has the form described in the figure. To do so, we simply need to check in each regular chamber whether the density polynomial vanishes. By doing so and describing the resulting polytope in terms of inequalities, we recover a well-known result by Bravyi [@bravyi04]:
The non-Abelian moment polytope for the action of $\operatorname{SU}(2) \times \operatorname{SU}(2)$ on a generic coadjoint $\operatorname{SU}(4)$-orbit is given by $$\Delta_{\operatorname{SU}(2) \times \operatorname{SU}(2)}(\mathcal O_{\tilde\lambda}) =
\{
(\lambda^{(1)},\lambda^{(2)}) :
0 \leq \lambda^{(1)}, \lambda^{(2)} \leq c_3,
\lambda^{(1)} + \lambda^{(2)} \leq c_2 + c_3,
{\lvert\lambda^{(1)} - \lambda^{(2)}\rvert} \leq c_3 - c_1
\}.$$
In the limit where the global state becomes pure, the moment polytope converges to the diagonal between the origin and $(1,1)$. This is in agreement with . One can similarly recover the eigenvalue distribution of the reduced density matrices of a random pure state of two qubits by taking a corresponding limit.
In view of , the distributions computed in can be assembled to give the joint eigenvalue distribution of the reduced density matrices of a randomly-chosen pure state in ${\mathbb P}({\mathbb C}^2 \otimes {\mathbb C}^2 \otimes {\mathbb C}^4)$.
Pure States of Bosonic Qubits {#pure states bosonic qubits}
-----------------------------
We now turn to random pure states of $N$ bosonic qubits, where $K = \operatorname{SU}(2)$ and $M = {\mathbb P}(\operatorname{Sym}^N({\mathbb C}^2))$. We will use the Abelian Heckman algorithm:
\[sym N qubits abelian\] The Abelian Duistermaat–Heckman measure for ${\mathbb P}(\operatorname{Sym}^N({\mathbb C}^2))$ has Lebesgue density $$\frac 1 {2^N (N-1)! N!} \sum_{k=-N,-N+2,\ldots,N} (-1)^{\frac{N+k}{2}} {\binom{N}{\frac{N+k}{2}}} (\lambda - k)_+^{N-1}.$$ Here, we set $(\lambda-k)^{N-1}_+ = (\lambda-k)^{N-1}$ for $\lambda \geq k$ and $0$ otherwise.
Equivalently, $N!$ times the Abelian Duistermaat–Heckman measure is equal to the probability distribution of the sum of $N$ independent random variables that are uniformly distributed on the interval $[-1,1]$ [@feller71 §I.9, Theorem 1a].
The weights of $\operatorname{Sym}^N({\mathbb C}^2)$ are $\{ -N, -N+2, \ldots, N \}$; let us write $v_k$ for a weight vector of weight $k$. The associated projective space has precisely $N+1$ torus fixed points. At any such fixed point $[v_k]$, the isotropy weights are given by $$\{ (l-k) : l = -N, -N+2, \ldots, \check{k}, \ldots, N \},$$ and we will denote them by $\hat\omega_{k,1,}, \ldots, \hat\omega_{k,N}$ (cf. ). Observe that precisely $n_k = \frac{N+k}{2}$ of them are negative with respect to the renormalization direction $\gamma = +1$. By , the corresponding summand of the Heckman formula is equal to the push-forward of Lebesgue measure on ${\mathbb R}^N_{\geq 0}$ along $$P \colon {\mathbb R}^N_{\geq 0} \rightarrow \mathfrak u_1^*, \quad
(s_1, \ldots, s_N) \mapsto \sum_{i=1}^N s_i {\lvert\hat\omega_{k,i}\rvert} + k.$$ We first compute its cumulative distribution function: $$\begin{aligned}
P_*(ds)\left((-\infty,(k+\lambda)]\right)
&= ds(\{ s_1, \ldots, s_N \geq 0 : \sum_{i=1}^N s_i {\lvert\hat\omega_{k,i}\rvert} \leq \lambda \})\\
&= ds(\{ s_1, \ldots, s_N \geq 0 : \sum_{i=1}^N s_i \leq 1 \}) \, \frac 1 {\prod_i {\lvert\hat\omega_{k,i}\rvert}} \, \lambda_+^N\\
&= \frac 1 {N!} \frac 1 {2^N (\frac{N+k}{2})! (\frac{N-k}{2})!} \lambda_+^N\\
&= \frac 1 {2^N N! N!} {\binom{N}{\frac{N+k}{2}}} \lambda_+^N.
\end{aligned}$$ The density is then given by the derivative, $$f_k(\lambda) = \frac 1 {2^N (N-1)! N!} {\binom{N}{\frac{N+k}{2}}} (\lambda-k)_+^{N-1},$$ and by forming the alternating sum of these terms we arrive at the formula displayed above.
In we give an alternative proof of using representation theory and combinatorics. It follows directly from the derivative principle that the non-Abelian Duistermaat–Heckman measure is given by the following formula:
\[sym N qubits non-abelian\] The non-Abelian Duistermaat–Heckman measure for the action of $\operatorname{SU}(2)$ on ${\mathbb P}(\operatorname{Sym}^N({\mathbb C}^2))$ with $N \geq 2$ has Lebesgue density $$\frac 1 {2^{N-1} (N-2)! N!} \sum_{k=-N,-N+2,\ldots,N} (-1)^{\frac{N+k}{2}+1} {\binom{N}{\frac{N+k}{2}}} (\lambda-k)_+^{N-2}$$ on $[0,\infty)$.
Again, it is clear how to translate the above into the eigenvalue distribution of the one-body reduced density matrix by using . See for an illustration in the case of $N=2$ bosonic qubits.
\[sym two qubits figure\] $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[help lines] (-2.3,-0.3) grid (2.3,1.3);
\draw[->] (-2.6,0) -- (2.6,0) node[right] {\tiny $\lambda$};
\draw[->] (0,-0.6) -- (0,1.6);
\draw(0,0) node[below left] {\tiny $0$};
\draw(1,0) node[below left] {\tiny $1$};
\draw(2,0) node[below left] {\tiny $2$};
\draw(-1.6,0.2) node[above] {\tiny $\frac {2+\lambda} 8$};
\draw(1.6,0.2) node[above] {\tiny $\frac {2-\lambda} 8$};
\draw[very thick,dashed] (-2,0) -- (0,1);
\draw[very thick] (2,0) -- (0,1);
\end{tikzpicture}
& \quad \quad
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[help lines] (-0.3,-0.3) grid (2.3,1.3);
\draw[->] (-0.6,0) -- (2.6,0) node[right] {\tiny $\lambda$};
\draw[->] (0,-0.6) -- (0,1.6);
\draw(0,0) node[below left] {\tiny $0$};
\draw(1,0) node[below left] {\tiny $1$};
\draw(2,0) node[below left] {\tiny $2$};
\draw(2,1) node[right] {\tiny $\frac 1 4$};
\draw[very thick] (0,1) -- (2,1);
\end{tikzpicture}
& \quad \quad
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[help lines] (-0.3,-0.3) grid (1.3,1.3);
\draw[->] (-0.6,0) -- (1.6,0) node[right] {\tiny $\hat\lambda_{\max}$};
\draw[->] (0,-0.6) -- (0,1.6);
\draw(0,0) node[below left] {\tiny $0$};
\draw(1,0) node[below left] {\tiny $1$};
\draw[very thick] (0,0) -- (0.5,0) -- (1,1);
\draw(1,0.7) node[right] {\tiny $8 (\hat\lambda_{\max} - \tfrac 1 2)$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{aligned}$$
As an application, let us compute the average value of the reduced purity of a randomly-chosen pure state of bosonic qubits. The reduced purity is by definition equal to $$\label{definition reduced purity}
{\lVert\rho_1\rVert}_2^2 = \left( \hat\lambda_{\max}^2 + (1-\hat\lambda_{\max})^2 \right),$$ where $\rho_1$ denotes the one-body reduced density matrix and $\hat\lambda_{\max}$ its maximal eigenvalue.
\[purity example\] The average reduced purity of a randomly-chosen pure state of $N$ bosonic qubits is given by $$\frac 1 2 + \frac 1 {2 N}.$$
We will not use directly, but instead work with the Abelian Duistermaat–Heckman measure: Denote by ${\mathbf P}$ the probability distribution of the maximal eigenvalue of the one-body reduced density matrix. By using and $\hat\lambda_{\max} = \frac 1 2 + \frac \lambda {2 N}$, we find that the average reduced purity is given by $$\begin{aligned}
&\int \left( \hat\lambda_{\max}^2 + \left( 1-\hat\lambda_{\max} \right)^2 \right) \; d{\mathbf P}(\hat\lambda_{\max})\\
= &\frac 1 {4 N^2} \int \lambda \left( \left( N + \lambda \right)^2 + \left( N - \lambda \right)^2 \right) \, N! \, d\operatorname{DH}^{\operatorname{SU}(2)}_M(\lambda)\\
= &\frac 1 {2 N^2} \int \left( N^2 \lambda + \lambda^3 \right) \, N! \, d\operatorname{DH}^{\operatorname{SU}(2)}_M(\lambda).
\end{aligned}$$ By the derivative principle, , this is equal to $$\begin{aligned}
&\frac 1 {N^2} \int_0^{\infty} \left( N^2 + 3 \lambda^2 \right) \, N! \, d\operatorname{DH}^{\operatorname{U}(1)}_M(\lambda)\\
= &\frac 1 {2 N^2} \int \left( N^2 + 3 \lambda^2 \right) \, N! \, d\operatorname{DH}^{\operatorname{U}(1)}_M(\lambda).
\end{aligned}$$ In we have seen that $N! \, \operatorname{DH}^{\operatorname{U}(1)}_{M}$ is the probability distribution of the sum of $N$ independent random variables that are uniformly distributed on the interval $[-1,1]$. Since the variance of any such random variable is $\frac 1 3$ and since variances of independent random variables are additive, the above is equal to $$\frac 1 {2N^2} \left( N^2 + 3 \frac N 3 \right)
= \frac 1 2 + \frac 1 {2N}.
\qedhere$$
In accordance with the concentration of measure phenomenon, $\rho_1 \rightarrow {\mathbf 1}/2$ in distribution as $N \rightarrow \infty$. We remark that our result matches [@mullerdahlstenvedral11 Theorem 34] if one works out the quantities left uncalculated therein. Note that our proof illustrates the power of the derivative principle: Instead of explicitly computing the eigenvalue distribution, we can reduce to the Abelian Duistermaat–Heckman measure by differentiating the quantity we are interested in.
Pure States of Bipartite Systems
--------------------------------
We conclude this series of examples by re-deriving the eigenvalue distribution of the reduced density matrices of a randomly-chosen pure state in the case of a general bipartite quantum system, corresponding to the action of $\operatorname{SU}(a) \times \operatorname{SU}(b)$ on $M = {\mathbb P}({\mathbb C}^{a} \otimes {\mathbb C}^{b})$. Instead of following one of the algorithms it will be most convenient to directly work with the formula given in .
Suppose that $b \geq a$. If $b > a+1$ then is not satisfied (): Indeed, it always follows from the singular value decomposition that $$\label{bipartite spectra}
\operatorname{eig}\rho_B = (\operatorname{eig}\rho_A, 0, \ldots, 0),$$ so that in this case the non-Abelian moment polytope is contained in the boundary of the positive Weyl chamber. However, of course implies that for any choice of $b \geq a$ the joint eigenvalue distribution is already determined by the eigenvalue distribution of $\rho_A$. That is, it suffices to compute the Duistermaat–Heckman measure for the action of $K = \operatorname{SU}(a)$. Denote by $T$ the standard maximal torus of $\operatorname{SU}(a)$. As in , we identify points $\lambda \in \mathfrak t \cong \mathfrak t^*$ with diagonal density matrices $\hat\lambda = \frac 1 a + i \lambda$.
Clearly, the Abelian moment polytope consists of those $\lambda$ with $\hat\lambda \in \Delta_{a-1}$, and the non-Abelian moment polytope is its intersection with the positive Weyl chamber (cf. ).
\[lloyd pagels abelian\] On the Abelian moment polytope, the Duistermaat–Heckman measure for the action of the maximal torus of $\operatorname{SU}(a)$ is proportional to $$\prod_{j=1}^a \hat\lambda_j^{b-1} ~ d\lambda =
\prod_{j=1}^a \left(\frac 1 a + i \lambda_j\right)^{b-1} ~ d\lambda.$$
Choose the weight-space decomposition of ${\mathbb C}^a \otimes {\mathbb C}^b$ given by the standard basis vectors $e_j \otimes e_k$ ($j=1,\ldots,a$ and $k=1,\ldots,b$). According to , the density of the Abelian Duistermaat–Heckman measure is given by $$f(\lambda) = \operatorname{vol}\, \{ p_{1,1}, \ldots, p_{a,b} \geq 0 : \sum_{k=1}^b p_{j,k} = \hat\lambda_j = \frac 1 a + i \lambda_j \quad (j=1,\ldots,a) \}$$ with respect to the volume measure $dp/d\lambda$ defined therein. Note that the right-hand side set is the Cartesian product of $a$ rescaled standard simplices. The measure factorizes accordingly, and it is easy to see that $$\begin{aligned}
f(\lambda)
= \prod_{j=1}^a \operatorname{vol}\, \{ p_1, \ldots, p_b \geq 0 : \sum_{k=1}^b p_k = \hat\lambda_j \}
= \frac 1 Z \prod_{j=1}^a \hat\lambda_j^{b-1}
\end{aligned}$$ for $\hat\lambda \in \Delta_{a-1}$, and zero otherwise, with $Z$ a suitable normalization constant.
\[lloyd pagels\] On the non-Abelian moment polytope, the Duistermaat–Heckman measure for the $\operatorname{SU}(a)$-action on ${\mathbb P}({\mathbb C}^a \otimes {\mathbb C}^b)$ is proportional to $$\prod_{j=1}^a \hat\lambda_j^{b-a}
\prod_{j < k \leq a} (\hat\lambda_j - \hat\lambda_k) ~
d\lambda.$$
According to the derivative principle, we have to apply $\prod_{j < k} i(\partial_{\lambda_k} - \partial_{\lambda_j}) = \prod_{j < k} ( \partial_{\hat\lambda_k} - \partial_{\hat\lambda_j} )$ to the Abelian Duistermaat–Heckman density as computed in .
This is a partial differential operator of order $\binom a 2$, therefore the resulting non-Abelian density polynomial has total degree at most $d_{\max} = a(b-1) - a(a-1)/2$. Since we differentiate each variable at most $a-1$ times, it is a multiple of the symmetric polynomial $\prod_{j=1}^a \hat\lambda_j^{b-a}$. On the other hand, the result is evidently antisymmetric, and therefore a multiple of the Vandermonde determinant $\prod_{j < k} (\hat\lambda_j - \hat\lambda_k)$. Since the total degrees add up to $d_{\max}$, this implies the assertion.
In view of , this result implies the following well-known formula [@lloydpagels88; @zyczkowskisommers01]:
The distribution of the eigenvalue spectrum $\hat\lambda = \operatorname{eig}\rho_1$ of a randomly-chosen bipartite pure state $\rho$ on ${\mathbb C}^a \otimes {\mathbb C}^b)$ has Lebesgue density proportional to $$\prod_{j=1}^a \hat\lambda_j^{b-a}
\prod_{j < k \leq a} (\hat\lambda_j - \hat\lambda_k)^2$$ on the space of eigenvalue spectra $\{ \hat\lambda \in \Delta_{a-1} : \hat\lambda_1 \geq \ldots \geq \hat\lambda_a \}$.
It is also easy to deduce the corresponding formula for the action of $\operatorname{SU}(a) \times \operatorname{SU}(b)$:
\[lloyd pagels diagonal\] Denote by $\Delta = \{ \lambda \in \mathfrak t^*_+ : \hat\lambda \in \Delta_{a-1} \}$ the non-Abelian moment polytope for the $\operatorname{SU}(a)$-action. Then the push-forward of Liouville measure along the moment map for the $\operatorname{SU}(a) \times \operatorname{SU}(b)$-action is given by $$\left\langle (\Phi_{\operatorname{SU}(a) \times \operatorname{SU}(b)})_*(\mu_{{\mathbb P}({\mathbb C}^a \otimes {\mathbb C}^b)}), g \right\rangle
= \frac 1 Z \int_{\Delta} d\lambda \int_{\mathcal O^{\operatorname{SU}(a)}_\lambda \times \mathcal O^{\operatorname{SU}(b)}_{((\hat\lambda,0,\ldots,0) - \frac {{\mathbf 1}} b)/i}} g,$$ where $Z$ is a suitable normalization constant.
By , each coadjoint orbit $\mathcal O_\lambda$ for $\operatorname{SU}(a)$ is paired with the coadjoint $\operatorname{SU}(b)$-orbit through $((\hat\lambda,0,\ldots,0) - \frac{{\mathbf 1}}{b})/i$. By its $\operatorname{SU}(a) \times \operatorname{SU}(b)$-invariance, on each such pair of coadjoint orbits the push-forward measure is just a multiple of the usual Liouville measure. The assertion follows by observing that the density in is at any point $\lambda$ proportional to the symplectic volume of the corresponding coadjoint $\operatorname{SU}(b)$-orbit.
Multiplicities of Representations {#multiplicities section}
=================================
All results discussed so far can be considered as asymptotic limits of corresponding statements in representation theory, at least if the Hamiltonian $K$-manifold $M$ can be linearized (“quantized”) in a certain technical sense. This is in the spirit of Kirillov’s orbit method and the theory of geometric quantization [@guilleminsternberg77; @guilleminsternberg84; @woodhouse92; @guilleminlermansternberg96; @kirillov99].
In particular, this is the case when $M$ is a $K$-invariant smooth irreducible complex projective subvariety of ${\mathbb P}(V)$ for a finite-dimensional unitary $K$-representation $V$. In this situation, the Fubini–Study form of ${\mathbb P}(V)$ restricts to a non-degenerate symplectic form on $M$, and the $K$-action is Hamiltonian with moment map the restriction of . We still assume that is satisfied.
Coadjoint orbits $\mathcal O_\lambda$ through dominant integral weights $\lambda \in \Lambda^*$ (and only these) can be realized in this setup [@kirillov99]: They are in a natural way projective subvarieties of ${\mathbb P}(V_\lambda)$, where $V_\lambda$ is the unitary $K$-representation with highest weight $\lambda$.
In particular, the quantum marginal problem can be analyzed in this framework: Coadjoint $\operatorname{SU}(d)$-orbits through integral highest weights correspond to Hermitian matrices with integral eigenvalue spectra, and it suffices to consider these, since we can always rescale and take limits, or simply pass to the purified double ().
In we will recall the limit alluded to above. We then proceed to describe the representation-theoretic analogue of the derivative principle: Multiplicities of irreducible $K$-representations can be computed from weight multiplicities by taking finite differences (). In the case of the projective space associated with a unitary $K$-representation, the relevant weight multiplicities are those for the symmetric powers of the representation. In , we give a concrete formula describing these weight multiplicities as the number of integer points in certain rational convex polytopes; we indicate that this is again amenable to algorithmic implementation. Finally, we show that in the limit we recover the corresponding statements of .
The Semi-Classical Limit {#semiclassicallimit subsection}
------------------------
Since the $K$-action on $M \subseteq P(V)$ originates from a linear action on $V$, each graded part of the homogeneous coordinate ring ${\mathbb C}[M]$ is naturally a finite-dimensional $K$-representation and can thus be decomposed into irreducible sub-representations, $${\mathbb C}[M]
\cong \bigoplus_{k=0}^\infty \bigoplus_{\lambda \in \Lambda^* \cap \mathfrak t^*_+} V_\lambda \otimes \operatorname{Hom}_K(V_\lambda, {\mathbb C}[M]_k).$$ We shall encode their multiplicities, suitably re-scaled, in the following sequence of discrete measures, $$\label{discrete irrep measure}
\mu^K_{M,k} := \frac 1 {k^{n - R}} \sum_{\lambda \in \Lambda^* \cap \mathfrak t^*_+} \dim \operatorname{Hom}_K(V^*_\lambda, {\mathbb C}[M]_k) \, \delta_{\lambda/k}.$$ The factor $k^R$ accommodates for the growth of the dimension of a generic irreducible representation in the coordinate ring, which has highest weight in $\mathfrak t^*_{>0}$ (we still assume that is in place).
It is well-known that in the *semi-classical limit* $k \rightarrow \infty$ this sequence of measures converges in distribution to the non-Abelian Duistermaat–Heckman measure [@heckman82; @guilleminsternberg82b; @sjamaar95; @meinrenken96; @meinrenkensjamaar99; @vergne98], $$\label{semiclassicallimit}
\mu^K_{M,k} \rightarrow \operatorname{DH}^K_M.$$ In fact, one can show using the Hirzebruch–Riemann–Roch theorem that the piecewise polynomial density function of the Duistermaat–Heckman measure is at any regular point $\lambda \in \mathfrak t^*_{>0}$ for $\Phi_K$ (equivalently, for $\Phi_T$) given by $$\label{semiclassicallimit pointwise}
\lim_{k \rightarrow \infty}
\frac 1 D
\frac 1 {k^{n-R-r}}
\dim \operatorname{Hom}_K(V_{k \lambda^*}, {\mathbb C}[M]_k).$$ Here, $D$ is the number of elements in the generic stabilizer of points in $M$,[^6] and the right-hand side is understood as the limit over the subsequence with $k \lambda$ integral. The additional factor $k^r$ comes from the fact that we now consider the density with respect to the $r$-dimensional Lebesgue measure $d\lambda$.
It is well-known that the right-hand side multiplicity in is a *quasi-polynomial* in $k$, i.e., a polynomial whose coefficients are periodic functions of $k$. Observe that the existence of the limit implies that (a) the degree of this quasi-polynomial is at most $n-R-r$, and (b) if it is of maximal degree then its leading order coefficient is in fact a constant independent of $k$ (namely, the limit). We shall therefore call the limit the *maximal-order growth coefficient* of the quasi-polynomial.
The rational points of the moment polytope $\Delta_K(M)$ are precisely those of the form $\lambda / k$ with $V^*_\lambda \subseteq {\mathbb C}[M]_k$ [@brion87]. In other words, $\operatorname{supp}\operatorname{DH}^K_M \cap \mathfrak t^*_{{\mathbb Q}} = \bigcup_k \operatorname{supp}\mu^K_{M,k}$.
Restricting the action to the maximal torus $T \subseteq K$, we observe that the Abelian Duistermaat–Heckman measure $\operatorname{DH}^T_M$ captures the asymptotic distribution of weights in the homogeneous coordinate ring of $M$, i.e., the asymptotics of the character of ${\mathbb C}[M]_k$ as $k \rightarrow \infty$.
For strictly dominant and integral $\lambda \in \Lambda^* \cap \mathfrak t^*_{>0}$, the Borel–Weil theorem shows that the homogeneous coordinate ring of the coadjoint orbit $\mathcal O_\lambda \subseteq P(V_\lambda)$ is equal to $${\mathbb C}[\mathcal O_\lambda] = \bigoplus_{k=0}^\infty V^*_{k \lambda}.$$ Therefore, all the multiplicity measures $\mu_{\mathcal O_{\lambda},k}^K$ (and hence their limit) are equal to the Dirac measure at $\lambda$.
Multiplicities of Irreducible Representations via Finite Differences {#multiplicities of irreducibles}
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Multiplicities of weights and highest weights in finite-dimensional $K$-representations are related by iteratively taking (negative) finite differences in the directions of the positive roots. This can be seen as the “quantized” version of the derivative principle (). Its proof is in essence a rephrasing of the Weyl character formula, an idea which goes back at least to Steinberg [@steinberg61].
\[steinberg lemma\] Denote by $m_K$ and $m_T$ the highest weight and weight multiplicity function, respectively, of a finite-dimensional $K$-representation $V$. Then on the positive Weyl chamber we have $$m_K = {\left.\left(\prod_{\alpha > 0} - D_\alpha \right) m_T\vphantom{\big|}\right|_{\mathfrak t^*_+}},$$ where $(D_\alpha m)(\lambda) = m(\lambda + \alpha) - m(\lambda)$ is the finite-difference operator in direction $\alpha$. Note that any two of the operators $D_\alpha$ commute, so that their product is independent of the order of multiplication.
By linearity of the finite-difference operators it suffices to establish the lemma for a single irreducible representation $V_\lambda$ of highest weight $\lambda$. It will be convenient to work with the formal character $\mathrm{ch}(V_\lambda) = \sum_\mu m_T(\mu) \, e^\mu$ [@cartersegalmacdonald95; @knapp02]. By the Weyl character formula, $$\prod_{\alpha > 0} \left( 1 - e^{-\alpha} \right) \mathrm{ch}(V_\lambda) =
e^{-\rho} \sum_{w \in W} (-1)^{l(w)} e^{w(\lambda + \rho)}$$ where $W$ is the Weyl group, $l(w)$ the length of a Weyl group element $w$, and $\rho$ half the sum of the positive roots.
Now observe that the left-hand side is the generating function of $\left( \prod_{\alpha > 0} - D_\alpha \right) m_T$, since taking finite differences corresponds to multiplying the generating function by $1 - e^{-\alpha}$. Up to terms corresponding to non-dominant weights, the right-hand side is equal to $e^\lambda$, which is the generating function of $m_K = \delta_{\lambda,-}$. The assertion follows from this.
Note that the Weyl character formula can be seen as the representation-theoretic analogue of the Harish-Chandra formula that was used to establish . In the semi-classical limit , the finite differences become infinitesimal and we recover an alternative proof of in the algebro-geometric setting. This argument can also be turned around to establish for general compact Lie groups $K$ from its Abelian version [@guilleminsternberg84 (34.8)] and .[^7]
Multiplicities for Projective Spaces {#multiplicities for projective space}
------------------------------------
As in , let $M = {\mathbb P}(V)$ be the complex projective space for a unitary $K$-representation $V$. Its homogeneous coordinate ring is equal to the symmetric algebra, $${\mathbb C}[{\mathbb P}(V)] = \operatorname{Sym}(V) = \bigoplus_{k=0}^\infty \operatorname{Sym}^k(V).$$
Choose a weight-space decomposition $V = \bigoplus_{k=0}^n {\mathbb C}v_k$, and identify $V \cong {\mathbb C}^{n+1}$ and $\operatorname{U}(V) \cong \operatorname{U}(n+1)$ accordingly. Observe that the maximal torus $T \subseteq K$ acts via the standard maximal torus of $\operatorname{U}(n+1)$, that is, the set of unitary diagonal matrices, which we denote by $\tilde T$.
Each symmetric tensor power $\operatorname{Sym}^k({\mathbb C}^{n+1})$ is an irreducible representation of $\operatorname{U}(n+1)$. Its weight spaces are all one-dimensional, and the weights that occur are precisely the $\lambda = \operatorname{diag}(\lambda_0, \ldots, \lambda_n)$ with $i \lambda_j \in {\mathbb Z}$, $\lambda_j \geq 0$, and $\sum_j \lambda_j = k$ [@fulton97]. Clearly, we can identify this set of weights with the integral points in $k \Delta_n$, where $\Delta_n$ is the $n$-dimensional standard simplex in ${\mathbb R}^{n+1}$. In the language of Young diagrams, these are the weight vectors corresponding to semistandard Young tableaux of shape $(k)$ with entries in $\{0,\ldots,n\}$.
To determine the weight multiplicities with respect to $T \subseteq K$, we have to “restrict” each weight to $\mathfrak t$. This corresponds precisely to applying the map $P \colon {\mathbb R}^{n+1} \rightarrow \mathfrak t^*, (t_k) \mapsto \sum_k t_k \omega_k$ introduced in . Therefore, the multiplicity in $\operatorname{Sym}^k(V)$ of a weight $\lambda \in \Lambda^*$ is given by counting integral points in a rational convex polytope parametrized by $k$ and $\lambda$: $$\label{weight multiplicities for projective space}
m_{T,k}(\lambda) = \#\left(\Delta(\lambda, k) \cap {\mathbb Z}^{n+1}\right),$$ where $$\Delta(\lambda, k) = \Big\{ (t_j) \in {\mathbb R}^{n+1} : t_j \geq 0, \sum_{j=0}^n t_j \omega_j = \lambda, \sum_{j=0}^n t_j = k \Big\}.$$
\[future remark\] Such *vector partition functions* can be evaluated efficiently using Barvinok’s algorithm if the group $K$ and the ambient dimension $\dim V = n + 1$ is fixed [@barvinok93; @barvinok94; @barvinokpommersheim99], namely in time $O(\mathrm{poly}(\log k))$. In fact, $m_{T,k}$ is a piecewise quasi-polynomial function in both $\lambda$ and $k$, and there are parametric generalizations of Barvinok’s algorithm for computing these quasi-polynomials [@verdoolaegeseghirbeylsetal07; @verdoolaegebruynooghe08]. Since we can compute multiplicities of irreducible $K$-representations by taking finite differences of weight multiplicities in the direction of positive roots (), this can also be done efficiently if $K$ is fixed. We will report on a generalization of this technique to the general branching problem for compact connected Lie groups in a forthcoming article [@christandldoranwalter12].
There is also a jump formula by Boysal and Vergne [@boysalvergne09], which as in can be used to inductively compute the quasi-polynomials chamber by chamber.
We now turn to the semi-classical limit. As $k \rightarrow \infty$, it is clear that $$\mu^{\tilde T}_{{\mathbb P}(V), k} = \frac 1 {k^n} \sum_{\lambda \in \Delta_n \cap \frac 1 k {\mathbb Z}^{n+1}} \delta_\lambda$$ converges to Lebesgue measure on the standard simplex $\Delta_n$, normalized to total volume $$\lim_{k \rightarrow \infty} \frac 1 {k^n} \dim \operatorname{Sym}^k(V) = \lim_{k \rightarrow \infty} \frac 1 {k^n} {\binom{n+k}{n}} = \frac 1 {n!}.$$ Therefore, $\mu^T_{{\mathbb P}(V),k}$ converges to the push-forward of Lebesgue measure on $\Delta_n$ along the map $P$. By the semi-classical limit , this is of course equivalent to the assertion of . Moreover, note that the quantity $$m_{T,k}(k \lambda) =
\#\left(\Delta(k \lambda, k) \cap {\mathbb Z}^{n+1}\right) =
\#\left(\Delta(\lambda, 1) \cap \tfrac 1 k {\mathbb Z}^{n+1}\right)$$ is the Ehrhart quasi-polynomial associated to rational polytope $\Delta(\lambda, 1)$ [@beckrobins09]. It is intuitively clear that its growth in $k$ should be related to the volume of this polytope. Indeed, $$m_{T,k}(k \lambda) = k^{n-r} \operatorname{vol}\Delta(\lambda, 1) + O(k^{n-r-1}),$$ where $\operatorname{vol}$ is the $(n-r)$-dimensional volume with respect to the measure $dt/d\hat\lambda$ defined in [@beckrobins09 Exercise 3.29]. Observe that this agrees with and : The maximal-order growth coefficient is a constant equal to the Abelian Duistermaat–Heckman density at point $\lambda$.
Kronecker and Plethysm Coefficients {#kronecker section}
===================================
In this section, we describe the representation theory of the quantum marginal problem in more detail. For distinguishable particles, the relevant multiplicities can be expressed in terms of decomposing tensor products of irreducible representations of the symmetric group (). In particular, the joint eigenvalue distribution of the reduced density matrices of a tripartite pure state is determined by the asymptotics of the Kronecker coefficients (see ). We emphasize that by specializing the method described in we get a novel algorithm for computing Kronecker coefficients which is efficient for Young diagrams of bounded height. Indistinguishable particles correspond to certain plethysm coefficients and we conclude by illustrating this connection ().
Kronecker Coefficients {#kronecker coefficients}
----------------------
Recall that for $N$ distinguishable particles we have to consider the action of $K = \operatorname{SU}(d_1) \times \ldots \times \operatorname{SU}(d_N)$ on a coadjoint $\operatorname{SU}(d_1 \cdots d_N)$-orbit $M = \mathcal O_{\tilde\lambda}$, where we now assume that $\tilde\lambda$ is an integral weight in $\mathfrak t^*_{>0}$. The multiplicity measures $\mu^K_{M,k}$ are determined by the decomposition of the homogeneous coordinate ring $${\mathbb C}[M] = \bigoplus_{k=0}^\infty V^{d_1 \cdots d_N}_{k \tilde\lambda}$$ into $K$-isotypical components (the superscript labels the corresponding $\operatorname{SU}$).
We can express this equivalently using the representation theory of the symmetric group $S_m$. Recall that by Schur–Weyl duality the diagonal action of $\operatorname{SU}(d)$ and the permutation action of $S_m$ on $({\mathbb C}^d)^{\otimes m}$ generate each other’s commutant, so that $$\label{schur weyl decomposition}
({\mathbb C}^d)^{\otimes m} \cong \bigoplus_{\mu} V^d_\mu \otimes [\mu].$$ Here, the sum runs over all Young diagrams $\mu=(\mu_1,\ldots,\mu_d)$ with ${\lvert\mu\rvert} := \sum_j \mu_j = m$ boxes and at most $d$ rows, $V^d_\mu$ is the irreducible representation of $\operatorname{SU}(d)$ with highest weight $X \mapsto i \sum_j X_j \mu_j$, and $[\mu]$ is the corresponding irreducible representation of $S_m$ (see [@fulton97] for details). We shall freely identify Young diagrams and the corresponding highest weights.
In particular, we can realize the irreducible representation $V^{d_1 \cdots d_N}_{k \tilde\lambda}$ in $({\mathbb C}^{d_1} \otimes \ldots \otimes {\mathbb C}^{d_N})^{\otimes {\lvertk \tilde\lambda\rvert}}$. Comparing the Schur–Weyl decomposition for the full Hilbert space with the tensor product of the decompositions for the individual subsystems, we find that $$V^{d_1 \cdots d_N}_{k \tilde\lambda}
\cong
\bigoplus_{\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_N}
V^{d_1}_{\lambda_1} \otimes \ldots \otimes V^{d_N}_{\lambda_N} \otimes
\operatorname{Hom}_{S_{{\lvertk\tilde\lambda\rvert}}}([k \tilde\lambda], [\lambda_1] \otimes \ldots \otimes [\lambda_N]),$$ where the sum runs over the Young diagrams $\lambda_i$ with ${\lvertk\tilde\lambda\rvert}$ boxes and at most $d_i$ rows. Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{generalized kroneckers}
\mu^K_{M,k}
= &\frac 1 {k^{n-R}}
\sum_{\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_N} \dim \operatorname{Hom}_{S_{{\lvertk\tilde\lambda\rvert}}}([k \tilde\lambda], [\lambda_1]^* \otimes \ldots \otimes [\lambda_N]^*) ~ \delta_{(\lambda_1/k,\ldots,\lambda_N/k)}\\
= &\frac 1 {k^{n-R}}
\sum_{\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_N} \dim \operatorname{Hom}_{S_{{\lvertk\tilde\lambda\rvert}}}([k \tilde\lambda], [\lambda_1] \otimes \ldots \otimes [\lambda_N]) ~ \delta_{(\lambda_1/k,\ldots,\lambda_N/k)},
\end{aligned}$$ where the latter identity holds due to the self-duality of the representations of the symmetric group. In particular, the rational points of the non-Abelian moment polytope $\Delta_K(\mathcal O_{\tilde\lambda})$ are precisely $$\begin{aligned}
\label{rational points QMP moment polytope}
\bigcup_k \left\{ (\lambda_1/k,\ldots,\lambda_N/k) : \begin{array}{l}
[k\tilde\lambda] \subseteq [\lambda_1] \otimes \ldots \otimes [\lambda_N], \text{ where the}\\
\text{$\lambda_i$ have ${\lvertk\tilde\lambda\rvert}$ boxes and at most $d_i$ rows}
\end{array} \right\}.\end{aligned}$$ See for an illustration of the multiplicity measures corresponding to the mixed-state quantum marginal problem for two qubits discussed in .
![(a) and (b) Illustration of the multiplicity measures $\mu^K_{M,k}$ for the mixed-state quantum marginal problem of two qubits with global spectrum $(4/7,2/7,1/7,0)$ and $k=28, 56$, which have been computed by the algorithm described in . (c) Their semi-classical limit, i.e., the corresponding Duistermaat–Heckman measure as computed in .[]{data-label="hedgehog figure"}](irrep_mults_4210_4.png "fig:"){width="4cm"} ![(a) and (b) Illustration of the multiplicity measures $\mu^K_{M,k}$ for the mixed-state quantum marginal problem of two qubits with global spectrum $(4/7,2/7,1/7,0)$ and $k=28, 56$, which have been computed by the algorithm described in . (c) Their semi-classical limit, i.e., the corresponding Duistermaat–Heckman measure as computed in .[]{data-label="hedgehog figure"}](irrep_mults_4210_8.png "fig:"){width="4cm"} ![(a) and (b) Illustration of the multiplicity measures $\mu^K_{M,k}$ for the mixed-state quantum marginal problem of two qubits with global spectrum $(4/7,2/7,1/7,0)$ and $k=28, 56$, which have been computed by the algorithm described in . (c) Their semi-classical limit, i.e., the corresponding Duistermaat–Heckman measure as computed in .[]{data-label="hedgehog figure"}](bravyi_polytope_4210.png "fig:"){width="4.8cm"}
We can write the multiplicities in in the following symmetric form: $$\dim \operatorname{Hom}_{S_{{\lvertk\tilde\lambda\rvert}}}([k \tilde\lambda], [\lambda_1]^* \otimes \ldots \otimes [\lambda_N]^*) =
\dim \left(
[\lambda_1]^* \otimes \ldots \otimes [\lambda_N]^* \otimes [k \tilde\lambda]^*
\right)^{S_{{\lvertk\tilde\lambda\rvert}}}.$$ Observe that the right-hand side is a multiplicity for the pure-state quantum marginal problem for ${\mathbb C}^{d_1} \otimes \ldots \otimes {\mathbb C}^{d_N} \otimes {\mathbb C}^{d_1 \cdots d_N}$. Indeed, the homogeneous coordinate ring of a projective space is just the symmetric algebra (), whose graded parts correspond to the trivial representations of the symmetric groups. This is the representation-theoretic perspective on purification (cf. , in particular ).
For the tripartite pure-state quantum marginal problem (equivalently, the mixed-state bipartite quantum marginal problem), the relevant multiplicities are the well-known *Kronecker coefficients* of the symmetric group, $$g_{\lambda,\mu,\nu} = \dim \left( [\lambda] \otimes [\mu] \otimes [\nu] \right)^{S_k}.$$ They are the symmetric group analogue of the Littlewood–Richardson coefficients of the unitary group (in fact, the latter can be considered as a special case) but much harder to compute in general, since there is no combinatorial description like the Littlewood–Richardson rule.
The corresponding characterization of the non-Abelian moment polytope has already been observed in [@christandlmitchison06; @klyachko04; @christandlharrowmitchison07], as well as in [@daftuarhayden04] for the projection onto two of the subsystems. The semi-classical limit refines this characterization: Not only can one read off the existence of quantum states with given marginal eigenvalue spectra from the asymptotic non-vanishing of the corresponding Kronecker coefficients $g_{k\lambda,k\mu,k\nu}$, but their growth also encodes the probability of finding these eigenvalue spectra when the global state is chosen according to the invariant probability measure. Explicitly, states that $$\label{kroneckerlimit}
\frac 1 {k^p} \sum_{\lambda,\mu,\nu} g_{\lambda,\mu,\nu} \, \delta_{\lambda/k, \mu/k, \nu/k}
\rightarrow \operatorname{DH}^{{\mathbb P}({\mathbb C}^a \otimes {\mathbb C}^b \otimes {\mathbb C}^c)}_{\operatorname{SU}(a) \times \operatorname{SU}(b) \times \operatorname{SU}(c)},$$ where $p = n - R = {abc - 1 - a(a-1)/2 + b(b-1)/2 + c(c-1)/2}$, and where the sum runs over all Young diagrams $\lambda, \mu, \nu$ with $k$ boxes and at most $a$, $b$ and $c$ rows, respectively.
The method described in in particular provides a novel algorithm for computing the Kronecker coefficients which is efficient for Young diagrams of bounded height: Using the finite-difference formula of , we can reduce to the computation of a bounded number of weight multiplicities , which using Barvinok’s algorithm can be evaluated in polynomial time in the input size, i.e., in time $O(\mathrm{poly}(\log k))$, where $k$ is the number of boxes of the Young diagrams. As mentioned in , we will elaborate on this algorithm in a forthcoming article [@christandldoranwalter12].
Plethysm Coefficients {#plethysms}
---------------------
While the quantum marginal problem for distinguishable particles is connected to (generalized) Kronecker coefficients, it is for indistinguishable particles related to certain plethysm coefficients. Indeed, if $M = {\mathbb P}(V_\lambda)$ for an irreducible $\operatorname{SU}(d)$-representation $V_\lambda$ then its coordinate ring consists of the *plethysms* $${\mathbb C}[M] = \bigoplus_{k=0}^\infty \operatorname{Sym}^k(V_\lambda).$$ See e.g. [@macdonald95] for more information on plethysms, which are in general defined as the composition of Schur functors. In particular, the bosonic and fermionic pure-state marginal problem are related to the asymptotics of $\operatorname{Sym}^k(\operatorname{Sym}^N({\mathbb C}^d))$ and $\operatorname{Sym}^k({\Lambda}^N({\mathbb C}^d))$, respectively, as $k \rightarrow \infty$.
Let us illustrate this by giving an alternative derivation of the Duistermaat–Heckman measures for $N$ bosonic qubits (cf. ). We will explicitly compute the asymptotic weight multiplicity distribution of the plethysm $\operatorname{Sym}^k(\operatorname{Sym}^N({\mathbb C}^2))$ as $k \rightarrow \infty$, and then apply the derivative principle. The main combinatorial tool we shall employ are the $q$-binomial coefficients $${\genfrac{[}{]}{0pt}{}{n}{k}}_q = \frac{[n]_q !}{[k]_q ! [n-k]_q !}
.$$ Recall that these are defined in terms of the $q$-integers $[n]_q = \frac{1-q^n}{1-q}$ and $q$-factorials $[n]_q ! = [n]_q [n-1]_q\ldots [1]_q$. We start with the following description of the character of $\operatorname{Sym}^k(\operatorname{Sym}^N({\mathbb C}^2))$ in terms of $q$-binomial coefficients:
\[springer character qbinomial\] Let $k,N \in {\mathbb N}$ and $q=e^{\omega_1}$. Then, $$\mathrm{ch} \left( \operatorname{Sym}^k \left( \operatorname{Sym}^N \left( {\mathbb C}^2 \right) \right) \right) = {\genfrac{[}{]}{0pt}{}{k+N}{N}}_{q^2} q^{-kN}.$$
\[asy eq q-stuff\] As functions on the open unit disk $\{ q \in {\mathbb C}: |q|<1 \}$ one has for fixed $N \in {\mathbb N}$ and $k \rightarrow \infty$ the following asymptotic equivalence $$[N]_q ! {\genfrac{[}{]}{0pt}{}{k+N}{N}}_q \sim [k]_q^N
.$$
Following [@kaccheung02 (9.1)], for any fixed $c \in {\mathbb N}$ and $|q|<1$ one has $$\lim_{k \rightarrow \infty} \frac{1-q^{k+c}}{1-q} = \frac{1}{1-q}.$$ By applying this identity both to the numerator and the denominator, $$\lim_{k \rightarrow \infty} \frac{[k+c]_q}{[k]_q} = 1
.$$ Hence $$\lim_{k \rightarrow \infty} \frac{ [N]_q !{\genfrac{[}{]}{0pt}{}{k+N}{N}}_q}{[k]_q^N} =
\lim_{k \rightarrow \infty} \frac{[k + N]_q [k+N-1]_q \ldots [k+1]_q}{[k]_q^N} =
1
.
\qedhere$$
The following corollary is an easy application of Osgood’s theorem [@osgood01] to (see e.g. [@beardonminda03]).
\[osgood\] Fix $N$, and define $f_k(q) = [N]_q ! {\genfrac{[}{]}{0pt}{}{k+N}{N}}_q$ and $g_k(q) = [k]_q^N$. Then, the sequences $f_k$ and $g_k$ converge, as $k \rightarrow \infty$, pointwise to the same holomorphic function on some open dense subset in the open unit disk $\{ q \in {\mathbb C}: |q|<1 \}$. In particular, the limits are equal as power series.
We can use this result to extract asymptotic multiplicity information.
\[asymptotic uniformness\] The discrete measures $\mu_{(N),k}^{\operatorname{U}(1)} := \mu_{\operatorname{Sym}^N({\mathbb C}^2),k}^{\operatorname{U}(1)}$ as defined in tend in the limit $k \rightarrow \infty$ to $\frac 1 {N!}$ times the probability distribution of the sum of $N$ independent random variables uniformly distributed on $[-1,1]$.
By , $\mu_{(N),k}^{\operatorname{U}(1)}$ is a finite measure with generating function $$\int q^x \, d\mu_{(N),k}^{\operatorname{U}(1)}(x \, \omega_1) = \frac 1 {k^N} {\genfrac{[}{]}{0pt}{}{k+N}{N}}_{q^{2/k}} q^{-N}.$$ Let $\nu_k$, $\omega_k$ be finite measures with generating functions $[N]_{q^{2/k}}!$ and $$\frac 1 {k^N} [k]^N_{q^{2/k}} q^{-N} = \left( \frac{q^{-1} + q^{-1+2/k} + \ldots + q^{1-2/k}}{k} \right)^N,$$ respectively. Obviously, $\omega_k$ is asymptotically distributed like the sum of $N$ independent random variables uniformly distributed on the interval $[-1,1]$, and by so is $\mu^{\operatorname{U}(1)}_{(N),k} \star \nu_k$. Since $\nu_k \rightarrow N! \, \delta_0$ as $k \rightarrow \infty$, this implies our assertion.
By using the semi-classical limit , we conclude once again that the Abelian Duistermaat–Heckman measure is given by the formula that was established in . The non-Abelian Duistermaat–Heckman measure is obtained as in by applying the derivative principle.
For the plethysms $\operatorname{Sym}^k(\operatorname{Sym}^2({\mathbb C}^2))$ we can also illustrate the semi-classical limit for the $\operatorname{SU}(2)$-action, since the decomposition into irreducible $\operatorname{SU}(2)$-representations is well-known [@macdonald95 §1.5, Example 6 (a)]: $$\operatorname{Sym}^k(\operatorname{Sym}^2 ({\mathbb C}^2)) \cong
\operatorname{Sym}^{2k}({\mathbb C}^2) \oplus
\operatorname{Sym}^{2k-4}({\mathbb C}^2) \oplus
\ldots \oplus
\operatorname{Sym}^{2 / 0}({\mathbb C}^2)$$ The last summand is $\operatorname{Sym}^2 ({\mathbb C}^2)$ for odd $k$, and $\operatorname{Sym}^0 ({\mathbb C}^2)$ for even $k$. Therefore, the discrete measures as defined in are given by $$ \mu^{\operatorname{SU}(2)}_{{\mathbb P}(\operatorname{Sym}^2({\mathbb C}^2)),k} = \sum_{l=2k, 2k-4, \ldots, 2 \vert 0} \frac 1 {k^{2-1}} \delta_{\frac l k}.$$ In the limit $k \rightarrow \infty$, they converge to the non-Abelian Duistermaat–Heckman measure as computed in , $$\operatorname{DH}^{\operatorname{SU}(2)}_{{\mathbb P}(\operatorname{Sym}^2({\mathbb C}^2))} = - \tfrac 1 4 \left( (x+2)^0_+ - 2 x^0_+ + (x-2)^0_+ \right) dx =
\tfrac 1 4 {\mathbf 1}_{[0,2)}(x) dx.$$ See for an illustration.
The description of the character of $\operatorname{Sym}^k(\operatorname{Sym}^N({\mathbb C}^2))$ via $q$-binomial coefficients has the additional advantage that one is able to compute all higher cumulants and moments of the associated distribution for any fixed $k$ and $N$ (see [@MR2019639]). This is due to a method by Panny [@MR845446].
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We would like to thank Alonso Botero, Emmanuel Briand, Peter Bürgisser, Benoît Collins, David Gross, Christian Ikenmeyer, Markus P. Müller, Mercedes Rosas, and Volkher Scholz for helpful discussions. We thank Graeme Mitchison for joint initial discussions on the topic of asymptotics of Kronecker coefficients. The second author would like to express his particular gratitude to Frances Kirwan for many fruitful discussions regarding moment maps and invariant theory and their many uses.
This work is supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (grants PP00P2–128455 and 200021\_138071), the German Science Foundation (SFB/TR12, and grants CH 843/1–1 and CH 843/2–1), the National Center of Competence in Research ‘Quantum Science and Technology’, and the Excellence Initiative of the German Federal and State Governments through the Junior Research Group Program within the Institutional Strategy ZUK 43.
[^1]: \[non-compact footnote\]In fact, the $p$-th summand of is precisely the Duistermaat–Heckman measure corresponding to the isotropy representation of $T$ on the symplectic vector space $T_p M$, which is of course a non-compact symplectic manifold and, strictly speaking, does not fit into our setup. The decomposition of $\mathfrak t^*$ into regular chambers for the moment map of $M$ is refined by the common refinement of the chamber decompositions for the $T_p M$ (cf. ).
[^2]: This is our reason for choosing a different definition for walls than the one used in [@boysalvergne09]. There, walls were defined as linear hyperplanes spanned by $r-1$ linearly independent vectors.
[^3]: This density of course only depends on the hyperplane through $\hat W$, and can therefore re-used for all other walls that span the same hyperplane.
[^4]: The push-forward of Lebesgue measure on ${\mathbb R}^{n+1}_{\geq 0}$ along $\hat P$ can also be understood as the Duistermaat–Heckman measure associated with the Hamiltonian $T \times \operatorname{U}(1)$-action on the complex vector space $V$, where $\operatorname{U}(1)$ acts by scalar multiplication (cf. ).
[^5]: This density of course only depends on the hyperplane through $W$, and can therefore be re-used for all other singular walls that lie on the same hyperplane.
[^6]: Quotienting out a discrete subgroup leaves the Duistermaat–Heckman measure invariant, but changes the weight lattice, and therefore the normalization of the Lebesgue measure $d\lambda$.
[^7]: We thank Allen Knutson for pointing this out, as well as for sketching a self-contained proof of .
|
---
abstract: 'It is widely acknowledged that the forthcoming 5G architecture will be highly heterogeneous and deployed with high degree of density. These changes over the current 4G bring many challenges on how to achieve an efficient operation from the network management perspective. In this article, we introduce a revolutionary vision of the future 5G wireless networks, in which the network is no longer limited by hardware or even software. Specifically, by the idea of virtualizing the wireless networks, which has recently gained increasing attention, we introduce the Everything-as-a-Service (XaaS) taxonomy to light the way towards designing the service-oriented wireless networks. The concepts, challenges along with the research opportunities for realizing XaaS in wireless networks are overviewed and discussed.'
author:
- |
Zheng Chang, Zhenyu Zhou, Sheng Zhou, Tapani Ristaniemi, \
and Zhisheng Niu, [^1]
title: 'Towards Service-oriented 5G: Virtualizing the Networks for Everything-as-a-Service'
---
everything-as-a-service; wireless network virtualization; 5G
Introduction {#sec:Sec1}
============
The future 5G will be the platform that enables the tremendous growth of many industries, ranging from traditional wireless networks, to the car, entertainment, manufacturing, healthcare, and agriculture industries. It is envisioned 5G will provide a common core to support multiple radio access technologies (RATs), machine type communications (MTC) and many different coexisting network and service operators. Therefore, 5G must support convergence over traditionally separated network domains and offer greater granularity and flexibility in control signalling and in data transmission. Correspondingly, the architecture is expected to be much more complex than before, in the sense that different network entities, such as relays, small cell base stations (SBSs), massive machines and data centers/cloud, etc, will be widely deployed with ultra densificantion and taken as close as possible to the end-users. Along with the rapid development of hardware computing units, the BS in wireless networks is expected to be deployed with powerful computing units or data centers to enable the software defined networking (SDN) and accommodated to the diverse service requirements. These changes, however, not only can enable the boost of data rates, but also bring many nontrivial challenges on how to achieve a super-efficient operation from network management point-of-view [@Liang].
In this light, network function virtualization (NFV) is envisioned as one powerful tool to address these aforementioned problems in wireless networks. In the resulted wireless network virtualization (WNV), network infrastructures and functionalities are decoupled from the services that they provide to maximize their utilization, where the differentiated services can co-exist on the same infrastructure [@Liang] [@Rost2]. What’s more, due to the fact that the network is expected to be highly heterogeneous and extremely dense, it is natural to consider whether the network infrastructure can be virtualized and provided to whoever wants them and whenever they are acquired, so that the network operator is no longer hardware-limited, nor even software-limited, in the light of both of the hardware and software are owned by different and dedicated network infrastructure operators. By such, every component which used to be essential in the traditional network management can be viewed as a service, and then can be supplied to any (virtual) network operators/service providers (SPs) or even directed to the end-users. Correspondingly, we refer to the resulted system architecture as a service-oriented wireless network with Everything-as-a-service (XaaS) which traditionally is recognized as the service provisioning models in the cloud computing [@Duan]. The new XaaS in WNV will be indeed service-oriented, containing many new elements, such as Data-and-Knowledge-as-a-service (DKaaS), Computing-as-a-service (ComaaS), Radio-Access-Network-as-a-service (RANaaS), Cache-as-a-service (CaaS) and Energy-as-a-service (EaaS), which could be delivered over the advanced 5G infrastructure.
Despite the potential vision of XaaS in WNV, there are several remaining research challenges to be addressed before its widespread deployment, including control signalling, virtual resource allocation, network management, and some non-technical issues such as business model, etc. Due to the inherent random and broadcast natures of wireless networks, these challenges need to be tackled carefully and broadly by comprehensive research efforts and call for a complete re-design of capabilities, architectures, interfaces, functions, access and non-access protocols of network services.
In this article, WNV is first briefly reviewed. Then by summarizing some existed work, we discuss the XaaS taxonomy, briefly present some definitions in XaaS and also introduce some key enabling technologies towards the mature XaaS framework. Challenges and research opportunities in these areas are also discussed. This article, we hope, can attract interests from the research and industrial communities on this emerging interdisciplinary field, which is able to boost up the development of the future 5G network infrastructure.
Wireless Network Virtualization in 5G
=====================================
![An example of wireless network virtualization[]{data-label="fig:example1"}](wnv2.jpg){height="8cm" width="10cm"}
Virtualization have recently moved from traditional server virtualization to wireless network virtualization. In stead of virtualizing the computing resources in server virtualization, in WNV, physical resources need to be abstracted to isolated virtual resources from the infrastructure service providers (InSPs). Then, the virtual resources can be offered to different network service providers (NSPs). In Fig. \[fig:example1\], a simple illustration of WNV is presented. In order to offer services to the users, the NSPs in Fig. \[fig:example1\] will ask the InSPs about the resources. Then, the physical BSs from different InSPs can be virtualized to virtual BSs (vBSs) and provided to different NSPs. Hereinafter, we consider the InSPs as the ones who own the resources, including infrastructures (hardware and software), spectrum and many others, and refer to the NSPs as the ones who do not have own substrate networks and need to acquire the resources from the InSPs and provide services to end-users or other parties. It is also worth mentioning that when the NSP acts as a reseller or broker with respect to the resources, then naturally becomes a InSP for the ones who buy the resources from them. Consequently, a service-oriented wireless architecture which allows flexible and programmable operation can be built upon the proper decoupling of the hardware, software and radio resources. Nevertheless, the inherit properties of the wireless communications make the problem more complicated. Particularly, virtualizing the wireless networks is to realize the process of radio resource virtualization, hardware sharing, virtualization of multiple RATs [@Liang]. Moreover, as the powerful computing units are becoming indiscerptible in communications systems, virtualization of the computing resources is an emerging option to efficiently utilize computing units in the wireless networks [@Wen].
Everything-as-a-Service via Virtualization
==========================================
![Concept of XaaS[]{data-label="fig:xaas"}](xaasfigure2.pdf){height="10cm" width="18cm"}
An example of XaaS is presented in Fig. \[fig:xaas\], where different types of cells, such as picocell, microcell, femtocell, and many other types of access points will be deployed and other advances, such as cloud-RAN and energy harvesting units, will be merged and utilized in the 5G physical substrate wireless networks. The densitification of heterogeneous wireless networks, together with WNV, can breakthrough the traditional obstacles on the infrastructure and radio resources towards an efficient network management and operation. By such, naturally, our vision is that the network architecture will be purely service-oriented: every component, not only BSs and spectrum, but also data, knowledge, computing units, energy, and security, can be viewed as a type of service that can be provided to whoever needs them and whenever they are needed. For several years now, in the cloud computing, researchers have been proposing and discussing many models for defining anything “as-a-service (aaS)” [@Duan]. Extracted from such a concept, we then present an XaaS taxonomy, discuss the enabling technologies and challenges.
Radio-Access-Network-as-a-Service (RANaaS)
------------------------------------------
First and foremost, no matter how the network will evaluate, it is still a radio-based network, where the wireless infrastructure and resources are the basis for all kinds of network operations. Therefore, the fundamental of a service-oriented wireless system should be able to offer Radio Access-Network-as-a-Service (RANaaS) [@Sabella2]. It can be noticed that the current proposals usually consider RANaaS is one of the products of cloud-based networks, i.e., cloud-RAN, where all the RAN functionalities are centrally operated. In this part, we revisit the concept of RANaaS and further decouple the RANaaS to different categories, i.e., Infrastructure-as-a-Service (IaaS), Radio-Resources-as-a-Service (RaaS) and Radio-Access-as-a-service (RAaaS), where the hardware, software and resource can be treated separately and properly towards a flexible and programmable 5G.
### Infrastructure-as-a-Service (IaaS)
Unlike the current BS-dominated 4G system or behind, it is expected that the 5G infrastructure concept will be significantly enriched, due to the massive deployment of different types of BSs and their ultra-density [@Chang1], data caching entities, computing centers, machines, sensors and energy harvesting units. The explosive growth of these network elements can also consequently increase the demands for supporting hardware, such as backhaul, backbone and radio resource control units. In the framework of the IaaS, each or the combination of some of these advanced 5G features can be viewed as one kind of services offered by the InSPs, and then can be virtualized to the NSPs or anyone who needs them [@Trakas].
### Radio-Access-as-a-Service (RAaaS)
When the whole RAN is decoupled, the infrastructure and radio access can be treated separately, which motivates the novel concept of RAaaS, where some RAN functionalities belonging to the protocol stack of the radio interface can be viewed as a service. In light of RAaaS, all the software related components, such as signalling, access and admission control, radio network controller, gateway, and many other protocols in the RAN or core networks, are virtualized. All of these RAN functionalities, or part of them, may then be offered as a service by the RANaaS platform to the NSPs, which adapts, configures, and extends their operation to current traffic demands and keeps up with the backhaul and access network structure requirements.
### Radio-resources-as-a-Service (RaaS)
In the virtualized networks, after abstracting, isolating and slicing, scalable radio resources can be better controlled and optimized, and may be pooled independently of the location, and transparently to the NSPs or directly to the end-users. In the platform of RaaS, the radio resources can be abstracted, isolated, assigned and sliced properly according to the demands and requirements, and then are offered as a service. By such, the available radio resources can be utilized more efficiently by permitting different parties to share the same spectrum.
Data-and-Knowledge-as-a-service (DKaaS)
---------------------------------------
The expansive wireless network is also emerging as a critical data contributor over the air-interface, which makes us entering the big data era [@Bi]. Big data virtualization can be viewed as one of the most valuable means through which to make sense of big data, and thus make it more approachable to the end-users and NSPs. Through virtualization, the big data can be abstracted, characterized and virtualized to more valuable knowledge, which can offer a shorter route to help decision making.
In this context, virtualization becomes a critical tool to convey information in all data analysis, which also induces the the proposal of Data-and-Knowledge-as-a-service (DKaaS). Meanwhile, due to the fact that the delivery of large amount of data over wireless networks truly occupies considerable amount of radio resources, such as spectrum, power, storage, or even backhaul, the data may prefer to be processed locally and only the necessary information can be centrally collected, which open the door for the third parties to join the business. Any local organizations or even person who has the ability to collect data or process the data can become the InSPs in this area and offer the needed information to the NSPs. For example, the data analytic company, spectrum broker, and smart wearable device companies can be the DKaaS provider in this context. As such, when DKaaS can be realized, the responsibility of carrying big data transmission and analytic of the NSPs can be leased to dedicated entities, and the radio resources can be better utilized in order to obtain Quility of Service (QoS) improvement to the end-users.
Cache-as-a-Service (CaaS)
-------------------------
To improve the QoS of real-time data services and alleviate the substantial real-time traffic on the backhaul or fronthaul, enabling the storage and cache capabilities of BS is emerging as one of the effective solutions [@Zhou]. All these features, as we can predict, can support to realize the concept of Cache-as-a-Service (CaaS), where cache, no matter it is either personal or belonging to the company-own InSP, can be offered to the NSPs. However, what prevents to realize the CaaS is its distributed and wide deployment nature. To address such a problem, virtualization can provide flexible and programmable virtual caching capability to the InSPs and NSPs, in order to serve end-users with QoS guaranteed service [@Li]. By such, the content can be flexibly chunked, distributed, and stored based on the its popularity, traffic diversity and the user demands.
It is also worth noticing that besides the caching for content delivery, cache can be applied to complement the big data analytic. Consequently, CaaS can be merged with DKaaS, to address the questions of matching between cache and data in the wireless networks, i.e., problems of where, what data and when to cache [@Bi]. Furthermore, due to the development of smart phone industry, today’s terminals also have large storage capacities, which are rapidly growing but typically under-utilized. The highly developed computing units of these devices are also capable of processing much more complicated tasks [@Chang2]. To enable the distributed cache provisioning of these devices, accurate knowledge of the end-user demands is crucial.
Computing-as-a-Service (ComaaS)
-------------------------------
In the traditional networks, the dedicated computing resources are implemented at BS level, which resulted in a networks with an over-provisioning of computing resources [@Rost2]. Such distributed nature may prevent the full utilization of computing resources and lead to an energy and cost inefficient networks. Therefore, more advanced implementations should be investigated to permit a dynamic and flexible utilization of computing resources to network infrastructure. Utilizing similar concept as Cloud-RAN, ComaaS emerges as am promising solution to provide immediate and on-demand access to computing resources for the NSPs as well as the end-users with low cost. Through the virtualization of computing resources, ComaaS can also obtain the cost efficiency for the InSPs, by solely utilizing the needed capacity to satisfy NSP or user’s requirement. When computing resources can be viewed as a service, the distributed computing resources, most of which are typically under-utilized, can be exploited as well. The end-users are also able to contribute its computing with proper stimulation.
Meanwhile, ComaaS is also one enabler for private cloud or cloudlet, which offers hosted services to a limited number of end-users. This is due to the fact that the use of private cloud can be boosted by the increasing number of InSPs and NSPs. What’s more, additional private cloud expenses, including virtualization, cloud software and cloud management tools, can also be addressed by the ComaaS and other XaaS platforms.
Energy-as-a-Service (EaaS)
--------------------------
Energy-as-a-service (EaaS) provides a promising approach to reduce energy costs and improve energy efficiency for both mobile users and telecommunication operators. From the perspective of mobile users, heavy energy consuming tasks can be offloaded to cloud servers with unlimited computing and energy resources to fill the gap between battery capacity limitations and high performance expectation. Furthermore, the emerging simultaneous wireless information and power transfer (SWIPT) technology enables mobile terminals to “recycle” the transmit power to prolong the battery lifetime while receiving data [@Chang2].
On the other hand, with the advancing technologies of distributed energy generation (DER) and distributed energy storage (DES) [@Zhou], smart BSs with energy harvesting (EH) capabilities enables operators to save excess energy in batteries and sell it back to utility companies during peak periods, or to exploit environmental friendly renewable energies to further reduce electricity prices through smart energy management systems. In addition, BSs with self-generation capabilities can compose a small-scale microgrid and operated in islanded mode during a blackout to ensure safe and reliable service provision. Thus, together with the emerging energy Internet, EaaS is able to motivate the study on fundamental relation between energy and information, and represents a novel marketing paradigm shift from conventional passive energy consumers to active energy prosumers.
![An example of virtualizing wireless network for XaaS[]{data-label="fig:example"}](virtu.jpg){height="8cm" width="10cm"}
Challenges for enabling XaaS
============================
An example of virtualizing the wireless network for XaaS is shown in Fig. \[fig:example\]. In this example, end-users connect to the virtual network from which they require the services, and they also connect to the cellular network physically to obtain the actual services. In the WNV, a physical network controller and a virtualized network controller need to be deployed between the virtualized wireless networks and physical wireless networks to realize the virtualization process [@Liang]. We can see that enabling WNV for XaaS confronts many challenges from the interaction of two networks, virtual resource allocation, network infrastructure management and involved signalling issues. In the following, we elaborate these challenges and their impact on XaaS development.
Signalling
----------
Due to the inherent broadcast nature of wireless communications and randomness character of wireless channel, WNV is more challenging to be realized and provided [@Liang]. In the process of virtualizing the wireless network, connectivity need to be firstly created between the NSPs and InSPs. By such, the communications and negotiation between the NSPs and InSPs can be established and the requirements of the NSPs for resources can be expressed to the InSPs. In addition, in the XaaS framwork, virtualization can happen among the InSPs as well. To facilitate the interaction among the InSPs, a standard protocol to express information-sharing and negotiation-handling are also necessary. Thus, proper control signalling considering delays and reliability needs to be explored in a careful manner to enable the connectivity among different parties involved in wireless virtualization. Moreover, NSPs or end-users may have different QoS demands. Therefore, when designing the control signalling and other overhead involved, the diversity of requirements from different parties should be carefully treated.
Virtual Resource Allocation
---------------------------
In order to realize the XaaS in the WNV, InSPs or NSPs should discover the available resources in the physical substrate wireless networks. InSPs need to decide what physical resources can be used for virtualization and NSPs can decide what resource to choose based on the end-users’ demands. Since resources will be shared among multiple parties, an efficient resource coordination scheme and interaction model should be investigated. Moreover, the slicing, isolation, customization and allocation schemes are necessary in this case, as different resources needs to be sliced and scheduled based on the provided services to achieve a better service differentiation against different NSPs [@Nikaein].
In this context, the main focus of virtual resource allocation is to realize the connection between the virtual networks and physical networks. It includes the selection of nodes, radio links, antenna, power, spectrum and other resources, as well as the optimization and combination of them. Unlike wired networks, radio resource allocation becomes much more complicated in the WNV due to the changeability of transmission coverage, frequency channels, user mobility, service demand, interference, transmit power and so on [@Moubayed]. What’s more, all the parties involved want to maximize their own revenue, so the game theoretic approach should be investigated to maximize the benefits in the XaaS framework.
Network Management and Deployment
---------------------------------
Management and deployment of the WNV are important to guarantee the proper and efficient operation of the virtualized wireless networks and the XaaS supported by the WNV. As the XaaS will be based on different physical substrate networks, network management and deployment confront many new challenges. In particularly, the physical substrate network is usually formed by various heterogeneous networks, each of which may have unique and specific properties, thus, careful design for obtain the solutions for efficient network operation and maintenance is required.
More specifically, in the XaaS framework, end-users should be able to smoothly switch to the NSP from which they acquire services. In a perfect case, the end-users should be able to access any NSP offering the best service quality in that location. Thus, the WNV should facilitates this mobility management through infrastructure/resource sharing and protocols development between the InSPs and NSPs to ensure that end-users can successfully connect with the most appropriate NSP. Moreover, in the system operation perspective, the WNV can require all the InSPs to share their physical resources, which potentially allows certain InSPs to shut down their equipment or put them into sleep when the traffic is low. If several InSPs have overlapped coverage, or the demand is low, it may be possible to save operation cost by carefully choosing one of them and shut down the rest. Such system operations are able to save the cost of NSPs as well as InSPs and should be reconciled with virtual resource resource allocation, isolation, and slicing, etc. The deployment of the network should be revised as well and will be optimized based on the requirement of the WNV and the features of the XaaS platform. For example, in a certain area, the InSPs may need to consider how to optimally deploy their infrastructures offer reliable services to the NSPs. When the InSPs of certain type of XaaS are sufficient for this area, it is not wise for them to deploy extra experiment or for other InSPs to entering this business. Thus, the corresponding analysis on the network management and deployment calls for proposals from algorithmic and implementation.
Data/Kowledge Acquisition and Abstraction
-----------------------------------------
Due to the development of data mining and processing techniques, mobile big data is no longer viewed as a pure burden for the wireless networks. Rather, the big data science can help the mobile network operators to efficiently and effectively manage the future networks with a complex architecture and provide services to massive devices with heterogeneous demands. Meanwhile, both the wireless and fiber-optic link have their own throughput limits, which is considered as a inevitable bottleneck. It can be expected that the adoption of distributed data compression and exploration into 5G may dramatically alleviate the data transmission burden of backhaul/fronthaul link and facilitate big data analysis in the ultra-dense networks. Thus, how to properly acquire, process and abstract the features of data to useful information and knowledge are the breakthroughs on integrating the DKaaS with wireless networks.
Moreover, the SP who directly serves the end-user might be the one who has the most convinces to access the data. However, it is quite common that the SP may not have the data processing capability nor the data is meaningful to them. For example, the data obtained from wireless sensor networks or wearable devices may contain extra information that help the NSP to provide personalized and flexible services to the end-users. Thus, how to provide these data, compress these data or extract useful information and knowledge from them, can attract interests from different third parties from technique, business or social perspective are the most challenging parts. Beside, the data/knowledge acquisition and abstraction are also absorbing from network operation point-of-view, as the local data processing or introducing professionals of data mining may ease the data transmission over wirless/wired link and abstracted knowledge can help the network operator to run the network in a easier and cost-efficient way. Therefore, addressing these challenges can significantly help to realize the DKaaS concept and also open the arms of wireless networks to embrace the upcoming big data era.
Non-technical Challenges
------------------------
In the technological domain, although facing aforementioned challenges, enabling the XaaS via WNV has the great potential gains from then network point-of-view, and then is able to provide better services to the end-users. Besides, non-technical challenges are brought when designing the models, such as large volume of contextual data, massive connections, new virtual operators, interactions between the InSPs and NSPs etc. As presented in Fig. \[fig:business\], the interaction and profit models of three layers in the WNV [@Liang], i.e., service provider (SP), mobile virtual network operator (MVNO) and INP, can be simplified to the interaction of InSP and network service operator (NSP). However, as the services can be decoupled and the role of NSP can be easily changed to InSP, different involved parties, such as service descriptions provider and service broker, should be carefully designed and it certainly requires dedicated and long-term research work.
![Challenges from business model[]{data-label="fig:business"}](business.jpg){height="8cm" width="10cm"}
Future Research Direction
=========================
While we listed some confronted research challenges, in the following, the future research directions are presented in a bigger picture.
![Convergence of network and cloud[]{data-label="fig:cloudconvergence"}](cloudconvergence.jpg){height="8cm" width="10cm"}
Network and Cloud Convergence
-----------------------------
The proposed XaaS paradigm relies on the convergence of traditional cellular networks and cloud computing platform. From RAN perspective, the role that cloud computing plays in networks calls for a holistic vision that allows control, optimization and management of both network and computing resources in a cloud-based environment. Virtualization can be viewed as a profound enabler for the convergence of networks and cloud. As shown in Fig. \[fig:cloudconvergence\], radio resource and computing resources can be effectively, flexibly and efficiently virtualized into services. Then, both resulted XaaS in communication and computing domains should be properly combined for service provisioning to the end-users.
Indeed, the previous research on the RAN optimization usually focus on the radio resource allocation, such as spectrum or power, based on the channel state information, without considering the computing resource and other contextual information, while most of the research of cloud computing concentrate on the computing resources allocation [@Duan1]. The limitation of previous work will motivate the research on a joint consideration of radio and computing resources. The challenges, in this respect, may come from the design of a metric to measure the radio and computing platform and to propose corresponding optimization methods. Moreover, the protocols design between the computing resource providers and radio resource providers in the XaaS framework also call for research efforts. In addition, mobility issues also course challenges in a converged network and cloud environment. Two dimensional mobility in both physical and virtualized wireless networks, should be taken into consideration for service provisioning. The problem can become more serious when the mobile devices are the resources to offer the services, which may make the service discovery and provisioning more complex.
Big Data Analytic
-----------------
Both proposed XaaS and WNV heavily rely on effective development of big data processing technologies. At the moment, the traditional cellular networks and recent cloud-RAN are not designed for the incoming big data era and needs sufficient revision to enhance the capabilities for big data analytic. To realized the XaaS, various features of networks should be either improved or total renovated. Exploring advanced big data analytical tools, such as stochastic modelling to capture the dynamic features of big data, development of data mining and machine learning algorithms, distributed optimization and dimension reduction. In addition, some features should be developed and brought into the current cellular networks to future explore their capabilities for handling vast volume of data, such distributed caching, computing, quantization and compression, investigation of the utilization of cloudlet and mobile cloud processing, etc, which can help to reduce traffic amount on the fronthaul or backhaul, also release the abundant on central data processing units.
Service Composition
-------------------
In order to run a network or provide QoS-guaranteed services directly to the end-users, a NSP needs to acquire from different InSPs in the XaaS framework. Such a inherit nature of XaaS essentially requires to enable the service composition. For example, when a end-user needs to watch a stream, different InSPs may be asked from the NSPs to provide caching capability, radio resource, infrastructure, and network functionality. Accordingly, the proposal and investigation for energy and cost efficient service composition will play a central role in supporting and coordinating the XaaS framework.
Specifically, as loose-coupling among services is one of the critical concepts in the XaaS and there are a large number of services involved in the XaaS, scalability emerges as one topic with research significance for service composition design. Accordingly, how to take into consideration of different needs to compose multiple services and maintain QoS requirements of different parties are of research importance. Besides, heterogeneity is another challenging issue to service composition. The services that are provided to the end-users in the XaaS platform, commonly comprise of heterogeneous services offered by different InSPs. For example, the combination of computing and radio resources, heterogeneous infrastructures (different types of BSs or other network elements), each of which has its own characteristics that may result in different technical approaches and solutions. In addition, the on-demand, programmable and flexible features of the XaaS framework also require dynamic and adaptive service composition. By predicting and overseeing the service performance and the user’s satisfaction level along the time, adaptation to QoS requirements will be beneficial for supporting elasticity of XaaS provisioning [@Duan1]. Thus, balance between system scalability, QoS awareness, user satisfaction, and service composition is a significant research issue.
Conclusions
===========
As one of the main concept enables infrastructure sharing and radio resources abstraction, wireless network virtualization emerges as a solution to reduce operation and management expenses of wireless networks. In this article, we introduced a revolutionary vision of the future 5G wireless networks, in which the network is no longer limited by hardware, radio resources or even software. Specifically, based on the idea of virtualizing wireless networks, the Everything-as-a-Service (XaaS) concept was presented and elaborated to light the way towards designing a service-oriented wireless architecture. Some important research challenges as well as future research directions in designing the XaaS framework were discussed and presented.
[1]{}
C. Liang and F. R. Yu, “Wireless virtualization for next generation mobile cellular networks,” *IEEE Wireless Communications*, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 61-69, Feb. 2015.
P. Rost, I. Berberana, A. Dekorsy, G. Fettweis, A. Maeder, H.Paul, V. Suryaprakash, M. Valenti, and D. Wübben, “Benefits and challenges of virtualization in 5G radio access networks,” *IEEE Communications Magazine*, vol. 53, no. 12, pp.75-82, December 2015.
Y. Duan, G. Fu, N. Zhou, X. Sun, N. C. Narendra, and B. Hu, “Everything as a service(XaaS) on the cloud: origins, current and future trends”, *in proc. of IEEE 8th International Conference on Cloud Computing*, New York, USA, June 2015.
H. Wen, P. K. Tiwary, and T. Le-Ngoc, “Wireless Virtualization,” Springer International Publishing, 2013.
D. Sabella, A. De Domenico, E. Katranaras, M. A. Imran, M. Di Girolamo, U. Salim, M. Lalam, K. Samdanis, and A. Maeder, “Energy efficiency benefits of RAN-as-a-Service concept for a cloud-based 5G mobile network infrastructure,” *IEEE Access*, vol.2, pp.1586-1597, 2014.
Z. Chang, K. Zhu, Z. Zhou, and T. Ristaniemi, “Service provisioning with multiple service providers in 5G ultra-dense small cell networks, ” *in proc. of IEEE PIMRC’15*, Hong Kong, China, Sep. 2015.
P. Trakas, F. Adelantado, and C. Verikoukis, “A novel learning mechanism for traffic offloading with small cell as a service,”*in proc. of 2015 IEEE International Conference on Communications*, pp.6893-6898, London, U. K., June 2015.
S. Bi, R. Zhang, Z. Ding and S. Cui, “Wireless Communications in the era of big data,” *IEEE Communications Magazine*, vol. 53, no. 10, pp. 190-199, Oct. 2015.
J. Wu, D. Liu, X. Huang, C. Luo, H. Cui, and F. Wu, “DaC-RAN: A data-assisted cloud radio access network for visual communications,” *IEEE Wireless Communications*, vol. 22, no. 3, pp.130-136, June 2015.
S. Zhou, J. Gong, Z. Zhou, W. Chen and Z. Niu, “GreenDelivery: proactive content caching and push with energy-harvesting-based small cells,” *IEEE Communications Magazine*, vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 142-149, April 2015.
X. Li, X. Wang, C. Zhu, W. Cai, and V. M. Leung, “Caching-as-a-service: Virtual caching framework in the cloud-based mobile networks,” *in Proc. of IEEE Infocom’15 workshop*, Hong Kong, China, April 2015.
Z. Chang, J. Gong, T. Ristaniemi and Z. Niu, “Energy efficient resource allocation for collaborative mobile clouds with Hybrid receivers,” *IEEE Transactions on Vehcular Technology*, in press, 2016.
N. Nikaein, E. Schiller, R. Favraud, K. Katsalis, D. Stavropoulos, I. Alyafawi, Z. Zhao, T. Braun, and T. Korakis, “Network store: exploring slicing in future 5G networks,” *in Proc. of Proceedings of the 10th International Workshop on Mobility in the Evolving Internet Architecture (MobiArch’15)*, Paris, France, 2015.
A. Moubayed, A. Shami, H. Lutfiyya, “Wireless resource virtualization with device-to-device communication underlaying LTE network,” *IEEE Transactions on Broadcasting*, vol.61, no.4, pp.734-740, Dec. 2015.
Q. Duan, Y. Yan, and A. V. Vasilakos, “A Survey on service-oriented network virtualization toward convergence of networking and cloud computing,” *IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management*, vol.9, no.4, pp.373-392, December 2012.
[^1]: Z. Chang and T. Ristaniemi are with University of Jyvaskyla, Department of Mathematical Information Technology, P.O.Box 35, FI-40014 Jyvaskyla, Finland. Z. Zhou is with State Key Laboratory of Alternate Electrical Power System with Renewable Energy Sources, School of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, North China Electric Power University, Beijing 102206, China. S. Zhou and Z. Niu are with Department of Electronic Engineering, Tsinghua University, 100084 Beijing, China. email: {zheng.chang, tapani.ristaniemi}@jyu.fi, zhenyu\_zhou@fuji.waseda.jp, {sheng.zhou, niuzhs}@tsinghua.edu.cn
|
---
author:
- 'Matteo Dalla Riva [^1] and Paolo Musolino[^2]'
date:
title: A mixed problem for the Laplace operator in a domain with moderately close holes
---
[**Abstract:**]{} We investigate the behavior of the solution of a mixed problem in a domain with two moderately close holes. We introduce a positive parameter $\epsilon$ and we define a perforated domain $\Omega_{\epsilon}$ obtained by making two small perforations in an open set. Both the size and the distance of the cavities tend to $0$ as $\epsilon \to 0$. For $\epsilon$ small, we denote by $u_{\epsilon}$ the solution of a mixed problem for the Laplace equation in $\Omega_{\epsilon}$. We describe what happens to $u_{\epsilon}$ as $\epsilon \to 0$ in terms of real analytic maps and we compute an asymptotic expansion.
[**Keywords:**]{} mixed problem; singularly perturbed perforated domain; moderately close holes; Laplace operator; real analytic continuation in Banach space; asymptotic expansion
[[**2010 Mathematics Subject Classification:**]{}]{} 35J25; 31B10; 45A05; 35B25; 35C20
Introduction {#introd}
============
The analysis of singular domain perturbation problems for linear equations and system of partial differential equations has caught the attention of several authors. In particular, a wide literature has been dedicated to the study of boundary value problems defined in domains with small holes or inclusions shrinking to points. This type of problems is of interest not only for the mathematical aspects but also in view of concrete applications to the investigation of physical models in fluid dynamics, in elasticity, and in thermodynamics. For example, problems on domains with small holes or inclusions can arise in the modeling of dilute composites or of perforated elastic bodies. In this paper, we will focus on a mixed problem for the Laplace operator in a bounded domain with two moderately close small holes. In other words, we will consider a domain with two cavities such that both their size and the distance between them tend to zero. However, we will assume that the perforations are ‘moderately close’, *i.e.*, the distance tends to zero ‘not faster’ than the size.
In order to introduce the problem, we first define the geometric setting. We fix once for all a natural number $$n\in {\mathbb{N}}\setminus\{0,1 \}\, .$$ Then we consider $\alpha\in]0,1[$ and three subsets $\Omega^i_1$, $\Omega^i_2$, $\Omega^o$ of ${\mathbb{R}}^{n}$ satisfying the following assumption: $$\label{dom}
\begin{split}
&\text{$\Omega^i_1$, $\Omega^i_2$, $\Omega^o$ are bounded open connected subsets of ${\mathbb{R}}^{n}$}\\
&\text{of class $C^{1,\alpha}$ such that ${\mathbb{R}}^{n}\setminus{\mathrm{cl}}\Omega^i_1$, ${\mathbb{R}}^{n}\setminus{\mathrm{cl}}\Omega^i_2$ and ${\mathbb{R}}^{n}\setminus{\mathrm{cl}}\Omega^o$ are}\\
&\text{connected and that $0\in \Omega^i_1\cap\Omega^i_2 \cap \Omega^o$}.
\end{split}$$ The letter ‘$i$’ stands for ‘inner’ and the letter ‘$o$’ stands for ‘outer’. The symbol ‘${\mathrm{cl}}$’ denotes the closure. The set $\Omega^o$ will play the role of the ‘unperturbed’ domain, where we make two perforations of the shape of $\Omega^i_1$ and of $\Omega^i_2$, respectively. We also fix two points $$\label{p}
p^1, p^2 \in \Omega^o\, ,\qquad p^1 \neq p^2\, .$$ Then we take $\epsilon_0>0$ and a function $\eta$ from $]0,\epsilon_0[$ to $]0,+\infty[$ such that $$\label{eta}
\lim_{\epsilon\to 0^+}\eta(\epsilon)=0 \qquad \text{and} \qquad \lim_{\epsilon \to 0^+} \frac{\epsilon}{\eta(\epsilon)}=r_\ast \in [0,+\infty[\, .$$ The function $\eta$ will control the distance between the holes, while the parameter $\epsilon$ will determine their size. We assume that $$\label{assrast}
\left(p^1+r_\ast\mathrm{cl}\Omega^i_1\right)\cap\left(p^2+r_\ast\mathrm{cl}\Omega^i_2\right)= \emptyset\, .$$ Possibly shrinking $\epsilon_0$, we may also assume that $$\label{e0}
\begin{split}
&\left(p^1+\frac{\epsilon}{\eta(\epsilon)}\mathrm{cl}\Omega^i_1\right)\cap\left(p^2+\frac{\epsilon}{\eta(\epsilon)}\mathrm{cl}\Omega^i_2\right)= \emptyset \qquad \forall \epsilon \in ]0,\epsilon_0[\, ,\\
&\bigg (\eta(\epsilon)p^1+\epsilon\mathrm{cl}\Omega^i_1\bigg)\cup\bigg(\eta(\epsilon)p^2+\epsilon\mathrm{cl}\Omega^i_2\bigg) \subseteq \Omega^o \qquad \forall \epsilon \in ]0,\epsilon_0[\, .
\end{split}$$ Then we introduce the perforated domain $$\Omega_{\epsilon}\equiv \Omega^o \setminus \bigcup_{j=1}^2 \bigg (\eta(\epsilon)p^j+\epsilon\mathrm{cl}\Omega^i_j\bigg) \qquad \forall \epsilon\in ]0,\epsilon_{0}[\, .$$ In other words, the set $\Omega_{\epsilon}$ is obtained by removing from $\Omega^o$ the two sets $\eta(\epsilon)p^1+\epsilon\mathrm{cl}\Omega^i_1$ and $\eta(\epsilon)p^2+\epsilon\mathrm{cl}\Omega^i_2$. As $\epsilon \to 0^+$, both the size of the perforations and their distance tend to $0$. Next, for each $\epsilon$ positive and small enough, we want to introduce a mixed problem for the Laplace operator in $\Omega_\epsilon$. Namely, we consider a Dirichlet condition on $\partial \Omega^o$ and Neumann conditions on the boundary of the holes. Thus, we take a function $f_1 \in C^{0,\alpha}(\partial \Omega^i_1)$, a function $f_2 \in C^{0,\alpha}(\partial \Omega^i_2)$, a function $g$ in $C^{1,\alpha}(\partial \Omega^o)$, and for each $\epsilon \in ]0,\epsilon_0[$ we consider the following mixed problem: $$\label{bvpe}
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\Delta u(x)=0 & \forall x \in \Omega_{\epsilon}\,,\\
\frac{\partial }{\partial \nu_{\eta(\epsilon)p^j+\epsilon\Omega^i_j}}u(x)=f_j\Big(\big(x-\eta(\epsilon)p^j\big)/\epsilon\Big) & \forall x \in \eta(\epsilon)p^j+\epsilon\partial\Omega^i_j\, , \forall j\in \{1,2\}\, ,\\
u(x)=g(x) & \forall x \in \partial \Omega^o\, ,
\end{array}
\right.$$ where $\nu_{\eta(\epsilon)p^j+\epsilon\Omega^i_j}$ denotes the outward unit normal to $ \eta(\epsilon)p^j+\epsilon\partial\Omega^i_j$ for $j\in \{1,2\}$.
Then, if $\epsilon \in ]0,\epsilon_0[$, problem has a unique solution in $C^{1,\alpha}(\mathrm{cl}\Omega_{\epsilon})$ and we denote such a solution by $u_{\epsilon}$. We are interested in studying the behavior of $u_\epsilon$ as $\epsilon \to 0$ and thus we pose the following questions.
1. Let $x$ be a fixed point in $\Omega^o\setminus\{0\}$. What can be said of the map $\epsilon\mapsto u_{\epsilon}(x)$ when $\epsilon$ is close to $0$ and positive?
2. Let $t$ be a fixed point in ${\mathbb{R}}^{n}\setminus
\cup_{j=1}^2(p^j +r_\ast \Omega^i_j)$. What can be said of the map $\epsilon\mapsto u_{\epsilon}(\eta(\epsilon) t)$ when $\epsilon$ is close to $0$ and positive?
3. Let $j \in \{1,2\}$. Let $t$ be a fixed point of $\mathbb{R}^n\setminus\Omega^i_j$ such that $p^j +r_\ast t \not \in (p^l+r_\ast \mathrm{cl}\Omega_l)$ if $l \neq j$. What can be said of the map $\epsilon\mapsto u_{\epsilon}(\eta(\epsilon)p^j+\epsilon t)$ when $\epsilon$ is close to $0$ and positive?
In a sense, question (i) concerns the ‘macroscopic’ behavior of $u_{\epsilon}$ far from the holes $\eta(\epsilon)p^1+\epsilon \Omega^i_1$ and $\eta(\epsilon)p^2+\epsilon \Omega^i_2$, whereas question (ii) concerns the ‘microscopic’ behavior of $u_{\epsilon}$ in proximity of centers of the perforations, and question (iii) concerns the ‘microscopic’ behavior of $u_{\epsilon}$ in proximity of the boundary of one of the perforations.
Boundary value problems in domains with small holes are typical in the frame of asymptotic analysis and are usually investigated by means of asymptotic expansion methods. As an example, we mention the method of matching outer and inner asymptotic expansions proposed by Il’in (see [@Il78], [@Il92], and [@Il99]) and the compound asymptotic expansion method of Maz’ya, Nazarov, and Plamenevskij, which allows the treatment of general Douglis–Nirenberg elliptic boundary value problems in domains with perforations and corners (cf. [@MaNaPl00]). Moreover, in Kozlov, Maz’ya, and Movchan [@KoMaMo99] one can find the study of boundary value problems in domains depending on a small parameter $\epsilon$ in such a way that the limit regions as $\epsilon$ tends to $0$ consist of subsets of different space dimensions. More recently, Maz’ya, Movchan, and Nieves provided the asymptotic analysis of Green’s kernels in domains with small cavities by applying the method of mesoscale asymptotic approximations (cf. [@MaMoNi13]). We also mention Bonnaillie-Noël, Lacave, and Masmoudi [@BoLaMa], Chesnel and Claeys [@ChCl14], and Dauge, Tordeux, and Vial [@DaToVi10].
Problems in perforated domains find several applications in the frame of shape and topological optimization. For a detailed analysis, we refer to Novotny and Sokołowsky [@NoSo13], where the authors analyze the topological derivative to study problems in elasticity and heat diffusion. The topological derivative is indeed defined as the first term of the asymptotic expansion of a given shape functional with respect to a parameter which measures the singular domain perturbation (as, *e.g.*, the diameter of a hole). Moreover, for several applications to inverse problems we refer, *e.g.*, to the monograph Ammari and Kang [@AmKa07].
In particular, boundary value problems in domains with moderately close holes have been deeply studied in Bonnaillie-Noël, Dambrine, Tordeux, and Vial [@BoDaToVi07; @BoDaToVi09], Bonnaillie-Noël and Dambrine [@BoDa13], and Bonnaillie-Noël, Dambrine, and Lacave [@BoDaLa], where the authors exploit the method of multiscale asymptotic expansions. More precisely, in [@BoDaToVi09] they carefully analyze the case when $\eta(\epsilon)=\epsilon^\beta$ for $\beta \in ]0,1[$ and they provide asymptotic expansions.
Here, instead, we answer the questions in (i), (ii), (iii) by representing the maps of (i), (ii), (iii) in terms of real analytic maps and in terms of known functions of $\epsilon$ (such as $\eta(\epsilon)$, $\epsilon/\eta(\epsilon)$, $\log \eta(\epsilon)$, [*etc*]{}.). We observe that our approach does have its advantages. Indeed, if for example we know that the function in (i) equals for $\epsilon>0$ a real analytic function defined in a whole neighborhood of $\epsilon=0$, then we know that such a map can be expanded in power series for $\epsilon$ small. Moreover, we emphasize that we do not make any assumption on the form of the function $\eta(\epsilon)$ and that, by setting $\varrho_1=\eta(\epsilon)$ and $\varrho_2=\epsilon/\eta(\epsilon)$, we can treat $\varrho_1$ and $\varrho_2$ as two independents variables and prove real analyticity results for the solution upon the pair $(\varrho_1,\varrho_2)$. In particular, one can deduce asymptotic expansions in the new variable $(\varrho_1,\varrho_2)$ around $(0,r_\ast)$.
Such an approach has been carried out for problems for the Laplace operator in a domain with a small hole (cf., *e.g.*, [@DaMu12; @DaMu15], Lanza de Cristoforis [@La07; @La10]), and has later been extended to problems related to the system of equations of the linearized elasticity (cf., *e.g.*, the first-named author and Lanza de Cristoforis [@DaLa10a]) and to the Stokes system (cf., *e.g.*, [@Da13]). Moreover, analyticity results have been obtained in the frame of perturbation problems in spectral theory (cf., *e.g.*, Buoso and Provenzano [@BuPr] and Lamberti and Lanza de Cristoforis [@LaLa04]).
The paper is organized as follows. In Section \[nota\], we introduce some notation and in Section \[for\] we introduce a more general formulation of our problem. In Section \[prel\], we introduce some preliminary results. In Section \[finteq\], we formulate our problem in terms of integral equations. In Section \[fure\], we prove our main result, which answers our questions (i), (ii), (iii) above, and in Section \[asy\] we compute an asymptotic expansion of the solution for $n=2$ and $r_\ast=0$.
Notation {#nota}
========
We denote the norm on a normed space ${\mathcal X}$ by $\|\cdot\|_{{\mathcal X}}$. Let ${\mathcal X}$ and ${\mathcal Y}$ be normed spaces. We endow the space ${\mathcal X}\times {\mathcal Y}$ with the norm defined by $\|(x,y)\|_{{\mathcal X}\times {\mathcal Y}}\equiv \|x\|_{{\mathcal X}}+
\|y\|_{{\mathcal Y}}$ for all $(x,y)\in {\mathcal X}\times {\mathcal
Y}$, while we use the Euclidean norm for ${\mathbb{R}}^{n}$. The symbol ${\mathbb{N}}$ denotes the set of natural numbers including $0$. If $(i,j) \in \mathbb{N}^2$, we denote by $\delta_{i,j}$ the Kronecker symbol, defined by setting $\delta_{i,j}=1$ if $i=j$ and $\delta_{i,j}=0$ if $i \neq j$. Let ${\mathbb{D}}\subseteq {\mathbb {R}}^{n}$. Then $\mathrm{cl}{\mathbb{D}}$ denotes the closure of ${\mathbb{D}}$, $\partial{\mathbb{D}}$ denotes the boundary of ${\mathbb{D}}$, and $\nu_{\mathbb{D}}$ denotes the outer unit normal to $\partial \mathbb{D}$, where it is defined. We also set ${\mathbb{D}}^{-}\equiv {\mathbb {R}}^{n}\setminus{\mathrm{cl}}{\mathbb{D}}$. For all $R>0$, $ x\in{\mathbb{R}}^{n}$, $x_{j}$ denotes the $j$-th coordinate of $x$, $| x|$ denotes the Euclidean modulus of $ x$ in ${\mathbb{R}}^{n}$, and ${\mathbb{B}}_{n}( x,R)$ denotes the ball $\{
y\in{\mathbb{R}}^{n}:\, | x- y|<R\}$. Let $\Omega$ be an open subset of ${\mathbb{R}}^{n}$. The space of $m$ times continuously differentiable real-valued functions on $\Omega$ is denoted by $C^{m}(\Omega,{\mathbb{R}})$, or more simply by $C^{m}(\Omega)$. Let $r\in {\mathbb{N}}\setminus\{0\}$. Let $f\in \left(C^{m}(\Omega)\right)^{r}$. The $s$-th component of $f$ is denoted $f_{s}$, and $Df$ denotes the jacobian matrix $\left(\frac{\partial f_s}{\partial
x_l}\right)_{ (s,l)\in \{1,\dots ,r\}\times \{1,\dots ,n\} }$. For a multi-index $\eta\equiv
(\eta_{1},\dots ,\eta_{n})\in{\mathbb{N}}^{n}$ we also set $|\eta |\equiv
\eta_{1}+\dots +\eta_{n} $. Then $D^{\eta} f$ denotes $\frac{\partial^{|\eta|}f}{\partial
x_{1}^{\eta_{1}}\dots\partial x_{n}^{\eta_{n}}}$. The subspace of $C^{m}(\Omega )$ of those functions $f$ whose derivatives $D^{\eta }f$ of order $|\eta |\leq m$ can be extended with continuity to $\mathrm{cl}\Omega$ is denoted $C^{m}(
\mathrm{cl}\Omega )$. The subspace of $C^{m}(\mathrm{cl}\Omega ) $ whose functions have $m$-th order derivatives that are uniformly Hölder continuous with exponent $\alpha\in
]0,1]$ is denoted $C^{m,\alpha} (\mathrm{cl}\Omega )$ (cf., *e.g.*, Gilbarg and Trudinger [@GiTr83]). The subspace of $C^{m}(\mathrm{cl}\Omega ) $ of those functions $f$ such that $f_{|{\mathrm{cl}}(\Omega\cap{\mathbb{B}}_{n}(0,R))}\in
C^{m,\alpha}({\mathrm{cl}}(\Omega\cap{\mathbb{B}}_{n}(0,R)))$ for all $R\in]0,+\infty[$ is denoted $C^{m,\alpha}_{{\mathrm{loc}}}(\mathrm{cl}\Omega ) $.
Now let $\Omega $ be a bounded open subset of ${\mathbb{R}}^{n}$. Then $C^{m}(\mathrm{cl}\Omega )$ and $C^{m,\alpha }({\mathrm{cl}}
\Omega )$ are endowed with their usual norm and are well-known to be Banach spaces. We say that a bounded open subset $\Omega$ of ${\mathbb{R}}^{n}$ is of class $C^{m}$ or of class $C^{m,\alpha}$, if ${\mathrm{cl}}
\Omega$ is a manifold with boundary imbedded in ${\mathbb{R}}^{n}$ of class $C^{m}$ or $C^{m,\alpha}$, respectively (cf., *e.g.*, Gilbarg and Trudinger [@GiTr83 §6.2]). We denote by $
\nu_{\Omega}
$ the outward unit normal to $\partial\Omega$. For standard properties of functions in Schauder spaces, we refer the reader to Gilbarg and Trudinger [@GiTr83].
If $M$ is a manifold imbedded in ${\mathbb{R}}^{n}$ of class $C^{m,\alpha}$, with $m\geq 1$, $\alpha\in ]0,1[$, one can define the Schauder spaces also on $M$ by exploiting the local parametrizations. In particular, one can consider the spaces $C^{k,\alpha}(\partial\Omega)$ on $\partial\Omega$ for $0\leq k\leq m$ with $\Omega$ a bounded open set of class $C^{m,\alpha}$, and the trace operator from $C^{k,\alpha}({\mathrm{cl}}\Omega)$ to $C^{k,\alpha}(\partial\Omega)$ is linear and continuous. We denote by $d\sigma$ the area element of a manifold imbedded in ${\mathbb{R}}^{n}$. Also, we find convenient to set $$C^{k,\alpha}(\partial \Omega)_{0}\equiv
\left\{
f\in C^{k,\alpha}(\partial \Omega):\,\int_{\partial\Omega}f\,d\sigma=0
\right\}\,.$$ For the definition and properties of real analytic maps, we refer to Deimling [@De85 p. 150]. In particular, we mention that the pointwise product in Schauder spaces is bilinear and continuous, and thus real analytic (cf., *e.g.*, Lanza de Cristoforis and Rossi [@LaRo04 pp. 141, 142]).
Let $S_{n}$ be the function from ${\mathbb{R}}^{n}\setminus\{0\}$ to ${\mathbb{R}}$ defined by $$S_{n}(x)\equiv
\left\{
\begin{array}{lll}
\frac{1}{s_{n}}\log |x| \qquad & \forall x\in
{\mathbb{R}}^{n}\setminus\{0\},\quad & {\mathrm{if}}\ n=2\,,
\\
\frac{1}{(2-n)s_{n}}|x|^{2-n}\qquad & \forall x\in
{\mathbb{R}}^{n}\setminus\{0\},\quad & {\mathrm{if}}\ n>2\,,
\end{array}
\right.$$ where $s_{n}$ denotes the $(n-1)$-dimensional measure of $\partial{\mathbb{B}}_{n}(0,1)$. $S_{n}$ is well-known to be a fundamental solution of the Laplace operator.
We now introduce the simple layer potential. Let $\alpha\in]0,1[$. Let $\Omega$ be a bounded open subset of ${\mathbb{R}}^{n}$ of class $C^{1,\alpha}$. If $\mu\in C^{0}(\partial\Omega)$, we set $$v[\partial\Omega,\mu](x)\equiv
\int_{\partial\Omega}S_{n}(x-y)\mu(y)\,d\sigma_{y}
\qquad\forall x\in {\mathbb{R}}^{n}\,.$$ As is well-known, if $\mu\in C^{0}(\partial{\Omega})$, then $v[\partial\Omega,\mu]$ is continuous in ${\mathbb{R}}^{n}$. Moreover, if $\mu\in C^{0,\alpha}(\partial\Omega)$, then the function $v^{+}[\partial\Omega,\mu]\equiv v[\partial\Omega,\mu]_{|{\mathrm{cl}}\Omega}$ belongs to $C^{1,\alpha}({\mathrm{cl}}\Omega)$, and the function $v^{-}[\partial\Omega,\mu]\equiv v[\partial\Omega,\mu]_{|\mathbb{R}^n \setminus \Omega}$ belongs to $C^{1,\alpha}_{\mathrm{loc}}
(\mathbb{R}^n \setminus \Omega)$.
A more general formulation {#for}
==========================
In this section, we formulate a more general version of the problem we are interested in. Then, by the analysis of such a new problem, we are able to deduce our results concerning the behavior of the solution $u_\epsilon$ for $\epsilon$ close to $0$. In a sense, what we are going to do it is to replace $\eta(\epsilon)$ by $\varrho_1$ and $\epsilon/\eta(\epsilon)$ by $\varrho_2$, and to analyze the dependence of the solution of the problem upon $\varrho_1$ and $\varrho_2$, which we think as two independent variables.
Let $\alpha\in]0,1[$. Let $\Omega^i_1$, $\Omega^i_2$, $\Omega^o$ be as in . Let $p^1$, $p^2$ be as in . Let $r_\ast \in [0,+\infty[$ be such that assumption holds. Then we fix an open neighborhood $\tilde{\mathcal{U}}$ of $(0,r_\ast)$ in $\mathbb{R}^2$, such that $$\label{tildeU}
\begin{split}
&\left(p^1+\varrho_2\mathrm{cl}\Omega^i_1\right)\cap\left(p^2+\varrho_2\mathrm{cl}\Omega^i_2\right)= \emptyset \qquad \forall (\varrho_1,\varrho_2) \in \tilde{\mathcal{U}}\, ,\\
&\bigg (\varrho_1 p^1+\varrho_1 \varrho_2 \mathrm{cl}\Omega^i_1\bigg)\cup\bigg(\varrho_1 p^2+\varrho_1 \varrho_2\mathrm{cl}\Omega^i_2\bigg) \subseteq \Omega^o \qquad \forall (\varrho_1,\varrho_2)\in \tilde{\mathcal{U}}\, .
\end{split}$$ Then we introduce the perforated domain $$\Omega(\varrho_1,\varrho_2)\equiv \Omega^o \setminus \bigcup_{j=1}^2 \bigg (\varrho_1p^j+\varrho_1 \varrho_2\mathrm{cl}\Omega^i_j\bigg) \qquad \forall (\varrho_1,\varrho_2) \in \tilde{\mathcal{U}}\, .$$ Next we take a function $f_1 \in C^{0,\alpha}(\partial \Omega^i_1)$, a function $f_2 \in C^{0,\alpha}(\partial \Omega^i_2)$, a function $g$ in $C^{1,\alpha}(\partial \Omega^o)$, and for each pair $(\varrho_1,\varrho_2) \in \tilde{\mathcal{U}} \cap ]0,+\infty[^2$ we consider the following mixed problem $$\label{bvprho}
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\Delta u(x)=0 & \forall x \in \Omega(\varrho_1,\varrho_2)\,,\\
\frac{\partial }{\partial \nu_{\varrho_1p^j+\varrho_1 \varrho_2\Omega^i_j}}u(x)=f_j\Big(\big(x-\varrho_1p^j\big)/(\varrho_1 \varrho_2)\Big) & \forall x \in \varrho_1p^j+\varrho_1 \varrho_2\partial\Omega^i_j, \forall j\in \{1,2\} ,\\
u(x)=g(x) & \forall x \in \partial \Omega^o\, ,
\end{array}
\right.$$ where $\nu_{\varrho_1p^j+\varrho_1 \varrho_2\Omega^i_j}$ denotes the outward unit normal to $\varrho_1p^j+\varrho_1 \varrho_2\partial\Omega^i_j$ for $j\in \{1,2\}$. If $(\varrho_1, \varrho_2) \in \tilde{\mathcal{U}} \cap ]0,+\infty[^2$, problem has a unique solution in $C^{1,\alpha}(\mathrm{cl}\Omega(\varrho_1,\varrho_2))$ and we denote such a solution by $u[\varrho_1,\varrho_2]$. Clearly, if $\eta$, $r_\ast$ are as in and if $\epsilon_{0}$ is such that $(\eta(\epsilon), \epsilon/ \eta(\epsilon)) \in \tilde{\mathcal{U}} \cap ]0,+\infty[^2$ for all $\epsilon \in ]0,\epsilon_0[$, then $$\Omega_{\epsilon}=\Omega(\eta(\epsilon), \epsilon/ \eta(\epsilon)) \qquad \text{and} \qquad u_{\epsilon}=u[\eta(\epsilon), \epsilon/ \eta(\epsilon)] \, ,$$ for all $\epsilon \in ]0,\epsilon_0[$.
Preliminaries {#prel}
=============
In this section we collect some preliminary results concerning mixed problems for the Laplace operator.
First of all, by the Divergence Theorem, we deduce the following uniqueness result.
\[prop:uniq\] Let $\alpha \in ]0,1[$. Let $\mathcal{O}^i$, $\mathcal{O}^o$ be bounded open subsets of $\mathbb{R}^n$ of class $C^{1,\alpha}$ such that $\mathcal{O}^o$, $\mathbb{R}^n \setminus \mathrm{cl}\mathcal{O}^i$, and $\mathbb{R}^n \setminus \mathrm{cl}\mathcal{O}^o$ are connected and that $\mathrm{cl}\mathcal{O}^i \subseteq \mathcal{O}^o$. Let $v \in C^{1,\alpha}(\mathrm{cl}\mathcal{O}^o \setminus \mathcal{O}^i)$ be such that $$\label{eq:uniq}
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\Delta v(x)=0 & \forall x \in \mathcal{O}^o\setminus \mathrm{cl}\mathcal{O}^i\,,\\
\frac{\partial }{\partial \nu_{\mathcal{O}^i}}v(x)=0 & \forall x \in \partial \mathcal{O}^i\, ,\\
v(x)=0 & \forall x \in \partial \mathcal{O}^o\, .
\end{array}
\right.$$ Then $v=0$ in $\mathrm{cl}\mathcal{O}^o \setminus \mathcal{O}^i$.
In the following lemma, we collect some well-known results of classical potential theory (cf. Folland [@Fo95 Ch. 3], Lanza de Cristoforis and Rossi [@LaRo04 Thm. 3.1], Miranda [@Mi65 Thm 5.I]).
\[lem:smp\] Let $\alpha \in ]0,1[$. Let $\Omega$ be a bounded open subset of $\mathbb{R}^n$ of class $C^{1,\alpha}$. Then the following statements hold.
1. The map from $C^{0,\alpha}(\partial \Omega)$ to $C^{1,\alpha}(\mathrm{cl}\Omega)$ which takes $\mu$ to $v^+[\partial \Omega, \mu]$ is linear and continuous. Similarly, if $\tilde{\Omega}$ is a bounded open subset of $\mathbb{R}^n\setminus\mathrm{cl}\Omega$, then the map from $C^{0,\alpha}(\partial \Omega)$ to $C^{1,\alpha}(\mathrm{cl}\tilde\Omega)$ which takes $\mu$ to $v^-[\partial \Omega, \mu]_{|\mathrm{cl}\tilde\Omega}$ is linear and continuous.
2. Let $\Omega$ be connected. The map from $C^{0,\alpha}(\partial\Omega)_0\times \mathbb{R}$ to $C^{1,\alpha}(\partial\Omega)$ which takes $(\mu,\xi)$ to $v[\partial \Omega, \mu]_{|\partial\Omega}+\xi$ is a linear homeomorphism.
3. Let $\mathbb{R}^n \setminus \mathrm{cl}\Omega$ be connected. Then the map from $C^{0,\alpha}(\partial \Omega)$ to $C^{0,\alpha}(\partial \Omega)$ which takes $\mu$ to the function $$\frac{1}{2}\mu(x)+\int_{\partial \Omega}DS_n(x-y)\nu_{\Omega}(x)\mu(y)\, d\sigma_y$$ of the variable $x \in \partial \Omega$, is a linear homeomorphism.
We now introduce and study an integral operator which we use in order to solve a mixed problem by means of simple layer potentials.
\[prop:J\] Let $\alpha \in ]0,1[$. Let $\mathcal{O}^i$, $\mathcal{O}^o$ be bounded open subsets of $\mathbb{R}^n$ of class $C^{1,\alpha}$ such that $\mathcal{O}^o$, $\mathbb{R}^n \setminus \mathrm{cl}\mathcal{O}^i$, and $\mathbb{R}^n \setminus \mathrm{cl}\mathcal{O}^o$ are connected and that $\mathrm{cl}\mathcal{O}^i \subseteq \mathcal{O}^o$. Let $J\equiv(J_1,J_2)$ be the operator from $C^{0,\alpha}(\partial \mathcal{O}^i)\times C^{0,\alpha}(\partial \mathcal{O}^o)_0\times \mathbb{R}$ to $C^{0,\alpha}(\partial \mathcal{O}^i)\times C^{1,\alpha}(\partial \mathcal{O}^o)$ defined by $$\begin{split}
J_1[\mu_1,\mu_2,\xi](x)\equiv& \frac{1}{2}\mu_1(x)+\int_{\partial \mathcal{O}^i}DS_n(x-y)\nu_{\mathcal{O}^i}(x)\mu_1(y)\, d\sigma_y\\ &+\int_{\partial \mathcal{O}^o}DS_n(x-y)\nu_{\mathcal{O}^i}(x)\mu_2(y)\, d\sigma_y \qquad \forall x \in \partial \mathcal{O}^i\, ,\\
J_2[\mu_1,\mu_2,\xi](x)\equiv &\int_{\partial \mathcal{O}^i}S_n(x-y)\mu_1(y)\, d\sigma_y+\int_{\partial \mathcal{O}^o}S_n(x-y)\mu_2(y)\, d\sigma_y\\
&+\xi \qquad \forall x \in \partial \mathcal{O}^o\, ,
\end{split}$$ for all $(\mu_1,\mu_2,\xi)\in C^{0,\alpha}(\partial \mathcal{O}^i)\times C^{0,\alpha}(\partial \mathcal{O}^o)_0\times \mathbb{R}$. Then $J$ is a linear homeomorphism.
We first prove that $J$ is a Fredholm operator of index $0$. Let $\hat{J}\equiv(\hat{J}_1,\hat{J}_2)$ be the operator from $C^{0,\alpha}(\partial \mathcal{O}^i)\times C^{0,\alpha}(\partial \mathcal{O}^o)_0\times \mathbb{R}$ to $C^{0,\alpha}(\partial \mathcal{O}^i)\times C^{1,\alpha}(\partial \mathcal{O}^o)$ defined by $$\begin{split}
\hat{J}_1[\mu_1,\mu_2,\xi](x)\equiv& \frac{1}{2}\mu_1(x)+\int_{\partial \mathcal{O}^i}DS_n(x-y)\nu_{\mathcal{O}^i}(x)\mu_1(y)\, d\sigma_y \quad \forall x \in \partial \mathcal{O}^i\, ,\\
\hat{J}_2[\mu_1,\mu_2,\xi](x)\equiv &\int_{\partial \mathcal{O}^o}S_n(x-y)\mu_2(y)\, d\sigma_y+\xi \qquad \forall x \in \partial \mathcal{O}^o\, ,
\end{split}$$ for all $(\mu_1,\mu_2,\xi)\in C^{0,\alpha}(\partial \mathcal{O}^i)\times C^{0,\alpha}(\partial \mathcal{O}^o)_0\times \mathbb{R}$. By Lemma \[lem:smp\] (ii), (iii) one can show that $\hat{J}$ is a linear homeomorphism. Then let $\tilde{J}\equiv(\tilde{J}_1,\tilde{J}_2)$ be the operator from $C^{0,\alpha}(\partial \mathcal{O}^i)\times C^{0,\alpha}(\partial \mathcal{O}^o)_0\times \mathbb{R}$ to $C^{0,\alpha}(\partial \mathcal{O}^i)\times C^{1,\alpha}(\partial \mathcal{O}^o)$ defined by $$\begin{split}
\tilde{J}_1[\mu_1,\mu_2,\xi](x)\equiv& \int_{\partial \mathcal{O}^o}DS_n(x-y)\nu_{\mathcal{O}^i}(x)\mu_2(y)\, d\sigma_y \quad \forall x \in \partial \mathcal{O}^i\, ,\\
\tilde{J}_2[\mu_1,\mu_2,\xi](x)\equiv &\int_{\partial \mathcal{O}^i}S_n(x-y)\mu_1(y)\, d\sigma_y \qquad \forall x \in \partial \mathcal{O}^o\, ,
\end{split}$$ for all $(\mu_1,\mu_2,\xi)\in C^{0,\alpha}(\partial \mathcal{O}^i)\times C^{0,\alpha}(\partial \mathcal{O}^o)_0\times \mathbb{R}$. By classical potential theory and standard calculus in Schauder spaces, one can show that $\tilde{J}$ is a compact operator. Since $J=\hat{J}+\tilde{J}$, we deduce that $J$ is a Fredholm operator of index $0$. As a consequence, in order to prove that $J$ is a linear homeormorphism, it suffices to show that it is injective. So let $(\mu_1,\mu_2,\xi)\in C^{0,\alpha}(\partial \mathcal{O}^i)\times C^{0,\alpha}(\partial \mathcal{O}^o)_0\times \mathbb{R}$ be such that $J[\mu_1,\mu_2,\xi]=(0,0)$. Then by classical potential theory, the function $v\equiv v[\partial \mathcal{O}^i,\mu_1]_{|\mathrm{cl}\mathcal{O}^o \setminus \mathcal{O}^i}+v[\partial \mathcal{O}^o,\mu_2]_{|\mathrm{cl}\mathcal{O}^o \setminus \mathcal{O}^i}+ \xi$ is a solution in $C^{1,\alpha}(\mathrm{cl}\mathcal{O}^o \setminus \mathcal{O}^i)$ of problem . Accordingly, $v[\partial \mathcal{O}^i,\mu_1]_{|\mathrm{cl}\mathcal{O}^o \setminus \mathcal{O}^i}+v[\partial \mathcal{O}^o,\mu_2]_{|\mathrm{cl}\mathcal{O}^o \setminus \mathcal{O}^i}+ \xi=0$ in $\mathrm{cl}\mathcal{O}^o \setminus \mathcal{O}^i$, and so $$\label{v-=-v+-xi}
v^-[\partial \mathcal{O}^i,\mu_1]=-v^+[\partial \mathcal{O}^o,\mu_2]- \xi\qquad\textrm{in $\mathrm{cl}\mathcal{O}^o \setminus \mathcal{O}^i$}\, .$$ Also, $v[\partial \mathcal{O}^i,\mu_1]=-v[\partial \mathcal{O}^o,\mu_2]- \xi$ on $\partial \mathcal{O}^i$ and by uniqueness of the solution of the Dirichlet problem for the Laplace operator, we deduce $$\label{v+=-v+-xi}
v^+[\partial \mathcal{O}^i,\mu_1]=-v^+[\partial \mathcal{O}^o,\mu_2]- \xi\qquad\textrm{in $\mathrm{cl}\mathcal{O}^i$}\, .$$ As a consequence, $v[\partial \mathcal{O}^i,\mu_1]=-v^+[\partial \mathcal{O}^o,\mu_2]- \xi$ on the whole of $\mathrm{cl} \mathcal{O}^o$. Since $v^+[\partial \mathcal{O}^o,\mu_2]$ is in $C^{1,\alpha}(\mathrm{cl} \mathcal{O}^o)$ (cf. Lemma \[lem:smp\]), we have $$\label{-dv++dv+=0}
-\frac{\partial}{\partial \nu_{\mathcal{O}^i}}v^+[\partial \mathcal{O}^o,\mu_2]_{|\mathrm{cl}\mathcal{O}^o \setminus \mathcal{O}^i}+\frac{\partial}{\partial \nu_{\mathcal{O}^i}}v^+[\partial \mathcal{O}^o,\mu_2]_{|\mathrm{cl}\mathcal{O}^i}=0\qquad\textrm{on $\partial\mathcal{O}^i$}\,.$$ By equalities and , and by standard jump properties of the single layer potential, the expression on the left hand side of equals $$\label{dv--dv+=mu}
\frac{\partial}{\partial \nu_{\mathcal{O}^i}}v^-[\partial \mathcal{O}^i,\mu_1]-\frac{\partial}{\partial \nu_{\mathcal{O}^i}}v^+[\partial \mathcal{O}^i,\mu_1]=\mu_1\qquad\textrm{on $\partial\mathcal{O}^i$}\, .$$ Hence, by and it follows that $\mu_1=0$. Thus $v[\partial \mathcal{O}^o,\mu_2]+ \xi=0$ on $\partial \mathcal{O}^o$ (cf. ). Accordingly, Lemma \[lem:smp\] (ii) implies that $(\mu_2,\xi)=(0,0)$, and so the proof is complete.
By Propositions \[prop:uniq\] and \[prop:J\] and by the jump properties of the single layer potential, we deduce the validity of the following theorem on the solution of a mixed problem.
\[thm:ex\] Let $\alpha \in ]0,1[$. Let $\mathcal{O}^i$, $\mathcal{O}^o$ be bounded open subsets of $\mathbb{R}^n$ of class $C^{1,\alpha}$ such that $\mathcal{O}^o$, $\mathbb{R}^n \setminus \mathrm{cl}\mathcal{O}^i$, and $\mathbb{R}^n \setminus \mathrm{cl}\mathcal{O}^o$ are connected and that $\mathrm{cl}\mathcal{O}^i \subseteq \mathcal{O}^o$. Let $J$ be as in Proposition \[prop:J\]. Let $(\phi,\gamma) \in C^{0,\alpha}(\partial \mathcal{O}^i)\times C^{1,\alpha}(\partial \mathcal{O}^o)$. Then problem $$\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\Delta u(x)=0 & \forall x \in \mathcal{O}^o\setminus \mathrm{cl}\mathcal{O}^i\,,\\
\frac{\partial }{\partial \nu_{\mathcal{O}^i}}u(x)=\phi(x) & \forall x \in \partial \mathcal{O}^i\, ,\\
u(x)=\gamma(x) & \forall x \in \partial \mathcal{O}^o\, ,
\end{array}
\right.$$ has a unique solution $u$ in $C^{1,\alpha}(\mathrm{cl}\mathcal{O}^o \setminus \mathcal{O}^i)$. The solution $u$ is delivered by $$u(x)\equiv v[\partial \mathcal{O}^i,\mu_1](x)+v[\partial \mathcal{O}^o,\mu_2](x)+\xi \qquad \forall x \in \mathrm{cl}\mathcal{O}^o \setminus \mathcal{O}^i\, ,$$ where $(\mu_1,\mu_2,\xi)$ is the unique triple in $C^{0,\alpha}(\partial \mathcal{O}^i)\times C^{0,\alpha}(\partial \mathcal{O}^o)_0\times \mathbb{R}$ such that $$J[\mu_1,\mu_2,\xi]=(\phi,\gamma)\, .$$
Formulation of problem in terms of integral equations {#finteq}
=====================================================
In this section, we formulate problem in terms of integral equations on $\partial \Omega^i_1$, $\partial\Omega^i_2$, and $\partial \Omega^o$, by exploiting Theorem \[thm:ex\] and the rule of change of variables in integrals. Indeed, if $(\varrho_1, \varrho_2) \in \tilde{\mathcal{U}} \cap ]0,+\infty[^2$, by Theorem \[thm:ex\], one can convert problem into a system of integral equations which include an equation defined on $\partial \Omega^o$ and two equations defined on the $(\varrho_1,\varrho_2)$-dependent domains $\partial(\varrho_1p^1+\varrho_1 \varrho_2 \Omega^i_1)$ and $\partial(\varrho_1 p^2+\varrho_1 \varrho_2 \Omega^i_2)$. Then, by exploiting an appropriate change of variable, one can obtain an equivalent system of integral equations defined on the fixed domains $\partial \Omega^i_1$, $\partial \Omega^i_2$, and $\partial \Omega^o$.
We find convenient to introduce the following notation. Let $\alpha\in]0,1[$. Let $\Omega^i_1$, $\Omega^i_2$, $\Omega^o$ be as in . Let $p^1$, $p^2$ be as in . Let $r_\ast \in [0,+\infty[$. Let hold. Let $f_1 \in C^{0,\alpha}(\partial \Omega^i_1)$, $f_2 \in C^{0,\alpha}(\partial \Omega^i_2)$, $g \in C^{1,\alpha}(\partial \Omega^o)$. Then we introduce the map $\Lambda=(\Lambda_1,\Lambda_2,\Lambda_3)$ from $\tilde{\mathcal{U}}\times C^{0,\alpha}(\partial \Omega^i_1)\times C^{0,\alpha}(\partial \Omega^i_2)\times C^{0,\alpha}(\partial \Omega^o)_0\times \mathbb{R}$ to $C^{0,\alpha}(\partial \Omega^i_1)\times C^{0,\alpha}(\partial \Omega^i_2)\times C^{1,\alpha}(\partial \Omega^o)$ defined by $$\begin{split}
\Lambda_1[\varrho_1,&\varrho_2,\theta^{i}_1,\theta^{i}_2,\theta^{o},\xi](t)\equiv\frac{1}{2}\theta^{i}_1(t)+\int_{\partial \Omega^i_1}DS_n(t-s)\nu_{\Omega^i_1}(t)\theta^{i}_1(s)\, d\sigma_s\\
& \quad +\varrho_2^{n-1}\int_{\partial \Omega^i_2}DS_n\bigg((p^1-p^2)+\varrho_2(t-s)\bigg)\nu_{\Omega^i_1}(t)\theta^{i}_2(s)\, d\sigma_s\\
& \quad +\int_{\partial \Omega^o}DS_n\big(\varrho_1p^1+\varrho_1\varrho_2 t-y\big)\nu_{\Omega^i_1}(t)\theta^{o}(y)\, d\sigma_y -f_1(t)\qquad \forall t \in \partial \Omega^i_1\, , \\
\Lambda_2[\varrho_1,&\varrho_2,\theta^{i}_1,\theta^{i}_2,\theta^{o},\xi](t)\equiv\frac{1}{2}\theta^{i}_2(t)+\int_{\partial \Omega^i_2}DS_n(t-s)\nu_{\Omega^i_2}(t)\theta^{i}_2(s)\, d\sigma_s\\
& \quad +\varrho_2^{n-1}\int_{\partial \Omega^i_1}DS_n\bigg((p^2-p^1)+\varrho_2(t-s)\bigg)\nu_{\Omega^i_2}(t)\theta^{i}_1(s)\, d\sigma_s\\
& \quad +\int_{\partial \Omega^o}DS_n\big(\varrho_1p^2+\varrho_1\varrho_2 t-y\big)\nu_{\Omega^i_2}(t)\theta^{o}(y)\, d\sigma_y -f_2(t)\qquad \forall t \in \partial \Omega^i_2\, ,\\
\Lambda_3[\varrho_1,&\varrho_2,\theta^{i}_1,\theta^{i}_2,\theta^{o},\xi](x)\equiv(\varrho_1 \varrho_2)^{n-1}\sum_{j=1}^2 \int_{\partial \Omega^i_j}S_n(x-\varrho_1p^j-\varrho_1 \varrho_2 s)\theta^{i}_j(s)\, d\sigma_s\\&+\int_{\partial \Omega^o}S_n(x-y)\theta^{o}(y)\, d\sigma_y +\xi-g(x) \qquad \forall x \in \partial \Omega^o\, ,
\end{split}$$ for all $(\varrho_1,\varrho_2,\theta^{i}_1,\theta^{i}_2,\theta^{o},\xi) \in \tilde{\mathcal{U}}\times C^{0,\alpha}(\partial \Omega^i_1)\times C^{0,\alpha}(\partial \Omega^i_2)\times C^{0,\alpha}(\partial \Omega^o)_0\times \mathbb{R}$.
In the following proposition, we describe the link between the map $\Lambda$ and problem .
\[prop:finteq\] Let $\alpha\in]0,1[$. Let $\Omega^i_1$, $\Omega^i_2$, $\Omega^o$ be as in . Let $p^1$, $p^2$ be as in . Let $r_\ast \in [0,+\infty[$. Let hold. Let $f_1 \in C^{0,\alpha}(\partial \Omega^i_1)$, $f_2 \in C^{0,\alpha}(\partial \Omega^i_2)$, $g \in C^{1,\alpha}(\partial \Omega^o)$. Let $(\varrho_1, \varrho_2) \in \tilde{\mathcal{U}} \cap ]0,+\infty[^2$. Then the unique solution $u[\varrho_1,\varrho_2]$ in $C^{1,\alpha}(\mathrm{cl}\Omega(\varrho_1,\varrho_2))$ of problem is delivered by $$\label{eq:finteq1}
\begin{split}
u[\varrho_1,\varrho_2](x)\equiv &(\varrho_1 \varrho_2)^{n-1}\sum_{j=1}^2 \int_{\partial \Omega^i_j}S_n(x-\varrho_1p^j-\varrho_1\varrho_2 s)\theta^{i}_j[\varrho_1,\varrho_2](s)\, d\sigma_s \\& +\int_{\partial \Omega^o}S_n(x-y)\theta^{o}[\varrho_1,\varrho_2](y)\, d\sigma_y +\xi[\varrho_1,\varrho_2]\qquad \forall x \in \mathrm{cl}\Omega(\varrho_1,\varrho_2)\,,
\end{split}$$ where $(\theta^{i}_1[\varrho_1,\varrho_2],\theta^{i}_2[\varrho_1,\varrho_2],\theta^{o}[\varrho_1,\varrho_2],\xi[\varrho_1,\varrho_2])$ is the unique quadruple $(\theta^{i}_1,\theta^{i}_2,\theta^{o},\xi)$ in $C^{0,\alpha}(\partial \Omega^i_1)\times C^{0,\alpha}(\partial \Omega^i_2) \times C^{0,\alpha}(\partial \Omega^o)_0\times \mathbb{R}$ such that $$\label{inteq2a}
\Lambda [\varrho_1,\varrho_2,\theta^{i}_1,\theta^{i}_2,\theta^{o},\xi]=0\, .$$
Let $J$ be as in Proposition \[prop:J\] with $$\mathcal{O}^i\equiv \bigg (\varrho_1p^1+\varrho_1\varrho_2 \Omega^i_1\bigg)\cup\bigg(\varrho_1p^2+\varrho_1 \varrho_2\Omega^i_2\bigg) \, , \qquad \mathcal{O}^o\equiv \Omega^o\, .$$ Then by the definition of $\Lambda$ and the rule of change of variables in integrals one verifies that the quadruple $(\theta^{i}_1,\theta^{i}_2,\theta^{o},\xi)$ in $C^{0,\alpha}(\partial \Omega^i_1)\times C^{0,\alpha}(\partial \Omega^i_2) \times C^{0,\alpha}(\partial \Omega^o)_0\times \mathbb{R}$ is a solution of equation if and only if the triple $(\mu_1,\mu_2,\xi)$ in $C^{0,\alpha}(\partial \mathcal{O}^i)\times C^{0,\alpha}(\partial \mathcal{O}^o)_0\times \mathbb{R}$ with $\mu_1$ and $\mu_2$ defined by $$\mu_1(x)\equiv
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\theta^i_1\big((x-\varrho_1p^1)/(\varrho_1 \varrho_2)\big) & \forall x \in \varrho_1p^1+\varrho_1 \varrho_2 \partial \Omega_1\, ,
\\
\theta^i_2\big((x-\varrho_1p^2)/(\varrho_1 \varrho_2)\big) & \forall x \in \varrho_1p^2+\varrho_1 \varrho_2 \partial \Omega_2\, , \end{array}
\right.$$ $$\mu_2(x)\equiv \theta^o(x)\qquad \forall x \in \partial \Omega^o\, ,$$ is a solution of $$J[\mu_1,\mu_2,\xi]=(\phi,\gamma)\, ,$$ with $\phi$ and $\gamma$ defined by $$\phi(x)\equiv
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
f_1\big((x-\varrho_1 p^1)/(\varrho_1 \varrho_2)\big) & \forall x \in \varrho_1 p^1+\varrho_1 \varrho_2 \partial \Omega_1\, ,
\\
f_2\big((x-\varrho_1 p^2)/(\varrho_1 \varrho_2)\big) & \forall x \in \varrho_1 p^2+\varrho_1 \varrho_2 \partial \Omega_2\, , \end{array}
\right.$$ $$\gamma(x)\equiv g(x)\qquad \forall x \in \partial \Omega^o\, .$$ Then the conclusion follows by Theorem \[thm:ex\].
By Proposition \[prop:finteq\], we are reduced to analyze equation around the case $(\varrho_1,\varrho_2)=(0,r_\ast)$. As a first step, in the following lemma we analyze the system which we obtain by taking $(\varrho_1,\varrho_2)=(0,r_\ast)$ in equation .
\[lem:lim\] Let $\alpha\in]0,1[$. Let $\Omega^i_1$, $\Omega^i_2$, $\Omega^o$ be as in . Let $p^1$, $p^2$ be as in . Let $r_\ast \in [0,+\infty[$ be such that holds. Let $f_1 \in C^{0,\alpha}(\partial \Omega^i_1)$, $f_2 \in C^{0,\alpha}(\partial \Omega^i_2)$, $g \in C^{1,\alpha}(\partial \Omega^o)$. Then the system of equations $$\label{inteqlim0}
\begin{split}
&\frac{1}{2}\theta^{i}_1(t)+\int_{\partial \Omega^i_1}DS_n(t-s)\nu_{\Omega^i_1}(t)\theta^{i}_1(s)\, d\sigma_s\\
& \quad +r_\ast^{n-1}\int_{\partial \Omega^i_2}DS_n\big((p^1-p^2)+r_\ast (t-s)\big)\nu_{\Omega^i_1}(t)\theta^{i}_2(s)\, d\sigma_s\\
& \quad -\int_{\partial \Omega^o}DS_n(y)\nu_{\Omega^i_1}(t)\theta^{o}(y)\, d\sigma_y -f_1(t)=0\qquad \forall t \in \partial \Omega^i_1\, ,
\end{split}$$ $$\label{inteqlim1}
\begin{split}
&\frac{1}{2}\theta^{i}_2(t)+\int_{\partial \Omega^i_2}DS_n(t-s)\nu_{\Omega^i_2}(t)\theta^{i}_2(s)\, d\sigma_s\\
& \quad +r_\ast^{n-1}\int_{\partial \Omega^i_1}DS_n\big((p^2-p^1)+r_\ast(t-s)\big)\nu_{\Omega^i_2}(t)\theta^{i}_1(s)\, d\sigma_s\\
& \quad -\int_{\partial \Omega^o}DS_n(y)\nu_{\Omega^i_2}(t)\theta^{o}(y)\, d\sigma_y -f_2(t)=0\qquad \forall t \in \partial \Omega^i_2\, ,
\end{split}$$ $$\label{inteqlim2}
\begin{split}
\int_{\partial \Omega^o}S_n(x-y)\theta^{o}(y)\, d\sigma_y +\xi-g(x)=0 \qquad \forall x \in \partial \Omega^o\, ,
\end{split}$$ has a unique solution $(\theta^{i}_1, \theta^{i}_2, \theta^{o}, \xi)$ in $C^{0,\alpha}(\partial \Omega^i_1)\times C^{0,\alpha}(\partial \Omega^i_2)\times C^{0,\alpha}(\partial \Omega^o)_0\times \mathbb{R}$, which we denote by $(\tilde{\theta}^{i}_1, \tilde{\theta}^{i}_2, \tilde{\theta}^{o}, \tilde{\xi})$.
By Lemma \[lem:smp\] (ii), equation has a unique solution $(\tilde{\theta}^{o}, \tilde{\xi})$ in the space $C^{0,\alpha}(\partial \Omega^o)_0\times \mathbb{R}$. Then we consider equations , and we introduce the operator $M_{r_\ast}\equiv(M_{r_\ast,1},M_{r_\ast,2})$ from $C^{0,\alpha}(\partial \Omega^i_1)\times C^{0,\alpha}(\partial \Omega^i_2)$ to itself by setting $$\begin{split}
M_{r_\ast,1}&[\theta^{i}_1,\theta^{i}_2](t)\equiv \frac{1}{2}\theta^{i}_1(t)+\int_{\partial \Omega^i_1}DS_n(t-s)\nu_{\Omega^i_1}(t)\theta^{i}_1(s)\, d\sigma_s\\
& +r_\ast^{n-1}\int_{\partial \Omega^i_2}DS_n\big((p^1-p^2)+r_\ast (t-s)\big)\nu_{\Omega^i_1}(t)\theta^{i}_2(s)\, d\sigma_s \qquad \forall t \in \partial \Omega^i_1\, ,
\end{split}$$ $$\begin{split}
M_{r_\ast,2}&[\theta^{i}_1,\theta^{i}_2](t)\equiv \frac{1}{2}\theta^{i}_2(t)+\int_{\partial \Omega^i_2}DS_n(t-s)\nu_{\Omega^i_2}(t)\theta^{i}_2(s)\, d\sigma_s\\
& +r_\ast^{n-1}\int_{\partial \Omega^i_1}DS_n\big((p^2-p^1)+r_\ast(t-s)\big)\nu_{\Omega^i_2}(t)\theta^{i}_1(s)\, d\sigma_s \qquad \forall t \in \partial \Omega^i_2\, ,
\end{split}$$ for all $(\theta^i_1,\theta^i_2) \in C^{0,\alpha}(\partial \Omega^i_1)\times C^{0,\alpha}(\partial \Omega^i_2)$. We need to show that there exists a unique pair $(\theta^i_1,\theta^i_2)$ such that $$\begin{split}
M_{r_\ast,1}&[\theta^{i}_1,\theta^{i}_2](t) =\int_{\partial \Omega^o}DS_n(y)\nu_{\Omega^i_1}(t)\tilde{\theta}^{o}(y)\, d\sigma_y +f_1(t)\qquad \forall t \in \partial \Omega^i_1\, ,
\end{split}$$ $$\begin{split}
M_{r_\ast,2}&[\theta^{i}_1,\theta^{i}_2](t) =\int_{\partial \Omega^o}DS_n(y)\nu_{\Omega^i_2}(t)\tilde{\theta}^{o}(y)\, d\sigma_y +f_2(t)\qquad \forall t \in \partial \Omega^i_2\, .
\end{split}$$ In order to do so, it clearly suffices to show that the operator $M_{r_\ast}$ is invertible. If $r_\ast=0$, the invertibility follows immediately by Lemma \[lem:smp\] (iii). If $r_\ast > 0$, we note that $$\begin{split}
M_{r_\ast,1}&[\theta^{i}_1,\theta^{i}_2]\big((x-p^1)/r_{\ast}\big)= \frac{1}{2}\theta^{i}_1\big((x-p^1)/r_{\ast}\big)\\\ +&\int_{\partial (p^1+r_\ast \Omega^i_1)}DS_n(x-y)\nu_{p^1+r_\ast \Omega^i_1}(x)\theta^{i}_1\big((y-p^1)/r_{\ast}\big)\, d\sigma_y\\
+&\int_{\partial (p^2+r_\ast\Omega^i_2)}DS_n(x-y)\nu_{p^1+r_\ast \Omega^i_1}(x)\theta^{i}_2\big((y-p^2)/r_{\ast}\big)\, d\sigma_y \\
& \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \forall x \in \partial (p^1+r_\ast \Omega^i_1)\, ,
\end{split}$$ $$\begin{split}
M_{r_\ast,2}&[\theta^{i}_1,\theta^{i}_2]\big((x-p^2)/r_{\ast}\big)= \frac{1}{2}\theta^{i}_2\big((x-p^2)/r_{\ast}\big)\\\ +&\int_{\partial (p^2+r_\ast \Omega^i_2)}DS_n(x-y)\nu_{p^2+r_\ast \Omega^i_2}(x)\theta^{i}_2\big((y-p^2)/r_{\ast}\big)\, d\sigma_y\\
+&\int_{\partial (p^1+r_\ast\Omega^i_1)}DS_n(x-y)\nu_{p^2+r_\ast \Omega^i_2}(x)\theta^{i}_1\big((y-p^1)/r_{\ast}\big)\, d\sigma_y \\
& \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \forall x \in \partial (p^2+r_\ast \Omega^i_2)\, .
\end{split}$$ As a consequence, the invertibility of $M_{r_\ast}$ follows by Lemma \[lem:smp\] (iii) with $\Omega\equiv(p^1+r_{\ast}\Omega_1)\cup (p^2+r_{\ast}\Omega_2)$.
\[rem:lim\] Let the assumptions of Lemma \[lem:lim\] hold. Let $\tilde{u}$ be the unique solution in $C^{1,\alpha}(\mathrm{cl}\Omega^o)$ of $$\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\Delta u(x)=0 & \forall x \in \Omega^o\,,\\
u(x)=g(x) & \forall x \in \partial \Omega^o\, .
\end{array}
\right.$$ Then $\tilde{u}= v^+[\partial \Omega^o,\tilde{\theta}^{o}]+\tilde{\xi}$.
We are now ready to analyze equation around the degenerate pair $(\varrho_1, \varrho_2)=(0, r_\ast)$.
\[prop:ansol\] Let $\alpha\in]0,1[$. Let $\Omega^i_1$, $\Omega^i_2$, $\Omega^o$ be as in . Let $p^1$, $p^2$ be as in . Let $r_\ast \in [0,+\infty[$. Let hold. Let $\tilde{\mathcal{U}}$ be as in . Let $f_1 \in C^{0,\alpha}(\partial \Omega^i_1)$, $f_2 \in C^{0,\alpha}(\partial \Omega^i_2)$, $g \in C^{1,\alpha}(\partial \Omega^o)$. Let $(\tilde{\theta}^{i}_1,\tilde{\theta}^{i}_2, \tilde{\theta}^{o}, \tilde{\xi})$ be as in Lemma \[lem:lim\]. Then there exist an open neighborhood $\mathcal{U}$ of $(0,r_{\ast})$ in $\mathbb{R}^2$ and a real analytic map $(\Theta^{i}_1,\Theta^{i}_2, \Theta^{o}, \Xi)$ from $\mathcal{U}$ to $C^{0,\alpha}(\partial \Omega^i_1)\times C^{0,\alpha}(\partial \Omega^i_2)\times C^{0,\alpha}(\partial \Omega^o)_0\times \mathbb{R}$ such that $$\mathcal{U} \subseteq \tilde{\mathcal{U}}\, ,$$ and that $$\begin{split}
(\theta^{i}_1[\varrho_1,\varrho_2],\theta^{i}_2[\varrho_1,\varrho_2], \theta^{o}[\varrho_1,\varrho_2], \xi[\varrho_1,\varrho_2])=(\Theta^{i}_1[\varrho_1,\varrho_2],\Theta^{i}_2&[ \varrho_1,\varrho_2], \Theta^{o}[ \varrho_1,\varrho_2], \Xi[ \varrho_1,\varrho_2])\\ & \forall (\varrho_1,\varrho_2) \in \mathcal{U} \cap ]0,+\infty[^2\, ,
\end{split}$$ and that $$(\tilde{\theta}^{i}_1,\tilde{\theta}^{i}_2, \tilde{\theta}^{o}, \tilde{\xi})=(\Theta^{i}_1[0,r_\ast], \Theta^{i}_2[0,r_\ast], \Theta^{o}[0,r_\ast], \Xi[0,r_\ast])\, .$$
By standard properties of integral operators with real analytic kernels and with no singularity, and by classical mapping properties of layer potentials (cf. Miranda [@Mi65], Lanza de Cristoforis and Rossi [@LaRo04 Thm. 3.1], Lanza de Cristoforis and the second-named author [@LaMu13 §4]), we conclude that $\Lambda$ is real analytic. Now we plan to apply the Implicit Function Theorem to equation $\Lambda[\varrho_1,\varrho_2,\theta^{i}_1,\theta^{i}_2,\theta^{o},\xi]=0$ around the point $(0, r_\ast,\tilde{\theta}^{i}_1,\tilde{\theta}^{i}_2,\tilde{\theta}^{o},\tilde{\xi})$. By definition of $(\tilde{\theta}^{i}_1,\tilde{\theta}^{i}_2,\tilde{\theta}^{o},\tilde{\xi})$, we have $\Lambda[0, r_\ast, \tilde{\theta}^{i}_1,\tilde{\theta}^{i}_2,\tilde{\theta}^{o},\tilde{\xi}]=0$. By standard calculus in Banach spaces, the differential of $\Lambda$ at $(0, r_\ast, \tilde{\theta}^{i}_1,\tilde{\theta}^{i}_2,\tilde{\theta}^{o},\tilde{\xi})$ with respect to the variables $(\theta^{i}_1,\theta^{i}_2,\theta^{o},\xi)$ is delivered by the formulas $$\begin{split}
\partial_{(\theta^{i}_1, \theta^{i}_2,\theta^{o},\xi)}\Lambda_1[0,r_\ast,\tilde{\theta}^{i}_1,\tilde{\theta}^{i}_2,\tilde{\theta}^{o},&\tilde{\xi}](\bar{\theta}^{i}_1,\bar{\theta}^{i}_2,\bar{\theta}^{o},\bar{\xi})(t)\\
&\equiv\frac{1}{2}\bar{\theta}^{i}_1(t)+\int_{\partial \Omega^i_1}DS_n(t-s)\nu_{\Omega^i_1}(t)\bar{\theta}^{i}_1(s)\, d\sigma_s\\
& +r_\ast^{n-1}\int_{\partial \Omega^i_2}DS_n\big((p^1-p^2)+r_\ast (t-s)\big)\nu_{\Omega^i_1}(t)\bar{\theta}^{i}_2(s)\, d\sigma_s\\
& -\int_{\partial \Omega^o}DS_n(y)\nu_{\Omega^i_1}(t)\bar{\theta}^{o}(y)\, d\sigma_y \qquad \forall t \in \partial \Omega^i_1\, ,
\end{split}$$ $$\begin{split}
\partial_{(\theta^{i}_1, \theta^{i}_2,\theta^{o},\xi)}\Lambda_2[0,r_\ast,\tilde{\theta}^{i}_1,\tilde{\theta}^{i}_2,\tilde{\theta}^{o},&\tilde{\xi}](\bar{\theta}^{i}_1,\bar{\theta}^{i}_2,\bar{\theta}^{o},\bar{\xi})(t)\\&\equiv\frac{1}{2}\bar{\theta}^{i}_2(t)+\int_{\partial \Omega^i_2}DS_n(t-s)\nu_{\Omega^i_2}(t)\bar{\theta}^{i}_2(s)\, d\sigma_s\\
& +r_\ast^{n-1}\int_{\partial \Omega^i_1}DS_n\big((p^2-p^1)+r_\ast(t-s)\big)\nu_{\Omega^i_2}(t)\bar{\theta}^{i}_1(s)\, d\sigma_s\\
& -\int_{\partial \Omega^o}DS_n(y)\nu_{\Omega^i_2}(t)\bar{\theta}^{o}(y)\, d\sigma_y\qquad \forall t \in \partial \Omega^i_2\, ,
\end{split}$$ $$\begin{split}
\partial_{(\theta^{i}_1, \theta^{i}_2,\theta^{o},\xi)}\Lambda_3[0,r_\ast,\tilde{\theta}^{i}_1,\tilde{\theta}^{i}_2,\tilde{\theta}^{o},\tilde{\xi}](\bar{\theta}^{i}_1,\bar{\theta}^{i}_2,\bar{\theta}^{o},\bar{\xi})(x)\equiv\int_{\partial \Omega^o}S_n(x-y)\bar{\theta}^{o}(y)\, d\sigma_y &+\bar{\xi}\\ &\forall x \in \partial \Omega^o\, ,
\end{split}$$ for all $(\bar{\theta}^{i}_1,\bar{\theta}^{i}_2,\bar{\theta}^{o},\bar{\xi}) \in C^{0,\alpha}(\partial \Omega^i_1)\times C^{0,\alpha}(\partial \Omega^i_2)\times C^{0,\alpha}(\partial \Omega^o)_0\times \mathbb{R}$. Then, by arguing as in the proof of Lemma \[lem:lim\], by classical potential theory, and by standard calculus in Banach spaces, one can show that $\partial_{(\theta^{i}_1,\theta^{i}_2,\theta^{o},\xi)}\Lambda[0,r_\ast,\tilde{\theta}^{i}_1,\tilde{\theta}^{i}_2,\tilde{\theta}^{o},\tilde{\xi}]$ is a linear homeomorphism from $ C^{0,\alpha}(\partial \Omega^i_1)\times C^{0,\alpha}(\partial \Omega^i_2)\times C^{0,\alpha}(\partial \Omega^o)_0\times \mathbb{R}$ onto $ C^{0,\alpha}(\partial \Omega^i_1)\times C^{0,\alpha}(\partial \Omega^i_2)\times C^{1,\alpha}(\partial \Omega^o)$. Then by the Implicit Function Theorem for real analytic maps in Banach spaces (cf., *e.g.*, Deimling [@De85 Theorem 15.3]), there exist an open neighborhood $\mathcal{U} \subseteq \tilde{\mathcal{U}}$ of $(0,r_{\ast})$ in $\mathbb{R}^2$ and a real analytic map $(\Theta^{i}_1,\Theta^{i}_2, \Theta^{o}, \Xi)$ from $\mathcal{U}$ to $C^{0,\alpha}(\partial \Omega^i_1)\times C^{0,\alpha}(\partial \Omega^i_2)\times C^{0,\alpha}(\partial \Omega^o)_0\times \mathbb{R}$ such that $$\label{eq:ansol}
\Lambda\bigl[\varrho_1, \varrho_2, \Theta^{i}_1[\varrho_1,\varrho_2],\Theta^{i}_2[\varrho_1,\varrho_2], \Theta^{o}[\varrho_1,\varrho_2], \Xi[\varrho_1,\varrho_2]\bigr]=0 \qquad \forall (\varrho_1,\varrho_2) \in \mathcal{U}\, .$$ In particular, by Proposition \[prop:finteq\] and Lemma \[lem:lim\], we have $$\begin{split}
(\theta^{i}_1[\varrho_1,\varrho_2],\theta^{i}_2[\varrho_1,\varrho_2], \theta^{o}[\varrho_1,\varrho_2], \xi[\varrho_1,\varrho_2])=(\Theta^{i}_1[\varrho_1,\varrho_2],\Theta^{i}_2[ &\varrho_1,\varrho_2], \Theta^{o}[ \varrho_1,\varrho_2], \Xi[ \varrho_1,\varrho_2])\\ & \forall (\varrho_1,\varrho_2) \in \mathcal{U} \cap ]0,+\infty[^2\, ,
\end{split}$$ and $$(\tilde{\theta}^{i}_1,\tilde{\theta}^{i}_2, \tilde{\theta}^{o}, \tilde{\xi})=(\Theta^{i}_1[0,r_\ast], \Theta^{i}_2[0,r_\ast], \Theta^{o}[0,r_\ast], \Xi[0,r_\ast])\, ,$$ and thus the proof is complete.
A functional analytic representation theorem for the solution of problem {#fure}
=========================================================================
In the following theorem, we exploit the analyticity result for the solutions of equation in order to prove representation formulas for $u[\varrho_1,\varrho_2]$ in terms of real analytic maps. Then, by the analysis of the behavior of $u[\varrho_1,\varrho_2]$ for $(\varrho_1,\varrho_2)$ close to the degenerate value $(0,r_\ast)$, we will be able to answer questions (i), (ii), (iii) asked in the introduction and concerning the behavior of the solution $u_\epsilon$ of problem .
\[thm:rep\] Let $\alpha\in]0,1[$. Let $\Omega^i_1$, $\Omega^i_2$, $\Omega^o$ be as in . Let $p^1$, $p^2$ be as in . Let $r_\ast \in [0,+\infty[$. Let hold. Let $f_1 \in C^{0,\alpha}(\partial \Omega^i_1)$, $f_2 \in C^{0,\alpha}(\partial \Omega^i_2)$, $g \in C^{1,\alpha}(\partial \Omega^o)$. Let $\tilde{u}$ be as in Remark \[rem:lim\]. Let $\mathcal{U}$ be as in Proposition \[prop:ansol\]. Then the following statements hold.
1. Let $\Omega_M$ be an open subset of $\Omega^o$ such that $0 \not \in \mathrm{cl}\Omega_M$. Then there exist an open neighborhood $\mathcal{U}_{M,\Omega_M}$ of $(0,r_\ast)$ in $\mathbb{R}^2$ and a real analytic map $U_{M,\Omega_M}$ from $\mathcal{U}_{M,\Omega_M}$ to the space $C^{1,\alpha}(\mathrm{cl} \Omega_M)$ such that $$\mathcal{U}_{M,\Omega_M} \subseteq \mathcal{U}\, , \qquad \mathrm{cl}\Omega_M\subseteq \mathrm{cl}\Omega(\varrho_1,\varrho_2) \qquad \forall (\varrho_1,\varrho_2)\in \mathcal{U}_{M,\Omega_M} \, ,$$ and such that $$\begin{split}
u[\varrho_1,\varrho_2](x)&= U_{M,\Omega_M}[\varrho_1,\varrho_2](x)\qquad\forall x\in \mathrm{cl}\Omega_M\,,
\end{split}$$ for all $(\varrho_1,\varrho_2)\in\mathcal{U}_{M,\Omega_M} \cap ]0,+\infty[^2$. Moreover, $$\begin{split}
\label{eq:rep1}
U_{M,\Omega_M}[0,r_\ast](x)=\tilde{u}(x)\qquad\forall x\in \mathrm{cl}\Omega_M\, .
\end{split}$$
2. Let $\Omega_m$ be a bounded open subset of $\mathbb{R}^{n}\setminus\cup_{j=1}^2(p^j+r_\ast{\mathrm{cl}}\Omega^i_j)$. Then there exist an open neighborhood $\mathcal{U}_{m,\Omega_m}$ of $(0,r_\ast)$ in $\mathbb{R}^2$ and a real analytic map $U_{m,\Omega_m}$ from $\mathcal{U}_{m,\Omega_m}$ to the space $C^{1,\alpha}(\mathrm{cl} \Omega_m)$ such that $$\mathcal{U}_{m,\Omega_m} \subseteq \mathcal{U}\, , \qquad \varrho_1\mathrm{cl}\Omega_m\subseteq \mathrm{cl}\Omega(\varrho_1,\varrho_2) \qquad \forall (\varrho_1,\varrho_2)\in \mathcal{U}_{m,\Omega_m} \,,$$ and such that $$\begin{split}
u[\varrho_1,\varrho_2](\varrho_1 t)&= U_{m,\Omega_m}[\varrho_1,\varrho_2](t)+\delta_{2,n}\frac{\varrho_1 \varrho_2 \log \varrho_1}{2\pi}\sum_{j=1}^2\int_{\partial \Omega^i_j}f_j \, d\sigma\ \forall t\in \mathrm{cl}\Omega_m\,,
\end{split}$$ for all $(\varrho_1,\varrho_2)\in\mathcal{U}_{m,\Omega_m} \cap ]0,+\infty[^2$. Moreover, $$\begin{split}
\label{eq:rep2}
U_{m,\Omega_m}[0,r_\ast](t)=\tilde{u}(0)\qquad\forall t\in \mathrm{cl}\Omega_m\, .
\end{split}$$
3. Let $j \in \{1,2\}$. Let $l \in (\{1,2\}\setminus \{j\})$. Let $\Omega_{m^\ast}$ be a bounded open subset of $\mathbb{R}^{n}\setminus \mathrm{cl}\Omega^i_j$ such that $(p^j +r_\ast \mathrm{cl}\Omega_{m^\ast}) \cap (p^l +r_\ast \mathrm{cl}\Omega^i_l)= \emptyset$. Then there exist an open neighborhood $\mathcal{U}_{m^\ast,\Omega_{m^\ast}}$ of $(0,r_\ast)$ in $\mathbb{R}^2$ and a real analytic map $U_{j,m^\ast,\Omega_{m^\ast}}$ from $\mathcal{U}_{m^\ast,\Omega_{m^\ast}}$ to the space $C^{1,\alpha}(\mathrm{cl} \Omega_{m^\ast})$ such that $$\mathcal{U}_{m^\ast,\Omega_{m^\ast}} \subseteq \mathcal{U}\, , \qquad \varrho_1p^j+\varrho_1 \varrho_2\mathrm{cl}\Omega_{m^\ast}\subseteq \mathrm{cl}\Omega(\varrho_1,\varrho_2) \qquad \forall (\varrho_1,\varrho_2)\in \mathcal{U}_{m^\ast,\Omega_{m^\ast}} \,,$$ and such that $$\begin{split}
u[\varrho_1,&\varrho_2](\varrho_1 p^j +\varrho_1\varrho_2 t)= U_{j,m^\ast,\Omega_{m^\ast}}[\varrho_1,\varrho_2](t)\\&+ \delta_{2,n}\varrho_1 \varrho_2 \Bigg(\frac{\log (\varrho_1 \varrho_2)}{2 \pi} \int_{\partial \Omega^i_j}f_j \, d\sigma+ \frac{\ \log \varrho_1 }{2 \pi} \int_{\partial \Omega^i_l}f_l \, d\sigma \Bigg)\quad \forall t \in \mathrm{cl}\Omega_{m^\ast}\,,
\end{split}$$ for all $(\varrho_1,\varrho_2)\in\mathcal{U}_{m^\ast,\Omega_{m^\ast}} \cap ]0,+\infty[^2$. Moreover, $$\begin{split}
\label{eq:rep3}
U_{j,m^\ast,\Omega_{m^\ast}}[0,r_\ast](t)=\tilde{u}(0)\qquad\forall t\in \mathrm{cl}\Omega_{m^\ast}\, .
\end{split}$$
(Here the symbol ‘$M$’ stands for ‘macroscopic’ and the symbols ‘$m$’ and ‘$m^\ast$’ stand for ‘microscopic’.)
We first prove statement (i). By possibly taking a bigger $\Omega_M$, we can assume that $\Omega_M$ is of class $C^1$. Clearly, there exists an open neighborhood $\mathcal{U}_{M,\Omega_M}$ of $(0,r_\ast)$ in $\mathbb{R}^2$ such that $\mathcal{U}_{M,\Omega_M} \subseteq \mathcal{U}$ and that $$\mathrm{cl}\Omega_M \cap (\cup_{j=1}^2 (\varrho_1 p^j +\varrho_1\varrho_2 \mathrm{cl}\Omega^i_j))= \emptyset \qquad \forall (\varrho_1,\varrho_2) \in \mathcal{U}_{M,\Omega_M}\, .$$ Then we introduce the map $U_{M,\Omega_M}$ from $\mathcal{U}_{M,\Omega_M}$ to $C^{1,\alpha}(\mathrm{cl}\Omega_M)$ by setting $$\begin{split}
U_{M,\Omega_M}[\varrho_1,\varrho_2](x)&\equiv (\varrho_1 \varrho_2)^{n-1}\sum_{j=1}^2 \int_{\partial \Omega^i_j}S_n(x-\varrho_1p^j-\varrho_1 \varrho_2 s)\Theta^{i}_j[\varrho_1,\varrho_2](s)\, d\sigma_s\\&+\int_{\partial \Omega^o}S_n(x-y)\Theta^{o}[\varrho_1,\varrho_2](y)\, d\sigma_y +\Xi[\varrho_1,\varrho_2] \qquad \forall x \in \mathrm{cl} \Omega_M\, ,
\end{split}$$ for all $(\varrho_1,\varrho_2) \in \mathcal{U}_{M,\Omega_M}$. By standard properties of integral operators with real analytic kernels and with no singularity, by standard properties of functions in Schauder spaces, by classical mapping properties of layer potentials (cf. Lanza de Cristoforis and the second-named author [@LaMu13], Miranda [@Mi65], Lanza de Cristoforis and Rossi [@LaRo04 Thm. 3.1]), and by Proposition \[prop:ansol\], we conclude that $U_{M,\Omega_M}$ is real analytic. Moreover, Proposition \[prop:ansol\] implies that $\Theta^{o}[0,r_\ast]=\tilde{\theta}^{o}$ and that $\Xi^{o}[0,r_\ast]=\tilde{\xi}$, and thus $$\begin{split}
U_{M,\Omega_M}[0,r_\ast](x)= \int_{\partial \Omega^o}S_n(x-y)\tilde{\theta}^{o}(y)\, d\sigma_y+\tilde{\xi}=\tilde{u}(x) \qquad \forall x \in \mathrm{cl}\Omega_M\, ,
\end{split}$$ and the validity of equality follows.
We now consider statement (ii). By possibly taking a bigger $\Omega_m$, we can assume that $\Omega_m$ is of class $C^1$. Clearly, there exists an open neighborhood $\mathcal{U}_{m,\Omega_m}$ of $(0,r_\ast)$ in $\mathbb{R}^2$ such that $\mathcal{U}_{m,\Omega_m} \subseteq \mathcal{U}$ and that $$\mathrm{cl}\Omega_m \cap (\cup_{j=1}^2 ( p^j +\varrho_2 \mathrm{cl}\Omega^i_j))= \emptyset \, , \qquad \varrho_1 \mathrm{cl}\Omega_m \subseteq \mathrm{cl}\Omega^o \qquad \forall (\varrho_1,\varrho_2) \in \mathcal{U}_{M,\Omega_M}\, .$$ Then we introduce the map $U_{m,\Omega_m}$ from $\mathcal{U}_{m,\Omega_m}$ to $C^{1,\alpha}(\mathrm{cl}\Omega_m)$ by setting $$\begin{split}
U_{m,\Omega_m}[\varrho_1,\varrho_2](t)&\equiv \varrho_1 \varrho_2^{n-1}\sum_{j=1}^2 \int_{\partial \Omega^i_j}S_n(t-p^j- \varrho_2 s)\Theta^{i}_j[\varrho_1,\varrho_2](s)\, d\sigma_s\\&+\int_{\partial \Omega^o}S_n(\varrho_1t-y)\Theta^{o}[\varrho_1,\varrho_2](y)\, d\sigma_y +\Xi[\varrho_1,\varrho_2] \qquad \forall t \in \mathrm{cl} \Omega_m\, ,
\end{split}$$ for all $(\varrho_1,\varrho_2) \in \mathcal{U}_{m,\Omega_m}$. By equality we have $$\begin{split}
\int_{\partial \Omega^i_j}\Lambda_j\bigl[\varrho_1, \varrho_2, \Theta^{i}_1[\varrho_1, \varrho_2],\Theta^{i}_2[\varrho_1, \varrho_2], \Theta^{o}[\varrho_1, &\varrho_2], \Xi[\varrho_1, \varrho_2]\bigr]\, d\sigma=0 \\& \forall (\varrho_1, \varrho_2) \in \mathcal{U}\, , \ \forall j\in \{1,2\}\, .
\end{split}$$ Thus, by classical potential theory, we have $$\label{intf}
\int_{\partial \Omega^i_j}\Theta^i_j[\varrho_1, \varrho_2] \, d\sigma= \int_{\partial \Omega^i_j}f_j \, d\sigma \qquad \forall (\varrho_1, \varrho_2) \in \mathcal{U}\, , \ \forall j \in \{1,2\}\, .$$ Then by a simple computation, one verifies that $$\begin{split}
u[\varrho_1,\varrho_2](\varrho_1 t)=U_{m,\Omega_m}[\varrho_1,\varrho_2](t)+ \delta_{2,n}\frac{\varrho_1 \varrho_2 \log \varrho_1}{2 \pi}\sum_{j=1}^2 \int_{\partial \Omega^i_j}f_j \, d\sigma \qquad \forall t \in \mathrm{cl}\Omega_m\,,
\end{split}$$ for all $(\varrho_1,\varrho_2) \in \mathcal{U}_{m,\Omega_m} \cap ]0,+\infty[^2$. By standard properties of integral operators with real analytic kernels and with no singularity, by standard properties of functions in Schauder spaces, by classical mapping properties of layer potentials (cf. Miranda [@Mi65], Lanza de Cristoforis and Rossi [@LaRo04 Thm. 3.1], Lanza de Cristoforis and the second-named author [@LaMu13]), and by Proposition \[prop:ansol\], we conclude that $U_{m,\Omega_m}$ is real analytic. Moreover, Proposition \[prop:ansol\] implies that $\Theta^{o}[0,r_\ast]=\tilde{\theta}^{o}$ and that $\Xi^{o}[0,r_\ast]=\tilde{\xi}$, and thus $$\begin{split}
U_{m,\Omega_m}[0,r_\ast](t)= \int_{\partial \Omega^o}S_n(0-y)\tilde{\theta}^{o}(y)\, d\sigma_y+\tilde{\xi}=\tilde{u}(0) \qquad \forall t \in \mathrm{cl}\Omega_m\, ,
\end{split}$$ and the validity of equality follows. Thus the proof of statement (ii) is complete.
We now turn to prove statement (iii). By possibly taking a bigger $\Omega_{m^\ast}$, we can assume that $\Omega_{m^\ast}$ is of class $C^1$. Clearly, there exists an open neighborhood $\mathcal{U}_{m^\ast,\Omega_{m^\ast}}$ of $(0,r_\ast)$ in $\mathbb{R}^2$ such that $\mathcal{U}_{m^\ast,\Omega_{m^\ast}} \subseteq \mathcal{U}$ and that $$\begin{split}
&\left(p^j+\varrho_2\mathrm{cl}\Omega_{m^\ast}\right)\cap\left(p^l+\varrho_2\mathrm{cl}\Omega^i_l\right)= \emptyset \qquad \forall (\varrho_1,\varrho_2) \in \mathcal{U}_{m^\ast,\Omega_{m^\ast}}\, ,\\
&\bigg (\varrho_1 p^j+\varrho_1 \varrho_2 \mathrm{cl}\Omega_{m^\ast}\bigg) \subseteq \Omega^o \qquad \forall (\varrho_1,\varrho_2)\in \mathcal{U}_{m^\ast,\Omega_{m^\ast}}\, .
\end{split}$$ Then we introduce the map $U_{j,m^\ast,\Omega_{m^\ast}}$ from $\mathcal{U}_{m^\ast,\Omega_{m^\ast}}$ to $C^{1,\alpha}(\mathrm{cl}\Omega_{m^\ast})$ by setting $$\begin{split}
U_{j,m^\ast,\Omega_{m^\ast}}[&\varrho_1,\varrho_2](t)\equiv \varrho_1 \varrho_2 \int_{\partial \Omega^i_j}S_n(t- s)\Theta^{i}_j[\varrho_1,\varrho_2](s)\, d\sigma_s\\&+\varrho_1\varrho_2^{n-1}\int_{\partial \Omega^i_l}S_n(p^j+\varrho_2 t-p^l -\varrho_2 s)\Theta^{i}_l[\varrho_1,\varrho_2](s)\, d\sigma_s\\&+\int_{\partial \Omega^o}S_n(\varrho_1p^j+\varrho_1 \varrho_2 t-y)\Theta^{o}[\varrho_1,\varrho_2](y)\, d\sigma_y +\Xi[\varrho_1,\varrho_2] \qquad \forall t \in \mathrm{cl} \Omega_{m^\ast}\, ,
\end{split}$$ for all $(\varrho_1,\varrho_2) \in \mathcal{U}_{m^\ast,\Omega_{m^\ast}}$. By classical potential theory, by equality , and by a simple computation, one verifies that $$\begin{split}
u[\varrho_1,\varrho_2](&\varrho_1p^j +\varrho_1 \varrho_2 t)=U_{j,m^\ast,\Omega_{m^\ast}}[\varrho_1,\varrho_2](t)\\
&+ \delta_{2,n}\varrho_1 \varrho_2 \Bigg(\frac{\log (\varrho_1 \varrho_2)}{2 \pi} \int_{\partial \Omega^i_j}f_j \, d\sigma+ \frac{\ \log \varrho_1 }{2 \pi} \int_{\partial \Omega^i_l}f_l \, d\sigma \Bigg)\qquad \forall t \in \mathrm{cl}\Omega_{m^\ast}\,,
\end{split}$$ for all $(\varrho_1,\varrho_2) \in \mathcal{U}_{m^\ast,\Omega_{m^\ast}} \cap ]0,+\infty[^2$. By standard properties of integral operators with real analytic kernels and with no singularity, by standard properties of functions in Schauder spaces, by classical mapping properties of layer potentials (cf. Lanza de Cristoforis and the second-named author [@LaMu13], Miranda [@Mi65], Lanza de Cristoforis and Rossi [@LaRo04 Thm. 3.1]), and by Proposition \[prop:ansol\], we conclude that $U_{j,m^\ast,\Omega_{m^\ast}}$ is real analytic. Moreover, Proposition \[prop:ansol\] implies that $\Theta^{o}[0,r_\ast]=\tilde{\theta}^{o}$ and that $\Xi^{o}[0,r_\ast]=\tilde{\xi}$, and thus $$\begin{split}
U_{j,m^\ast,\Omega_{m^\ast}}[0,r_\ast](t)= \int_{\partial \Omega^o}S_n(0-y)\tilde{\theta}^{o}(y)\, d\sigma_y+\tilde{\xi}=\tilde{u}(0) \qquad \forall t \in \mathrm{cl}\Omega_{m^\ast}\, ,
\end{split}$$ and the validity of equality follows.
Then by Theorem \[thm:rep\], we immediately deduce the validity of the following.
\[cor:repeps\] Let the assumptions of Theorem \[thm:rep\] hold. Let $\eta$, $r_\ast$ be as in . Let $\epsilon_{0}$ be as in . Then the following statements hold.
1. Let $\Omega_M$, $\mathcal{U}_{M,\Omega_M}$, $U_{M,\Omega_M}$ be as in Theorem \[thm:rep\] (i). Then there exists $\epsilon_{M,\Omega_M}\in]0,\epsilon_0[$ such that $$(\eta(\epsilon),\epsilon/\eta(\epsilon)) \in \mathcal{U}_{M,\Omega_M}\, , \qquad \mathrm{cl}\Omega_M\subseteq \mathrm{cl}\Omega_\epsilon \qquad \forall \epsilon\in ]0,\epsilon_{M,\Omega_M}[ \,,$$ and such that $$\begin{split}
u_\epsilon(x)&= U_{M,\Omega_M}[\eta(\epsilon),\epsilon/\eta(\epsilon)](x)\qquad\forall x\in \mathrm{cl}\Omega_M\,,
\end{split}$$ for all $\epsilon\in]0,\epsilon_{M,\Omega_M}[$.
2. Let $\Omega_m$, $\mathcal{U}_{m,\Omega_m}$, $U_{m,\Omega_m}$ be as in Theorem \[thm:rep\] (ii). Then there exists $\epsilon_{m,\Omega_m}\in]0,\epsilon_0[$ such that $$(\eta(\epsilon),\epsilon/\eta(\epsilon)) \in \mathcal{U}_{m,\Omega_m}\, , \qquad \eta(\epsilon)\mathrm{cl}\Omega_m\subseteq \mathrm{cl}\Omega_\epsilon \qquad \forall \epsilon\in ]0,\epsilon_{m,\Omega_m}[ \,,$$ and such that $$\begin{split}
u_\epsilon(\eta(\epsilon)t)&= U_{m,\Omega_m}[\eta(\epsilon),\epsilon/\eta(\epsilon)](t)+\delta_{2,n}\frac{\epsilon \log \eta(\epsilon)}{2\pi}\sum_{j=1}^2\int_{\partial \Omega^i_j}f_j \, d\sigma\quad\forall t\in \mathrm{cl}\Omega_m\,,
\end{split}$$ for all $\epsilon\in]0,\epsilon_{m,\Omega_m}[$.
3. Let $j$, $l$, $\Omega_{m^\ast}$, $\mathcal{U}_{m^\ast,\Omega_{m^\ast}}$, $U_{j,m^\ast,\Omega_{m^\ast}}$ be as in Theorem \[thm:rep\] (iii). Then there exists $\epsilon_{m^\ast,\Omega_{m^\ast}}\in]0,\epsilon_0[$ such that $$(\eta(\epsilon),\epsilon/\eta(\epsilon)) \in \mathcal{U}_{m^\ast,\Omega_{m^\ast}}\, , \qquad \eta(\epsilon)p^j+\epsilon\mathrm{cl}\Omega_{m^\ast}\subseteq \mathrm{cl}\Omega_\epsilon \qquad \forall \epsilon\in ]0,\epsilon_{m^\ast,\Omega_{m^\ast}}[ \,,$$ and such that $$\begin{split}
u_\epsilon(&\eta(\epsilon) p^j +\epsilon t)= U_{j,m^\ast,\Omega_{m^\ast}}[\eta(\epsilon),\epsilon/\eta(\epsilon)](t)\\&+ \delta_{2,n}\epsilon \Bigg(\frac{\log \epsilon}{2 \pi} \int_{\partial \Omega^i_j}f_j \, d\sigma+ \frac{\ \log \eta(\epsilon) }{2 \pi} \int_{\partial \Omega^i_l}f_l \, d\sigma \Bigg)\qquad \forall t \in \mathrm{cl}\Omega_{m^\ast}\,,
\end{split}$$ for all $\epsilon\in ]0,\epsilon_{m^\ast,\Omega_{m^\ast}}[$.
Under the assumptions of Corollary \[cor:repeps\], we note that if $x \in \mathrm{cl}\Omega^o \setminus \{0\}$ is fixed, then we can deduce the existence of a sequence $\{c_{(j_1,j_2)}\}_{(j_1,j_2)\in \mathbb{N}^2\setminus \{(0,0)\}}$ such that $$u_\epsilon(x)=\tilde{u}(x)+\sum_{(j_1,j_2)\in \mathbb{N}^2\setminus \{(0,0)\}}c_{(j_1,j_2)} \Big(\eta(\epsilon)\Big)^{j_1}\bigg(\frac{\epsilon}{\eta(\epsilon)}-r_\ast\bigg)^{j_2} \, ,$$ for $\epsilon$ in a neighborhood of $0$. Moreover, if we know that $\eta(\epsilon)$ equals the restriction to positive values of $\epsilon$ of a real analytic function defined in a neighborhood of $0$, then by the function $\epsilon/\eta(\epsilon)$ has a real analytic continuation in a neighborhood of $\epsilon=0$ and thus we can deduce the existence of a sequence $\{c_j\}_{j \in \mathbb{N}\setminus \{0\}}$ such that $$u_\epsilon(x)=\tilde{u}(x)+\sum_{j \in \mathbb{N}\setminus \{0\}}c_j \epsilon^j \, ,$$ for $\epsilon$ small and positive, where the series converges absolutely in a neighborhood of $0$.
Asymptotic expansion of the solution of the mixed problem {#asy}
=========================================================
The aim of this section is to provide an asymptotic expansion of the solution $u[\varrho_1,\varrho_2]$ of the mixed problem as $(\varrho_1,\varrho_2)$ tends to the degenerate value $(0,r_\ast)$. We shall assume that $r_\ast =0$ and we will focus on the two-dimensional case. As already done in [@DaMuRo] for the Dirichlet problem for the Laplace equation, since the solution is represented by means of layer potentials, we first need to obtain expansions of the densities of the layer potentials. Therefore, here we first compute an expansion in the variable $(\varrho_1,\varrho_2)$ of $(\Theta^{i}_1[\varrho_1,\varrho_2],\Theta^{i}_2[ \varrho_1,\varrho_2], \Theta^{o}[ \varrho_1,\varrho_2], \Xi[ \varrho_1,\varrho_2])$ for $(\varrho_1,\varrho_2)$ close to the degenerate value $(0,r_\ast)=(0,0)$. On the other hand, by the real analyticity of $(\Theta^{i}_1,\Theta^{i}_2, \Theta^{o}, \Xi)$ (cf. Proposition \[prop:ansol\]), we know that there exist families $\{\theta^{i}_{1,(j,k)}\}_{(j,k) \in \mathbb{N}^2} \subseteq C^{0,\alpha}(\partial \Omega^i_1)$, $\{\theta^{i}_{2,(j,k)}\}_{(j,k)\in \mathbb{N}^2} \subseteq C^{0,\alpha}(\partial \Omega^i_2)$, $\{\theta^{o}_{(j,k)}\}_{(j,k) \in \mathbb{N}^2} \subseteq C^{0,\alpha}(\partial \Omega^o)_0$, $\{\xi_{(j,k)}\}_{(j,k) \in \mathbb{N}^2} \subseteq \mathbb{R}$, such that for $(\varrho_1,\varrho_2)$ in a neighborhood of $(0,0)$ we have $$\begin{split}
& \Theta^{i}_1[\varrho_1,\varrho_2]=\sum_{(j,k)\in \mathbb{N}^2} \frac{\theta^{i}_{1,(j,k)}}{j!k!}\varrho_1^j \varrho_2^k\, , \qquad \Theta^{i}_2[\varrho_1,\varrho_2]=\sum_{(j,k)\in \mathbb{N}^2} \frac{\theta^{i}_{2,(j,k)}}{j!k!}\varrho_1^j \varrho_2^k\, , \\
& \Theta^{o}[\varrho_1,\varrho_2]=\sum_{(j,k)\in \mathbb{N}^2} \frac{\theta^{o}_{(j,k)}}{j!k!}\varrho_1^j \varrho_2^k\, , \qquad \ \ \Xi[\varrho_1,\varrho_2]=\sum_{(j,k)\in \mathbb{N}^2} \frac{\xi_{(j,k)}}{j!k!}\varrho_1^j \varrho_2^k\, ,
\end{split}$$ where the series converge absolutely in $C^{0,\alpha}(\partial \Omega^i_1)$, in $C^{0,\alpha}(\partial \Omega^i_2)$, in $C^{0,\alpha}(\partial \Omega^o)_0$, and in $\mathbb{R}$, respectively, uniformly for $(\varrho_1,\varrho_2)$ in a compact neighborhood of $(0,0)$. In particular, $$\begin{split}
&\theta^{i}_{1,(j,k)}=\partial_{\varrho_1}^j \partial_{\varrho_2}^k \Theta^{i}_1[0,0]\, , \qquad \theta^{i}_{2,(j,k)}=\partial_{\varrho_1}^j \partial_{\varrho_2}^k \Theta^{i}_2[0,0]\, ,\\
& \theta^{o}_{(j,k)}=\partial_{\varrho_1}^j \partial_{\varrho_2}^k \Theta^{o}[0,0]\, , \qquad \ \ \xi_{(j,k)}=\partial_{\varrho_1}^j \partial_{\varrho_2}^k \Xi[0,0]\,,
\end{split}$$ for all $(j,k) \in \mathbb{N}^2 \setminus \{(0,0)\}$, and $$\begin{split}
&\theta^{i}_{1,(0,0)}=\tilde{\theta}^{i}_{1}\, , \qquad \theta^{i}_{2,(0,0)}=\tilde{\theta}^{i}_{2}\, ,\\
& \theta^{o}_{(0,0)}=\tilde{\theta}^{o}\, , \qquad \ \ \xi_{(0,0)}=\tilde{\xi}\, .
\end{split}$$ We now plan to identify some suitable coefficients $\theta^{i}_{1,(j,k)}$, $\theta^{i}_{2,(j,k)}$, $\theta^{o}_{(j,k)}$, $\xi_{(j,k)}$ as the solutions of certain integral equations, in order to study the asymptotic expansion of $u[\varrho_1, \varrho_2]$. To do so, we shall exploit the fact that by equality we have $$\label{eq:ansol:der}
\begin{split}
\partial_{\varrho_1}^j \partial_{\varrho_2}^k\Lambda\bigl[\varrho_1, \varrho_2, \Theta^{i}_1[\varrho_1,\varrho_2],\Theta^{i}_2[\varrho_1,\varrho_2], \Theta^{o}[\varrho_1,&\varrho_2], \Xi[\varrho_1,\varrho_2]\bigr]=0 \\ &\forall (\varrho_1,\varrho_2) \in \mathcal{U}\, , \forall (j,k) \in \mathbb{N}^2\, .
\end{split}$$
In the following lemma we consider the first coefficients $\theta^o_{(j,k)}$, $\xi_{(j,k)}$. In particular, we show that if $n=2$, then $\theta^o_{(j,0)}$, $\theta^o_{(0,k)}$, $\xi_{(j,0)}$, and $\xi_{(0,k)}$ are all equal to $0$ for all $(j,k) \in \mathbb{N}^2\setminus \{(0,0)\}$.
\[lem:1\] Let $r_\ast=0$. Let the assumptions of Proposition \[prop:ansol\] hold. Then $$\begin{split}
\theta^o_{(j,k)}=0\, , \ \xi_{(j,k)}=0\, ,
\end{split}$$ for all $(j,k) \in \Big(\{0,1,\dots,n-2\}\times \big(\mathbb{N} \setminus \{0\}\big) \Big)\cup \Big( \big(\mathbb{N} \setminus \{0\}\big) \times \{0,1,\dots,n-2\}\Big)$. In particular, if $n=2$, then $$\theta^o_{(j,0)}=0\, ,\ \theta^o_{(0,k)}=0\, , \ \xi_{(j,0)}=0\, , \ \xi_{(0,k)}=0\, , \qquad \forall (j,k) \in \mathbb{N}^2\setminus \{(0,0)\}\, .$$
Let $(j,k) \in \{0,1,\dots,n-2\}\times (\mathbb{N} \setminus \{0\})$. A simple computation shows that $$\label{eq:1:4}
\begin{split}
\partial_{\varrho_1}^j &\partial_{\varrho_2}^k \Lambda_3\bigl[\varrho_1, \varrho_2, \Theta^{i}_1[\varrho_1,\varrho_2],\Theta^{i}_2[\varrho_1,\varrho_2], \Theta^{o}[\varrho_1,\varrho_2], \Xi[\varrho_1,\varrho_2]\bigr](x)\\
&=\int_{\partial \Omega^o}S_n(x-y)\partial_{\varrho_1}^j \partial_{\varrho_2}^k\Theta^{o}[\varrho_1,\varrho_2](y)\, d\sigma_y +\partial_{\varrho_1}^j \partial_{\varrho_2}^k\Xi[\varrho_1,\varrho_2]\\&+\partial_{\varrho_1}^j \bigg(\varrho_1^{n-1}\tilde{R}_1[\varrho_1,\varrho_2](x)\bigg) \qquad \forall x \in \partial \Omega^o\, ,
\end{split}$$ for $(\varrho_1,\varrho_2) \in \mathcal{U}$, where $\tilde{R}_1$ is a real analytic function from $\mathcal{U}$ to $C^{1,\alpha}(\partial \Omega^o)$. Accordingly, by and , we have $$\begin{split}
0=\int_{\partial \Omega^o}S_n(x-y)\partial_{\varrho_1}^j \partial_{\varrho_2}^k\Theta^{o}[\varrho_1,\varrho_2](y)\, d\sigma_y +\partial_{\varrho_1}^j \partial_{\varrho_2}^k\Xi[\varrho_1,\varrho_2]+\varrho_1^{n-1-j}&\tilde{R}_2[\varrho_1,\varrho_2](x) \\& \forall x \in \partial \Omega^o\, ,
\end{split}$$ for $(\varrho_1,\varrho_2) \in \mathcal{U}$, where $\tilde{R}_2$ is a real analytic function from $\mathcal{U}$ to $C^{1,\alpha}(\partial \Omega^o)$. Then, by taking $(\varrho_1,\varrho_2)=(0,0)$ we obtain $$0=\int_{\partial \Omega^o}S_n(x-y)\partial_{\varrho_1}^j \partial_{\varrho_2}^k\Theta^{o}[0,0](y)\, d\sigma_y +\partial_{\varrho_1}^j \partial_{\varrho_2}^k\Xi[0,0] \qquad \forall x \in \partial \Omega^o\, ,$$ which implies $$\partial_{\varrho_1}^j \partial_{\varrho_2}^k\Theta^{o}[0,0]=0\, ,\qquad \partial_{\varrho_1}^j \partial_{\varrho_2}^k\Xi[0,0]=0\, ,$$ *i.e.*, $$\theta^{o}_{(j,k)}=0\, ,\qquad \xi_{(j,k)}=0\, .$$ Similarly, one shows that if $(j,k) \in (\mathbb{N}\setminus \{0\}) \times \{0,1,\dots,n-2\}$, then $$\theta^{o}_{(j,k)}=0\, ,\qquad \xi_{(j,k)}=0\,$$ (cf. Lemma \[lem:smp\] (ii)).
We now confine ourselves to the case $n=2$. In Lemmas \[lem:2\] and \[lem:3\] below, we provide the integral equations which identify the functions $\theta^{i}_{1,(1,0)}$, $\theta^{i}_{2,(1,0)}$, $\theta^{i}_{1,(0,1)}$, and $\theta^{i}_{2,(0,1)}$.
\[lem:2\] Let $n=2$. Let $r_\ast=0$. Let the assumptions of Proposition \[prop:ansol\] hold. Then $\theta^{i}_{1,(1,0)}$ is the unique function in $C^{0,\alpha}(\partial \Omega^i_1)$ such that $$\label{eq:2:5}
\begin{split}
&\frac{1}{2} \theta^{i}_{1,(1,0)}(t)+\int_{\partial \Omega^i_1}DS_2(t-s)\nu_{\Omega^i_1}(t) \theta^{i}_{1,(1,0)}(s)\, d\sigma_s\\
& +\sum_{h,k=1}^2(p^1)_h(\nu_{\Omega^i_1}(t))_k\int_{\partial \Omega^o}\big(\partial_h\partial_kS_2\big)(y)\theta^{o}_{(0,0)}(y)\, d\sigma_y=0\qquad \forall t \in \partial \Omega^i_1\, ,
\end{split}$$ and $\theta^{i}_{2,(1,0)}$ is the unique function in $C^{0,\alpha}(\partial \Omega^i_2)$ such that
$$\begin{split}
&\frac{1}{2} \theta^{i}_{2,(1,0)}(t)+\int_{\partial \Omega^i_2}DS_2(t-s)\nu_{\Omega^i_2}(t) \theta^{i}_{2,(1,0)}(s)\, d\sigma_s\\
& +\sum_{h,k=1}^2(p^2)_h(\nu_{\Omega^i_2}(t))_k\int_{\partial \Omega^o}\big(\partial_h\partial_kS_2\big)(y)\theta^{o}_{(0,0)}(y)\, d\sigma_y=0\qquad \forall t \in \partial \Omega^i_2\, .
\end{split}$$ Moreover, $$\int_{\partial \Omega^i_1}\theta^{i}_{1,(1,0)}\, d\sigma=0\, , \qquad \int_{\partial \Omega^i_2}\theta^{i}_{2,(1,0)}\, d\sigma=0\, .$$
If $(\varrho_1,\varrho_2) \in \mathcal{U}$, then by differentiating $$\Lambda_1\bigl[\varrho_1, \varrho_2, \Theta^{i}_1[\varrho_1,\varrho_2],\Theta^{i}_2[\varrho_1,\varrho_2], \Theta^{o}[\varrho_1,\varrho_2], \Xi[\varrho_1,\varrho_2]\bigr]$$ for $n=2$, we deduce that $$\label{eq:2:1}
\begin{split}
\partial_{\varrho_1} &\Lambda_1\bigl[\varrho_1, \varrho_2, \Theta^{i}_1[\varrho_1,\varrho_2],\Theta^{i}_2[\varrho_1,\varrho_2], \Theta^{o}[\varrho_1,\varrho_2], \Xi[\varrho_1,\varrho_2]\bigr](t)\\
&=\frac{1}{2} \partial_{\varrho_1}\Theta^{i}_1[\varrho_1,\varrho_2](t)+\int_{\partial \Omega^i_1}DS_2(t-s)\nu_{\Omega^i_1}(t) \partial_{\varrho_1}\Theta^{i}_1[\varrho_1,\varrho_2](s)\, d\sigma_s\\
& +\varrho_2\int_{\partial \Omega^i_2}DS_2\bigg((p^1-p^2)+\varrho_2(t-s)\bigg)\nu_{\Omega^i_1}(t) \partial_{\varrho_1}\Theta^{i}_2[\varrho_1,\varrho_2](s)\, d\sigma_s\\
& +\sum_{h,k=1}^2\int_{\partial \Omega^o}\bigg[\Big(\partial_h\partial_kS_2\Big)\big(\varrho_1p^1+\varrho_1\varrho_2 t-y\big)\bigg](p^1+\varrho_2 t)_h(\nu_{\Omega^i_1}(t))_k\Theta^{o}[\varrho_1,\varrho_2](y)\, d\sigma_y\\
& +\int_{\partial \Omega^o}DS_2\big(\varrho_1p^1+\varrho_1\varrho_2 t-y\big)\nu_{\Omega^i_1}(t)\partial_{\varrho_1}\Theta^{o}[\varrho_1,\varrho_2](y)\, d\sigma_y\qquad \forall t \in \partial \Omega^i_1\, .
\end{split}$$ Then by equality , by formula , by taking $(\varrho_1,\varrho_2)=(0,0)$, by Lemma \[lem:1\], and by classical potential theory (see also Lemma \[lem:smp\] (iii)), we deduce that $\theta^{i}_{1,(1,0)}$ is the unique function in $C^{0,\alpha}(\partial \Omega^i_1)$ such that equation holds. By integrating equality , we also deduce that $\int_{\partial \Omega^i_1}\theta^{i}_{1,(1,0)}\, d\sigma=0$. Similarly, one argues for $\theta^i_{2,(1,0)}$.
\[lem:3\] Let $n=2$. Let $r_\ast=0$. Let the assumptions of Proposition \[prop:ansol\] hold. Then $\theta^{i}_{1,(0,1)}$ is the unique function in $C^{0,\alpha}(\partial \Omega^i_1)$ such that $$\begin{split}
\frac{1}{2} \theta^{i}_{1,(0,1)}(t)+&\int_{\partial \Omega^i_1}DS_2(t-s)\nu_{\Omega^i_1}(t) \theta^{i}_{1,(0,1)}(s)\, d\sigma_s\\
& =DS_2\big(p^2-p^1\big)\nu_{\Omega^i_1}(t)\int_{\partial \Omega^i_2} f_2\, d\sigma \qquad \forall t \in \partial \Omega^i_1\, ,
\end{split}$$ and $\theta^{i}_{2,(0,1)}$ is the unique function in $C^{0,\alpha}(\partial \Omega^i_2)$ such that $$\label{eq:3:5}
\begin{split}
\frac{1}{2} \theta^{i}_{2,(0,1)}(t)+&\int_{\partial \Omega^i_2}DS_2(t-s)\nu_{\Omega^i_2}(t) \theta^{i}_{2,(0,1)}(s)\, d\sigma_s\\
& =DS_2\big(p^1-p^2\big)\nu_{\Omega^i_2}(t)\int_{\partial \Omega^i_1} f_1\, d\sigma \qquad \forall t \in \partial \Omega^i_2\, .
\end{split}$$ In particular, $$\int_{\partial \Omega^i_1}\theta^{i}_{1,(0,1)}\, d\sigma=0\, , \qquad \int_{\partial \Omega^i_2}\theta^{i}_{2,(0,1)}\, d\sigma=0\, .$$
If $(\varrho_1,\varrho_2) \in \mathcal{U}$, then by differentiating $$\Lambda_1\bigl[\varrho_1, \varrho_2, \Theta^{i}_1[\varrho_1,\varrho_2],\Theta^{i}_2[\varrho_1,\varrho_2], \Theta^{o}[\varrho_1,\varrho_2], \Xi[\varrho_1,\varrho_2]\bigr]$$ for $n=2$, we deduce that $$\label{eq:3:1}
\begin{split}
&\partial_{\varrho_2} \Lambda_1\bigl[\varrho_1, \varrho_2, \Theta^{i}_1[\varrho_1,\varrho_2],\Theta^{i}_2[\varrho_1,\varrho_2], \Theta^{o}[\varrho_1,\varrho_2], \Xi[\varrho_1,\varrho_2]\bigr](t)\\
&=\frac{1}{2} \partial_{\varrho_2}\Theta^{i}_1[\varrho_1,\varrho_2](t)+\int_{\partial \Omega^i_1}DS_2(t-s)\nu_{\Omega^i_1}(t) \partial_{\varrho_2}\Theta^{i}_1[\varrho_1,\varrho_2](s)\, d\sigma_s\\
& +\int_{\partial \Omega^i_2}DS_2\bigg((p^1-p^2)+\varrho_2(t-s)\bigg)\nu_{\Omega^i_1}(t) \Theta^{i}_2[\varrho_1,\varrho_2](s)\, d\sigma_s\\
& +\varrho_2\sum_{h,k=1}^2(\nu_{\Omega^i_1}(t))_h\int_{\partial \Omega^i_2}\bigg[\Big(\partial_h\partial_k S_2\Big)\bigg((p^1-p^2)+\varrho_2(t-s)\bigg)\bigg] (t-s)_k\Theta^{i}_2[\varrho_1,\varrho_2](s)\, d\sigma_s\\
& +\varrho_2 \int_{\partial \Omega^i_2}DS_2\bigg((p^1-p^2)+\varrho_2(t-s)\bigg)\nu_{\Omega^i_1}(t) \partial_{\varrho_2}\Theta^{i}_2[\varrho_1,\varrho_2](s)\, d\sigma_s\\
&+\varrho_1 \sum_{h,k=1}^{2}t_h(\nu_{\Omega^i_1}(t))_k\int_{\partial \Omega^o}\bigg[\Big(\partial_h\partial_kS_2\Big)\big(\varrho_1p^1+\varrho_1\varrho_2 t-y\big)\bigg]\Theta^{o}[\varrho_1,\varrho_2](y)\, d\sigma_y\\
& +\int_{\partial \Omega^o}DS_2\big(\varrho_1p^1+\varrho_1\varrho_2 t-y\big)\nu_{\Omega^i_1}(t)\partial_{\varrho_2}\Theta^{o}[\varrho_1,\varrho_2](y)\, d\sigma_y\qquad \forall t \in \partial \Omega^i_1\, .
\end{split}$$ Then by equality , by formula , by taking $(\varrho_1,\varrho_2)=(0,0)$, by Lemma \[lem:1\], and by classical potential theory (see also Lemma \[lem:smp\] (iii)), we deduce that $\theta^{i}_{1,(0,1)}$ is the unique function in $C^{0,\alpha}(\partial \Omega^i_1)$ such that equation holds. By integrating equality , we also deduce that $\int_{\partial \Omega^i_1}\theta^{i}_{1,(0,1)}\, d\sigma=0$. Analogously, one proceeds for $\theta^i_{2,(0,1)}$.
\[rem:2\] Let $n=2$. Let $r_\ast=0$. Let the assumptions of Proposition \[prop:ansol\] hold. By arguing as in the proof of Lemma \[lem:3\], one shows that $$\begin{split}
\partial_{\varrho_2} &\Lambda_3\bigl[\varrho_1, \varrho_2, \Theta^{i}_1[\varrho_1,\varrho_2],\Theta^{i}_2[\varrho_1,\varrho_2], \Theta^{o}[\varrho_1,\varrho_2], \Xi[\varrho_1,\varrho_2]\bigr](x)\\
&= \int_{\partial \Omega^o}S_2(x-y) \partial_{\varrho_2}\Theta^{o}[\varrho_1,\varrho_2](y)\, d\sigma_y + \partial_{\varrho_2}\Xi[\varrho_1,\varrho_2]\\
&+\varrho_1 \sum_{j=1}^2\int_{\partial \Omega^i_j}S_2(x-\varrho_1p^j-\varrho_1 \varrho_2 s)\Theta^{i}_j[\varrho_1,\varrho_2](s)\, d\sigma_s\\
&-\varrho_1^2 \varrho_2\sum_{h,j=1}^2 \int_{\partial \Omega^i_j}\bigg[\Big(\partial_hS_2\Big)(x-\varrho_1p^j-\varrho_1 \varrho_2 s)\Big]s_h\Theta^{i}_j[\varrho_1,\varrho_2](s)\, d\sigma_s\\
&+\varrho_1 \varrho_2\sum_{j=1}^2 \int_{\partial \Omega^i_j}S_2(x-\varrho_1p^j-\varrho_1 \varrho_2 s)\partial_{\varrho_2}\Theta^{i}_j[\varrho_1,\varrho_2](s)\, d\sigma_s \qquad \forall x \in \partial \Omega^o\, ,
\end{split}$$ for all $(\varrho_1,\varrho_2)\in \mathcal{U}$.
In the following lemma, instead, we consider $\theta^{o}_{(1,1)}$ and $\xi_{(1,1)}$.
\[lem:4\] Let $n=2$. Let $r_\ast=0$. Let the assumptions of Proposition \[prop:ansol\] hold. Then $(\theta^{o}_{(1,1)},\xi_{(1,1)})$ is the unique pair in $C^{0,\alpha}(\partial \Omega^o)_0\times \mathbb{R}$ such that $$\label{eq:4:6}
\int_{\partial \Omega^o}S_2(x-y)\theta^o_{(1,1)}(y)\, d\sigma_y +\xi_{(1,1)}=-S_2(x)\sum_{j=1}^2\int_{\partial \Omega^i_j}f_j\,d\sigma \qquad \forall x \in \partial \Omega^o\, .$$
If $(\varrho_1,\varrho_2) \in \mathcal{U}$, then by differentiating $$\partial_{\varrho_2}\Lambda_3\bigl[\varrho_1, \varrho_2, \Theta^{i}_1[\varrho_1,\varrho_2],\Theta^{i}_2[\varrho_1,\varrho_2], \Theta^{o}[\varrho_1,\varrho_2], \Xi[\varrho_1,\varrho_2]\bigr]$$ for $n=2$ (cf. Remark \[rem:2\]), we deduce that $$\label{eq:4:3}
\begin{split}
\partial_{\varrho_1}& \partial_{\varrho_2} \Lambda_3\bigl[\varrho_1, \varrho_2, \Theta^{i}_1[\varrho_1,\varrho_2],\Theta^{i}_2[\varrho_1,\varrho_2], \Theta^{o}[\varrho_1,\varrho_2], \Xi[\varrho_1,\varrho_2]\bigr](x)\\
&= \int_{\partial \Omega^o}S_2(x-y) \partial_{\varrho_1}\partial_{\varrho_2}\Theta^{o}[\varrho_1,\varrho_2](y)\, d\sigma_y + \partial_{\varrho_1}\partial_{\varrho_2}\Xi[\varrho_1,\varrho_2]\\
&+ \sum_{j=1}^2\int_{\partial \Omega^i_j}S_2(x-\varrho_1p^j-\varrho_1 \varrho_2 s)\Theta^{i}_j[\varrho_1,\varrho_2](s)\, d\sigma_s\\
&-\varrho_1\sum_{h,j=1}^2 \int_{\partial \Omega^i_j}\Big[\big(\partial_h S_2\big)(x-\varrho_1p^j-\varrho_1 \varrho_2 s)\Big](p^j+\varrho_2 s)_h\Theta^{i}_j[\varrho_1,\varrho_2](s)\, d\sigma_s\\
&+\varrho_1 \sum_{j=1}^2\int_{\partial \Omega^i_j}S_2(x-\varrho_1p^j-\varrho_1 \varrho_2 s)\partial_{\varrho_1}\Theta^{i}_j[\varrho_1,\varrho_2](s)\, d\sigma_s\\
&-2\varrho_1 \varrho_2\sum_{h,j=1}^2 \int_{\partial \Omega^i_j}\bigg[\Big(\partial_h S_2\Big)(x-\varrho_1p^j-\varrho_1 \varrho_2 s)\bigg]s_h\Theta^{i}_j[\varrho_1,\varrho_2](s)\, d\sigma_s\\
&+\varrho_1^2 \varrho_2\sum_{h,j,k=1}^2 \int_{\partial \Omega^i_j}\bigg[\Big(\partial_h\partial_kS_2\Big)(x-\varrho_1p^j-\varrho_1 \varrho_2 s)\bigg]s_h(p^j+\varrho_2 s)_k\Theta^{i}_j[\varrho_1,\varrho_2](s)\, d\sigma_s\\
&-\varrho_1^2 \varrho_2\sum_{h,j=1}^2 \int_{\partial \Omega^i_j}\bigg[\Big(\partial_h S_2\Big)(x-\varrho_1p^j-\varrho_1 \varrho_2 s)\bigg]s_h\partial_{\varrho_1}\Theta^{i}_j[\varrho_1,\varrho_2](s)\, d\sigma_s\\
&+ \varrho_2\sum_{j=1}^2 \int_{\partial \Omega^i_j}S_2(x-\varrho_1p^j-\varrho_1 \varrho_2 s)\partial_{\varrho_2}\Theta^{i}_j[\varrho_1,\varrho_2](s)\, d\sigma_s\\
&-\varrho_1 \varrho_2\sum_{h,j=1}^2 \int_{\partial \Omega^i_j}\bigg[\Big(\partial_h S_2\Big)(x-\varrho_1p^j-\varrho_1 \varrho_2 s)\bigg](p^j+\varrho_2s)_h \partial_{\varrho_2}\Theta^{i}_j[\varrho_1,\varrho_2](s)\, d\sigma_s\\
&+\varrho_1 \varrho_2\sum_{j=1}^2 \int_{\partial \Omega^i_j}S_2(x-\varrho_1p^j-\varrho_1 \varrho_2 s)\partial_{\varrho_1}\partial_{\varrho_2}\Theta^{i}_j[\varrho_1,\varrho_2](s)\, d\sigma_s \qquad \forall x \in \partial \Omega^o\, .
\end{split}$$ Then by equality , by formula , by equality , by taking $(\varrho_1,\varrho_2)=(0,0)$, and by classical potential theory (see also Lemma \[lem:smp\] (ii)), we deduce that $(\theta^{o}_{(1,1)},\xi_{(1,1)})$ is the unique pair in $C^{0,\alpha}(\partial \Omega^o)_0 \times \mathbb{R}$ such that equation holds.
In Lemmas \[lem:7\] and \[lem:8\], we turn to consider $(\theta^{o}_{(1,2)},\xi_{(1,2)})$ and $(\theta^{o}_{(2,1)},\xi_{(2,1)})$.
\[lem:7\] Let $n=2$. Let $r_\ast=0$. Let the assumptions of Proposition \[prop:ansol\] hold. Then $\theta^o_{(1,2)}=0$ and $\xi_{(1,2)}=0$.
If $(\varrho_1,\varrho_2) \in \mathcal{U}$, then by differentiating $$\partial_{\varrho_1}\partial_{\varrho_2} \Lambda_3\bigl[\varrho_1, \varrho_2, \Theta^{i}_1[\varrho_1,\varrho_2],\Theta^{i}_2[\varrho_1,\varrho_2], \Theta^{o}[\varrho_1,\varrho_2], \Xi[\varrho_1,\varrho_2]\bigr]$$ for $n=2$ (cf. equality ), we deduce that $$\label{eq:7:1}
\begin{split}
\partial_{\varrho_1} \partial_{\varrho_2}^2 &\Lambda_3\bigl[\varrho_1, \varrho_2, \Theta^{i}_1[\varrho_1,\varrho_2],\Theta^{i}_2[\varrho_1,\varrho_2], \Theta^{o}[\varrho_1,\varrho_2], \Xi[\varrho_1,\varrho_2]\bigr](x)\\
&= \int_{\partial \Omega^o}S_2(x-y) \partial_{\varrho_1}\partial_{\varrho_2}^2\Theta^{o}[\varrho_1,\varrho_2](y)\, d\sigma_y + \partial_{\varrho_1}\partial_{\varrho_2}^2\Xi[\varrho_1,\varrho_2]\\
&+2 \sum_{j=1}^2\int_{\partial \Omega^i_j}S_2(x-\varrho_1p^j-\varrho_1 \varrho_2 s)\partial_{\varrho_2}\Theta^{i}_j[\varrho_1,\varrho_2](s)\, d\sigma_s\\
&+\varrho_1 R_{1}[\varrho_1,\varrho_2](x)+\varrho_2 R_{2}[\varrho_1,\varrho_2](x) \qquad \forall x \in \partial \Omega^o\, ,
\end{split}$$ where $R_1$, $R_2$ are real analytic maps from $\mathcal{U}$ to $C^{1,\alpha}(\partial \Omega^o)$. Then by equality , by formula , by taking $(\varrho_1,\varrho_2)=(0,0)$, and by Lemma \[lem:3\], we deduce that $(\theta^{o}_{(1,2)},\xi_{(1,2)})$ is such that $$\int_{\partial \Omega^o}S_2(x-y)\theta^o_{(1,2)}(y)\, d\sigma_y +\xi_{(1,2)}=0 \qquad \forall x \in \partial \Omega^o\, .$$ Then by Lemma \[lem:smp\] (ii) we deduce that $(\theta^{o}_{(1,2)},\xi_{(1,2)})=(0,0)$.
\[lem:8\] Let $n=2$. Let $r_\ast=0$. Let the assumptions of Proposition \[prop:ansol\] hold. Then $(\theta^{o}_{(2,1)},\xi_{(2,1)})$ is the unique pair in $C^{0,\alpha}(\partial \Omega^o)_0\times \mathbb{R}$ such that $$\label{eq:8:4}
\int_{\partial \Omega^o}S_2(x-y)\theta^o_{(2,1)}(y)\, d\sigma_y +\xi_{(2,1)}=2 \sum_{h,j=1}^2 (p^j)_h\partial_h S_2(x)\int_{\partial \Omega^i_j}f_j\,d\sigma \qquad \forall x \in \partial \Omega^o\, .$$
If $(\varrho_1,\varrho_2) \in \mathcal{U}$, then by differentiating $$\partial_{\varrho_1} \partial_{\varrho_2}\Lambda_3\bigl[\varrho_1, \varrho_2, \Theta^{i}_1[\varrho_1,\varrho_2],\Theta^{i}_2[\varrho_1,\varrho_2], \Theta^{o}[\varrho_1,\varrho_2], \Xi[\varrho_1,\varrho_2]\bigr]$$ for $n=2$ (cf. equality ), we deduce that $$\label{eq:8:1}
\begin{split}
\partial_{\varrho_1}^2 &\partial_{\varrho_2} \Lambda_3\bigl[\varrho_1, \varrho_2, \Theta^{i}_1[\varrho_1,\varrho_2],\Theta^{i}_2[\varrho_1,\varrho_2], \Theta^{o}[\varrho_1,\varrho_2], \Xi[\varrho_1,\varrho_2]\bigr](x)\\
&= \int_{\partial \Omega^o}S_2(x-y) \partial_{\varrho_1}^2\partial_{\varrho_2}\Theta^{o}[\varrho_1,\varrho_2](y)\, d\sigma_y + \partial_{\varrho_1}^2\partial_{\varrho_2}\Xi[\varrho_1,\varrho_2]\\
&- \sum_{h,j=1}^2\int_{\partial \Omega^i_j}\bigg[\Big(\partial_h S_2\Big)(x-\varrho_1p^j-\varrho_1 \varrho_2 s)\bigg](p^j+\varrho_2 s)_h\Theta^{i}_j[\varrho_1,\varrho_2](s)\, d\sigma_s\\
&+ \sum_{j=1}^2\int_{\partial \Omega^i_j}S_2(x-\varrho_1p^j-\varrho_1 \varrho_2 s)\partial_{\varrho_1}\Theta^{i}_j[\varrho_1,\varrho_2](s)\, d\sigma_s\\
&- \sum_{h,j=1}^2\int_{\partial \Omega^i_j}\bigg[\Big(\partial_h S_2\Big)(x-\varrho_1p^j-\varrho_1 \varrho_2 s)\bigg](p^j+\varrho_2 s)_h\Theta^{i}_j[\varrho_1,\varrho_2](s)\, d\sigma_s\\
&+ \sum_{j=1}^2\int_{\partial \Omega^i_j}S_2(x-\varrho_1p^j-\varrho_1 \varrho_2 s)\partial_{\varrho_1}\Theta^{i}_j[\varrho_1,\varrho_2](s)\, d\sigma_s\\&+\varrho_1 R_{3}[\varrho_1,\varrho_2](x)+\varrho_2 R_{4}[\varrho_1,\varrho_2](x) \qquad \forall x \in \partial \Omega^o\, ,
\end{split}$$ where $R_3, R_{4}$ are real analytic maps from $\mathcal{U}$ to $C^{1,\alpha}(\partial \Omega^o)$. Then by equality , by formula , by taking $(\varrho_1,\varrho_2)=(0,0)$, by Lemma \[lem:2\], and by classical potential theory (see also Lemma \[lem:smp\] (ii)), we deduce that $(\theta^{o}_{(2,1)},\xi_{(2,1)})$ is the unique pair in $C^{0,\alpha}(\partial \Omega^o)_0\times \mathbb{R}$ such that equation holds.
We now exploit the previous results to compute an expansion of the sum of the last two terms in the representation formula . Indeed, by standard calculus, we deduce the validity of the following.
\[lem:10\] Let $n=2$. Let $r_\ast=0$. Let the assumptions of Proposition \[prop:ansol\] hold. If $x \in \mathrm{cl}\Omega^o$ is fixed, then $$\begin{split}
\int_{\partial \Omega^o}S_2(x-y)&\Theta^o[\varrho_1,\varrho_2](y)\, d\sigma_y +\Xi[\varrho_1,\varrho_2]=
u_{(0,0)}(x)+\varrho_1\varrho_2 u_{(1,1)}(x)\\
&+\frac{1}{2}\varrho_1^2\varrho_2u_{(2,1)}(x)+O(|\varrho_1^3\varrho_2|+|\varrho_1^2\varrho_2^2|+|\varrho_1\varrho_2^3|)\, ,
\end{split}$$ as $(\varrho_1,\varrho_2)$ tends to $(0,0)$, where $$u_{(j,k)} \equiv v^+[\partial \Omega^o,\theta^o_{(j,k)}] +\xi_{(j,k)} \qquad \forall (j,k) \in \{(0,0), (1,1), (2,1)\}\, .$$
Instead, in the following lemma, we consider the remaining part of formula .
\[lem:11\] Let $n=2$. Let $r_\ast=0$. Let the assumptions of Proposition \[prop:ansol\] hold. Let $x \in \mathrm{cl}\Omega^o \setminus \{0\}$ be fixed. Then we have $$\label{eq:lem11:0}
\begin{split}
&\sum_{j=1}^2 \int_{\partial \Omega^i_j}S_2(x-\varrho_1 p^j -\varrho_1 \varrho_2 s) \Theta^i_j[\varrho_1,\varrho_2](s)\, d\sigma_s\\
&=S_2(x)\sum_{j=1}^2 \int_{\partial \Omega^i_j}f_j\, d\sigma -\varrho_1\sum_{h,j=1}^2 (\partial_h S_2)(x)(p^j)_h \int_{\partial \Omega^i_j}f_j\, d\sigma+O(|\varrho_1^2|+|\varrho_1\varrho_2|+|\varrho_2^2|) \, ,
\end{split}$$ as $(\varrho_1,\varrho_2)$ tends to $(0,0)$.
By arguing as in the proof of Theorem \[thm:rep\], one verifies that the left hand side of equality defines a real analytic function in the variable $(\varrho_1,\varrho_2)$ in a sufficiently small neighborhood of $(0,0)$. We have $$\label{eq:lem11:1}
\begin{split}
\partial_{\varrho_1}&\sum_{j=1}^2 \int_{\partial \Omega^i_j}S_2(x-\varrho_1 p^j -\varrho_1 \varrho_2 s) \Theta^i_j[\varrho_1,\varrho_2](s)\, d\sigma_s \\
&=-\sum_{h,j=1}^2 \int_{\partial \Omega^i_j}\bigg[\Big(\partial_h S_2\Big)(x-\varrho_1p^j-\varrho_1 \varrho_2 s)\bigg](p^j+\varrho_2 s)_h \Theta^i_j[\varrho_1,\varrho_2](s)\, d\sigma_s\\
&+\sum_{j=1}^2\int_{\partial \Omega^i_j}S_2(x-\varrho_1p^j-\varrho_1\varrho_2 s)\partial_{\varrho_1}\Theta^i_j[\varrho_1,\varrho_2](s)\, d\sigma_s\, .
\end{split}$$ Then for $(\varrho_1,\varrho_2)=(0,0)$ the right hand side of equality becomes $$-\sum_{h,j=1}^2 (\partial_h S_2)(x)(p^j)_h \int_{\partial \Omega^i_j}f_j\, d\sigma$$ (cf. equality and Lemma \[lem:2\]). Similarly, $$\label{eq:lem11:2}
\begin{split}
\partial_{\varrho_2}&\sum_{j=1}^2 \int_{\partial \Omega^i_j}S_2(x-\varrho_1 p^j -\varrho_1 \varrho_2 s) \Theta^i_j[\varrho_1,\varrho_2](s)\, d\sigma_s \\
&=-\varrho_1\sum_{h,j=1}^2 \int_{\partial \Omega^i_j}\bigg[\Big(\partial_h S_2\Big)(x-\varrho_1p^j-\varrho_1 \varrho_2 s)\bigg]s_h \Theta^i_j[\varrho_1,\varrho_2](s)\, d\sigma_s\\
&+\sum_{j=1}^2\int_{\partial \Omega^i_j}S_2(x-\varrho_1p^j-\varrho_1\varrho_2 s)\partial_{\varrho_2}\Theta^i_j[\varrho_1,\varrho_2](s)\, d\sigma_s\, ,
\end{split}$$ and the right hand side of equals $0$ for $(\varrho_1,\varrho_2)=(0,0)$ (cf. Lemma \[lem:3\]). As a consequence, by standard calculus, we deduce the validity of the lemma.
Finally, by combining Lemmas \[lem:10\] and \[lem:11\], we deduce the validity of the main result of this section.
Let $n=2$. Let $r_\ast=0$. Let the assumptions of Proposition \[prop:ansol\] hold. Let $u_{(j,k)}$ be as in Lemma \[lem:10\] for all $(j,k) \in \{(0,0), (1,1), (2,1)\}$. Let $x \in \mathrm{cl}\Omega^o \setminus \{0\}$ be fixed. Then we have $$\begin{split}
u[\varrho_1,\varrho_2](x)&=u_{(0,0)}(x)+\varrho_1 \varrho_2 \Big(u_{(1,1)}(x)+S_2(x)\sum_{j=1}^2 \int_{\partial \Omega^i_j}f^j\, d\sigma\Big)\\
&+\varrho_1^2\varrho_2\Big(\frac{1}{2}u_{(2,1)}(x)-\sum_{h,j=1}^2\partial_h S_2(x)(p^j)_h \int_{\partial \Omega^i_j}f^j\, d\sigma\Big)\\
&+O(|\varrho_1^3 \varrho_2|+|\varrho_1^2 \varrho_2^2|+|\varrho_1 \varrho_2^3|)\, ,
\end{split}$$ as $(\varrho_1,\varrho_2)$ tends to $(0,0)$.
If we further assume that $\int_{\partial \Omega^i_j}f_j \, d\sigma=0$ for all $j \in \{1,2\}$ then we can deduce the existence of functions $\tilde{u}_{(3,1)}$, $\tilde{u}_{(2,2)}$, and $\tilde{u}_{(1,3)}$ such that $$\begin{split}
u[\varrho_1,\varrho_2](x)&=u_{(0,0)}(x)+O(|\varrho_1^3 \varrho_2|+|\varrho_1^2 \varrho_2^2|+|\varrho_1 \varrho_2^3|)\\
&=u_{(0,0)}(x)+\varrho_1^3 \varrho_2 \tilde{u}_{(3,1)}(x)+\varrho_1^2 \varrho_2^2 \tilde{u}_{(2,2)}(x)\\
&+\varrho_1 \varrho_2^3 \tilde{u}_{(1,3)}(x)+ O(|\varrho_1^4 \varrho_2|+|\varrho_1^3 \varrho_2^2|+|\varrho_1^2 \varrho_2^3|+|\varrho_1 \varrho_2^4|) \, ,
\end{split}$$ as $(\varrho_1,\varrho_2)$ tends to $(0,0)$.
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
The authors wish to thank V. Bonnaillie-Noël, M. Dambrine, and C. Lacave for several useful discussions. The work of M. Dalla Riva and P. Musolino is supported by “Progetto di Ateneo: Singular perturbation problems for differential operators – CPDA120171/12" of the University of Padova. The research of M. Dalla Riva was supported by Portuguese funds through the CIDMA - Center for Research and Development in Mathematics and Applications, and the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (“FCT–Funda[ç]{}[ã]{}o para a Ciência e a Tecnologia”), within project UID/MAT/04106/2013. M. Dalla Riva acknowledges also the support from HORIZON 2020 MSC EF project FAANon (grant agreement MSCA-IF-2014-EF - 654795) at the University of Aberystwyth, UK. P. Musolino is member of the Gruppo Nazionale per l’Analisi Matematica, la Probabilità e le loro Applicazioni (GNAMPA) of the Istituto Nazionale di Alta Matematica (INdAM) and acknowledges the support of “INdAM GNAMPA Project 2015 - Un approccio funzionale analitico per problemi di perturbazione singolare e di omogeneizzazione".
[11]{}
H. Ammari and H. Kang, [*Polarization and moment tensors*]{}, volume 162 of [*Applied Mathematical Sciences*]{}, Springer, New York, 2007.
V. Bonnaillie-Noël and M. Dambrine, [*Interactions between moderately close circular inclusions: the Dirichlet-Laplace equation in the plane*]{}, Asymptot. Anal., [**84**]{} (2013), 197–227.
V. Bonnaillie-Noël, M. Dambrine, and C. Lacave, [*Interactions Between Moderately Close Inclusions for the Two-Dimensional Dirichlet–Laplacian*]{}, Appl. Math. Res. Express. AMRX, to appear. DOI: 10.1093/amrx/abv008
V. Bonnaillie-Noël, M. Dambrine, S. Tordeux, and G. Vial, [*On moderately close inclusions for the Laplace equation.*]{}, C. R. Math. Acad. Sci. Paris, **19** (2007), 609–614.
V. Bonnaillie-Noël, M. Dambrine, S. Tordeux, and G. Vial, [*Interactions between moderately close inclusions for the Laplace equation*]{}, Math. Models Methods Appl. Sci., **19** (2009), 1853–1882.
V. Bonnaillie-Noël, C. Lacave, and N. Masmoudi, [*Permeability through a perforated domain for the incompressible 2D Euler equations*]{}, Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré Anal. Non Linéaire, **32** (2015), 159–182.
D. Buoso and L. Provenzano, [*A few shape optimization results for a biharmonic Steklov problem*]{}, J. Differential Equations, **259** (2015), 1778–1818.
L. Chesnel and X. Claeys [*A numerical approach for the Poisson equation in a planar domain with a small inclusion*]{}, submitted. arXiv:1410.3508
M. Dalla Riva, [*Stokes flow in a singularly perturbed exterior domain*]{}, Complex Var. Elliptic Equ., [**58**]{} (2013), 231–257.
M. Dalla Riva and M. Lanza de Cristoforis, [*Microscopically weakly singularly perturbed loads for a nonlinear traction boundary value problem. A functional analytic approach*]{}, Complex Var. Elliptic Equ., [**55**]{} (2010), 771–794.
M. Dalla Riva and P. Musolino, [*Real analytic families of harmonic functions in a domain with a small hole*]{}, J. Differential Equations, [**252**]{} (2012), 6337–6355.
M. Dalla Riva and P. Musolino, [*Real analytic families of harmonic functions in a planar domain with a small hole*]{}, J. Math. Anal Appl., [**422**]{} (2015), 37–55.
M. Dalla Riva, P. Musolino, and S.V. Rogosin, [*Series expansions for the solution of the Dirichlet problem in a planar domain with a small hole*]{}, Asymptot. Anal., [**92**]{} (2015), 339–361.
M. Dauge, S. Tordeux, and G. Vial, [*Selfsimilar perturbation near a corner: matching versus multiscale expansions for a model problem*]{}. In [ *Around the research of Vladimir Maz’ya. II*]{}, 95–134, Int. Math. Ser. (N. Y.), 12, Springer, New York, 2010.
K. Deimling, [*Nonlinear functional analysis*]{}, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1985.
G.B. Folland, [*Introduction to partial differential equations*]{}, Second edition, Princeton University Press, Princeton N.J., 1995.
D. Gilbarg and N.S. Trudinger, [*Elliptic partial differential equations of second order*]{}, Springer Verlag, Berlin, *etc.*, 1983.
A.M. Il’in, [*A boundary value problem for a second-order elliptic equation in a domain with a narrow slit. I. The two-dimensional case*]{}, Math. USSR Sb., **28** (1978), pp. 459–480.
A.M. Il’in, [*Matching of asymptotic expansions of solutions of boundary value problems*]{}, Translations of Mathematical Monographs 102, American Mathematical Society, Providence, 1992.
A.M. Il’in, [*The boundary layer*]{}, in: Fedoryuk MV (ed.) [*Partial Differential Equations. V. Asymptotic Methods for Partial Differential Equations*]{}, [Encylopaedia of Mathematical Sciences]{} **34**, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1999, pp. 173–210.
V. Kozlov, V. Maz’ya, and A. Movchan, *Asymptotic analysis of fields in multi-structures*, Oxford Mathematical Monographs, the Clarendon Press Oxford University Press, New York, 1999.
P.D. Lamberti and M. Lanza de Cristoforis, [*A real analyticity result for symmetric functions of the eigenvalues of a domain dependent Dirichlet problem for the Laplace operator*]{}, J. Nonlinear Convex Anal., [**5**]{} (2004), 19–42.
M. Lanza de Cristoforis, [*Asymptotic behavior of the solutions of a nonlinear Robin problem for the Laplace operator in a domain with a small hole: a functional analytic approach*]{}, Complex Var. Elliptic Equ., [**52**]{} (2007), 945–977.
M. Lanza de Cristoforis, [*Asymptotic behavior of the solutions of a non-linear transmission problem for the [L]{}aplace operator in a domain with a small hole. [A]{} functional analytic approach*]{}, Complex Var. Elliptic Equ., [**55**]{} (2010), 269–303.
M. Lanza de Cristoforis and P. Musolino, [ *A real analyticity result for a nonlinear integral operator*]{}, J. Integral Equations Appl., [**25**]{} (2013), 21–46.
M. Lanza de Cristoforis and L. Rossi, [ *Real analytic dependence of simple and double layer potentials upon perturbation of the support and of the density*]{}, J. Integral Equations Appl., [**16**]{} (2004), 137–174.
V. Maz’ya, A. Movchan, and M. Nieves, [*Green’s kernels and meso-scale approximations in perforated domains*]{}, Lecture Notes in Mathematics [**2077**]{}, Springer, Berlin, 2013.
V. Maz’ya, S. Nazarov, and B. Plamenevskij, [*Asymptotic theory of elliptic boundary value problems in singularly perturbed domains. [V]{}ols. [I]{}, II*]{}, volumes 111, 112 of [*Operator Theory: Advances and Applications*]{}, Birkh[ä]{}user Verlag, Basel, 2000.
C. Miranda, [*Sulle proprietà di regolarità di certe trasformazioni integrali*]{}, Atti Accad. Naz. Lincei Mem. Cl. Sci. Fis. Mat. Natur. Sez. I, [**7**]{} (1965), 303–336.
A.A. Novotny and J. Sokołowski, [*Topological derivatives in shape optimization*]{}, Interaction of Mechanics and Mathematics, Springer, Heidelberg, 2013.
[^1]: Department of Mathematics, The University of Tulsa, USA & Department of Mathematics, Aberystwyth University, Ceredigion SY23 3BZ, Wales, UK.
[^2]: Dipartimento di Matematica, Università degli Studi di Padova, Italy.
|
---
abstract: 'We report on a [[*BeppoSAX*]{}]{} Concentrator Spectrometer observation of the super-soft source (SSS) . The X-ray emission in SSS is believed to arise from nuclear burning of accreted material on the surface of a white dwarf (WD). An absorbed blackbody spectral model gives a [$\chi_{{\rm \nu}} ^{2}$]{} of 1.18 and a temperature of $42 \pm ^{13} _{11}$ eV. However, the derived luminosity and radius are greater than the Eddington limit and radius of a WD. Including an O [viii]{} edge at 0.871 keV gives a significantly better fit (at $>$95% confidence) and results in more realistic values of the source luminosity and radius. We also fit WD atmosphere models to the spectrum. These also give reasonable bolometric luminosities and radii in the ranges 2.7–4.8$ \times 10^{36}$ and 8–20$\times 10^{7}$ cm, respectively. These results support the view that the X-ray emission from results from nuclear burning in the atmosphere of a WD.'
author:
- 'A.N. Parmar'
- 'P. Kahabka'
- 'H.W. Hartmann'
- 'J. Heise'
- 'D.D.E. Martin'
- 'M. Bavdaz'
- 'T. Mineo'
date: 'Received ; accepted'
title: 'A [[*BeppoSAX*]{}]{} observation of the super-soft source '
---
Introduction {#sec:introduction}
============
The [[*Einstein*]{}]{} observatory performed a survey of the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC) in which two sources with unusually soft spectra, CAL83 and were detected (Long et al. 1981). These sources emit little or no radiation at energies $\approxgt$1 keV and became known as “super-soft” sources (SSS). Subsequent [[ROSAT]{}]{} observations have revealed approximately 30 similar sources located in the Galaxy, the Magellanic Clouds, a globular cluster and M31 (see Kahabka 1995; Kahabka & Trümper 1996 for recent reviews). SSS are hard to detect in the galactic plane due to the effects of interstellar absorption. Absorbed black-body spectral models give typical temperatures of $\sim$40 eV and bolometric luminosities of $\sim$$10^{38}$ .
SSS were originally interpreted as due to scattering from an accretion disk corona (e.g., Smale et al. 1988), or accreting neutron stars radiating near or above the Eddington limit (Greiner et al. 1991; Kylafis & Xilouris 1993). Van den Heuvel et al. (1992) proposed that these are systems undergoing steady nuclear burning of hydrogen accreted onto the surface of a white dwarf (WD) with masses in the range 0.7–1.2[[ M$_{\odot}$]{}]{}. The mass transfer from a main-sequence or sub-giant companions is unstable on a thermal time scale and for a narrow range of accretion rates, steady nuclear burning can take place. Evolutionary scenarios for such systems are discussed in Rappaport et al. (1994). It is unlikely that SSS compose a homogeneous class and one way of probing the nature of individual sources is by searching for the characteristic spectral signatures of nuclear burning on a WD. This burning takes place deep within the WD atmosphere at a large energy dependent optical depth. Photoelectric absorption by highly ionized metals in the atmosphere can produce edges in the X-ray spectrum. These effects have been modeled assuming Local Thermodynamic Equilibrium (LTE) by Heise et al. (1994) and more recently extended to the non-LTE (NLTE) case by Hartmann & Heise (1997).
exhibits both X-ray and optical eclipses with a period of 10.6 hrs (Callanan et al. 1989; Cowley et al. 1990; Schmidkte et al. 1993; Kahabka et al. 1994), indicating an orbital inclination of $>$$70\degmark$. The optical lightcurve shows a deep asymmetric primary minimum with a shallow, variable, secondary minimum while the X-ray eclipse is narrower and shallow. The optical modulation may be due to obscuration by a structured accretion disk (Schandl et al. 1997). Fitting an absorbed blackbody model to a 37 ksec exposure [[ROSAT]{}]{} Position Sensitive Proportional Counter (PSPC; 0.1–2.5 keV; Trümper 1983) spectrum gives a best-fit temperature, T, of 35 eV and an equivalent hydrogen column density, , of $1 \times 10^{22}$ (Hartmann & Heise 1997). has been a persistent X-ray source since its discovery in 1980.
Observations {#sec:observations}
============
The scientific payload of the [[*BeppoSAX*]{}]{} X-ray Astronomy Satellite (Boella et al. 1997a) comprises four coaligned Narrow Field Instruments, or NFI, including the Low Energy and Medium Energy Concentrator Spectrometers (LECS and MECS). The LECS is an imaging gas scintillation proportional counter sensitive in the energy range 0.1–10.0 keV with a circular field of view of 37$'$ diameter (Parmar et al. 1997). The background counting rate is $9.7 \times 10^{-5}$ arcmin$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ in the energy range 0.1–10.0 keV. The LECS energy resolution is a factor $\sim$2.4 better than that of the [[ROSAT]{}]{} PSPC, while the effective area is between a factor $\sim$6 and 2 lower at 0.28 and 1.5 keV, respectively. was observed by the LECS as part of the Science Verification Phase between 1996 October 27 02:14 to October 28 23:42 UTC. Due to the failure of a ground segment link and an instrument anomaly, data between October 28 04:54 and 10:55 UTC were lost. Good data were selected from intervals when the minimum elevation angle above the Earth’s limb was $>$4$\degmark$ and when the instrument’s settings were nominal using the SAXLEDAS 1.4.0 data analysis package. Since the LECS was only operated during satellite night-time, this gave a total on-source exposure of 39 ksec. The MECS is sensitive in the energy range 1.5–10 keV, with energy and angular resolutions similar to the LECS (Boella et al. 1997b). The MECS observed for a total exposure of 120 ksec, but did not detect the source.
Examination of the LECS image shows a source at a position consistent with (32$''$ distant) that of . A spectrum was extracted centered on the source centroid using a radius of 8$'$. This radius was chosen to include 95% of the 0.28 keV photons. The spectrum was rebinned to have $>$20 counts in each bin to allow the use of the $\chi^2$ statistic. The XSPEC 9.01 package (Arnaud 1996) was used for spectral analysis together with the response matrix from the 1996 December 31 release. Background subtraction was performed using a standard blank field with a 46 ksec exposure. The count rate above background was $0.0076 \pm 0.0011$ s$^{-1}$. Examination of the extracted spectrum shows that the source was only detected in a narrow energy range (see Figs. \[fig:bb\_fits\] and \[fig:model\_fits\]) and only the 17 rebinned channels corresponding to energies between 0.2 and 1.5 keV were used for spectral fitting.
Spectral fits {#subsec:spectrum}
-------------
In order to compare the LECS spectrum with those obtained from previous observations, we first fit an absorbed blackbody spectral model to the data (Fig. \[fig:bb\_fits\]). The photoelectric absorption coefficients of Morisson & McCammon (1983) together with the solar abundances of Anders & Grevesse (1989) were used. An acceptable fit is obtained with [$\chi_{{\rm \nu}} ^{2}$]{} of 1.18 for 14 degrees of freedom (dof). The best-fit parameters are given in Table \[tab:bb\_fits\]. A distance of 50 kpc is assumed in order to derive the WD radius, R, and luminosity, L, and all uncertainties are quoted at 68% confidence. The spectrum shows evidence for an abrupt cutoff $\approxgt$0.8 keV and so an O [viii]{} edge with absorption depth $\tau$ at a fixed energy of 0.871 keV, was added to the model. This edge is the dominant spectral feature at energies $\approxgt$0.8 keV in many WD model atmosphere calculations ([[e.g.]{}]{} Heise et al. 1994; White et al. 1995). Including the edge gives a higher best-fit temperature and improves the fit quality, resulting in a [$\chi_{{\rm \nu}} ^{2}$]{} of 0.93 (Table \[tab:bb\_fits\]). The value of the F statistic of 4.76 indicates that the addition of the edge is significant at $>$95% confidence. If the edge energy is allowed to vary, then the best-fit value of $0.84 \pm {0.04}$ keV is consistent with an O [viii]{} edge.
Heise et al. (1994) show that optically thick plasmas in the temperature range $10^5 - 10^6$ k are more efficient soft X-ray (0.1–1 keV) emitters than blackbodies, assuming plane parallel hydrostatic model atmospheres in which LTE determines the degree of ionization. This conclusion has been extended to the NLTE case by Hartmann & Heise (1997) for both solar and LMC abundances. These models include free-bound opacity sources for all relevant ions, but are still only first order approximations since line blanketing has not been taken into account. In addition, close to the Eddington limit the assumptions of hydrostatic equilibrium and plane parallel atmospheres are no longer valid.
The above LTE and NLTE models were fit to the LECS spectrum. For the LTE case, we assume an LMC abundance of 0.25 times the solar value and a local gravity of $\log(g) = 9$, appropriate to WDs with mass $\geq 0.6 \msun$. The fit results are however insensitive to abundance and adopting solar abundance gives almost identical results. Models with $\log(g) \leq 8.5$ cannot be made hot enough in hydrostatic equilibrium (due to the Eddington limit) to fit the spectrum. We note that models with $\log(g) >> 9$ cannot be excluded since they can fit the spectrum at higher effective temperatures and lower source radii.
Assuming a power-law spectrum with a photon index of 2.09 (i.e. similar to that of the Crab Nebula) and a distance of 50 kpc, the 99% confidence upper-limit to any 2.0–10.0 keV emission from obtained using MECS data is $1.3 \times 10^{34}$ .
[lll]{} & Blackbody & Blackbody with\
& & 0.871 keV Edge\
T (eV) & $42\pm ^{13} _{11}$ & $59\pm ^{27} _{17}$\
($10^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$) & $1.00 \pm ^{0.05} _{0.11}$ & $0.53 \pm ^{0.58} _{0.02}$\
$\tau $ & …& $>$13\
R (cm) & $2 \times 10^{9}$ - $7 \times 10^{12}$ & $ 7 \times 10^7$ - $6 \times 10^{10}$\
L (10$^{36}$ erg s$^{-1}$)& 400 - $6 \times 10^{8}$ & 4 - $1.5 \times 10^{5}$\
[$\chi_{{\rm \nu}} ^{2}$]{} & 1.18 & 0.93\
dof & 14 & 13\
& LTE & NLTE\
T (eV) & $74.4\pm 1.7$ & $57.3 \pm ^{1.9} _{2.4}$\
($10^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$) & $0.18 \pm ^{0.12} _{0.06}$ & $0.19 \pm ^{0.17} _{0.07}$\
R (cm) & $(9.1 \pm 1.2) \times 10^7$ & $(1.67 \pm ^{0.35} _{0.25}) \times 10^8$\
L (10$^{36}$ erg s$^{-1}$) & $3.30 \pm 0.54$ & $3.89 \pm ^{0.89} _{0.69}$\
[$\chi_{{\rm \nu}} ^{2}$]{} & 0.76 & 0.76\
dof & 14 & 14\
\[tab:bb\_fits\]
Discussion {#subsec:discussion}
==========
The LECS spectrum of can be represented by all four types of trial models and it is clear that a LECS spectrum with significantly greater exposure is required to meaningfully discriminate between these models based on fit quality alone. There are differences in the best-fit values of T determined using the different models (see Table \[tab:bb\_fits\]), with the blackbody fit giving the lowest T (and hence the largest source radius and luminosity) and the LTE fit the highest. The relatively large uncertainties in the best-fit parameters means that the luminosity and size of the X-ray emitting region are poorly constrained. The values of [$\chi_{{\rm \nu}} ^{2}$]{} favor the interpretation of the spectrum in terms of a model atmosphere fit with the LTE and NLTE fits both giving [$\chi_{{\rm \nu}} ^{2}$]{} values of 0.76. This should be compared with the blackbody fit which gives a [$\chi_{{\rm \nu}} ^{2}$]{} of 1.18. Both WD model atmosphere fits imply similar values of , while the temperature derived from the NLTE fit is significantly cooler ($57.3 \pm _{2.4} ^{1.9}$ eV) than that derived assuming LTE ($74.4 \pm 1.7$ eV). The best-fit blackbody T derived here of $42 \pm ^{13} _{11}$ eV is slightly higher, but consistent with, those derived using the [[ROSAT]{}]{}PSPC of $31 \pm ^{11}_{10}$ eV and $34 \pm ^{8}_{10}$ eV (Kahabka et al. 1994).
The bolometric luminosity implied by the blackbody interpretation of $>$$4 \times 10^{38}$ is higher than the Eddington luminosity for a $1\msun$ object of $1.3 \times 10^{38}$ . In addition, the required blackbody radius of $>$$2 \times 10^{9}$ cm is significantly larger than the expected WD radius ($8.7 \times 10^8$ cm for a $0.6\msun$ WD; Nauenberg 1972). In contrast, the fits using WD atmosphere models imply a lower luminosity, radius and temperature of 2.7–4.8$ \times 10^{36}$ , 8–20$ \times 10^{7}$ cm and 55–76 eV, respectively. The WD mass can be constrained assuming that is on the stability line (see Iben 1992, Fig. 2). The above temperature range corresponds to a WD of mass $\sim$1.2$\msun$ which has a luminosity of 4–8$ \times 10^{37}$ while undergoing steady nuclear burning (see also Iben & Tutukov 1996). This is at least a factor 8 greater than the luminosity derived above. Since has an orbital inclination of $>$$70\degmark$, it is possible that part of the emitting region is obscured, perhaps by the accretion disk. The LECS spectrum of is therefore consistent with the assumption of a hot WD atmosphere heated by nuclear burning, but formally does not prove such an assumption.
We thank the [[*BeppoSAX*]{}]{} Mission Director R.C. Butler and P. Giommi and F. Fiore for help with these observations. The referee, S. Rappaport, is thanked for helpful comments. PK is a Human Capital and Mobility Fellow. The [[*BeppoSAX*]{}]{} satellite is a joint Italian and Dutch programme. IFCAI are supported by the Italian Space Agency (ASI) in the framework on the [[*BeppoSAX*]{}]{} mission.
Anders E., Grevesse N., 1989, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 53, 197 Arnaud K.A., 1996, In: Jacoby G., Barnes J. (eds.) Astronomical Data Analysis Software Systems V. ASP Conf. Series, 101, p17 Boella G., Butler R.C., Perola G.C., et al., 1997a, A&AS 122, 299 Boella G., Chiappetti L., Conti G., et al, 1997b, A&AS 122, 327 Callanan P.J., Machin G., Naylor T., et al., 1989, MNRAS 241, 37p Cowley A., Schmidtke P.C., Crampton D.A., et al., 1990, ApJ 350, 288 Greiner J., Hasinger G., Kahabka P., 1991, A&A 246, L17 Hartmann H.W., Heise J., 1997, A&A, in press Heise J., van Teesling A., Kahabka P., 1994, A&A 288, L45 Hellier C., Mason K.O., 1989, MNRAS 239, 715 Iben I., 1982, ApJ 259, 244 Iben I., Tutukov A.V., 1996, ApJS 105, 145 Kahabka P., 1995, Supersoft X-ray sources in the LMC and SMC. In: Bianchini A., et al., (eds.) Cataclysmic Variables. Proc. of the Abano Terme Conf., Kluwar, p. 435 Kahabka P., Trümper J., 1996, Supersoft ROSAT Sources in the Galaxies. In: van Paradijs J., van den Heuvel E.P.J. Kuulkers E. (eds.) IAU Symp. 165, Compact Stars in Binaries. p. 425 Kahabka P., Pietsch W., Hasinger G., 1994, A&A 288, 538 Kylafis N.D., Xilouris E.M., 1993, A&A 278, L43 Long K.S., Helfand D.J., Grabelsky D.A., 1981, ApJ 248, 925 Morisson D., McCammon D., 1983, ApJ 270, 119 Nauenberg M., 1972, ApJ 175, 417 Parmar A.N., Martin D.D.E., Bavdaz M., et al., 1997, A&AS 122, 309 Rappaport S.A., di Stefano R., Smith J.D., 1994, ApJ 426, 692 Schandl S., Meyer-Hofmeister E., Meyer F., 1997, A&A 318, 73 472, p. 53 Schmidtke P.C., McGrath T.K., Cowley A.P., Frattare L.M., 1993, PASP 105, 863 Smale A.P., Corbet R.H.D., Charles P.A., et al., 1988, MNRAS 233, 51 Trümper J., 1983, Adv. Space Res. 2, 241 van den Heuvel E.P.J., Bhattacharya D., Nomoto K., Rappaport S.A., 1992, A&A 262, 97 White N.E., Giommi P., Heise J., Angelini L., Fantasia S., 1995, ApJ 445, L125
|
---
address: Steklov Mathematical Institute RAN
author:
- Dmitri Orlov
title: 'Derived categories of coherent sheaves and motives.'
---
The bounded derived category of coherent sheaves $\db{X}$ is a natural triangulated category which can be associated with an algebraic variety $X.$ It happens sometimes that two different varieties have equivalent derived categories of coherent sheaves $\db{X}\simeq\db{Y}.$ There arises a natural question: can one say anything about motives of $X$ and $Y$ in that case? The first such example (see [@Mu]) – abelian variety $A$ and its dual $\wh{A}$ – shows us that the motives of such varieties are not necessary isomorphic. However, it seems that the motives with rational coefficients are isomorphic in all known cases.
Recall a definition of the category of effective Chow motives $\CH$ over a field $\kk.$ The category $\CH$ can be obtained as the pseudo-abelian envelope (i.e. as formal adding of cokernels of all projectors) of a category, whose objects are smooth projective schemes over $\kk,$ and the group of morphisms from $X$ to $Y$ is the sum $\oplus_{X_i}A^m(X_i\times Y)$ (over all connected components $X_i$) of the groups of cycles of codimension $m=\dim Y$ on $X_i\times Y$ modulo rational equivalence (see [@Ma; @Bl]). In [@Vo] Voevodsky introduced a triangulated category of geometric motives $\DM.$ He started with an additive category $\SmCor,$ objects of which are smooth schemes of finite type over $\kk,$ and the group of morphisms from $X$ to $Y$ is the free abelian group generated by integral closed subschemes $Z\subset X\times Y$ such that the projection on $X$ is finite and surjective onto a connected component of $X.$ There is a natural embedding $[-]:\Sm\to \SmCor$ of the category $\Sm$ of smooth schemes of finete type over $\kk.$ The category $\SmCor$ is additive and one has $[X\coprod Y]=[X]\oplus[Y].$ Further, he considered the quotient of the homotopy category $\H^b(\SmCor)$ of bounded complexes by minimal thick triangulated subcategory $T,$ which contains all objects of the form $[X\times\AA^1]\to
[X]$ and $[U\cap V]\to[U]\oplus[V]\to [X]$ for any open covering $U\cup V=X.$ Triangulated category $\DM$ is defined as the pseudo-abelian envelope of the quotient category $\H^b(\SmCor)/T$(see [@Vo; @Bl]).
There exists a canonical functor $\CH\to\DM,$ which is a full embedding if $\kk$ admits resolution of singularities ([@Vo 4.2.6]). Thus, it doesn’t matter in which category (in $\CH$ or in $\DM$) motives of smooth projective varieties are considered. Denote the motive of a variety $X$ by $\Mg(X),$ and its motive in the category of motives with rational coefficients $\DM\otimes\QQ$(and in $\CH\otimes\QQ$) by $\Mg(X)_{\QQ}.$
\[G1\] Let $X$ and $Y$ be smooth projective varieties, and let $\db{X}{\simeq}\db{Y}.$ Then the motives $\Mg(X)_{\QQ}$ and $\Mg(Y)_{\QQ}$ are isomorphic in $\CH\otimes\QQ$ (and in $\DM\otimes\QQ$)
Let $X$ and $Y$ be smooth projective varieties and let $F: \db{X}\stackrel{}{\to}\db{Y}$ be a fully faithful functor. Then the motive $\Mg(X)_{\QQ}$ is a direct summand of the motive $\Mg(Y)_{\QQ}.$
The category $\DM$ has a tensor structure, and $\Mg(X)\otimes\Mg(Y)=\Mg(X\times Y).$ One defines the Tate object $\ZZ(1)$ to be the image of the complex $[\PP^1]\to[\Spec(\kk)]$ placed in degree 2 and 3 and put $M(p)=M\otimes\ZZ(1)^{\otimes p}$ for any motive $M\in\DM$ and $p\in\NN.$ The triangulated category of geometric motives $\Dm$ is defined by formally inverting the functor $-\otimes\ZZ(1)$ on $\DM.$ The important and nontrivial fact here is the statement that the canonical functor $\DM\to\Dm$ is a full embedding [@Vo 4.3.1]. Therefore, we can work in the category $\Dm.$ Moreover (see [@Vo]), for any smooth projective varieties $X, Y$ and for any integer $i$ there is an isomorphism $$\Hom_{\Dm}(\Mg(X), \Mg(Y)(i)[2i])\cong A^{m+i}(X\times
Y),\quad\text{where}\quad m=\dim Y.$$
Suppose, one has a fully faithful functor $F:\db{X}\to\db{Y}$ between derived categories of coherent sheaves of two smooth projective varieties $X$ and $Y$ of dimension $n$ and $m$ respectively. Any such functor has a right adjoint $F^*$ by [@BV], and by Theorem 2.2 from [@Or1] (see also [@Or2 3.2.1]) the functor $F$ can be represented by an object on the product $X\times Y,$ i.e. $F\cong\Phi_{\A},$ where $\Phi_{\A}=\bR p_{2*}(p^*_1(-)\stackrel{\bL}{\otimes}\A)$ for some $\A\in\db{X\times Y}.$ With any functor of the form $\Phi_{\A}:{\db{X}}\to{\db{Y}}$ one can associate an element $a\in
A^*(X\times Y, \QQ)$ by the following rule $$\label{epsi}
a= p^*_1\sqrt{ \td_X}\cdot \ch(\A)\cdot p^*_2\sqrt{\td_Y},$$ where $\td_X$ and $\td_Y$ are Todd classes of the varieties $X$ and $Y.$ The cycle $a$ has a mixed type. Let us consider its decomposition on the components $a=a_0+\cdots+a_{n+m},$ where index is the codimension of a cycle on $X\times Y.$ Each component $a_q$ induces a map of motives $$\alpha_q : \Mg(X)_{\QQ}\to \Mg(Y)_{\QQ}(q-m)[2(q-m)].$$ Thus the total cycle $a$ gives a map $ \alpha:
\Mg(X)_{\QQ}\stackrel{}{\to}\bigoplus_{i=-m}^{n}
\Mg(Y)_{\QQ}(i)[2i].$ Now consider the object $\B\in \db{X\times
Y},$ which represents the adjoint functor $F^*,$ i.e. $F^*\cong \Psi_{\B},$ where $\Psi_{\B}=\bR
p_{1*}(p^*_2(-)\stackrel{\bL}{\otimes}\B).$ One attaches to the object $\B$ a cycle $b=b_0+\cdots + b_{n+m}$ defined by the same formula (\[epsi\]). The cycle $b$ induces a map $\beta:
\bigoplus_{i=-m}^{n} \Mg(Y)_{\QQ}(i)[2i] \stackrel{}{\to}
\Mg(X)_{\QQ}.$ Since the functor $\Phi_{\A}$ is fully faithful, the composition $\Psi_{\B}\circ\Phi_{\A}$ is isomorphic to the identity functor. Applying the Riemann-Roch-Grothendieck theorem, we obtain that the composition $$\Mg(X)_{\QQ}\stackrel{\alpha}{\to}\bigoplus_{i=-m}^{n}
\Mg(Y)_{\QQ}(i)[2i] \stackrel{\beta}{\to} \Mg(X)_{\QQ}$$ is the identity map, i.e. $\Mg(X)_{\QQ}$ is a direct summand of $\bigoplus_{i=-m}^{n} \Mg(Y)_{\QQ}(i)[2i].$
Assume now that $\dim X=\dim Y=n$ and, moreover, suppose that the support of the object $A$ also has the dimension $n.$ Therefore, $a_q=0$ when $q=0,\dots,
n-1,$ i.e. $a=a_n+\cdots +a_{2n}.$ It is easily to see that in this case $b=b_{n}+\cdots+b_{2n}$ as well. This implies that the composition $\beta\cdot\alpha: \Mg(X)_{\QQ}\to \Mg(X)_{\QQ},$ which is the identity, coincides with $\beta_n\cdot\alpha_n$. Hence, $\Mg(X)_{\QQ}$ is a direct summand of $\Mg(Y)_{\QQ}.$ Furthermore, since the cycles $a_n$ and $b_n$ are integral in this case we get the same result for integral motives, i.e. the integral motive $\Mg(X)$ is a direct summand of the motive $\Mg(Y)$ as well. Thus, we obtain
Let $X$ and $Y$ be smooth projective varieties of dimension $n,$ and let $F: \db{X}\stackrel{}{\to}\db{Y}$ be a fully faithful functor such that the dimension of the support of an object $\A$ on $X\times Y,$ which represents $F,$ is equal to $n.$ Then the motive $\Mg(X)$ is a direct summand of the motive $\Mg(Y).$ If, in addition, the functor $F$ is an equivalence, then the motives $\Mg(X)$ and $\Mg(Y)$ are isomorphic.
Examples of such functors are known, they come from birational geometry (see e.g. [@Or2]). In these examples one of the connected components of $\supp(\A)$ gives a birational map $X\dasharrow Y.$ Blow ups and antiflips induce fully faithful functors, and flops induce equivalences. Note that an isomorphism of motives implies an isomomorphism of any realization (singular cohomologies, l-adic cohomologies, Hodge structures and so on).
For arbitrary equivalence $\Phi_{\A}: \db{X}\to\db{Y}$ the map of motives $\alpha_n:\Mg(X)_{\QQ}\to \Mg(Y)_{\QQ},$ induced by the cycle $a_n\in A^n(X\times Y, \QQ),$ is not necessary an isomorphism (e.g. Poincare line bundle $\mathcal{P}$ on the product of abelian variety $A$ and its dual $\wh{A}$). However, the following conjecture, which specifies Conjecture \[G1\], may be true.
Let $\A$ be an object of $\db{X\times Y},$ for which $\Phi_{\A}:\db{X}\to\db{Y}$ is an equivalence. Then there exist line bundles $L$ and $M$ on $X$ and on $Y$ respectively such that the component $a'_{n}$ of the object $\A':= p_1^* L\otimes \A\otimes p_2^*
M$ gives an isomorphism between motives $\Mg(X)_{\QQ}$ and $\Mg(Y)_{\QQ}.$
I am grateful to Yu. I. Manin for very useful discussions.
[1]{}
Lectures on mixed motives. 329–359, Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., 62, Part 1, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1997.
Generators and representability of functors in commutative and noncommutative geometry. , 1 (2003), 1–36.
. , 119 (1968), 475–507.
. (1981), 153–175.
. , 5 (1997), 1361–1381.
. , 3(351) (2003), 89–172.
Triangulated categories of motives over a field. In [*Cycles, transfers, and motivic homology theories*]{}, vol. 143 of [*Ann. of Math.Stud*]{}, pp. 188–238.
|
---
abstract: 'When two solid surfaces are brought in contact, water vapor present in the ambient air may condense in the region of the contact to form a liquid bridge connecting the two surfaces : this is the so-called capillary condensation. This phenomenon has drastic consequences on the contact between solids, modifying the macroscopic adhesion and friction properties. In this paper, we present a survey of the work we have performed both experimentally and theoretically to understand the microscopic foundations of the kinetics of capillary condensation. From the theoretical point of view, we have computed the free energy barrier associated with the condensation of the liquid from the gas in a confined system. These calculations allow to understand the existence of very large hysteresis, which is often associated with capillary condensation. This results are compatible with experimental results obtained with a surface forces apparatus in a vapor atmosphere, showing a large hysteris of the surface energy of two parallel planes as a function of their distance. In the second part, we present some experiments on the influence of humidity on the avalanche angle of granular media. We show that the ageing in time of this avalanche angle can be explained by the slow kinetics of capillary condensation in a random confined geometry.'
address:
- 'Département de physique des matériaux, 6 rue Ampère, 69622 Villeurbanne cedex (France)'
- 'Laboratoire de Physique, ENS Lyon, 46 allée d’Italie, 69364 Lyon cedex 07 (France)'
author:
- 'F. Restagno'
- 'L. Bocquet'
- 'J. Crassous'
- 'E. Charlaix'
title: 'Slow Kinetics of Capillary Condensation in Confined Geometry: Experiment and Theory'
---
Capillary condensation ,Granular ,Surface forces apparatus
61.43.Gt; 68.45.D
Introduction
============
Molecules confined in narrow pores, with pore widths of a few molecular diameters, can exhibit a wide range of physical behavior. The introduction of wall forces, and the competition between fluid-wall and fluid-fluid forces, can lead to interesting surface driven phase changes, since for a small confinement the surface effects can be more important than the bulk effects [@Gelb99]. Such effects can be observed in porous materials which have a large specific area. Porous materials are involved in many physical, chemical or biological processes. Their adsorption properties are known to present a variety of behavior related to the texture of the porous matrix, which provides an experimental way to analyze the pore size distribution. Interpretation of adsorption isotherms in these materials commonly involves a well known phenomenon, capillary condensation [@Gelb99; @Israel; @Evans86], which corresponds to the condensation of liquid bridges in the pores. More fundamentally, capillary condensation is a gas-liquid phase transition shifted by confinement. A basic model of confinement is provided by the slab geometry, for which the fluid is confined between two parallel planar solid walls. The classical theory of capillarity [@Evans86] predicts that in this geometry the liquid phase condenses when the substrate-liquid surface tension $\gamma_{SL}$ is smaller than the substrate-vapor surface tension $\gamma_{SV}$, and when the distance between the surfaces is lower than $H_c$ satisfying the Kelvin equation: $$\Delta\rho~\Delta\mu \simeq
{{2(\gamma_{SV}-\gamma_{SL})}/H_c}$$ Here, $\Delta\rho=\rho_L-\rho_V$ is the difference between the bulk densities of the liquid and the gas phase, $\Delta\mu=\mu_{sat}-\mu$ is the (positive) undersaturation and $\mu_{sat}$ is the chemical potential at bulk coexistence. If the vapor can be considered as an ideal gas, we have: $\Delta\mu=k_BT\ln(p_{sat}/p_{vap})$, where $k_B$ is the Boltzmann’s constant, $T$ is the absolute temperature and $p_{sat}/p_{vap}$ the saturated vapor pressure divided by the partial pressure of the vapor. Although the equilibrium properties of this transition have motivated many experimental [@Fisher79; @Fisher81a; @Christenson88; @Crassous94] and theoretical studies [@Evans85; @Evans86; @Derjaguin92], capillary condensation presents remarkable dynamical features which are still to be explained. The most striking feature is the huge metastability of the coexisting phases, which contrasts with the bulk liquid-vapor transition.
Since capillary condensation is a first order phase transition, one should be able to identify a critical nucleus and a corresponding free energy barrier away from the spinodal. For sufficiently small $H$, it can be shown that the liquid films coating the solid surfaces become unstable due to fluid-fluid interactions and grow to fill the slab. This has been carefully studied by several authors [@Crassous94; @Christenson94; @Forcada93a]). In this article we show that, as in the homogeneous nucleation case, the shape of the critical nucleus results from the balance between surface and volume contributions. The height of the activation barrier is so large that it can induce a large metastability of the vapor phase. This first theoretical result is compared to experiments on capillary condensation in a surface forces apparatus. In the second part of this article, we will discuss the influence of this slow kinetics of capillary condensation on the mechanical properties of a granular material in a humid atmosphere.
Homogeneous nucleation of a liquid phase between ideal surfaces
===============================================================
Method
------
Since capillary condensation occurs only in a confined geometry, the problem which arises in computing an energy barrier for the vapor/liquid transition is the validity of the macroscopic concepts of the classical theory of capillarity.
To address this problem we use the following approach:\
i– We use a Density Functional Theory (DFT) model for the fluid phase, taking into account the long range interactions with the solid surfaces, and study the time evolution of a metastable confined vapor with a Langevin equation. We perform this study in a two dimensional geometry and determine the energy barrier associated with the vapor/liquid transition as a function of the distance between the walls.\
ii– We compare these results with the prediction of the classical theory of capillarity in two dimensions. The classical theory gives the correct qualitative behavior and dependency of the energy barrier as a function of the confinement up to a numerical prefactor.\
iii– We then use the classical theory to calculate the energy barrier to condensation between two parallel plates in the three dimensional case, and discuss the order of magnitude obtained.
Theoretical calculation of the activation energy in a 2D geometry
-----------------------------------------------------------------
We first use a mesoscopic Landau-Ginzburg model for the grand potential of the 2D system confined between two walls. In terms of the local density $\rho({r})$, we write the “excess” part of the grand potential $\Omega^{ex}=\Omega+p_{sat}V$, where $p_{sat}$ is the pressure of the system at coexistence, as: $$\Omega^{ex}= \int d{r}\left\{ {m\over 2} \vert\nabla \rho
\vert^2 + W(\rho) + \left(\Delta\mu +v_{ext}(z)\right) \rho \right\}
\label{eq5}$$ In this equation, $m$ is a phenomenological parameter allowing a simple treatment of inhomogeneous fluids; $v_{ext}(z)$ is the confining external potential, which we took for each wall as $v_{ext}(z)=-\epsilon (\sigma/(\Delta
z+\sigma))^3$, with $\Delta z$ the distance to the corresponding wall; $\epsilon$ and $\sigma$ have the dimensions of an energy and a distance, $W(\rho)$ can be interpreted as the negative of the “excess” pressure $\mu_{sat}\rho-f(\rho)-p_{sat}$, with $f(\rho)$ the bulk free-energy density [@Rowlinsom]. To allow a phase transition in this system, we assume a phenomenological double well form for $W(\rho)$ : $W(\rho)=a(\rho-\rho_V)^2(\rho-\rho_L)^2$, where $a$ is a phenomenological parameter [@Safran]. The system is then driven by a non-conserved Langevin equation for $\rho$: $${\partial\rho \over{\partial t}}= -\Gamma {\delta \Omega^{ex} \over {\delta\rho}} + \eta({r},t)
\label{langevin}$$ where $\Gamma$ is a phenomenological friction coefficient and $\eta$ is a Gaussian noise field related to $\Gamma$ through the fluctuation-dissipation relationship [@Chaikin]. This time dependent Landau-Ginzburg model provides a good phenomenological description of the dynamics of the density field $\rho(\vec{r},t)$ as soon as the dynamics of the nucleation is not limited by the crossing of the activation barrier. This model has been previously successfully applied to homogeneous nucleation [@Valls90].
![Snapshots of the density $\rho(\vec{r})$ of the fluid for different times $t=2,6,12,18,20,28$. If a point appears in white it means that the local density at this point is higher than $0.8$. To obtain $\bar{\rho}(t)$, we make an average on the mean density in the pore on different realizations of the noise. []{data-label="fig10"}](fig10restagno){width="7cm"}
The units of energy, length are such that $\sigma=\epsilon =1$. Time is in units of $t_0=(\Gamma \epsilon\sigma^2)^{-1}$ with $\Gamma={1\over 3}$. In these units, we took $m=1.66$, $a=3.33$, $\rho_L=1$, $\rho_V=0.1$. Typical values of the chemical potential and temperature are $\Delta\mu\sim 0.016$, $T\sim 0.06$ (which is roughly half the critical temperature in this model). Periodic boundary conditions with periodicity $L_x$ were applied in the lateral direction. The simulated system is initially a gas state filling the whole pore, and its evolution is described by equation (\[langevin\]). A typical evolution (see figure \[fig10\]) of the mean density in the slit shows that: i) As expected [@Evans85], due to the long range nature of the external potential a thick liquid film of thickness $\ell$ rapidly forms on both walls on a short time scale $\tau_1$ ($\ell\simeq 3.8 \sigma$ and $\tau_1\approx 5 t_0$ in our case) ii) Fluctuations of the interfaces around their mean value $\ell$ induce after a while a sudden coalescence of the films. This second process has a characteristic time $\tau$.
![Logarithm of condensation time as a function of the “effective” width of the slab $H-3\ell$ for fixed $\Delta\mu=0.016$. The dashed line is the theoretical prediction $\ln(\tau)=\ln(\tau_0)+\alpha (H-3\ell)^{3/2}$. The two parameters $\ln(\tau_0)$ and $\alpha$ have been obtained from a least-square fit of the data in a $\ln(\tau)$ versus $(H-3\ell)^{3/2}$ plot.[]{data-label="fig11"}](fig11restagno){width="6cm"}
Studying the influence of the temperature on $\tau$, we have shown [@Restagno2000] that this time $\tau$ obeys an Arrhenius law $\tau=\tau_0\exp(\Delta
\Omega^{\dag}/k_BT)$, where $\Delta \Omega^{\dag}$ is identified as the energy barrier for nucleation. In the 2D case, we have calculated [@Restagno2000] the energy barrier expected from the classical theory of capillarity: $$\label{barr2D}
\Delta
\Omega^{\dag}=\frac{4}{3}\left(\Delta\mu\Delta\rho\gamma_{LV}\right)^{1/2}H^{3/2}$$ The $H$ dependence ($\Delta\mu$ being fixed) on the activation time is plotted in fig. \[fig11\]. As seen in fig. \[fig11\], the DFT model provides a good agreement with this classical prediction as far as the distances between the walls $H$ is replaced by an effective distance $H-3\ell$ to take into account the presence of the wetting films. The prefactor $\alpha$ can be estimated from the data plotted in fig. \[fig11\], yielding $\alpha=0.68$, while the classical prediction gives $\alpha=1.03$ (here the liquid-vapor surface tension -at finite temperature $T=0.06$- has been computed from independent Monte-Carlo simulations of the model, yielding $\gamma_{LV}=0.8$). The macroscopic theory thus gives a correct qualitative picture and a semi-quantitative agreement of the activation energy for capillary condensation.
Nucleation between parallel plates in three dimensions
------------------------------------------------------
![Picture of the critical nucleus for capillary condensation in three dimensions. $R^*$ represent the lateral extension of the critical nucleus (see text for details). The total curvature $\kappa$ of the meniscus is equal to $\kappa=1/R_c=2/H_c$. Note that in 3D, $\kappa$ is the sum of the in-plane and “axisymmetric” curvature.[]{data-label="fig1"}](fig1restagno){width="7cm"}
We use then the classical theory of capillary to estimate the activation energy for nucleating a liquid phase between two parallel plates. In the grand-canonical ensemble the critical nucleus corresponds to a saddle-point of the grand potential. We will consider the perfect wetting situation $\gamma_{SV}=\gamma_{SL}+\gamma_{LV}$, although a generalization to the partial wetting case is straightforward. The grand potential of a pore partially filled with liquid may be written [@Evans85] $$\Omega=-p_V V_V-p_L V_L+\gamma_{SV} A_{SV}+ \gamma_{SL}
A_{SL}+\gamma_{LV}
A_{LV}$$ where $V_V$ (resp. $V_L$) is the volume of the gas (resp. liquid) phase and $A_{SL}$, $A_{SV}$ and $A_{LV}$ respectively denote the total solid-liquid, solid-vapor and liquid-vapor surface area. The following expression is obtained for the “excess” grand potential, $\Delta\Omega_{tot}=
\Omega-\Omega_V$, with $\Omega_V$ the grand-potential of the system filled with the gas phase only : $$\Delta\Omega_{tot}= \gamma_{LV} A_{LV} + \gamma_{LV} A_{SL}
+\Delta\mu\Delta\rho V_L
\label{omega2}$$ where we have used $p_V-p_L\simeq \Delta\rho\Delta\mu$. Within classical capillarity, long range fluid-fluid interactions are not taken into account, therefore the critical nucleus has to be a liquid bridge connecting the plates. One also expects this critical nucleus to exhibit rotational invariance, so that $\Delta\Omega_{tot}$ in eq. (\[omega2\]) is best parameterized in cylindrical coordinates (see fig. \[fig1\]). In terms of $\rho(z)$, the position of the LV interface, one obtains $$\begin{gathered}
\label{Seq1}
\Delta\Omega_{tot}= \Delta\rho\Delta\mu 2\pi \int_0^{H\over2}
dz \rho^2(z)
+ 2\gamma_{LV} \pi \rho^2({H\over2})
\\+ 2\pi \gamma_{LV} \int_0^{H\over2} dz~\rho(z)\sqrt{1+{\rho_z}^2}
\end{gathered}$$ where the index $z$ denotes differentiation. Extremalization of the grand potential (\[Seq1\]) leads to the usual condition of [*mechanical equilibrium*]{}, the Laplace equation, which relates the local curvature $\kappa$ to the pressure drop according to the Laplace law of capillarity: ${\gamma_{LV} \kappa}=\Delta p\simeq \Delta \mu\Delta \rho$. This condition remains valid although the nucleus corresponds to a saddle point and not a minimum of the grand-potential.
The main difference with bulk homogeneous nucleation comes from the pressure drop at the interface: here, the liquid pressure inside the meniscus is lower than the gas pressure since $\mu<\mu_{sat}$, so that the critical nucleus takes the form of a liquid bridge between the solid substrates instead of the spherical shape encountered in bulk homogeneous nucleation. The previous Laplace equation is non-linear and cannot be solved analytically. From dimensional arguments however, one expects $\Delta\Omega_{tot}=\gamma_{LV} H_c^2 f(H/H_c)$, with $f(x)$ a dimensionless function. The latter can be obtained from the numerical resolution of the Laplace equation, yielding the shape of the meniscus [@numerical]. Numerical integration of eq. (\[Seq1\]) then gives the corresponding free energy barrier. The result for the energy barrier $\Delta\Omega^{\dag}$ is plotted in figure \[fig\_omega3d\]. As can be seen from the figure, a divergence of $\Delta\Omega^{\dag}$ is obtained as the pore width $H$ reaches $H_c$. When the axisymetric extension of the bridge $R^*=\rho({H\over2})$ is large compared to $H$, the negative (axisymmetric) contribution to the curvature is negligible and the L-V profile can be approximated by a semi-circular shape. This allows to obtain explicit expressions for the different contributions to $\Delta\Omega_{tot}$ in eq. (\[omega2\]) as a function of the extension $R^*$ of the bridge, namely $V_L=\pi R^{*2}H-{\pi^2\over
4} R^* H^2 +{\pi\over 6}H^3$, $A_{SL}= 2\pi R^{*2}$ and $A_{LV}=\pi^2 R^*H-\pi {H^2}$. Maximization of $\Delta\Omega_{tot}$ as a function of $R^*$ yields the following expression for the free energy barrier $$\Delta \Omega^\dag = \gamma _{LV} H^2 \biggl[ {\pi^3\over 8}
{\left(1- {H\over{2H_c}}\right)^2 \over {1-{H\over{H_c}} }
}-\left(-{\pi\over3} {H\over{H_c}} +\pi \right) \biggr]
\label{NRJbarrier3D}$$ which does exhibit a divergence at $H\sim
H_c=2\gamma_{LV}/\Delta\rho\Delta\mu$. As shown in figure \[fig\_omega3d\], this approximate expression is in very good agreement with the numerical calculation, even at small confinement $H$. Physically, an important consequence of the diverging energy barrier at $H_c$ is that the gas phase becomes extremely metastable: for water at $25^{\textrm o}$C, at a relative humidity of $p_{vap}/p_{sat}=40\%$, we obtain $H_c\simeq2$ nm and $\gamma_{LV}H_c^2\simeq70 k_BT$. This numerical estimate shows that the energy barrier is always larger than the thermal energy of the system, except when $H/H_c\ll 1$.
![Free energy barrier (in 3D) as a function of the normalized width of the pore, $H/H_c$. The solid line is computed by numerical integration of the Laplace equation. The points are obtained from the analytical expression, eq. (\[NRJbarrier3D\]).[]{data-label="fig_omega3d"}](fig2restagno){width="7cm"}
Experimental evidence of the metastability
------------------------------------------
Metastability effects in capillary condensation are very often observed in porous media, where they are responsible for hysteresis loops in adsorption/desorption isotherms. In such hysteresis loops however it is not possible to tell which branch is the stable one. We have studied the capillary condensation of alkane vapors between smooth metal surfaces with a Surface Forces Apparatus [@Crassous94]. In this type of experiments, the pressure of vapor is kept constant, and the distance between the surfaces (a sphere and a plane) is varied. The condensation of a liquid phase is revealed by a very strong adhesion force due to the capillary depression in the liquid phase. On the contrary, almost no interaction is measured when the surfaces are separated by the vapor. In these experiments, one observes the hysteresis loop of the force as a function of the distance between the surfaces associated with the metastability effects in the liquid/vapor transition. The particularity of SFA experiments is that it is possible to know which branch of the curve correspond to the lower energy state and therefore which phase is stable for a given confinement. This is due to the so-called Derjaguin approximation, which relates the force $F$ measured between a sphere of large radius of curvature $R$, and a plane, to the interaction energy per unit area $U$ of two parallel plates separated by the same distance $H$[@Israel]: $$F(H)/R=4\pi U(H)$$
![Force between a sphere of pyrex of radius $R=3.29$ mm covered by a platinum layer and a plane of pyrex in the presence of a vapor of $n$-heptane. The arrows indicate the direction of the surfaces. $H_c$ is the critical distance at which there never is a meniscus and $H_s$ the distance at which a liquid bridge appears when the surfaces are brought into contact.[]{data-label="fig7"}](fig7restagno){width="7cm"}
The force curve shows then clearly that for a large range of values of the confinement $H<H_c$ the vapor phase is metastable. In the hysteresis range, the vapor never condenses over the time of the experiments–typically some hours–showing that the energy barrier to overcome in order to form a liquid bridge between the surfaces is actually quite large.
Slow kinetics of capillary condensation: the aging of the friction coefficient
==============================================================================
Humidity induced aging of the avalanche angle of a granular medium
------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the condensation of liquid in a confined geometry can be hindered by high activation energy, one expects that capillary condensation processes may display slow kinetics. We discuss here in more detail the influence of humidity an the slow evolution in time of a macroscopic property: the avalanche angle of granular media.
![Experimental setup. The granular material is placed in a cylindrical drum with an inner diameter and a length of 10 cm. The lateral faces of the cylinder are made of glass with an opening at the center to allow an exchange with the outer atmosphere. The drum is half filled with glass beads, whose diameter ranges between 125 and 160 microns. The relative humidity $H=p_{vap}/p_{sat}$ is kept at a constant value by the method of the saturated aqueous solutions of inorganic salts [@cretinon].[]{data-label="fig4"}](fig4restagno){width="7cm"}
Solid friction properties of a large number of solid materials are well described by the Coulombs’law, which states that the minimum tangential force $T$ that must be applied to a contact between solids in order to bring them into relative motion obeys the relation $T=\mu_s N$, where $N$ is the normal load applied to the contact and $\mu_s$ the static friction coefficient. Systematic studies on various material (for a review see Baumberger [@Baumberger97]) show that $\mu_s$ increases slowly with the time during which the solid have been into contact at rest. This aging behavior of the static friction coefficient is often found to be logarithmic in time [@Rabinowicz]:$\mu_s=b+\alpha\log(t_w)$
More recently, the influence of humidity on this aging behavior has been brought into evidence. Dieterich [@Dieterich84] first showed in rock onto rock friction , that aging occurs only in humid atmosphere. In our group, we have studied more specifically the influence of humidity on aging of friction properties in granular media. For that purpose, we have measured the avalanche angle of a granular media consisting of micrometric glass beads in a controlled environment (see fig. \[fig4\]). Using a rotating drum, the time $t_w$ during which the granular heap remains at rest can easily be varied.
The evolutions of the maximum angle of stability as a function of the resting time $t_w$, at different humidities are shown in figure \[fig5\]. The data clearly show an aging behavior, since the angle of first avalanche systematically increases with the resting time.
A first important point in this aging behavior is that it cannot be explained by an increase of the friction coefficient alone. Indeed, avalanche angle larger than $90^{\textrm o}$ can be obtained for high humidities and large waiting time; in those cases the granular heap has enough internal cohesion to remain stuck to the upper part of internal wall of the drum . The effect of such a cohesive force can be included in Coulomb’s analysis by adding an additional force $F_c$ to the normal component of the weight of a layer of glass beads at the surface of the heap [@Halsey]. This yields the following condition for an avalanche to occur: $$\label{coulomb2}
\tan\theta=\mu_s\left(1+\frac{F_c}{mg\cos\theta}\right)$$ where $mg$ is the weight of the layer of glass beads undergoing the avalanche. Since the data show a linear dependence of the tangent of the avalanche angle with $\log(t_w)/\cos\theta$, we can conclude that there is a cohesion force in the granular media which increases as $F_c\propto \log t_w$. This dependency is observed over more than 4 decades of time (resting times range from 5 to 200 000 s). We do not observe any saturation of the angle at times as long as 200 000 s. The amplitude of this aging in characterized by the slope of the lines obtained is this representation.
![The tangent of the maximum stability angle as a function of where $t_w$ is the resting time of the pile of glass beads. The lines are least-square fits of the experimental data, whose slope is identified with $\alpha$. Different humidity are plotted on the same figure : $H = 3\%$, $H = 22\%$ and $H = 43\%$.[]{data-label="fig5"}](fig5restagno){width="7cm"}
A very important parameter for this aging behavior is the humidity of the surrounding atmosphere. We do not observe any aging in dry atmosphere. Figure \[fig6\] shows that this aging increases with the relative humidity: this increase is reversible.
![Variation of the slope $\alpha(H)$ characterizing the aging behavior of the first avalanche angle with the relative humidity pvap/psat.[]{data-label="fig6"}](fig6restagno){width="7cm"}
A simple model of thermally activated process for aging
-------------------------------------------------------
Although a lot can be learned from the perfectly flat slab geometry, the latter is certainly too idealized to account for the kinetics of adsorption in “real” experimental systems such as the previous ones. 9
![Schematic representation of a contact between rough surfaces. The fact that we consider a rough surface on a flat surface does not restrict the generality of this approach.[]{data-label="fig8"}](fig8restagno){width="7cm"}
We show here that these logarithmic time dependence of the cohesion force between the surfaces may be understood by taking into account the influence of surface roughness on the dynamics of capillary condensation. Let us consider a simple model consisting of two surfaces facing each other and rough at the nanometric scale, as depicted on fig. \[fig8\]. As emphasized in the introduction capillary condensation typically occurs in pores of nanometric size. We thus have to consider the roughness of the surfaces at the [*nanometer level*]{}. Here again we shall stay at a macroscopic description, and focus on a qualitative picture of the influence of roughness on the transition mechanism. Without loss of generality, one may consider that one of the walls is perfectly flat. When roughness is present, there is a broad range of gaps between the surfaces. In particular, there are regions where the two surfaces are in close contact. In such regions, condensation should take place on a very short time-scale. Thus at “early times”, one has to consider a set of wetted islands, which we shall consider as independent one of the other. Once these islands have formed, they should grow up to a point where the distance between the surfaces is equal to $H_c$, so that a meniscus of radius $R_c=H_c/2\cos\theta$ forms at the liquid-vapor interface, allowing for mechanical equilibrium.
In doing so however, the wetted area has to overcome unfavorable regions where the distance between the two surfaces is larger then $H_c$. Let us consider a specific jump over such a “defect”, as idealized in fig. \[fig9\]. We denote by $h_d$ the “averaged” gap inside the defect ($h_d>H_c$), and by $a_d$ its area. The free energy cost for the liquid bridge to overcome this defect is approximatively given by $$\begin{aligned}
&\Delta \Omega^{\dag} &\simeq a_d \left(\Delta\mu\Delta\rho~e_d-2(\gamma_{SV}-\gamma_{SL})\right)\nonumber\\
& & \equiv v_d \Delta\mu\Delta\rho \label{CCR1}\end{aligned}$$ where $v_d$ is the excess volume of the defect, $v_d=a_d~(e_d-H_c)$. We can thus estimate the time to overcome the defect as $$\tau=\tau_0 \exp \left\{ {\Delta \Omega^{\dag} \over
{k_BT}}\right\} \label{CCR2}$$
One may expect the defects to have a broad distribution of excess volume $v_d$, so that the activation times $\tau$ are very widely distributed. After a time $t_w$, only the defects with an activation time $\tau$ smaller than $t$ have been filled by the
![Schematic representation of a defect. $v_d$ is the volume of the region where the height $h_d>H_c$.[]{data-label="fig9"}](fig9restagno){width="7cm"}
liquid phase. Using eq. \[CCR1\] and \[CCR2\] these have an excess volume $v_d$ which verifies $v_d<v_{dmax}(t_w)=k_BT(\Delta\mu\Delta\rho)^{-1}\ln(t_w/\tau_0)$. The number of filled defects at a time $t$ is then typically $N(t)=v_{dmax}(t_w)/v_0$ where $v_0$ is the typical width of the distribution of excess volume of the defects. Now, once a liquid bridge has bypassed a defect, the area wetted by the liquid increases by some typical (roughness dependent) $a_d$. The time wetted area grows in time as: $$\begin{aligned}
&A(t_w) &\simeq N(t_w)a_d \nonumber \\
&&\frac{a_d}{\Delta\mu/(k_BT)\Delta\rho
v_0}\ln\left(\frac{t_w}{\tau_0}\right) \label{equ10}\end{aligned}$$ Assuming a typical radius of curvature $\lambda$ of the asperities, we find if $\lambda\gg r_K$, that $a_d\sim\lambda
r_K$. If we now assume that the vapor is an ideal gas, then $\Delta\mu=k_BT\ln(p_{sat}/p_{vap})$. This give a cohesion force between two beads: $$\begin{aligned}
&F_c(t_w)&=\frac{\gamma_{LV}}{r_K}A(t_w)\nonumber\\
&&\frac{\gamma_{LV}\lambda}{\Delta\rho v_0
\ln(1/H)}\ln\left(t_w/\tau_0\right)\end{aligned}$$ This model gives the good dependency of the cohesion force with the resting time $t_w$ in qualitative agreement with the experiments. It is not possible to test directly this prediction since $v_0$ and $\lambda$ are not easily measured but we can check the dependency of $\alpha$ with the relative humidity. However we can check the internal coherence of this mechanism by estimating the order of magnitude of the cohesion force needed to induce aging of the avalanche angle. Using equation \[coulomb2\], the increase of the cohesion force during the time $t_w$ must be: $$\Delta F_c=\frac{mg\cos\theta}{\mu_s}\Delta\tan\theta(t_w)$$ The numerical value of $Delta F_c$ is thus of the order of the weight of a bead. On the other hand, the maximum value of the capillary force between two beads in contact is obtained when the beads are ideal sphere (no roughness): $F_c=2\pi\gamma_{LV}R=3.4\times10^{-5}$ N for beads of radius $R=75~\mu$m in water vapor humidity. This is four order of magnitude larger than the weight of a bead:$4.4\times10^{-9}$N.
Therefore one see that a slow kinetics of capillary condensation between rough surfaces, leads to a logarithmic growth in time of the capillary force and can actually be responsible for the aging of the avalanche angle of granular media, as well as more generally for the humidity induce aging of the friction properties of surfaces.
[10]{} url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix
L. D. Gelb, K. Gubbins, R. Radhakrishnan, M. Sliwinka-Bartowiak, Rep. Prog. Phys. 62 (1999) 1573–1659.
J. Israelachvili, Intermolecular & Surface Forces, 2nd Edition, Academic Press, London, 1992.
R. Evans, U. M. B. Marconi, P. Tarazona, J. Chem. Phys. 84 (4) (1986) 2376–99.
L. Fisher, J. Israelachvili, Nature 277 (5697) (1979) 548–549.
L. Fisher, J. Israleachvili, Colloids and Surfaces 3 (4) (1981) 303–19.
H. K. Christenson, J. Colloid Interf. Sci. 121 (1) (1988) 170–178.
J. Crassous, E. Charlaix, J.-L. Loubet, Europhys. Let. 28 (1) (1994) 37–42.
R. Evans, U. M. B. Marconi, Chem. Phys. Lett. 114 (4) (1985) 415–422.
B. V. Derjaguin, Prog. Surf. Sci. 40 (1992) 46–61.
L. Bocquet, E. Charlaix, S. Ciliberto, J. Crassous, Nature 396 (6713) (1998) 735–737.
H. Christenson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 73 (13) (1994) 1821–25.
M. Forcada, J. Chem. Phys. 98 (1) (1993) 638–43.
J. Rowlinsom, B. Widom, Molecular Theory of Capillarity, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1982.
S. A. Safran, Statistical Thermodynamics of Surfaces Interfaces and Membranes, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachussetts, 1996.
O. T. Valls, G. F. Mazenko, Phys. Rev. B 42 (10) (1990) 6614–22.
P. M. Chaikin, T. Lubensky, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995.
F. Restagno, L. Bocquet, T. Biben, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84 (11) (2000) 2433–36.
W. H. Press, S. A. Teukolsky, W. T. Vetterling, B. P. Flannery, Numerical Recipes in Fortran 77, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1992.
T. Baumberger, Solid State Comm. 102 (2-3) (1997) 175–85.
E. Rabinowicz, The Friction and Lubricationf of Solids, John Wiley and Sons, New-York, 1965.
J. Dieterich, G. Conrad, J. Geoph. res. 89 (B6) (1984) 4196–4202.
B. Cr[é]{}tinon, Technique de l’Ingénieur R3 045 1–17.
T.C. Halsey, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80 (14) (1998) 3141–4
|
---
abstract: 'The Lindblad generators of the master equation define which kind of decoherence happens in an open quantum system. We are working with a two qubit system and choose the generators to be projection operators on the eigenstates of the system and unitary bilocal rotations of them. The resulting decoherence modes are studied in detail. Besides the general solutions we investigate the special case of maximally entangled states – the Bell singlet states. The results are depicted in the so-called spin geometry picture which allows to illustrate the evolution of the (nonlocal) correlations stored in a certain state. The question for which conditions the path traced out in the geometric picture depends only on the relative angle between the bilocal rotations is addressed.'
author:
- Katharina Durstberger
bibliography:
- '/Users/kadu/Library/texmf/tex/latex/bibliography/bibliography-kadu.bib'
title: Spin geometry of entangled qubits under bilocal decoherence modes
---
Introduction
============
The theory of open quantum systems plays a major role in many applications of quantum physics since perfect isolation of a quantum system is never possible. Because the environmental degrees of freedom are not accessible the dynamics of open quantum systems are described by effective dynamics: the quantum master equation [@BreuerPetruccione]. The notion of decoherence is introduced which describes the loss of quantum coherences in a system coupled to an external environment. This concept allows to understand the transition from a quantum to a classical world [@GiuliniJoosKieferKupschStamatescuZeh].
Geometric pictures of the quantum mechanical state space of a system are attracting and illustrative and provide deeper insight into unsolved problems. Therefore it is tempting to find geometric pictures for the whole state space of density matrices which is nearly impossible because even for the simplest case of a qubit the whole state space has $4$ real dimensions.
By restricting to several properties one can find appealing pictures and visualizations of the state space (see for instance [@BengtssonZyczkowskiBook]). E.g., for pure two qubit states a Hopf map can be found which provides an entanglement sensitive stratification of the state space [@MosseriDandoloff]. The so-called spin geometric picture allows for another visualization of the two qubit system and was introduced and discussed by the Horodeckis [@Horodecki3_1997; @Horodecki2_1996], Vollbrecht and Werner [@VollbrechtWerner] and Bertlmann, Narnhofer and Thirring [@BertlmannNarnhoferThirring].
The paper is organized in the following way. The next subsections give a brief introduction to the theory of decoherence with special emphasis on the theoretical formulation used later on in this paper and an introduction to the spin geometry picture where also the role of the singular value decomposition is emphasized. In Sect. \[sect.deco.modes\] we introduce the decoherence modes under consideration which arise by local unitary rotations of the projection operators on the eigenstates of the system. We present the general solution of the time evolution of the local parameters $\vec m$ and $\vec n$ and the correlation matrix $c$ for three different types of decoherence, which we call decoherence modes. These general solutions are illuminated by considering special initial conditions: the Bell singlet state (Sect. \[sect:bell-state\]). The evolution of the states under the investigated decoherence modes is visualized graphically within the spin geometry picture. In the last section \[sect:equiv\] we show which restrictions on the initial correlation matrix $c$ of a state with local parameters equal to zero have to be satisfied such that the geometric pictures of mode B and C are equal.
Decoherence
-----------
A quantum system $S$ is coupled to the environment $E$ and the closed total system $S+E$ is governed by unitary evolution given by the Hamilton operator $H_{S+E}(t)=H\otimes\mathbbm1+\mathbbm1\otimes H_E+H_I$, where $H$ and $H_E$ are the free Hamiltonians of the system and the environment, respectively, and $H_I$ denotes the interaction Hamiltonian. Under several assumptions (see, e.g., [@BreuerPetruccione]) the reduced non-unitary dynamics of the open system $S$ are given by the master equation $$\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\rho(t)=-i[H,\rho(t)]-\mathcal D(\rho(t))\;,$$ with the dissipator [@Lindblad; @GoriniKossakowskiSudarshan] $$\label{eq:dissipator,gen}
\mathcal D(\rho)=\frac{1}{2}\sum_k \bigl(A_k^{\dag}A_k \rho +
\rho A_k^{\dag}A_k-2A_k\rho A_k^{\dag}\bigr)\;.$$ The general structure of the dissipator can be simplified by assuming the a priori arbitrary Lindblad generators $A_k$ to be projection operators $A_k=\sqrt{\lambda_k}P_k$, with $P_k^2=P_k$ (see Ref. [@BertlmannGrimus2002]), which gives a simplified structure of the dissipator $$\mathcal D(\rho)=\frac{1}{2}\sum_k \lambda_k\bigl(P_k \rho +
\rho P_k-2P_k\rho P_k\bigr)\;.$$ The real and positive parameters $\lambda_k$ are called decoherence parameters and determine the strength of the interaction.
In the following treatments we work with a two qubit system where the Hilbert space is given by $\mathcal H={\mathbb{C}}^2 \otimes {\mathbb{C}}^2$. We require the Lindblad generators $P_k$ to project onto one-dimensional subspaces and satisfy $\sum_{k=1}^4 P_k=\mathbbm{1}$. Furthermore we constrain to one dissipation parameter $\lambda$ which parameterizes the strength of the interaction and therefore of the decoherence [@BertlmannDurstbergerHasegawa2005]. Then the dissipator can be written in a very compact way $$\label{dissipator}
\mathcal D(\rho)=\lambda\bigl(\rho- \sum_{k=1}^{4} P_k\rho P_k\bigr)\;,$$ which is easier to deal with than the original one.
Spin geometry
-------------
The state space for a system consisting of two qubits has in general four complex or eight real dimensions. A general density matrix of such a system can be expressed in the following way [@Horodecki3_1997; @Horodecki2_1996] $$\label{state-decomposition}
\rho=\frac{1}{4}(\mathbbm{1}\otimes\mathbbm1 +\vec m\; \vec\sigma\otimes\mathbbm1 +\vec
n\; \mathbbm1\otimes\vec\sigma+c_{ij}\; \sigma_i\otimes\sigma_j)\;,$$ where $\{\mathbbm1\otimes\mathbbm1,\sigma_i\otimes\mathbbm1,\mathbbm1\otimes\sigma_j,
\sigma_i\otimes\sigma_j\}$ forms a basis in terms of product Pauli operators of $\mathcal
B(\mathcal H)=\mathcal B({\mathbb{C}}^2\otimes{\mathbb{C}}^2)$, the algebra of bounded operators on the Hilbert space $\mathcal H$.
The local parameters $\vec m,\vec n\in\mathbb{R}^3$ of the density matrix , given by $\vec m={{\rm{Tr}\,}}(\vec\sigma\otimes\mathbbm{1}\;\rho)$ and $\vec
n={{\rm{Tr}\,}}(\mathbbm{1}\otimes\vec\sigma\;\rho)$, determine the reduced density matrices, e.g., $\rho_{1}={{\rm{Tr}\,}}_{2}\rho=\frac{1}{2}(\mathbbm1 + \vec m\cdot\vec\sigma)$, whereas the real $3\times3$ matrix $c=(c_{ij})$, where $c_{ij}={{\rm{Tr}\,}}(\sigma_i\otimes\sigma_j\;\rho)$, determines the nonlocal correlations. The expectation value for a joint spin measurement in directions $\vec \alpha$ and $\vec\beta$, given by $E(\vec\alpha,\vec\beta)={{\rm{Tr}\,}}(\rho\;
\vec\alpha\cdot\vec\sigma\otimes\vec\beta\cdot\vec\sigma)
=(\vec\alpha,c\; \vec\beta)$, is fully determined by the correlation matrix $c$.
A state is called separable if it can be written as a sum over product states, that means $c_{ij}=n_i\cdot m_j$. Nonseparable states are called entangled (see, e.g., [@BrussLeuchsBook]). The amount of entanglement is invariant under unitary transformations of the form $U_1\otimes
U_2$. This provides us with an equivalence relation for states with equal properties concerning separability and entanglement and we only have to choose a proper representative to reduce the number of parameters needed to describe the states.
The parameters $\vec m$, $\vec n$ and $c$ of $\rho$ transform under the action of the unitary transformation $U_1\otimes U_2$ as $\vec m'=O_1\vec m$, $\vec n'=O_2\vec n$ and $c'=O_1 c O_2^T$. The transformation $O_1$ ($O_2$) is related to $U_1$ ($U_2$) via the homomorphism connecting the groups $SU(2)$ and $SO(3)$: for every unitary transformation $U\in SU(2)$ there exists a unique rotation $O\in SO(3)$ such that $U \vec n\cdot\vec\sigma U^\dag=(O\vec n)\cdot\vec\sigma$.
It turns out that the orthogonal transformations can be chosen such that the matrix $c'$ is diagonal. Thus it is sufficient to consider states as representatives where the $c$-matrix is diagonal (singular value decomposition). The singular values, which are different from the eigenvalues, are always real [^1]. They can be arranged to form a 3 dimensional vector $\vec c=(c_1,c_2,c_3)^T$ which we call correlation vector. The spin geometry picture consists of all possible correlation vectors $\vec c$.\
**Example.**\
The correlation vectors for the $4$ maximally entangled Bell states, $\lvert\Psi^{\pm}\rangle=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\lvert01\rangle\pm\lvert10\rangle)$ with $\vec
c=(\pm1,\pm1,-1)^T$ and $\lvert\Phi^{\pm}\rangle=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\lvert00\rangle\pm\lvert11\rangle)$ with $\vec
c=(\pm1,\mp1,+1)^T$, form the corners of a tetrahedron which characterizes the convex set of all possible states. The partial transposition condition [@BrussLeuchsBook] leads to a reflection of the tetrahedron and the set of separable state is given by the intersection of both tetrahedrons which results in an octahedron (see Fig. \[fig.octahedron\] and Ref. [@Horodecki2_1996]).
![The tetrahedron of possible states, the inverted tetrahedron and the octahedron of separable states.[]{data-label="fig.octahedron"}](tetra1_neu.eps "fig:"){width="4.5cm"} ![The tetrahedron of possible states, the inverted tetrahedron and the octahedron of separable states.[]{data-label="fig.octahedron"}](tetra2a_neu.eps "fig:"){width="4.5cm"} ![The tetrahedron of possible states, the inverted tetrahedron and the octahedron of separable states.[]{data-label="fig.octahedron"}](tetra4a_neu.eps "fig:"){width="4.5cm"}
State with the same purity, measured by $\delta={{\rm{Tr}\,}}(\rho^2)$, correspond to a sphere of a radius proportional to $\delta$ centered at the origin of the tetrahedron. There are 4 pure states with $\delta=1$ in the picture, the Bell states. States with equal entanglement, measured by the concurrence $C$ [@BrussLeuchsBook], are found on planes with normal vector equal to $(-1,-1,-1)$ for instance. The only maximally entangled states in this picture are the Bell states. The separable states ($C=0$) lie at the border of the octahedron and inside. For a detailed analysis of these facts see Ref. [@ZimannBuzek2005-2].
Singular value decomposition
----------------------------
The singular value decomposition (SVD) is a generalization of the eigenvalue decomposition which can be used to diagonalize rectangular matrices (the eigen decomposition is defined only for square matrices). In analogy with the eigen decomposition, which decomposes a matrix into two simple matrices, the main idea of the SVD is to decompose a rectangular matrix $A$ into three simple matrices: two orthogonal matrices $P$ and $Q$ and one diagonal matrix $D$, given by $$\label{svd-trafo}
A=P\;D\;Q^T\;,$$ where $P^T P=\mathbbm1$ and $Q^T Q=\mathbbm1$. The diagonal entries of $D$ are called singular values.
From the relations $A\,A^T=P\;D^2\;P^T$ and $A^TA=Q\;D^2\;Q^T$ it is obvious that that the eigenvalues of the matrices $A\,A^T$ and $A^TA$ correspond to the squares of the singular values of $A$ and the eigenstates of $A\,A^T$ and $A^TA$ form the columns of the matrices $P$ and $Q$. The columns of $P$ ($Q$) are called left (right) singular vectors of $A$.
Decoherence modes {#sect.deco.modes}
=================
The following investigations are concerned with decoherence effects. The aim is to get information on the time evolution of the parameters $\vec m$, $\vec n$ and $c=(c_{ij})$, introduced in Eq. , and to construct the spin geometry picture. Because the correlation vectors consists of the singular values of the correlation matrix where the dynamical evolution has no impact on we can base our investigations on the master equation $$\label{master}
\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\rho(t)=-\mathcal D(\rho(t))=\lambda\bigl(\rho- \sum_{k=1}^{4} P_k\rho P_k\bigr)\;,$$ which describes only effects arising due to pure decoherence and includes no dynamical effects.
For a two qubit system $\{\lvert e_k\rangle\}_{k=1,\ldots, 4}$ denotes an eigenbasis of the Hamiltonian of the undisturbed system, $H\lvert e_k\rangle=E_k\lvert e_k\rangle$. In the following we chose several kinds of projection operators as Lindblad generators for the dissipator, Eq. .
A one-dimensional (bilocal) projection operator $P_k$ on the eigenspace of the Hamiltonian $H$ can be written in terms of projections on the individual subspaces, e.g., $$\label{proj.modeA}
P_k^A=\lvert e_k\rangle\langle e_k\rvert=P_k^{(1)}\otimes P_k^{(2)}\;,$$ where $P_k^{(1)}=
\begin{cases}
\frac{1}{2}(\mathbbm1+\sigma_z)\quad \mbox{for}\; k=1,2\\
\frac{1}{2}(\mathbbm1-\sigma_z)\quad \mbox{for}\; k=3,4
\end{cases}$ and $P_k^{(2)}=
\begin{cases}
\frac{1}{2}(\mathbbm1+\sigma_z)\quad \mbox{for}\; k=1,3\\
\frac{1}{2}(\mathbbm1-\sigma_z)\quad \mbox{for}\; k=2,4
\end{cases}$.
Decoherence modes where the Lindblad generators are projections of the form are denoted as mode A. We consider also (bi-)unitary rotations of the projection operators of the form $$\label{proj.modeB}
P_k^B=(U_1\otimes \mathbbm1)P_k^A (U_1\otimes \mathbbm1)^\dag=
U_1 P_k^{(1)}U_1^\dag\otimes P_k^{(2)}\;,$$ which are called mode B, and more generally $$\label{proj.modeC}
P_k^C=(U_1\otimes U_2)P_k^A (U_1\otimes U_2)^\dag=
U_1 P_k^{(1)}U_1^\dag\otimes U_2 P_k^{(2)}U_2^\dag\;,$$ which denote mode C. It is clear that mode A and B are just special cases of mode C.
A unitary rotation $U\in \rm{SU}(2)$ can be written in the following way $$U=e^{-i\frac{\alpha}{2}\vec
a\cdot\vec\sigma}=\cos\frac{\alpha}{2}\mathbbm1-i\sin\frac{\alpha}{2}\vec a\cdot\vec\sigma=
\begin{pmatrix}
\cos\frac{\alpha}{2}-i a_z\sin\frac{\alpha}{2}\; & \;-(ia_x+a_y)\sin\frac{\alpha}{2}
\\[5pt]
-(ia_x-a_y)\sin\frac{\alpha}{2}\; & \;\cos\frac{\alpha}{2}+i a_z\sin\frac{\alpha}{2} \\
\end{pmatrix}\;,$$ where $\alpha$ denotes the rotation angle and the unit vector $\vec a$ indicates the axis of rotation. For convenience we chose $\vec a=(0,1,0)^T$. Thus the rotation matrix has the simple form $$U(\alpha)=\begin{pmatrix}
\cos\frac{\alpha}{2} & -\sin\frac{\alpha}{2} \\
\sin\frac{\alpha}{2} & \cos\frac{\alpha}{2} \\
\end{pmatrix}\;,$$ and we set $U_1=U(\alpha)$ and $U_2=U(\beta)$ in Eqs. and .
Mode A
------
The first mode describes the simplest possible case. We choose the Lindblad generators according to Eq. . We have to calculate the expression $P_k^A \rho P_k^A$ which gives the following, based on Eq. , $$P_k^A \rho P_k^A=\frac{1}{4}\biggl(P_k^A +
\vec m\; (P_k^{(1)}\vec\sigma P_k^{(1)})\otimes P_k^{(2)} +
\vec n\; P_k^{(1)} \otimes (P_k^{(2)}\vec\sigma P_k^{(2)})+
c_{ij}\; (P_k^{(1)}\sigma_i P_k^{(1)})\otimes (P_k^{(2)}\sigma_j P_k^{(2)})\biggr)\,.$$ After a short calculation we find that $$\begin{split}
P_k^{(1)}\sigma_i P_k^{(1)}=(\pm)^{k=1,2}_{k=3,4}\; \delta_{iz} P_k^{(1)}\;,\qquad
P_k^{(2)}\sigma_i P_k^{(2)}=(\pm)^{k=1,3}_{k=2,4}\; \delta_{iz} P_k^{(2)}\;,\\
\end{split}$$ where the signs are chosen accordingly and $\delta_{ij}$ denotes the Kronecker-delta, i.e., $\delta_{ij}=1$ for $i=j$ otherwise it is $0$. The sum over all k gives $$\label{sumA}
\begin{split}
\sum_k P_k^A \rho P_k^A&=\frac{1}{4}\biggl(\mathbbm 1 +
m_z\; (P_1^A+P_2^A-P_3^A-P_4^A) +
n_z\; (P_1^A-P_2^A+P_3^A-P_4^A)+
c_{zz}\; (P_1^A-P_2^A-P_3^A+P_4^A)\biggr)\\
&=\frac{1}{4}\biggl(\mathbbm 1 +
m_z\; \sigma_z\otimes\mathbbm1 +
n_z\; \mathbbm1\otimes\sigma_z+
c_{zz}\; \sigma_z\otimes\sigma_z\biggr)\;,
\end{split}$$ where we have used the identities $$\begin{split}
P_1^A+P_2^A-P_3^A-P_4^A=\sigma_z\otimes\mathbbm1\;,\\
P_1^A-P_2^A+P_3^A-P_4^A=\mathbbm1\otimes\sigma_z\;,\\
P_1^A-P_2^A-P_3^A+P_4^A=\sigma_z\otimes\sigma_z\;.
\end{split}$$ With Eqs. and we are ready to evaluate the master equation . A comparison of coefficients leads to the following differential equations $$\begin{split}
\begin{pmatrix} \dot m_x \\ \dot m_y \\ \dot m_z \\ \end{pmatrix}
= -\lambda\begin{pmatrix} m_x \\ m_y \\ 0 \\ \end{pmatrix}\;,\quad
\begin{pmatrix} \dot n_x \\ \dot n_y \\ \dot n_z \\ \end{pmatrix}
= -\lambda\begin{pmatrix} n_x \\ n_y \\ 0 \\ \end{pmatrix}\;,\quad
\begin{pmatrix}
\dot c_{xx} & \dot c_{xy} & \dot c_{xz} \\
\dot c_{yx} & \dot c_{yy} & \dot c_{yz} \\
\dot c_{zx} & \dot c_{zy} & \dot c_{zz} \\
\end{pmatrix}=-\lambda
\begin{pmatrix}
c_{xx} & c_{xy} & c_{xz} \\
c_{yx} & c_{yy} & c_{yz} \\
c_{zx} & c_{zy} & 0 \\
\end{pmatrix}\;,
\end{split}$$ with the solutions $$\label{solutions.modeA}
\begin{split}
m_z(t)=m_z(0),\quad n_z(t)=n_z(0),\quad c_{zz}(t)=c_{zz}(0)\\
m_i(t)=e^{-\lambda t}m_i(0),\quad n_i(t)=e^{-\lambda t} n_i(0)\quad\mbox{for}\,i\neq z\\
c_{ij}(t)=e^{-\lambda t} c_{ij}(0)\quad\mbox{for}\,i=j\neq z\;.
\end{split}$$ This means that all elements are damped by $e^{-\lambda t}$ except the $z$-components of the local parameters and the $zz$-component of the correlation matrix which are unaltered.
Mode B {#sect.modeB}
------
The next stage is to consider rotations in one subspace, e.g., projection operators of the form . Now the expression $P_k^B \rho P_k^B$ looks like $$\label{proj.sandwich.modeB}
\begin{split}
P_k^B \rho P_k^B=\frac{1}{4}\biggl(P_k^B +
&\vec m\;\; (U_1 P_k^{(1)}U_1^\dag \vec\sigma U_1 P_k^{(1)}U_1^\dag)\otimes P_k^{(2)}+
\vec n\;\; (U_1 P_k^{(1)}U_1^\dag) \otimes (P_k^{(2)}\vec\sigma P_k^{(2)})\\+
&c_{ij}\;\; (U_1 P_k^{(1)}U_1^\dag \sigma_i U_1 P_k^{(1)}U_1^\dag )\otimes (P_k^{(2)}\sigma_j
P_k^{(2)})\biggr)\;.
\end{split}$$ With the expression $$\label{eq.u1}
\begin{split}
U_1 P_k^{(1)}U_1^\dag \sigma_i U_1 P_k^{(1)}U_1^\dag =(\pm)^{k=1,2}_{k=3,4}\;
(\delta_{ix} \sin\alpha +\delta_{iz}\cos\alpha) U_1 P_k^{(1)}U_1^\dag\;,
\end{split}$$ we get for the sum $$\begin{split}
\sum_k P_k^B \rho P_k^B=\frac{1}{4}\biggl(\mathbbm 1 &+
(m_x \sin\alpha+m_z\cos\alpha)\; (\sin\alpha\, \sigma_x\otimes\mathbbm1+\cos\alpha\, \sigma_z\otimes\mathbbm1) +
n_z\; \mathbbm1\otimes\sigma_z\\
&+(c_{xz}\sin\alpha + c_{zz}\cos\alpha)\;
(\sin\alpha \,\sigma_x\otimes\sigma_z+\cos\alpha\, \sigma_z\otimes\sigma_z)\biggr)\;.
\end{split}$$ The differential equations for the parameters of the density matrix are given by $$\begin{split}
\begin{pmatrix} \dot m_x \\ \dot m_y \\ \dot m_z \\ \end{pmatrix}
= -\lambda\begin{pmatrix} m_x-m_x \sin^2\alpha-m_z\sin\alpha\cos\alpha \\ m_y \\
m_z-m_x \sin\alpha\cos\alpha-m_z\cos^2\alpha \\ \end{pmatrix}\;,\quad
\begin{pmatrix} \dot n_x \\ \dot n_y \\ \dot n_z \\ \end{pmatrix}
= -\lambda\begin{pmatrix} n_x \\ n_y \\ 0 \\ \end{pmatrix}\,,\\
\begin{pmatrix}
\dot c_{xx} & \dot c_{xy} & \dot c_{xz} \\
\dot c_{yx} & \dot c_{yy} & \dot c_{yz} \\
\dot c_{zx} & \dot c_{zy} & \dot c_{zz} \\
\end{pmatrix}=-\lambda
\begin{pmatrix}
c_{xx}\; & c_{xy}\; & c_{xz}-c_{xz}\sin^2\alpha-c_{zz}\sin\alpha\cos\alpha \\[5pt]
c_{yx}\; & c_{yy}\; & c_{yz} \\[5pt]
c_{zx}\; & c_{zy}\; & c_{zz}-c_{xz}\sin\alpha\cos\alpha-c_{zz}\cos^2\alpha \\[5pt]
\end{pmatrix}\;.
\end{split}$$ Apart from the solutions already given in Eq. we get the following solutions for the remaining components $$\label{sol.modeB-m}
\begin{split}
m_{x}(t)=(\sin^2\alpha+e^{-\lambda t}\cos^2\alpha)m_{x}(0) +(1-e^{-\lambda t})\sin\alpha\cos\alpha\, m_{z}(0) \;,\\
m_{z}(t)=(1-e^{-\lambda t})\sin\alpha\cos\alpha\,m_{x}(0) + (e^{-\lambda t}\sin^2\alpha+\cos^2\alpha)m_{z}(0) \;,
\end{split}$$ $$\label{sol.modeB-c}
\begin{split}
c_{xz}(t)= (\sin^2\alpha+e^{-\lambda t}\cos^2\alpha)c_{xz}(0) +(1-e^{-\lambda t})\sin\alpha\cos\alpha\, c_{zz}(0)\;,\\
c_{zz}(t)= (1-e^{-\lambda t})\sin\alpha\cos\alpha\,c_{xz}(0) + (e^{-\lambda t}\sin^2\alpha+\cos^2\alpha)c_{zz}(0)\;.
\end{split}$$
This means the rotation of the projection operators results in a coupling of different components, in this case between $m_x$ and $m_z$ and $c_{xz}$ and $c_{zz}$.
This mode has been discussed in detail in Ref.[@BertlmannDurstbergerHasegawa2005].
Mode C
------
Independent rotations in both subspaces, where the projection operators are given by Eq. , results in an expression like $$\begin{split}
P_k^C \rho P_k^C=\frac{1}{4}\biggl(P_k^C +
&\,\vec m\;\; (U_1 P_k^{(1)}U_1^\dag \vec\sigma U_1 P_k^{(1)}U_1^\dag)\otimes (U_2 P_k^{(2)}U_2^\dag)+
\vec n\;\; (U_1 P_k^{(1)}U_1^\dag) \otimes (U_2 P_k^{(2)}U_2^\dag \vec\sigma U_2 P_k^{(2)}U_2^\dag)\\+
&\,c_{ij}\;\; (U_1 P_k^{(1)}U_1^\dag \sigma_i U_1 P_k^{(1)}U_1^\dag )\otimes
(U_2 P_k^{(2)}U_2^\dag \sigma_j U_2 P_k^{(2)}U_2^\dag)\biggr)\;,
\end{split}$$ where $U_1 P_k^{(1)}U_1^\dag \sigma_i U_1 P_k^{(1)}U_1^\dag$ is given in Eq. and $$\begin{split}
U_2 P_k^{(2)}U_2^\dag \sigma_i U_2 P_k^{(2)}U_2^\dag =(\pm)^{k=1,3}_{k=2,4}\;
(\delta_{ix} \sin\beta +\delta_{iz}\cos\beta) U_2 P_k^{(1)}U_2^\dag\;.
\end{split}$$ Calculating the sum over all 4 terms gives $$\begin{split}
\sum_k P_k^C \rho P_k^C=\frac{1}{4}\biggl(\mathbbm 1 &+
\bar m\; (\sin\alpha\, \sigma_x\otimes\mathbbm1+\cos\alpha\, \sigma_z\otimes\mathbbm1) +
\bar n\; (\sin\beta\, \mathbbm1\otimes\sigma_x+\cos\beta\, \mathbbm1\otimes\sigma_z)\\
&+\bar c\;
(\sin\alpha\sin\beta \,\sigma_x\otimes\sigma_x+\sin\alpha\cos\beta
\,\sigma_x\otimes\sigma_z
+\cos\alpha\sin\beta\, \sigma_z\otimes\sigma_x+\cos\alpha\cos\beta\,
\sigma_z\otimes\sigma_z)\biggr)\;,
\end{split}$$ where $$\begin{split}
\bar m&=m_x \sin\alpha+m_z\cos\alpha\;,\hspace{1cm}
\bar n=n_x \sin\beta+n_z\cos\beta\;,\\
\bar c&=c_{xx}\sin\alpha\sin\beta +c_{xz}\sin\alpha\cos\beta +
c_{zx}\cos\alpha\sin\beta+ c_{zz}\cos\alpha\cos\beta\;.
\end{split}$$ The differential equations for the parameters of the density matrix are given by $$\begin{split}
\begin{pmatrix} \dot m_x \\ \dot m_y \\ \dot m_z \\ \end{pmatrix}
= -\lambda&\begin{pmatrix} m_x-m_x \sin^2\alpha-m_z\sin\alpha\cos\alpha \\ m_y \\
m_z-m_x \sin\alpha\cos\alpha-m_z\cos^2\alpha \\ \end{pmatrix}\,,\quad
\begin{pmatrix} \dot n_x \\ \dot n_y \\ \dot n_z \\ \end{pmatrix}
= -\lambda\begin{pmatrix} n_x-n_x \sin^2\beta-n_z\sin\beta\cos\beta \\ n_y \\
n_z-n_x \sin\beta\cos\beta-n_z\cos^2\beta \\ \end{pmatrix}\,,\\
&\begin{pmatrix}
\dot c_{xx} & \dot c_{xy} & \dot c_{xz} \\
\dot c_{yx} & \dot c_{yy} & \dot c_{yz} \\
\dot c_{zx} & \dot c_{zy} & \dot c_{zz} \\
\end{pmatrix}=-\lambda
\begin{pmatrix}
c_{xx}-\bar c\, \sin\alpha\sin\beta \; & c_{xy}\; & c_{xz}-\bar c\,\sin\alpha\cos\beta \\[5pt]
c_{yx}\; & c_{yy}\; & c_{yz} \\[5pt]
c_{zx}-\bar c\,\cos\alpha\sin\beta \; & c_{zy}\; & c_{zz}-\bar c\,\cos\alpha\cos\beta \\[5pt]
\end{pmatrix}\;.
\end{split}$$
The solutions for $\vec m(t)$ and $\vec n(t)$ have the same structure, given by Eq. . The solutions for the modified components of the $c$-matrix are the following $$\label{eq:sol.modeC}
\begin{split}
c_{xx}(t)=e^{-\lambda t}c_{xx}(0)+ (1-e^{-\lambda t})
\biggl(&\sin^2\alpha\sin^2\beta\; c_{xx}(0)+\sin^2\alpha\sin\beta\cos\beta\; c_{xz}(0)\\
&+\sin\alpha\cos\alpha\sin^2\beta\; c_{zx}(0)+\sin\alpha\cos\alpha\sin\beta\cos\beta \;c_{zz}(0)\biggr)\,,\\
c_{xz}(t)=e^{-\lambda t}c_{xz}(0)+ (1-e^{-\lambda t})
\biggl(&\sin^2\alpha\sin\beta\cos\beta\; c_{xx}(0)+\sin^2\alpha\cos^2\beta\; c_{xz}(0)\\
&+\sin\alpha\cos\alpha\sin\beta\cos\beta \;c_{zx}(0)+\sin\alpha\cos\alpha\cos^2\beta\; c_{zz}(0)\biggr)\;,\\
c_{zx}(t)=e^{-\lambda t}c_{zx}(0)+ (1-e^{-\lambda t})
\biggl(&\sin\alpha\cos\alpha\sin^2\beta\; c_{xx}(0)+\sin\alpha\cos\alpha\sin\beta\cos\beta\; c_{xz}(0)\\
&+\cos^2\alpha\sin^2\beta\; c_{zx}(0)+\cos^2\alpha\sin\beta\cos\beta\; c_{zz}(0)\biggr)\;,\\
c_{zz}(t)=e^{-\lambda t}c_{zz}(0)+ (1-e^{-\lambda t})
\biggl(&\sin\alpha\cos\alpha\sin\beta\cos\beta\; c_{xx}(0)+\sin\alpha\cos\alpha\cos^2\beta \;c_{xz}(0)\\
&+\cos^2\alpha\sin\beta\cos\beta\; c_{zx}(0)+\cos^2\alpha\cos^2\beta\; c_{zz}(0)\biggr)\;.\\
\end{split}$$
Now the coupling in the $c$-matrix is extended to include $c_{xx}$, $c_{xz}$, $c_{zx}$ and $c_{zz}$ components. Therefore the solutions for this mode are more demanding.
Comments
--------
We see from the structure of the solutions for mode C, Eq. , that the rotation axis of the unitary rotation has an influence on the resulting local parameters and the correlation matrix. The different modes correspond to the coupling of the system with different environments. The coupling strength parameterized by $\lambda$ is always the same but the effects on the state of the system are different.
To calculate the correlation vector for all these modes is in general not very easy because one gets quite big terms. Therefore we postpone this investigation to the next section where we calculate the vectors for the special case of the Bell singlet state.
An interesting point is what happens with the correlation matrix for $t\rightarrow\infty$. As can be easily checked the asymptotic correlation matrix is given by $$\label{eq.limit-states}
c^C_\infty=w\begin{pmatrix}
\sin\alpha \sin\beta & 0 &\sin\alpha \cos\beta \\
0 & 0 & 0 \\
\cos\alpha \sin\beta & 0 & \cos\alpha \cos\beta
\end{pmatrix}\;,$$ where $w=\sin\alpha \bigl(c_{xz}(0) \cos\beta+c_{xx}(0) \sin\beta\bigr)+\cos\alpha\bigl(c_{zz}(0) \cos\beta+c_{zx}(0) \sin\beta\bigr)$. The correlation vector for the asymptotic matrix has the simple structure of $\vec c_\infty=(0, 0 , w)^T$. This shows that all states independent of their initial correlations end up on a line connecting the origin of the spin geometry picture (the maximally mixed state) with a point representing an equal mixture of two Bell states given by the corners of the octahedron (see Fig. \[fig.limit\]). Note that the ordering of the singular values does not matter due to the high symmetry of the picture.
Example: Bell state {#sect:bell-state}
===================
To get a better feeling for the decoherence modes we consider the example of the maximally entangled Bell singlet state $\lvert\Psi^-\rangle=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\lvert e_2\rangle-\lvert e_3\rangle)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(0,1,-1,0)^T$ where the initial density matrix is given by $\rho(0)=\lvert\Psi^-\rangle\langle\Psi^-\rvert$. The local parameters vanish $\vec m=\vec n=0$ and the correlation matrix is diagonal $c_{BS}(0)={\rm
diag}(-1,-1,-1)$. In the following we consider the behavior of the correlation matrix because the local parameters do not change for this state.
Mode A
------
For decoherence mode A the correlation matrix remains diagonal but is affected by the decoherence like $c^A_{BS}={\rm diag}(-e^{-\lambda t},-e^{-\lambda t},-1)$. Consequently the correlation vector for mode A is given by $\vec c^A_{BS}=(-e^{-\lambda t}, -e^{-\lambda t} , -1 )^T$.
The correlation vector $\vec c^A_{BS}$ for fixed $\lambda$ is plotted in Fig.\[fig.modeA\] with respect to varying $t$. We start in the corner indicated by $\lvert\Psi^-\rangle$ and for $t\rightarrow\infty$ approach the point bisecting the line which connects the projectors of the states $\lvert\Psi^-\rangle$ and $\lvert\Psi^+\rangle$. This asymptotic state is mixed but not maximally mixed and lies at the border of separability which is given by the blue octahedron.
Mode B {#example1,modeB}
------
Mode B, where the projector in one subspace is rotated unitarily, leads to a correlation matrix given by $$c^B_{BS}=\\
\begin{pmatrix}
-e^{-\lambda t} & 0 & -(1-e^{-\lambda t})\sin\alpha\cos\alpha \\
0 & -e^{-\lambda t} & 0 \\
0 & 0 & -e^{-\lambda t}-(1-e^{-\lambda t})\cos^2\alpha\\
\end{pmatrix}\;.$$ The emergence of the $xz$-component is due to the particular coupling of the differential equations, Eq. . The singular values [^2] of this matrix are computed to be $$\label{sing.values-modeB}
\begin{split}
c^B_1&=e^{-\lambda t}\;,\\
c^B_{2,3}&=\frac{e^{-\lambda t}}{2}\sqrt{3+2e^{2\lambda t}\cos^2\alpha-\cos(2\alpha)\mp
\sqrt{2}(e^{\lambda t}-1)\cos\alpha\sqrt{5-3\cos(2\alpha)
+2e^{\lambda t}(2+e^{\lambda t})\cos^2\alpha}}\;.
\end{split}$$ which gives for the correlation vector $\vec c^B_{BS}=(-c^B_1,-c^B_2,-c^B_3)^T$.
The expansions of the last two singular values up to second order in $\alpha$, $$\begin{split}
c^B_2=e^{-\lambda t}+\frac{e^{-\lambda t}}{2}\frac{1-e^{\lambda t}}{1+e^{\lambda
t}}\;\alpha^2\;,\qquad
c^B_3=1+\frac{e^{-\lambda t}}{2}\frac{1-e^{\lambda t}}{1+e^{\lambda t}}\,(2+e^{\lambda t})\;\alpha^2\;,
\end{split}$$ show that to first order in $\alpha$ the singular value $c_2$ is well approximated by $e^{-\lambda
t}$ and $c_3$ is constant. The second order contributions affect $c_3$ much more than $c_2$. In fact the deviations of $c_2$ from the exponential function are very small (a few percent) and the largest deviation arises for $\alpha=\frac{3\pi}{8}$.
The decoherence paths for mode B form a plane which has a little bulge due to the slight deviation of $c^B_2$ from the exponential function. This deviation from the plane formed by equal $c^B_1$ and $c^B_2$ coefficients can be understood by the fact that the SVD is an asymmetric transformation and although applied to square matrices the matrices $P$ and $Q$, Eq., are different. A comparison with the eigenvalues of $c^B_{BS}$, given by $\lambda^B_1=\lambda^B_2=-e^{-\lambda t}$ and $\lambda^B_3=-\cos^2\alpha-e^{-\lambda t}\sin^2\alpha$, reveals that only the $z$-component depends on the angle $\alpha$.
We can distinguish two special cases. The correlation vector for $\alpha=0$ is given by $\vec c=( -e^{-\lambda t}, -e^{-\lambda t}, -1)^T$ which corresponds exactly to mode A (see Fig. \[fig.modeA\]). For $\alpha=\frac{\pi}{2}$ the correlation vector, given by $\vec c=( -e^{-\lambda t}, -e^{-\lambda t}, -e^{-\lambda t})^T$, is shown in Fig. \[fig.modeB-1\]. The state approaches the totally mixed state sitting at the origin of the coordinate system. Thereby it reaches the border of separability at $\lambda t=\ln3$ (cf. with Ref. [@BertlmannDurstbergerHasegawa2005]). We recover the phenomenon of “entanglement sudden death” introduced by Yu and Eberly [@YuEberly2006]. Note that the Werner state [@Werner1989], which interpolates between a maximally entangled state and the maximally mixed state, shows the same behaviour in the spin geometry picture.
In Fig. \[fig.modeB-2\] the correlation vectors are shown with respect to fixed parameter $\lambda$ and evolving time $t$ for different values of $\alpha$. The time the border of separability is reached varies with respect to $\alpha$ and the extremal cases are $\alpha=\frac{\pi}{2}$ where the border is reached after the shortest time and $\alpha=0$ where it is reached asymptotically at infinity.
Mode C
------
The most general case, mode C, which is characterized by two bilocal unitary rotations of the Lindblad generators, exhibits a time evolved correlation matrix for the Bell singlet state given by $$c^C_{BS}=
\begin{pmatrix}
-e^{-\lambda t}- (1-e^{-\lambda t}) \cos (\alpha -\beta ) \sin\alpha\sin\beta & 0
& - \left(1-e^{-\lambda t}\right) \cos (\alpha -\beta ) \sin\alpha\cos\beta\\
0 & -e^{-\lambda t} & 0 \\
-\left(1-e^{-\lambda t}\right) \cos (\alpha -\beta )\cos\alpha\sin\beta
& 0 & -e^{-\lambda t} -(1-e^{-\lambda t}) \cos (\alpha -\beta ) \cos\alpha\cos\beta\\
\end{pmatrix}\;,$$ We calculate the singular values, $$\begin{split}
c^C_1&=e^{-\lambda t}\;,\\
c^C_{2,3}&=\frac{1}{2}e^{-\lambda t}
\sqrt{3+2e^{2\lambda t}\cos^2\Delta-\cos(2\Delta)\mp
\sqrt{2}(e^{\lambda t}-1)\cos\Delta\sqrt{5-3\cos(2\Delta)
+2e^{\lambda t}(2+e^{\lambda t})\cos^2\Delta}}\;,
\end{split}$$ where $\Delta=\alpha-\beta$ and realize that they have the same structure as Eq. with a symmetry in $\alpha$ and $\beta$. They depend only on the relative angle difference $\lvert\Delta\rvert$ and consequently the problem reduces to mode B, already discussed in section \[example1,modeB\].
Just for completeness, the eigenvalues of the correlation matrix for mode C are given by $\lambda^C_{1}=\lambda^C_{2}=-e^{-\lambda t}$ and $\lambda^C_3=-\cos^2\Delta-e^{-\lambda t}\sin^2\Delta$.
Equivalence of mode B and mode C in the geometric picture {#sect:equiv}
=========================================================
The results of the last section suggest to investigate the point which initial states result in an equivalence of mode B and C in the spin geometry picture. This means that for some initial conditions the singular values (and also the eigenvalues) of the correlations matrix for mode C depend only on the angle difference $\Delta=\alpha-\beta$ and have the same structure as those for mode B. We state a proposition which is a necessary condition for the initial correlation matrix that mode C depends only on the angle difference and is equivalent to mode B. We do not know if the condition is also sufficient.\
**Proposition.**\
For a density matrix with initial local parameters $\vec m(0)$ and $\vec n(0)$ equal to zero and an initial correlation matrix given by $$\label{eq:initial-cond}
c(0)= \begin{pmatrix}k_1 & 0 & k_2 \\0 & k_3 & 0 \\-k_2 & 0 & k_1\end{pmatrix}\;,$$ the geometric picture of decoherence mode B and mode C coincide and the singular values depend only on the angle difference $\Delta$. The correlation vector of matrix is given by $\vec c(0)=\begin{pmatrix}\sqrt{k_1^2+k_2^2}\;,& \sqrt{k_1^2+k_2^2}\;, & k_3\end{pmatrix}^T$ where the values $k_1$, $k_2$ and $k_3$ have to satisfy $2\sqrt{k_1^2+k_2^2}+k_3\leq 1$ in order to belong to the tetrahedron of possible states (see Fig. \[fig.equiv\]).\
**Proof.**\
We consider states where the initial local parameters are set to zero because of their irrelevance for the spin geometry picture.
Two matrices $A$ and $B$ have the same eigenvalues $\lambda_i$ if they are similar $A=S B S^{-1}$ for an invertible matrix $S$. That means two conditions have to be satisfied:
- ${{\rm{Tr}\,}}A ={{\rm{Tr}\,}}B=\sum_i \lambda_i$,
- $\det A =\det B=\prod_i \lambda_i$.
In our case we have to deal with the matrices $A^TA$ and $B^T B$ and find out when their eigenvalues are equal. In general the equality of the singular values of two matrices does not imply the equality of the eigenvalues of these matrices, e.g., in general $$A^T A=(S B S^{-1})^T (S B S^{-1})\neq S (B^T B) S^{-1}\;.$$ The relation $A^T A= S (B^T B) S^{-1}$ is only valid for orthogonal transformation matrices $S$ where $S^{-1}=S^T$. Let us assume that this condition is valid, then it is sufficient to consider only the conditions stated above[^3]. In the following we set $A:=c^B$ and $B:=c^C$.
There is only one point left which is important. The functions of $A$ depend only on the angle $\alpha$ which we have to substitute with the difference $\alpha-\beta$ in order to compare it with the functions of $B$. Then we calculate the difference of both solutions and determine the conditions for it to be zero and independent of the rotation angles.
We get for the trace condition $$\begin{split}
{{\rm{Tr}\,}}B-{{\rm{Tr}\,}}A=&
\left(1-e^{- \lambda t}\right)\sin\beta \cos (\alpha -\beta )
\Bigl((c_{xz}+c_{zx}) \cos\alpha +(c_{xx}-c_{zz}) \sin\alpha\Bigr) \;.
\end{split}$$
This product is zero and independent of the single rotation angles only for $$\label{eq:condition1}
c_{xx}=c_{zz}=k_1 \qquad\mbox{and}\qquad c_{xz}=-c_{zx}=k_2\;.$$ All other entries of the correlation matrix are not fixed by this condition and can be chosen arbitrarily.
The condition of the determinant is given by $$\begin{split}
\det B-\det A=&
e^{-2 t \lambda } \left(1-e^{-\lambda t }\right) \sin\beta \Bigl(k_1 \cos (\alpha -\beta )+k_3 \sin (\alpha -\beta )\Bigr) \\
&\cdot\Bigl((c_{xy} c_{yz}+c_{yx} c_{zy}) \cos\alpha +(c_{xy} c_{yx}-c_{yz} c_{zy}) \sin\alpha\Bigr)\;,
\end{split}$$ where we already used the condition stated in . This is equal to zero and independent of the rotation angles for $$\label{eq:condition2}
c_{xy}=c_{yx}=c_{yz}=c_{zy}=0\;.$$ Thus we have only one entry, namely $k_3$, in the initial correlation matrix left which is not determined by both conditions. $\Box$
Note that the invariants introduced in Refs.[@Makhlin; @UshaDeviUmaPrabhuSudha] are connected with the problem considered here.
The states given by Eq. form planes (with proper restrictions of the coordinates) which contain the lines connecting the Bell states and the line of the Werner state (see Fig. \[fig.modeB-1\]) in the spin geometry picture.
Summary and conclusion {#sect:summary}
======================
We considered the master equation with a special type of dissipator which describes decoherence in a two qubit system. The generators of decoherence are chosen to be on the one hand projectors onto the eigenstates of the undisturbed Hamiltonian of the system (mode A) and on the other hand they are (bi-)local unitary rotations of these projectors (mode B and C).
The general solutions of the master equation are presented with respect to the decomposition of a two qubit system in terms of joint Pauli matrices. We are interested in the time behavior of the correlation matrix which is studied for the case of the Bell singlet state. The information about entanglement and purity is encoded in the correlation vector which can be illustrated in the spin geometry picture. We show graphically the paths of the different decoherence modes and discuss their behavior for the Bell singlet state (see Fig. \[fig.modeB\]).
For the special case of the Bell singlet state we find that mode B and C are equal and depend only on the difference of the rotation angles of the projection operators. This arises the question for which general initial states this is the case. We conclude that this happens for all states which are contained in the plane formed by the line connecting the Bell states and the line of the Werner states (see Fig. \[fig.equiv\]).
The asymptotic states of decoherence mode C (and therefore also for mode A and B) are found to give a line connecting the maximally mixed state at the origin of the picture with the equal mixture of two Bell states (see Fig. \[fig.limit\]).
The decoherence modes investigated in this paper exhibit very strong symmetry properties which is due to the fact that we choose projection operators as generators of the decoherence. For more general Lindblad operators the calculations start to get more involved but the conjecture is that for them the whole geometric state space of the tetrahedron can be occupied.
An open question related with the spin geometric picture is the influence of the local parameters on the geometric state space? We have some preliminary results for maximally entangled mixed states [@IshizakaHiroshima; @MunroJamesWhiteKwiat] where the local parameters are not zero any more and the calculation of the singular values is more involved.
The author wants to thank Reinhold A. Bertlmann, Heide Narnhofer, Franz Embacher and Stefan Filipp for helpful discussions.
This work has been supported financially by the Theodor-Körner-Fond (Förderungspreis für Wissenschaft 2006), the University of Vienna (Forschungsstipendium) and the FWF project P 18943-N20 of the Austrian Science Foundation.
[^1]: Note that pure unitary dynamics do not affect the degree of entanglement and thus do not appear in the singular value decomposition nor in the spin geometry picture. For this reason it is legitimate to consider only the pure decoherence part of the equation, see Eq. .
[^2]: Note, that the SVD does not specify a certain sign, which can be determined, e.g., from the eigenvalue decomposition, nor a certain attribution to the coordinate axes, but note the high symmetry of the tetrahedron.
[^3]: We have checked that ${{\rm{Tr}\,}}(A^T A)$ and $\det (A^T A)$, in contrast to ${{\rm{Tr}\,}}A$ and $\det A$, does not reveal new constraints on the coefficients.
|
---
author:
- |
A Lanza$^{\rm a}$, S. Morigi$^{\rm a}$, M. Pragliola$^{\rm a}$ and F. Sgallari$^{\rm a}$\
$^{a}$[*[Department of Mathematics, University of Bologna, Piazza di Porta San Donato 5, Bologna, IT]{}*]{}
title:
- Overcomplete
- 'Space-variant TV regularization for image restoration'
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
During the image acquisition and transmission processes, degradation effects such as those due to blur and noise always occur. The goal of *image restoration* is to eliminate these unwanted effects and to recover *clean* images from the acquired blurred and noisy ones. We consider grayscale images with rectangular $\,d_1 \!{\times}\, d_2$ domain, such that is the total number of pixels in the images. The general discrete model of the image degradation process under blur and noise corruptions can be written as $$g \:\;{=}\;\: \mathcal{N}\left( K u \right) \: ,
\label{eq:GDM}$$ where $u, g \in \mathbb{R}^{n}$ represent vectorized forms of the unknown clean image and of the observed corrupted image, respectively, $K \in {\mathbb{R}}^{n \times n}$ is a known linear blurring operator and $\mathcal{N}(\,\cdot\,)$ denotes the noise corruption operator, which in most cases is of random nature. Given $K$ and $g$, the goal of image restoration is to solve the ill-conditioned - or even singular, depending on $K$ - inverse problem of recovering an as accurate as possible estimate $u^*$ of the unknown clean image $u$.
In this paper, we are interested in two important types of noise, namely the additive (zero-mean) white Gaussian noise (AWGN) which typically appears, e.g., in Magnetic Resonance Tomography, and the impulsive salt and pepper noise (SPN) usually due to transmission errors or malfunctioning pixel elements in camera sensors. Denoting by $\Omega := \{1,\ldots,n\}$ the set of all pixel positions in the images, for these two kinds of noise the general degradation model in (\[eq:GDM\]) reads as $$\begin{array}{ccc}
\mathrm{AWGN:} & \quad\;\; & \mathrm{SPN:} \vspace{0.1cm} \\
g_i \:\;{=}\;\: (K u)_i \;{+}\; n_i \;\;\: \forall \, i \in \Omega \, , & &
g_{i} \:\;{=}\;\: \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
(K u)_i \;\; & \mathrm{for} \;\;\: i \in \Omega_0 \subseteq \Omega\\
n_i \in \{0,1\} & \mathrm{for} \;\;\: i \in {\Omega_1} :=\Omega \setminus \Omega_0
\end{array} \right. \, .
\end{array}
\label{eq:SDM}$$ For what concerns AWGN, the additive corruptions $n_i \in {\mathbb{R}}$, $i \in \Omega$, represent independent realizations from the same univariate Gaussian distribution with zero mean and standard deviation $\sigma$. In the case of SPN, only a subset $\Omega_1$ of the pixels is corrupted by noise, whereas the complementary subset $\Omega_0$ is noise-free. In particular, the corrupted pixels can take only the two possible extreme values $\{0,1\}$ (we assume that images have range $[0,1]$), with the same probability. The subset $\Omega_1$ is known in some applications [@Serena17] or it could be estimated [@mila]. Just like AWGN is fully characterized from a probabilistic point of view by the unique scalar parameter $\,\sigma$, SPN is characterized by the parameter $\gamma \in [0,1]$ which represents the probability for a pixel to be noise-corrupted. The class of *variational* methods for image restoration relies on determining restored images $u^*\in{\mathbb{R}}^n$ as the minimizers of suitable cost functionals $J: {\mathbb{R}}^n \to {\mathbb{R}}$ such that, typically, restoration is casted as an optimization problem of the form $$u^* \:\;{\leftarrow}\;\: \arg \min_{u \in {\mathbb{R}}^n}
\left\{ \,
J(u) \;{:=}\; R(u) \;{+}\; \mu \, F(u;g)
\, \right\}
\, ,
\label{eq:GVM}$$ where the functionals $R(u)$ and $F(u;g)$, commonly referred to as the *regularization* and the *fidelity* term, encode prior information on the clean image $u$ and on the observation model (\[eq:GDM\]), respectively, with the so-called regularization parameter $\mu > 0$ controlling the trade-off between the two terms. In particular, the functional form of the fidelity term is strictly connected to the characteristics of the noise corruption.
It is well known that AWGN and SPN are suitably dealt with the so-called L$_2$ and L$_1$ fidelity terms, which are related to the $\ell_2$ and $\ell_1$ norm of the residue image $Ku-g$, respectively; in formulas: $$F(u;g) \,\;{=}\;\, \mathrm{L}_q(u;g) \,\;{:=}\;\, \frac{1}{q} \, \| K u - g \|_q^q ,
\quad q \in \{1,2\} \, .
\label{eq:Lq}$$ For what regards the regularization term in (\[eq:GVM\]), a very popular choice is represented by the Total Variation semi-norm, that is $$R(u) \:\;{=}\;\: \mathrm{TV}(u) \,\;{:=}\; \sum_{i=1}^{n} \| (\nabla u)_{i} \|_2 \, ,
\label{eq:TV}$$ where $(\nabla u)_i = \big( (D_h u)_i , (D_v u)_i \big)^T \in {\mathbb{R}}^2$ denotes the discrete gradient of image $u$ at pixel $i$, with $D_h,D_v \in {\mathbb{R}}^{n \times n}$ linear operators representing finite difference discretizations of the first-order horizontal and vertical partial derivatives, respectively. Popularity of TV regularizer for image restoration is mainly due to two facts, namely (a) it is convex and (b) it allows for restored images with sharp, neat edges. By substituting the TV regularizer (\[eq:TV\]) and the L$_2$ or L$_1$ fidelity terms (\[eq:Lq\]) for $R$ and $F$ in (\[eq:GVM\]), respectively, one obtains the so-called TV-L$_2$ [@ROF] - or ROF - and TV-L$_1$ [@tvl1] restoration models; in formulas: $$u^* \:\;{\leftarrow}\;\: \arg \min_{u \in {\mathbb{R}}^n}
\left\{ \,
\mathrm{TV}(u) \,\;{+}\;\, \mu \, \mathrm{L}_q(u;g)
\, \right\} ,
\quad q \in \{1,2\} \, .
\label{eq:TVLq}$$ The TV-L$_2$ and TV-L$_1$ models in (\[eq:TVLq\]) are non-smooth convex and allows to obtain good quality restorations of images corrupted by AWGN and SPN, respectively, such that they are regarded as sort of baseline models. The goal of this paper is to devise two new variational models which are able to outperform the TV-L$_2$ and models, in particular by designing a new, better performing regularizer, and also to propose an efficient minimization algorithm for the solution of these models based on the Alternating Direction Method of Multipliers (ADMM) strategy [@BOYD_ADMM].
The two proposed models are as follows: $$u^* \:\;{\leftarrow}\;\: \arg \min_{u \in {\mathbb{R}}^n}
\left\{ \,
\mathrm{TV}_p^{\mathrm{sv}}(u) \,\;{+}\;\, \mu \, \mathrm{L}_q(u;g)
\, \right\} ,
\quad q \in \{1,2\} \, ,
\label{eq:PMa}$$ where the new TV$_p^{\mathrm{sv}}$ regularizer is defined with a space-variant $p$-value by $$\mathrm{TV}_p^{\mathrm{sv}}(u) \,\;{:=}\; \sum_{i=1}^{n} \| (\nabla u)_{i} \|_2^{p_i} ,
\quad p_i \:{\in}\; ]0,2] \;\; \forall \, i \in \Omega \, .
\label{eq:PMb}$$ A different value $p_i$ for each pixel $i\,$ is thus allowed by the proposed regularizer (\[eq:PMb\]), such that local, space-variant properties of the clean image $u$ can be potentially addressed. The usefulness of this great flexibility is however conditioned to the existence of effective procedures for the automatic estimation of the $p_i$ values. As it will be discussed in the paper, the algorithm used in [@tvpl2] for estimating a unique, global $p$ value is not sufficiently robust to be used for inferring our local $p_i$ values. Hence, in the paper we also propose a new suitable estimation procedure of the $p_i$ values based on the statistical inference technique described in [@shape2]. The regularization term in (\[eq:PMb\]) is a space-variant version of the TV$_p$ regularizer proposed in [@tvpl2] where the estimation of a global fixed $p$-value relied on the gradient magnitudes of the image and such a distribution is in general too *rigid* for effectively modeling the actual gradient magnitudes distribution of real images. In the proposed model (\[eq:PMa\])–(\[eq:PMb\]) with $q = 2$, we also set automatically the regularization parameter $\mu$ based on the well-known discrepancy principle [@WC12].
The paper is organized as follows. In Sect. \[sec:pi\] we briefly outline the procedure proposed for the automatic estimation of the $p_i$ parameters. The ADDM-based minimization algorithm is illustrated in Sect. \[sec:admm\] and numerical results are reported in Sect. \[sec:nr\].
Estimation of the space-variant parameters {#sec:pi}
==========================================
The method proposed in [@tvpl2] for estimating a global, image-based $p$ value requires a very large number of samples in order to provide statistically reliable estimates, therefore it could not be generalized to our proposal since we use small size patches for the estimation of local $p$ values. In the following we briefly outline our proposal based on the statistical inference procedure illustrated in [@shape2].
Let $u \in {\mathbb{R}}^n$ be the vectorized form of an image for which we want to estimate the associated vector of space-variant parameters $p_i$, $i \in \Omega$. First, we compute the vector $m \in {\mathbb{R}}^n$ containing the magnitudes of the gradients of the image $u$; in formulas: $$m_i \;{:=}\; \left\| (\nabla u)_{i} \right\|_2, \quad\; i \in \Omega \, .
\label{eq:m}$$ Then, we estimate each parameter $p_i$ by applying the statistical inference technique in [@shape2] to the local data set consisting of the computed gradient magnitudes in a neighborhood of the pixel $i$. In particular, we use square neighborhoods $N_{\,i}^{\,s}$ of size $s \in \{3,5,\ldots\}$ centered at pixel $i \in \Omega$. Following [@shape2], the values $p_i$, $i \in \Omega$, parameters of the Generalized Gaussian Distributions, are estimated as follows: $$p_i \,\;{=}\;\, h^{-1}(\rho_i), \quad\;
\rho_i \,\;{=}\;\;
\mathrm{card}\big(N_{\,i}^{\,s}\big) \,
\bigg( \sum_{j \in N_{\,i}^{\,s}} \! m_j^2 \bigg)
\, / \,
\bigg( \sum_{j \in N_{\,i}^{\,s}} \! | m_j | \bigg)^{\!\!2} ,
\quad i \in \Omega \, ,
\label{eq:pi_est}$$ where $\mathrm{card}(A)$ denotes the cardinality of set $A$ and where the function $h: {\mathbb{R}}_+^* \to {\mathbb{R}}_+^*$, referred to as the *generalized Gaussian ratio function* in [@shape2], is defined by $$h(z) \,\;{=}\;\, \big( \Gamma(1/z) \,\, \Gamma(3/z) \big) \, / \, \big( \Gamma^2(2/z) \big) \, , \label{eq:h}$$ with $\Gamma(\,\cdot\,)$ indicating the Gamma function [@Gamma]. The function $h$ in (\[eq:h\]) is continuous, monotonically decreasing and surjective, hence invertible. Moreover, since $h$ is not data-dependent, its inverse $h^{-1}$, representing the values $p_{i}$, can be pre-computed off-line and stored as a lookup-table, restricted to $(0,2]$, such that at run-time the final step of the estimation in (\[eq:pi\_est\]) can be carried out very efficiently. In the maps of local $p$ values, obtained with neighborhoods of size $s=3$ (b) and $s=11$ (c) starting from the original test image `geometric` (a) are shown. Both maps are scaled in the same range for visual comparison. As the size $s$ increases, we acquire different kind of details, but in any case the method associates very low $p$ values with flat regions and higher values with edges. It is worth remarking that in Sect. \[sec:nr\] numerical experiments have been carried out by computing the $p$-map starting from the corrupted images.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Original test image `geometric` (a), $p$-map for $s=3$ (b) and $s=11$ (c).[]{data-label="fig:map"}](output/geom_true.eps "fig:"){width="1.2in"} ![Original test image `geometric` (a), $p$-map for $s=3$ (b) and $s=11$ (c).[]{data-label="fig:map"}](output/geotruenew_map1.eps "fig:"){width="1.2in"} ![Original test image `geometric` (a), $p$-map for $s=3$ (b) and $s=11$ (c).[]{data-label="fig:map"}](output/geotrue_map5.eps "fig:"){width="1.2in"}
(a) (b) (c)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applying ADMM to the proposed model {#sec:admm}
===================================
In this section, we illustrate the ADMM-based iterative algorithm used to numerically solve the proposed model (\[eq:PMa\])–(\[eq:PMb\]) for both cases $q = 2$ and $q = 1$. To this purpose, first we resort to the variable splitting technique [@VAR_SPL1] and introduce two auxiliary variables $r \in V$ and $t \in Q$, with $V :={\mathbb{R}}^n$, $Q := {\mathbb{R}}^{2n}$, such that model (\[eq:PMa\])–(\[eq:PMb\]) is rewritten in the following equivalent constrained form: $$\begin{aligned}
\{ \, u^*,r^*,t^* \}
\:\;{\leftarrow}\;\:
\mathrm{arg}
\min_{u,r,t}
&\:&\bigg\{ \:
\sum_{i = 1}^{n} \| t_i \|_2^{p_i}
\;{+}\;
(\mu / q) \, \| r \|_q^q
\: \bigg\} ,
\quad q \in \{1,2\} \, ,
\label{eq:PM_ADMM_a} \vspace {0.2cm} \\
\mathrm{subject}\:\mathrm{to:}
&& \; r \;{=}\; K u - g \, , \;\: t \;{=}\; D u \, ,
\label{eq:PM_ADMM_b}\end{aligned}$$ where $D := (D_h^T,D_v^T)^T \in {\mathbb{R}}^{2n \times n}$ and $t_i \:{:=}\: \big( (D_h u)_i \,,\, (D_v u)_i \big)^T \in {\mathbb{R}}^2$ represents the discrete gradient of image $u$ at pixel $i$. To solve problem (\[eq:PM\_ADMM\_a\])–(\[eq:PM\_ADMM\_b\]) by ADMM [@BOYD_ADMM], we define the augmented Lagrangian functional $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}(u,r,t;\lambda_r,\lambda_t)
&\;\;{=}\;\;&
\displaystyle{
\sum_{i = 1}^{n} \| t_i \|_2^{p_i}
\;{+}\;
(\mu / q) \, \| r \|_q^q
\,{-}\; \langle \, \lambda_t , t - D u \, \rangle
\;{+}\;
(\beta_t / 2) \: \| t - D u \|_2^2
} \nonumber \\
&&\displaystyle{
{-}\; \langle \, \lambda_r , r - (Ku-g) \, \rangle
\,\;\;{+}\;
(\beta_r / 2) \, \| \, r - (Ku-g) \|_2^2 \, ,
}
\label{eq:PM_AL}\end{aligned}$$ where $\beta_r, \beta_t > 0$ are scalar penalty parameters and $\lambda_r \in V$, $\lambda_t \in Q$ are the vectors of Lagrange multipliers associated with the linear constraints $r = Ku-g$ and $t = Du$ in (\[eq:PM\_ADMM\_b\]), respectively. Given the previously computed (or initialized for $k = 0$) vectors $u^{(k)}$, $\lambda_r^{(k)}$ and $\lambda_t^{(k)}$, the $k$-th iteration of the proposed ADMM-based iterative scheme applied to the solution of the saddle-point problem associated with the augmented Lagrangian in (\[eq:PM\_AL\]) - minimization for the primal variables $u,r,t$, maximization for the dual variables $\lambda_r,\lambda_t$ - reads as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
&
r^{(k+1)} &
\;{\leftarrow}\;\;\,\,
\mathrm{arg} \: \min_{r \in V} \;
\mathcal{L}(u^{(k)},r,t^{(k)};\lambda_r^{(k)},\lambda_t^{(k)}) \, ,
\label{eq:PM_ADMM_r} \\
&
t^{(k+1)} &
\;{\leftarrow}\;\;\,\,
\mathrm{arg} \: \min_{t \in Q} \;
\mathcal{L}(u^{(k)},r^{(k+1)},t;\lambda_r^{(k)},\lambda_t^{(k)}) \, ,
\label{eq:PM_ADMM_t} \\
&
u^{(k+1)} &
\;{\leftarrow}\;\;\,\,
\mathrm{arg} \: \min_{u \in V} \;
\mathcal{L}(u,r^{(k+1)},t^{(k+1)};\lambda_r^{(k)},\lambda_t^{(k)}) \, ,
\label{eq:PM_ADMM_u} \\
&
\lambda_r^{(k+1)} &
\;{\leftarrow}\;\;\,\,
\lambda_r^{(k)} \;{-}\; \beta_r \, \big( \, r^{(k+1)} \;{-}\; (K u^{(k+1)}-g) \, \big) \, ,
\label{eq:PM_ADMM_lz} \\
&
\lambda_t^{(k+1)} &
\;{\leftarrow}\;\;\,\,
\lambda_t^{(k)} \;{-}\; \beta_t \, \big( \, t^{(k+1)} \;{-}\; D u^{(k+1)} \, \big) \, .
\label{eq:PM_ADMM_lt}\end{aligned}$$ In the following we describe how to solve the minimization sub-problem (\[eq:PM\_ADMM\_r\]) - in both cases $q \in \{1,2\}$ - for the primal variable $r$ only. In fact, thanks to the preliminary ADMM variable splitting procedure, sub-problems (\[eq:PM\_ADMM\_t\])–(\[eq:PM\_ADMM\_u\]) for the variables $t$ and $u$ are identical in the two cases $q \in \{1,2\}$ and, more importantly, their solution can be obtained based on formulas given in [@tvpl2] for the same sub-problems.
#### Solving the sub-problem for $\mathbf{r}$
Recalling definition (\[eq:PM\_AL\]) and carrying out some simple algebraic manipulations, the minimization sub-problem (\[eq:PM\_ADMM\_r\]) reads as $$\begin{aligned}
r^{(k+1)}
&\;{\leftarrow}\;&
\mathrm{arg} \min_{r \in V}\:
\left\{ \,
(\mu / q) \, \| r \|_q^q
\;{+}\;
(\beta_r/2) \,
\| r - v^{(k)} \|_2^2
\: \right\} \, ,
\quad q \in \{1,2\} \, ,
\label{eq:sub_r_q12}\end{aligned}$$ with the constant (w.r.t. the optimization variable $r$) vector $v^{(k)} \in V$ given by $$v^{(k)} \;{=}\;\: Ku^{(k)} - g + \, \lambda_r^{(k)} / \beta_r \; .
\label{eq:v_def}$$ Since $\mu \geq 0$, $\beta_r>0$, in both cases $q \in \{1,2\}$ the cost function in (\[eq:sub\_r\_q12\]) is strictly convex and its (unique) global minimizer - that is, the solution $r^{(k+1)}$ of (\[eq:sub\_r\_q12\]) - can be computed, depending on $q$, by means of the following closed-form formulas: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{case}\;\;q \;{=}\; 1 \, : \qquad\!
r^{(k+1)}
&\;{=}\;&
\mathrm{sign}\big( v^{(k)} \big) \, \odot \,\,
\max\big\{ \, |v^{(k)}| - \mu / \beta_r \, , \, 0 \, \big\} \: ,
\label{eq:sub_r_q1_sol} \\
\mathrm{case}\;\;q \;{=}\; 2 \, : \qquad\!
r^{(k+1)}
&\;{=}\;&
\big(\beta_r / (\beta_r+\mu)\big) \, v^{(k)} \: ,
\label{eq:sub_r_q2_sol}\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathrm{sign}(\,\cdot\,)$ and $| \, \cdot \, |$ in (\[eq:sub\_r\_q1\_sol\]) denote the component-wise signum and absolute value functions and $\,\odot$ indicates the component-wise vectors product. We remark that formula (\[eq:sub\_r\_q1\_sol\]) represents a well-known component-wise soft-thresholding operator - see e.g. [@tvl1] - whereas (\[eq:sub\_r\_q2\_sol\]) comes easily from first-order optimality conditions of (\[eq:sub\_r\_q12\]).
In case that the regularization parameter $\mu$ is regarded as a constant - that is, it is fixed a priori - then formulas (\[eq:sub\_r\_q1\_sol\])–(\[eq:sub\_r\_q2\_sol\]) allow to determine very efficiently the solution $r^{(k+1)}$ of this sub-problem. However, as previously stated, in the case $q = 2$ we aim also at automatically adjusting $\mu$ along iterations - that is, $\mu$ becomes $\mu^{(k)}$ - such that the final solution $u^*$ of our model (\[eq:PMa\])–(\[eq:PMb\]) satisfies the discrepancy principle [@WC12]. To this aim, in the following we propose a procedure which builds upon those presented in [@APE; @JMIV16] but, due to a different ADMM initial variable splitting, needs to be adapted and is worth to be outlined in detail. We consider the discrepancy associated with the solution $r^{(k+1)}$ in (\[eq:sub\_r\_q2\_sol\]) as a function $\delta^{(k+1)}: {\mathbb{R}}_+ \rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}_+$ of the regularization parameter $\mu$: $$\delta^{(k+1)}(\mu)
\,\;{:=}\;\,
\| r^{(k+1)} \|_2
\;{=}\;\:
\big(\beta_r / (\beta_r+\mu)\big) \, \| \, v^{(k)} \|_2 \; ,
\label{eq:d_und}$$ where the second equality comes from (\[eq:sub\_r\_q2\_sol\]). The discrepancy function in (\[eq:d\_und\]) is continuous, non-negative and monotonically decreasing over its entire domain and at the extremes we have $\delta^{(k+1)}(\mu=0) = \| \, v^{(k)} \|_2$, $\delta^{(k+1)}(\mu \to +\infty) = 0$. In order to set a value $\mu^{(k+1)}$ such that the discrepancy principle is satisfied here for the auxiliary variable $r$ (recall that $r=Ku-g$ represents the residue of the restoration), we consider two complementary cases based on the norm of the vector $v^{(k)}$ in (\[eq:v\_def\]).
In case that $\,\| \, v^{(k)} \|_2 \leq \bar{\delta}$, with $\bar{\delta}$ denoting the noise level, then from (\[eq:d\_und\]) and from the fact that $\,0 < \beta_r / (\beta_r + \mu) \leq 1$, it follows that $\,\delta^{(k+1)}(\mu) \;{\leq}\; \bar{\delta} \;\: \forall \, \mu \in {\mathbb{R}}_+$, that is the discrepancy principle is satisfied for any $\mu \geq 0$. We set $\mu^{(k+1)} = 0$, such that, according to (\[eq:sub\_r\_q2\_sol\]), the sub-problem solution is $r^{(k+1)} = v^{(k)}$. In case that $\,\| \, v^{(k)} \|_2 > \bar{\delta}$, the properties of the discrepancy function $\delta^{(k+1)}$ in (\[eq:d\_und\]) guarantee that there exists a unique value $\mu^{(k+1)}$ of $\,\mu$ such that $\delta^{(k+1)}(\mu^{(k+1)}) = \bar{\delta}$. Recalling (\[eq:d\_und\]), we have $\big(\beta_r / (\beta_r+\mu^{(k+1)})\big) \| \, v^{(k)} \|_2 \;{=}\; \bar{\delta}
\:\;\;\;{\Longleftrightarrow}\;\;\;
\mu^{(k+1)} = \beta_r \big(\, \| \, v^{(k)} \|_2 / \bar{\delta} \:\;{-}\; 1 \,\big)$. Replacing this expression for $\mu$ in (\[eq:sub\_r\_q2\_sol\]), the sub-problem solution is $\,r^{(k+1)} \;{=}\;\: \bar{\delta} \, v^{(k)} / \| \, v^{(k)} \|_2$. To summarize, the solution of this sub-problem at any iteration $k$ is computed by (\[eq:sub\_r\_q1\_sol\]) for the case $q = 1$ whereas for the case $q = 2$ it is determined as follows: $$\begin{array}{llll}
\| \, v^{(k)} \|_2 \;{\leq}\; \bar{\delta} &
\;\Longrightarrow\; &
\mu^{(k+1)} \;{=}\; 0 , &
\;\; r^{(k+1)} \;{=}\; v^{(k)} \vspace{0.2cm} \\
\| \, v^{(k)} \|_2 \;{>}\; \bar{\delta} &
\;\Longrightarrow\; &
\mu^{(k+1)} \;{=}\; \beta_r \big( \| \, v^{(k)} \|_2 / \bar{\delta} - 1 \big) , &
\;\; r^{(k+1)} \;{=}\; \bar{\delta} \,\, v^{(k)} / \| \, v^{(k)} \|_2
\end{array}
\label{eq:sub_r_q2_q2_sol}$$
Numerical results {#sec:nr}
=================
In this section, we evaluate experimentally the performance of the two proposed models TV$_p^{\mathrm{sv}}$-L$_q$, $q = 1,2$, defined in (\[eq:PMa\])–(\[eq:PMb\]), when applied to the restoration of gray-scale images synthetically corrupted by blur and by AWGN - in the case of TV$_p^{\mathrm{sv}}$-L$_2$ model - or SPN - in the case of TV$_p^{\mathrm{sv}}$-L$_1$ model. In particular, the proposed models are compared with:
- TV-L$_q$, $q = 1,2$, defined in (\[eq:TVLq\]) with $p=1$ fixed,
- TV$_p$-L$_q$, $q = 1,2$, with $p \in (0,2]$ fixed.
We remark that the TV$_p$-L$_2$ model has been introduced in [@tvpl2], whereas the TV$_p$-L$_1$ model has not been proposed before and can be regarded as a further contribution of this paper, together with the automatic selection procedure for the space-variant $p$ parameters. For what concerns the TV$_p^{\mathrm{sv}}$-L$_1$ model in order to have a robust evaluation of the $p$-map, the image is preliminarily processed by an adaptive filter. We assume that the position of the pixels corrupted by the SPN is known a priori, otherwise it can be easily detected as suggested in [@mila]. We replace the corrupted pixels with the mean of non-corrupted pixels of its neighborhood. The size of the neighborhood is variable and depends on the percentage of non-corrupted pixels in it. The image obtained is then used to compute the $p$-map. The described strategy has been introduced instead of the simple median filter, whose smoothing effects is quite high. The quality of the observed corrupted images $g$ and of the restored images $u^*$ is measured - in dB - by means of the Blurred Signal-to-Noise Ratio $$\;\mathrm{BSNR}(g,u) = 10\log_{10}\|Ku - E\,[Ku]\|_2^2 / \|g-Ku\|_2^2$$ and the Improved Signal-to-Noise Ratio $$\mathrm{ISNR}(g,u,u^*) = 10\log_{10}\|g-u\|_2^2 / \|u^*-u\|_2^2,$$ respectively, with $u$ denoting the original uncorrupted image and $E\,[Ku]$ the average intensity of image $Ku$. In general, the larger the ISNR value, the higher the quality of restoration. For all the ADMM-based minimization algorithms and for all the tests, the parameters $\beta_t$ and $\beta_r$ are suitably set. Usually good choices are $(\beta_t, \beta_r)=(1,1),(10,5)$. The iterations of the algorithms are stopped as soon as two successive iterates satisfy $\;\| u^{(k)} - u^{(k-1)} \|_{2} / \| u^{(k-1)}\|_{2} \,\;{<}\;\,10^{-4}$. For the models with the L$_2$ fidelity term, the regularization parameter $\mu$ has been automatically set based on the discrepancy principle. For the models with the L$_1$ fidelity term, $\mu$ has been hand-tuned independently in each test so as to provide the highest possible ISNR value for that test. In the following, we report numerical results concerning the restoration of images corrupted by AWGN (Example 1) and SPN (Example 2).
#### Example 1: restoration of images corrupted by AWGN
In this subsection we are testing the performance of TV$_p^{\mathrm{sv}}$-L$_2$ on piecewise constant (`geometric` ($256 \times 256$) Fig. \[fig:geomand\](a)) and textured images (`mandrill` ($512 \times 512$) Fig. \[fig:geomand\](c)) with different noise levels. In Table 1 the results are compared in terms of ISNR with the ones obtained by TV-L$_2$ and TV$_{p}$-L$_2$. Both `geometric` and `mandrill` images have been corrupted by a Gaussian blur of `band=5` and standard deviation `sigma=1.0`, and by an AWGN, with BSNR=20,30,40. The $p$-maps have been computed by setting the size of the neighborhoods $s=3$. The good quality of the reconstructed images can be appreciated by a visual inspection of Fig. \[fig:geomand\](b),(d) and by comparing the ISNR values reported in Table 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Example 1: Corrupted `geometric` (a) and `mandrill` (c) images and reconstructions ((b),(d)) by TV$_p^{\mathrm{sv}}$-L$_2$ for BSNR=20.[]{data-label="fig:geomand"}](output/bsnr20_blur.eps "fig:"){width="1.2in"} ![Example 1: Corrupted `geometric` (a) and `mandrill` (c) images and reconstructions ((b),(d)) by TV$_p^{\mathrm{sv}}$-L$_2$ for BSNR=20.[]{data-label="fig:geomand"}](output/bsnr20_tvpl2loc.eps "fig:"){width="1.2in"} ![Example 1: Corrupted `geometric` (a) and `mandrill` (c) images and reconstructions ((b),(d)) by TV$_p^{\mathrm{sv}}$-L$_2$ for BSNR=20.[]{data-label="fig:geomand"}](output/bsnr20_mand.eps "fig:"){width="1.2in"} ![Example 1: Corrupted `geometric` (a) and `mandrill` (c) images and reconstructions ((b),(d)) by TV$_p^{\mathrm{sv}}$-L$_2$ for BSNR=20.[]{data-label="fig:geomand"}](output/bsnr20_tvpl2locmand "fig:"){width="1.2in"}
(a) (b) (c) (d)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- -- -- --
**[geometric]{} & & & **[mandrill]{}\
BSNR & TV-L$_2$ & TV$_{p}$-L$_2$ & TV$_p^{\mathrm{sv}}$-L$_2$ & TV-L$_2$ & TV$_{p}$-L$_2$ & TV$_p^{\mathrm{sv}}$-L$_2$\
20 & 7.77 & 7.92 & 8.36 & 1.38 & 1.64 &1.78\
30 & 9.01 & 9.87 & 10.30 & 2.90 & 3.04 &3.31\
40 & 11.58 & 12.98 & 13.47 & 5.32 & 5.56 &6.09\
****
-- -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- -- -- --
: Example 1: ISNR values for different models with different noise level (BSNR) on test images.[]{data-label="tab:1"}
#### Example 2: restoration of images corrupted by SPN
In this subsection we report the performance of TV$_p^{\mathrm{sv}}$-L$_1$ on a $200 \times 200$ medical image representing a particular of a CT scan of an abdomen - see Fig. \[fig:med2\](a). It has been corrupted by a SPN of level $\gamma = 0.35$ and by a Gaussian blur of `band=9` and `sigma=2.5` (Fig. \[fig:med2\] (b)). The $p$-map in Fig.\[fig:med2\](c), computed by setting the size of the neighborhood `s=25`, presents higher values in the textured regions. A comparison of the methods TV-L$_1$, TV$_p$-L$_1$, TV$_p^{\mathrm{sv}}$-L$_1$ leads to ISNR=$11.81,12.97,13.60$, respectively. The quality of the reconstructed images can be visually appreciated in Fig. \[fig:med2\](d),(e),(f).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Example 2: Original image (a), corrupted image (b), $p$-map (c), reconstruction by TV-L$_1$ (d), TV$_p$-L$_1$ ($p=1.4$) (e), and TV$_p^{\mathrm{sv}}$-L$_1$ (f).[]{data-label="fig:med2"}](output/NLDIF_original.eps "fig:"){width="1.2in"} ![Example 2: Original image (a), corrupted image (b), $p$-map (c), reconstruction by TV-L$_1$ (d), TV$_p$-L$_1$ ($p=1.4$) (e), and TV$_p^{\mathrm{sv}}$-L$_1$ (f).[]{data-label="fig:med2"}](output/nldif_corr.eps "fig:"){width="1.2in"} ![Example 2: Original image (a), corrupted image (b), $p$-map (c), reconstruction by TV-L$_1$ (d), TV$_p$-L$_1$ ($p=1.4$) (e), and TV$_p^{\mathrm{sv}}$-L$_1$ (f).[]{data-label="fig:med2"}](output/med_mapnew.eps "fig:"){width="1.2in"}
(a) (b) (c)
![Example 2: Original image (a), corrupted image (b), $p$-map (c), reconstruction by TV-L$_1$ (d), TV$_p$-L$_1$ ($p=1.4$) (e), and TV$_p^{\mathrm{sv}}$-L$_1$ (f).[]{data-label="fig:med2"}](output/TVL1_rec.eps "fig:"){width="1.2in"} ![Example 2: Original image (a), corrupted image (b), $p$-map (c), reconstruction by TV-L$_1$ (d), TV$_p$-L$_1$ ($p=1.4$) (e), and TV$_p^{\mathrm{sv}}$-L$_1$ (f).[]{data-label="fig:med2"}](output/TVpL1_rec1.eps "fig:"){width="1.2in"} ![Example 2: Original image (a), corrupted image (b), $p$-map (c), reconstruction by TV-L$_1$ (d), TV$_p$-L$_1$ ($p=1.4$) (e), and TV$_p^{\mathrm{sv}}$-L$_1$ (f).[]{data-label="fig:med2"}](output/TVpL1loc_rec.eps "fig:"){width="1.2in"}
(d) (e) (f)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusions
===========
We have proposed two new variational models which are able to outperform the popular TV model for image restoration with L$_2$ and L$_1$ fidelity terms. In particular, we introduced the TV$_p^{SV}$ regularizer, a space-variant generalization of the popular TV prior, where the shape parameter $p$ is automatically and locally estimated by an effective procedure based on the statistical inference technique in [@shape2]. The restored image is efficiently computed by using an ADMM-based algorithm. Numerical examples show that the proposed approach is particularly effective and well suited for images corrupted by Gaussian blur and two important types of noise, the AWGN and SPN. As future work, we plan to extensively test our models on a new immunofluorescence portable diagnostic systems where low-cost complementary metal-oxide semiconductor (CMOS) sensors are used. In this system different noise sources affect a noise-free image acquired by the CMOS-based imaging system:the Photo-Response Non-Uniformity is usually modeled as an AWGN while the signal dependent Photon Shot Noise is more properly modeled as a Poisson noise and the Analog-to-Digital Converter noise as an SPN with known positions.
|
---
abstract: 'We use direct method oxygen abundances in combination with strong optical emission lines, stellar masses (${\hbox{$M_{\star}$}}$), and star formation rates (SFRs) to recalibrate the N2, O3N2, and N2O2 oxygen abundance diagnostics. We stack spectra of $\sim$200,000 star-forming galaxies from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey in bins of ${\hbox{$M_{\star}$}}$ and SFR offset from the star forming main sequence (${\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}$) to measure the weak emission lines needed to apply the direct method. All three new calibrations are reliable to within $\pm 0.10$ dex from $\log({\hbox{$M_{\star}$}}/{M_{\odot}}) \sim 7.5 - 10.5$ and up to at least $200~{M_{\odot}}$ yr$^{-1}$ in SFR. The N2O2 diagnostic is the least subject to systematic biases. We apply the diagnostics to galaxies in the local universe and investigate the $M_{\star}$–$Z$–${\rm SFR}$ relation. The N2 and O3N2 diagnostics suggest the SFR dependence of the $M_{\star}$–$Z$–${\rm SFR}$ relation varies with both ${\hbox{$M_{\star}$}}$ and ${\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}$, whereas the N2O2 diagnostic suggests a nearly constant dependence on SFR. We apply our calibrations to a sample of high redshift galaxies from the literature, and find them to be metal poor relative to local galaxies with similar ${\hbox{$M_{\star}$}}$ and SFR. The calibrations do reproduce direct method abundances of the local analogs. We conclude that the $M_{\star}$–$Z$–${\rm SFR}$ relation evolves with redshift.'
author:
- |
Jonathan S. Brown,$^{1}$[^1] Paul Martini,$^{1,2}$ and Brett H. Andrews$^{3}$\
$^{1}$Department of Astronomy, The Ohio State University, 140 West 18th Avenue, Columbus, OH 43210, USA\
$^{2}$Center for Cosmology and Astro-Particle Physics, The Ohio State University, 191 West Woodruff Avenue, Columbus, OH 43210, USA\
$^{3}$PITT PACC, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Pittsburgh, 3941 O’Hara Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15260, USA
bibliography:
- 'calib.bib'
date: 'Accepted XXX. Received YYY; in original form ZZZ'
title: A Recalibration of Strong Line Oxygen Abundance Diagnostics via the Direct Method and Implications for the High Redshift Universe
---
\[firstpage\]
galaxies: active – galaxies: abundances – galaxies: evolution – galaxies: ISM – ISM: abundances
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Galaxies are continually undergoing chemical enrichment. Gas is condensed into stars, processed into heavier elements, and returned to the interstellar medium. This gas, enriched by the products of stellar nucleosynthesis and/or supernova ejecta, is reincorporated into new generations of stars, where it is enriched once again. A galaxy may also accrete low metallicity gas from the intergalactic medium, which both dilutes the ISM and provides fuel for a new generation of stars to form. This interplay between star formation, chemical enrichment, and accretion of new material is a central component of galaxy evolution.
An episode of star formation increases a galaxy’s stellar mass and enriches the ISM. A substantial body of work has shown that there are correlations between stellar mass (${\hbox{$M_{\star}$}}$), star formation rate (SFR), and gas phase oxygen abundance. The correlation between ${\hbox{$M_{\star}$}}$ and gas phase oxygen abundance is called the Mass-Metallicity Relation [MZR; @Lequeux79; @Tremonti04]. The MZR extends from low mass, extremely metal deficient galaxies like Leo P [@Skillman13] up to massive galaxies with 2-3 times the solar oxygen abundance [@Tremonti04; @Moustakas11].
The MZR often serves as a benchmark for models of galaxy evolution because the details of the MZR are direct probes of the underlying physics. For instance, @Tremonti04 describe how the shape of the MZR requires galactic winds to efficiently remove metals from low mass galaxies. Subsequent cosmological models [e.g. @Dave06b; @Oppenheimer06; @Finlator08; @Dave11a; @Dave11b] incorporated winds into their cosmological models in order to better understand the origin of the MZR. In the context of their momentum driven wind models, the mass loading parameter $\eta \equiv \dot{M}_{\rm outflow}/\dot{M}_{\star}$ is proportional to the inverse of the velocity dispersion of the halo, which scales with the halo mass to the one third power, $\eta \propto 1/\sigma_h \propto M_h^{-1/3}$ [@Murray05; @Oppenheimer06]. Once the star formation has reached an equilibrium with the inflowing and outflowing gas, the metallicity is $Z = y/(1+\eta)$ where $y$ is the effective yield. In the limit that $\eta \gg 1$, the slope of the MZR is ultimately related to how ${\hbox{$M_{\star}$}}$ scales with $M_h$, since $\log(Z) \propto -\log(\eta) \propto \frac{1}{3} \log(M_h)$.
There is good observational evidence for a second parameter that affects the relationship between ${\hbox{$M_{\star}$}}$ and $Z$ such that galaxies with higher star formation rates have lower metallicities at fixed stellar mass [the ${\hbox{$M_{\star}$--$Z$--${\rm SFR}$}}$ relation; @Ellison08Apj; @Mannucci10; @LaraLopez10]. This relation is also apparent in high signal-to-noise ratio stacked spectra of SDSS galaxies [@Andrews13]. However, it has intriguingly not been seen in the CALIFA sample of 150 nearby galaxies studied with integral field spectroscopy by @Sanchez13.
The exact form of the SFR dependence is less clear, but if the fuel for star formation is lower metallicity gas accreted from the IGM, this would produce an anticorrelation between gas phase metallicity and SFR. The form of the secondary dependence of the MZR on SFR offers insights into several open questions, such as how star formation is regulated, and how the processes that govern galactic inflows and outflows operate in detail @Dave11a [@Dave11b; @Lilly13].
In addition to the local MZR and its dependence on SFR, the same correlations can be studied in high redshift galaxies in order to probe galaxy formation and evolution in the early universe [@Shapley05; @Erb06; @Maiolino08; @Steidel14; @Zahid14b; @Sanders15]. Furthermore, the correlation between ${\hbox{$M_{\star}$}}$, Z, and SFR in the early universe, and how that relates to the correlations observed in the local universe, constrains how the population of galaxies has evolved over cosmic time [@Zahid14; @Maier14; @Izotov15].
Accurate and precise metallicity measurements are vital to gain physical insights from both local correlations and evolution over cosmic time. The most reliable oxygen abundances are determined with the “direct method”, or “$T_e$ method” [@Dinerstein90]. Under the right conditions, the electron temperature of ionized gas can be directly measured from the temperature sensitive intensity ratios of collisionally excited forbidden lines (e.g. \[\] $\lambda$4363/\[\] $\lambda$5007). As oxygen is one of the primary coolants in the ISM, the temperature is anticorrelated with abundance. The density of the gas can be measured from density sensitive lines (e.g. ${\hbox{[\ion{S}{ii}]~$\lambda$6717/$\lambda$6731}}$). For a given temperature and density the emissivity of a given ionic species can be computed, which can then be used to determine relative abundances.
The direct method is subject to some biases. Temperature fluctuations and gradients in regions produce a bias towards lower metallicities [@Peimbert67; @Kobulnicky99] . This bias also applies to integrated (as well as stacked) spectra of galaxies. Hotter regions have brighter auroral lines, which can bias the direct method toward higher electron temperatures and correspondingly lower metallicities. Additionally, the assumption of a Maxwell-Boltzmann electron energy distribution has recently come into question [@Nicholls12; @Dopita13]. If electron energies are instead well described by a $\kappa$-distribution, this may contribute to the well known temperature discrepancy problem [@Garcia-Rojas06; @Garcia-Rojas07; @Nicholls12; @Blanc15], although this is less of a concern for relative comparisons of direct method abundances. Even with the potential for these systematic effects, the direct method is widely regarded as the standard for nebular abundances.
In practice, dectecting the auroral lines (e.g. ${\hbox{[\ion{O}{iii}]~$\lambda$4363}}$) requires a significant investment of observational resources for even the brightest, most metal poor galaxies and regions. At present, most spectroscopy comes from low to moderate SNR, and direct method abundances are typically not practical.
In order to estimate the metallicities of galaxies without the use of the auroral lines, so-called ’strong-line’ diagnostics were developed based on the more easily measured nebular emission lines [@Pagel79; @Alloin79]. There have been many efforts to calibrate these diagnostics via theoretical [e.g., @McGaugh91; @Zaritsky94; @Dopita00; @Charlot01; @Kewley02; @Kobulnicky04; @Tremonti04; @Stasinska06] and empirical means [e.g., @Pilyugin03; @Pettini04; @Pilyugin05; @Pilyugin10; @Pilyugin12; @Marino13; @Bianco15].
Perhaps the most common of these diagnostics is ${\hbox{$R_{23}$}}~\equiv~(\text{[\ion{O}{ii}]}~\lambda 3727 + \text{[\ion{O}{iii}]}~\lambda\lambda 4959, 5007) / {\hbox{H$\beta$}}$ [@Edmunds84; @McCall85; @Dopita86; @Zaritsky94]. ${\hbox{$R_{23}$}}$ encodes some information about the overall oxygen abundance, but the ratio is ultimately determined by the excitation of the \[\] and \[\] lines. This leads to the double valued nature of ${\hbox{$R_{23}$}}$, which complicates its use as an abundance diagnostic.
Fortunately there are other nebular lines that encode information about the gas phase oxygen abundance, and nitrogen is the most accessible of these. Nitrogen has both primary origin, where the amount of nitrogen produced in stars and returned to the ISM is independent of metallicity, and secondary origin, where the amount of nitrogen produced is proportional to metallicity [@Alloin79; @Vila-Costa93; @Considere00]. In the high metallicity regime, nitrogen is secondary and the nitrogen abundance increases faster than the oxygen abundance. Furthermore, some strong line ratios are temperature sensitive since, for instance, the \[\] $\lambda$ 3727 Å line requires a significantly higher energy to excite than the \[\] $\lambda$6583 Å line [@Pilyugin10]. As a result, nitrogen based diagnostics can serve as indicators of the oxygen abundance.
Many strong-line calibrations are often inconsistent with one another. @Kewley08 show the extent to which the various strong line calibrations disagree and provide a framework for mapping one strong line metallicity onto another. Many of the strong-line calibrations differ simply because they use different calibration samples, but the situation is more complicated than sample selection. Some calibrations utilize grids from photoionization simulations [@McGaugh91; @Zaritsky94; @Kewley02], while others use unique samples of regions [e.g., @Marino13] which themselves are often heterogeneous compilations of samples from the literature [e.g., @Pettini04; @Pilyugin10].
Empirical abundance diagnostics have the benefit of being calibrated on direct method measurements, but due to selection effects the calibration samples are often biased toward low metallicity regions [@Jones15]. The application of these calibrations to integrated spectra of moderately star forming galaxies requires significant extrapolation from the regions that compose most calibration samples. Furthermore, most empirical calibrations will result in erroneous metallicities if, for instance, the ionization conditions of the galaxies in question differ significantly from the calibration sample [@Dopita00; @Kewley02; @Steidel14].
Recently, several studies have shown that stacking the spectra of a sufficiently large number of galaxies can boost the S/N of the auroral lines to a detectable level [@Liang07; @Andrews13]. We use the stacking technique presented in @Andrews13 to obtain direct method oxygen abundances for galaxies spanning a wide range in ${\hbox{$M_{\star}$}}$ and SFR. Our stacking method mitigates the potential for bias by binning galaxies we expect to have similar metallicities based on the small intrinsic scatter of the MZR and ${\hbox{$M_{\star}$--$Z$--${\rm SFR}$}}$ relation. We then recalibrate the popular strong line abundance diagnostics with the direct method oxygen abundances, and apply the new calibrations to data taken from the literature.
We adopt the following notation for the principal diagnostic emission line ratios:
& = 6583 / &\
& = 5007 / / 6583 / &\
& = 6583 / 3727 &\
&R\_2= 3727 / &\
&R\_3= 4959,5007 / &\
&R\_[23]{} = R\_2+R\_3 &\
&P = R\_3/R\_[23]{} &\
Section \[sec:data\] describes our selection and stacking process. Section \[sec:analysis\] describes our empirical calibrations of . In Section \[sec:results\] we present our newly derived calibrations. In Section \[sec:discussion\] we apply our calibrations to various samples of galaxies and discuss the implications for the ${\hbox{$M_{\star}$--$Z$--${\rm SFR}$}}$ relation. Finally, we briefly summarize our results in Section \[sec:conc\].
Data {#sec:data}
====
Sample Selection {#sec:sample}
----------------
Our sample of galaxies is derived from the SDSS Data Release 7 (DR7; @Abazajian09). We begin with the ${\hbox{MPA/JHU}}$ catalog of galaxies with stellar masses [@Kauffmann03b], SFRs [@Brinchmann04; @Salim07], and oxygen abundances [@Tremonti04 hereafter T04]. We discard AGN dominated galaxies with the standard Baldwin-Philips-Terlevich (BPT) diagram [@Baldwin81] and the criterion for star forming galaxies from @Kauffmann03a:
$$\begin{gathered}
\log([\text{\ion{O}{iii}}]~\lambda5007 / {\hbox{H$\beta$}}) < \\
0.61[\log([\text{\ion{N}{ii}}]~\lambda6583/{\hbox{H$\alpha$}}) - 0.05]^{-1} + 1.3.
\label{eq:sf}\end{gathered}$$
Our S/N requirements are the same as those presented in @Andrews13. We restrict our sample to galaxies with , , and ${\hbox{[\ion{N}{ii}]~$\lambda$6583}}$ detected at $>5\sigma$. For galaxies with ${\hbox{[\ion{O}{iii}]~$\lambda$5007}}$ detected at $>3\sigma$, we apply the selection criteria shown in Equation \[eq:sf\]. In order to include galaxies with high metallicity (and inherently weak ${\hbox{[\ion{O}{iii}]~$\lambda$5007}}$) we include galaxies with ${\hbox{[\ion{O}{iii}]~$\lambda$5007}}$ detected at $<3 \sigma$ but $\log({\hbox{[\ion{N}{ii}]~$\lambda$6583}}/{\hbox{H$\alpha$}}) < 0.4$.
We also take significant care to inspect low mass galaxies ($\log[M_*] < 8.6$) and remove galaxies with poor photometric deblending (flagged with `DEBLEND_NOPEAK` or `DEBLENDED_AT_EDGE`) or otherwise spurious stellar mass determinations. These selection cuts leave a total of 208,529 galaxies in our sample.
We emphasize that a limitation of this analysis is that the data were obtained with single fibers centered on resolved galaxies, and therefore not all of the light is included in the 3 diameter fiber aperture. For reference, 3 corresponds to 2.2 kpc at the median redshift ($z = 0.078$) of our sample. The missing fraction due to this aperture bias will depend on redshift for galaxies of similar sizes, and will depend on mass and star formation rate due to the flux-limited nature of the sample. This aperture bias is important because galaxies exhibit radial abundance gradients [e.g. @Searle71; @Kennicutt03; @Bresolin09a; @Bresolin09b; @Berg13; @Sanchez14] that will cause abundances measured in the central region of a galaxy to overestimate the total abundance. @Tremonti04 investigated this aperture bias for SDSS observations and found metallicity variations of 0.05 to 0.11 dex with redshift for galaxies of similar absolute $z-$band magnitudes. @Kewley05 studied aperture effects with the Nearby Field Galaxy Survey and recommended that fiber spectroscopy include at least $>20$% of the galaxy light (typically $z > 0.04$ for SDSS observations) to minimize systematic and random errors, and this corresponds to most of our sample. Based on these studies, we estimate that aperture biases are comparable to the scatter in the inferred O/H for galaxies of similar stellar mass and star formation rate.
Another limitation of single-fiber observations is they simply present an incomplete picture of the properties of galaxies. One example is that while @Sanchez13 found a very tight relationship between integrated stellar mass and metallicity with integral field data from CALIFA [@Sanchez12], they did not find any dependence of metallicity on star formation rate at fixed stellar mass. Another example is the analysis by @Belfiore15 of nebular data for 14 galaxies with P-MaNGA, the prototype instrument for the ongoing MaNGA survey [@Bundy15]. Those authors found a substantial spread in O/H values at fixed N/O for regions within individual galaxies, which is in contrast to the stronger correlation exhibited by the central regions from single-fiber observations.
Stacking Procedure {#sec:stack}
------------------
The auroral lines of \[\], \[\], and \[\] are generally weak and typically undetectable in most SDSS galaxy spectra. However, previous studies [e.g. @Liang07; @Andrews13] have demonstrated that stacking spectra to reduce the contribution of random fluctuations in the measured flux is a viable way to obtain sufficient S/N to measure the auroral lines.
The stacking method relies on the fact that the random noise in a composite spectrum of $N$ galaxies scales roughly as $1/\sqrt{N}$; it is advantageous for our bins to contain a large number of galaxies in order to reduce the noise in the spectrum as much as possible. However, we also want each bin to span a very small range in *actual* (O/H) so that we are stacking qualitatively similar galaxies. The chosen bin widths are a compromise between these two goals.
Before stacking the spectra, we follow the same reduction process described in @Andrews13. Starting with the spectra that have been processed with the SDSS pipeline [@Stoughton02], we correct for Galactic reddening using the extinction values from @Schlegel98. We then shift each spectrum to the rest frame using redshifts from the ${\hbox{MPA/JHU}}$ catalog. We interpolate each spectrum onto a wavelength grid spanning 3700Å–7360Å with spacing $\Delta \lambda = 1$Å. In order to compare galaxies at various distances we normalize each spectrum to the stellar continuum with the mean continuum flux from 4400Å–4450Å. Thus when we measure the line flux we effectively measure the equivalent width of the line. At fixed , normalizing to the stellar continuum is acceptable since the luminosities of the galaxies are essentially the same. Figure \[fig:ref\_spec\_OII\] demonstrates the benefit of stacking. In the raw SDSS spectrum of a single galaxy (gray line), the weak auroral lines are undetectable. They become fairly evident after stacking (blue line). After removing nearby stellar continuum features (red line), the previously undetectable auroral lines are prominent features in the final spectrum (black line).
Choice of Stacking Parameters {#sec:justify_stack}
-----------------------------
Our goal is to derive improved strong line calibrations, so one of the parameters we use to assign galaxies to a stack is similar strong line ratios. However, the strong line ratios show considerable dependence on more parameters than just metallicity, such as incident spectral shape, ionization parameter, and gas density [@Dopita00; @Kewley02; @Dopita13]. For example, Steidel et al. (2014) demonstrated that variations in line ratios due to a factor of five change in metallicity could be reproduced with only a factor of two change in ionization parameter. Figure 2 clearly demonstrates that there is a substantial range in stellar mass and star formation rate at a constant value of the N2, O3N2, N2O2, or R23 strong line diagnostics.
As in @Andrews13, we assume that galaxies with similar stellar masses and star formation rates have similar physical conditions, and therefore similar values of the other parameters that impact the connection between strong line ratio and metallicity. We consequently only stack galaxies with similar stellar masses and star formation rates to minimize the dispersion in galaxy properties in each stack. Good support for this approach comes from an investigation of stacking by @Andrews13. They compared electron temperatures and abundances for galaxies with individual auroral line detections to stacks of the same sample of galaxies and found good agreement within the measurement uncertainties.
We have performed a bootstrap analysis as an additional validation of this approach. For this analysis we chose four bins of different star formation rates at the same stellar mass. We resampled each bin 100 times and processed them with our analysis pipeline to derive the metallicity. We found the median of the bootstrap metallicity distribution agreed well with the stack value for each bin. The spread in the metallicity distribution ($\sim 0.15$ dex) was somewhat larger than the formal metallicity uncertainties, but smaller than the variations in the strong line ratios at fixed stellar mass and star formation rate ($\sim 0.2$ dex).
We have chosen to use both stellar mass and star formation rate because there is good evidence that metallicity depends on star formation rate at fixed mass (Ellison et al. 2008; Mannucci et al. 2010; Lara-Lopez et al. 2010). In addition, we expect galaxies with different star formation rates at fixed mass may differ in other parameters (incident spectral shape, etc.). While the integral field study by @Sanchez13 did not find that metallicity depends on star formation rate at fixed mass, we emphasize that our decision to stack in both quantities is also motivated by how other physical parameters vary with star formation rate.
It is also well known that stellar mass and star formation rate are well correlated, a correlation known as the star forming main sequence [@Brinchmann04; @Salim07; @Noeske07; @Whitaker12; @Zahid12b; @Kashino13]. In order to characterize this dependence, @Salim14 showed that the parameter ${\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}$
$${\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}= \log({\rm SSFR}) - \left\langle \log({\rm SSFR}) \right\rangle_{\small{M_{\star}}}
\label{eq:dssfr}$$
is more effective than both SFR and SSFR at identifying low and high oxygen abundance outliers across a wide range in ${\hbox{$M_{\star}$}}$. The quantity $\left\langle \log({\rm SSFR}) \right\rangle_{\small{M_{\star}}}$ is the median $\log$(SSFR) of galaxies at ${\hbox{$M_{\star}$}}$. Thus ${\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}$ is defined relative to the star forming main sequence rather than an arbitrary value (e.g. 1 ${\hbox{$M_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$}}$).
Binning in ${\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}$ rather than SFR is also beneficial for calibrating the relationship between the strong line ratios and ${\hbox{(O/H)$_{\rm T_e}$}}$. Figure \[fig:dssfr\] shows that at a fixed strong line ratio, there is significant scatter in ${\hbox{$M_{\star}$}}$. Since ${\hbox{$M_{\star}$}}$ and SFR are correlated, absolute SFR does not necessarily correspond to a lower oxygen abundance at a fixed strong line value. Furthermore, since ${\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}$ is a reflection of the SFR density, galaxies with similar ${\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}$ ought to have similar ionization conditions. The same does not hold true for galaxies with similar SFR but different stellar masses, since a relatively low mass, compact star forming galaxy will have more intense ionization conditions than a more massive galaxy with relatively diffuse star formation.
Our choice of bin widths was largely *ad hoc*. It is clear from Figure 11 of @Andrews13 that there is some scatter in ${\hbox{(O/H)$_{\rm T_e}$}}$ at fixed ${\hbox{$M_{\star}$}}$ and ${\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}$. Our primary motives were to (1) resolve the ${\hbox{$M_{\star}$--$Z$--${\rm SFR}$}}$ relationship, (2) include enough galaxies in metal rich stacks to measure ${\hbox{(O/H)$_{\rm T_e}$}}$, and (3) limit the total number of stacks to keep the stacking procedure, stellar continuum subtraction, and abundance determination computationally feasible. We ran various trials and found our results to be insensitive to bin widths.
The left panel of Figure \[fig:BPT\] shows where ${\hbox{$M_{\star}$}}$–${\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}$ stacks fall on the BPT diagram relative to the galaxies in our sample (gray contours) and individual regions from @Pilyugin12 (black points). The stacks with high ${\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}$ are undergoing relatively intense star formation, and their line ratios closely resemble those of individual regions. The passively star forming stacks track the overall distribution of galaxies, which is not traced by the individual regions.
Naively we expect that galaxies undergoing more intense star formation have many more ionizing photons per atom. While the excitation parameter $P$ is marginally dependant on abundance, the right panel of Figure \[fig:BPT\] suggests our naive expectation is correct; stacks with high ${\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}$ show systematically higher values of $P$. Incorporating ${\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}$ accounts for some of the strong line ratios’ sensitivity to ionization conditions.
Lastly, it is easily shown that many strong line ratios (e.g. N2) are biased by SFR since they include ${\hbox{H$\alpha$}}$ flux. By grouping galaxies with similar ${\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}$, which is equivalent to SFR at fixed ${\hbox{$M_{\star}$}}$, our chosen stacking methodology minimizes this bias.
\[c\]\[\]\[1.\][$\odot$]{} \[c\]\[\]\[1.\][$\star$]{}
\[c\]\[\]\[1.\][$\odot$]{} \[c\]\[\]\[1.\][$\star$]{}
\[c\]\[\]\[1.\][$\odot$]{} \[c\]\[\]\[1.\][$\star$]{}
Stellar Continuum Subtraction
-----------------------------
Many emission lines used in this study (particularly ) fall in wavelength regimes where stellar absorption features are present. Therefore it is necessary to fit and remove the underlying stellar population contribution to the stacked spectra. Following @Andrews13, we use the STARLIGHT spectral synthesis code [@CidFernandes05; @CidFernandes11] and a library of 300 empirical `MILES` spectral templates [@SanchezBlazquez06; @Cenarro07; @Vazdekis10; @FalconBarroso11] to generate a synthetic spectrum representative of the underlying stellar population for each of our stacks. We adopt the @Cardelli89 extinction law and mask the locations of all bright emission lines.
For strong lines redward of 4000Å (, \[\] $\lambda \lambda$4959, 5007Å, , \[\] $\lambda \lambda$6548, 6583Å, and \[\] $\lambda \lambda$6716, 6731Å) we model the stellar continuum using template fits to the entire spectral range (3700Å–7360Å). We fit the continuum near weaker emission lines, auroral lines, and strong lines blueward of 4000Å using template fits to the continuum within a few 100Å of each line since this provides a significant reduction in the rms of the continuum around the line [@Andrews13]. See Table \[tab:wave\] for details regarding each emission line’s fit region.
Line Flux Measurement {#sec:line_flux}
---------------------
Following @Andrews13, we fit the emission lines of the stacked spectra using the *specfit* routine [@Kriss94] in the `IRAF/STSDAS` package. We use the simplex $\chi^2$ minimization algorithm to simultaneously fit a flat continuum and Gaussian profile to each emission line. @Andrews13 found this to be a robust method consistent with other flux measurement techniques. Uncertainties are derived from the $\chi^2$ of the fit returned by *specfit*. We deredden the spectra using the extinction law from @Cardelli89 and the assumption of case B recombination (/= 2.86 for $T_e = 10^4$ K). @Andrews13 estimate the systematic error introduced by adopting a fixed / ratio to be $\lesssim 0.07$ dex. Finally, with the exception of \[\] $\lambda 3727$ Å, our diagnostic emission lines are anchored to nearby Balmer lines, and are thus insensitive to reddening.
Analysis {#sec:analysis}
========
Abundances {#sec:abund}
----------
We compute the chemical abundances of the stacks using the same procedure as @Andrews13; here we present a brief overview and direct the reader to that paper for further details.
We assume a simple two-zone model composed of a high ionization region (traced by \[\]) and a low ionization region (traced by \[\], \[\], and \[\]). Previous works have assumed simple relationships between the temperatures of the high and low ionization regions [the ${\hbox{$T_2-T_3$}}$ relation @Campbell86; @Garnett92; @Pagel92; @Izotov06; @Pilyugin09]. We assume a linear ${\hbox{$T_2-T_3$}}$ relation normalized such that we get the best agreement in stacks for which we are able to measure the temperature of both ionization zones (see below). We use a Monte Carlo technique to derive uncertainties in our measurements.
We measure the electron temperature and density using the `IRAF/STSDAS` *nebular.temden* routine [@Shaw95], which is based on the 5 level atom from @DeRobertis87. We use the ${\hbox{[\ion{S}{ii}]~$\lambda$6717/$\lambda$6731}}$ ratio to measure the electron density. We use the auroral oxygen ratios (${\hbox{[\ion{O}{ii}]~$\lambda$7320+7330$/\lambda\lambda(3726+3729)$}}$ and ${\hbox{[\ion{O}{iii}]~$\lambda$4363/$\lambda\lambda(4959+5007)$}}$) to measure $T_2$ and $T_3$ respectively. @Andrews13 discuss at length the differences between the canonical ${\hbox{$T_2-T_3$}}$ relation and that observed for their stacks and find that in general their stacks fall below the @Campbell86 relation (in the sense of low $T_2$ at fixed $T_3$). This offset from the predicted relation has been previously seen [@Pilyugin10]. The fact that this offset disappears for galaxies with relatively high SFRs (which are likely to have contributions from relatively young stellar populations) indicates that the offset is likely due to the differences between the single stellar spectra used by @Stasinska82 and the composite region spectrum that ionizes the gas in a galaxy.
The ionic abundances of O$^+$ and O$^{++}$ are calculated using the electron temperature, electron density, the flux ratios of the strong lines relative to ${\hbox{H$\beta$}}$, and the `IRAF/STSDAS` *nebular.ionic* routine [@DeRobertis87; @Shaw95]. Atomic data plays a critical role in direct method temperature determinations [@Kennicutt03]. For example, @Berg15 noted a substantial difference in temperatures when using updated collision strengths. The temperatures are largely unaffected by the updated atomic data, so we utilize the *nebular.temden* routine without modification. The uncertainties in the abundances of individual ionic species are determined with the same Monte Carlo simulations used to determine the uncertainties in electron temperatures. The ionic abundance uncertainties are used to analytically calculate the uncertainty in the total abundances.
We assume the total oxygen abundance is given by $$\frac{\rm O}{\rm H} = \frac{\rm O^+}{\rm H^+} + \frac{\rm O^{++}}{\rm H^+}.$$ Historically, the temperature of the high ionization region, $T_3$, is measured using the direct method and $T_2$ is then inferred using the ${\hbox{$T_2-T_3$}}$ relation. At high masses, we are unable to measure $T_3$ but often have a measurement of $T_2$. We use the stacks where both $T_2$ and $T_3$ are measured to infer a ${\hbox{$T_2-T_3$}}$ relation that results in the best agreement between measured and inferred $T_3$. As in @Andrews13, this is done using a systematic shift ($\sim$0.1 dex) in the $\log$(O/H) of the stacks for which $T_2$ was measured and used to infer $T_3$.
Empirical Calibrations
----------------------
There are many abundance diagnostic ratios. Our choice of ratios to consider is motivated by three factors: (1) our calibration(s) should be empirical, (2) the distribution of line ratios for individual galaxies in a stack ought to be reasonably peaked around the mean value, and (3) the calibration ought to be valid for the majority of our stacks.
The most commonly used oxygen abundance diagnostics are N2 and O3N2 [@Denicolo02; @Pettini04; @Marino13], N2O2 [@Dopita00; @Kewley02], and R23 [@Pagel79; @McGaugh91; @Pilyugin03; @Kobulnicky04] . Figure \[fig:dssfr\] shows the distribution of individual galaxies in the ${\hbox{$M_{\star}$}}$–diagnostic planes for these diagnostics. In panel “(a)” of Figure \[fig:dssfr\], the distribution of galaxies is such that galaxies with similar ${\hbox{$M_{\star}$}}$ and ${\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}$ follow a relatively tight sequence in the ${\hbox{$M_{\star}$}}$–N2 plane. Similar behavior is seen in panel “(b)” (O3N2) and, to a somewhat lesser extent, panel “(c)” (N2O2). In panel “(d)” at fixed ${\hbox{$M_{\star}$}}$ and ${\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}$, the values of ${\hbox{$R_{23}$}}$ follow a relatively broad distribution; the scatter in ${\hbox{$R_{23}$}}$ at fixed ${\hbox{$M_{\star}$}}$ and ${\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}$ can be comparable to the entire range spanned by the diagnostic. In this instance, the degree to which the average strong line value of a given stack is representative of the galaxies within that stack is less meaningful than with other diagnostics. This is a primary concern when stacking galaxies (see Footnote 14 of @Salim14 for an example of how binning can lead to the wrong impression).
An additional concern with strong line abundance diagnostics is the effect of ionization parameter variations on the diagnostic ratios [@Kewley02; @Steidel14]. The ionization parameter $\Gamma$ is given by $$\Gamma \equiv \frac{\Phi}{n_H} \approx \frac{\Phi}{n_e}$$ where $n_H$ is the number density of hydrogen atoms and $\Phi$ is the density of hydrogen ionizing photons. Changes in the ionization parameter can be due to either variations in the temperature of the ionizing continuum (i.e. a galaxy composed of systematically hotter stars than average) and/or variations in the physical conditions of star forming regions (i.e. higher stellar densities and/or lower gas densities than average). In order to eliminate these biases, it would be advantageous to use a diagnostic that is insensitive to ionization parameter variations [e.g. N2O2, @Kewley02], though our choice of ${\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}$ as a second parameter should at least somewhat account for differences in ionization parameter (see the right panel of Figure \[fig:BPT\]).
The N2 diagnostic is subject to biases caused by the ionization parameter as well as the hardness of the ionization spectrum [@Kewley02], but has been shown to be a useful abundance diagnostic in high excitation regions [@TSB94; @Binette96; @Pettini04; @Marino13]. Furthermore, \[\] $\lambda$ 6583 and ${\hbox{H$\alpha$}}$ are closely spaced, making their ratio insensitive to variations in reddening corrections. The O3N2 diagnostic is also sensitive to ionization parameter [@Kewley02], but is less sensitive to variations in the hardness of the ionizing spectrum than N2 [@Kewley13a; @Brown14; @Steidel14]. N2O2 is insensitive to ionization parameter, but is dependent on the secondary nature of nitrogen [@Kewley02]. We will use N2O2 to estimate the effect of ionization parameter variations on the other diagnostics.
With the above considerations in mind, we focus the remainder of our analysis on the N2, O3N2, and N2O2 strong line diagnostics. As discussed above, the distribution of ${\hbox{$R_{23}$}}$ at fixed ${\hbox{$M_{\star}$}}$ and ${\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}$ is not strongly peaked. Furthermore, the double valued nature of ${\hbox{$R_{23}$}}$ requires that an additional diagnostic sensitive to ionization parameter be used in conjunction with an iterative method to solve for an oxygen abundance. This precludes the empirical nature of our calibrations. Most importantly, a large fraction of our galaxies fall within the “transition zone” of the ${\hbox{$R_{23}$}}$ diagnostic, where the diagnostic is insensitive to oxygen abundance [@Dopita13]. As a result, we refrain from further consideration of ${\hbox{$R_{23}$}}$.
Results {#sec:results}
=======
In Section \[sec:justify\_stack\] we demonstrated with Figure \[fig:dssfr\] that each ${\hbox{$M_{\star}$}}$-${\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}$ stack has characteristic diagnostic line ratios which are representative of the individual galaxies in that stack. Following previous works [e.g., @Alloin79; @Pettini04; @Marino13] we combine these diagnostic ratios with direct method oxygen abundances to derive a relationship between the two. @Salim14 showed that at fixed ${\hbox{$M_{\star}$}}$ we expect galaxies with low (high) ${\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}$ to be offset from the star forming main sequence in the sense of high (low) oxygen abundance. Given the strong correlation between our diagnostic ratios and ${\hbox{$M_{\star}$}}$, we assume the following form for our empirical calibrations: $$12+\log({\rm O/H}) = f_1(X) + f_2({\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}})$$ where $X$ is a particular diagnostic value (e.g. N2) and $f_1$ and $f_2$ are functions of the respective variables. For simplicity, we assume $f_1$ and $f_2$ are each linear functions in their respective parameter, except for the case of N2 where we allow $f_1$ to take the form of a second degree polynomial. We use `MPFIT` [@Markwardt09], an IDL implementation of the robust non-linear least square fitting routine `MINPACK-1`, to fit the relationship between $\log$(O/H), $X$, and ${\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}$.
From Equation \[eq:dssfr\], it is clear that for a galaxy with a known ${\hbox{$M_{\star}$}}$ and SFR, ${\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}$ then only depends on the average SSFR at that ${\hbox{$M_{\star}$}}$. In practice, we compute the median SSFR in ${\hbox{$M_{\star}$}}$ bins 0.1 dex wide. However, a good approximation for $\langle \log$(SSFR)$\rangle_{\small{{\hbox{$M_{\star}$}}}}$ as a function of ${\hbox{$M_{\star}$}}$ is:
$$\begin{gathered}
\langle \log({\rm SSFR})\rangle_{\small{M_{\star}}} = 283.728 - 116.265 \times \log{\hbox{$M_{\star}$}}+ \\ 17.4403 \times \log{\hbox{$M_{\star}$}}^2 - 1.17146 \times \log{\hbox{$M_{\star}$}}^3 + 0.0296526 \times \log{\hbox{$M_{\star}$}}^4.
\label{eq:sfms}\end{gathered}$$
We provide this form rather than the expression from @Salim07 because the two begin to diverge below $\log({\hbox{$M_{\star}$}}/{M_{\odot}}) \sim 9$.
N2 Method {#sec:N2}
---------
Our new calibration of ${\hbox{(O/H)$_{\rm T_e}$}}$ based on N2 and ${\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}$ is
$$\begin{gathered}
12 + \log({\rm O/H})_{\rm N2} = 9.12 + 0.58 \times \log({\rm N2}) \\
- 0.19 \times {{\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}}.\end{gathered}$$
Figure \[fig:N2\] shows that the slope of the relationship between ${\hbox{(O/H)$_{\rm T_e}$}}$ and N2 at fixed ${\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}$ is comparable to the slope of @Pettini04 (red line) and @Marino13 (magenta line), and agree well for the galaxies with high ${\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}$. This agrees with previous studies [e.g. @Brown14] which have shown that those empirical relations accurately predict ${\hbox{(O/H)$_{\rm T_e}$}}$ for high excitation galaxies. This is not particularly surprising because galaxies with very compact, high star formation rates for a given are similar to individual regions in terms of excitation conditions.
As one moves from high excitation galaxies toward the star forming main sequence, the population of galaxies tends toward lower excitation conditions than the regions used in @Pettini04. The observational consequence is that SDSS galaxies have higher than predicted by previous calibrations at a given value of N2.
For galaxies above $\sim Z_{\odot}$, N2 saturates as it becomes the dominant coolant of the ISM [@Baldwin81; @Pettini04]. This explains the pile up of stacks around $\log$(N2)$\approx -0.5$ in Figure \[fig:N2\] for the low ${\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}$ stacks. As a result this calibration becomes unreliable when the line ratio reaches this value. The top panel of Figure \[fig:N2\] shows the residuals of the fit. It is clear that the quality of the calibration worsens at high metallicities. We include the RMS of the residuals in Table \[tab:fits\].
\[c\]\[\]\[1.\][$\odot$]{} \[c\]\[\]\[1.\][$\star$]{}
O3N2 Method {#sec:O3N2}
-----------
Our new calibration of ${\hbox{(O/H)$_{\rm T_e}$}}$ based on O3N2 and ${\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}$ is
$$\begin{gathered}
12 + \log({\rm O/H})_{\rm O3N2} = 8.98 - 0.32 \times \log({\rm O3N2}) \\
- 0.18 \times {{\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}}.\end{gathered}$$
Figure \[fig:O3N2\] shows that the slope of the relationship between ${\hbox{(O/H)$_{\rm T_e}$}}$ and O3N2 at fixed ${\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}$ is comparable to the slope of @Pettini04 (thick red line) and @Marino13 (thick magenta line), and agrees well for the galaxies with high ${\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}$. Again this is in agreement with @Brown14, who showed that high excitation galaxies with significant populations of young stars are essentially indistinguishable from individual regions from the perspective of a diagnostic ratios. We do find a marginally steeper slope than @Marino13. This could be due to a selection effect because at high (low) metallicities we lack high (low) ${\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}$ bins, which could artificially steepen our calibration. In addition, the steepness of the @Pettini04 calibration may be due to the photoionization models used at high metallicities. The @Marino13 calibration suffers no such bias, since their measurements are based entirely on individual Hii regions. More data are needed to explore this possibility further.
Closer to the star forming galaxy main sequence, the calibration presented here begins to diverge from the previous calibrations based on regions. Again, this is because the galaxies on the star forming main sequence display lower excitation conditions than the regions used in the previous calibrations.
The O3N2 diagnostic performs better than the N2 diagnostic at high ${\hbox{(O/H)$_{\rm T_e}$}}$. While N2 saturates at high metallicity, the intensity of collisionally excited oxygen lines is still falling with increasing oxygen abundance.
\[c\]\[\]\[1.\][$\odot$]{} \[c\]\[\]\[1.\][$\star$]{}
N2O2 Method {#sec:N2O2}
-----------
Our new calibration of ${\hbox{(O/H)$_{\rm T_e}$}}$ based on N2O2 and ${\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}$ is
$$\begin{gathered}
12 + \log({\rm O/H})_{\rm N2O2} = 9.20 + 0.54 \times \log({\rm N2O2}) \\
- 0.36 \times {{\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}}.\end{gathered}$$
In Figure \[fig:N2O2\] we compare our measurements from the stacks with the N2O2 calibration from @Kewley02. At high metallicities, we find excellent agreement between the star forming galaxy main sequence of our stacks and the calibration from @Kewley02. This could be due to the fact that this calibration is insensitive to ionzation parameter. At fixed N2O2, stacks with high ${\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}$ show lower ${\hbox{(O/H)$_{\rm T_e}$}}$ than stacks with lower ${\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}$, as one would expect in the case of inflow driven star formation.
@Kewley02 explicitly state that the N2O2 calibration should only be used above $12+\log$(O/H)$ > 8.6$ since this diagnostic derives its utility from the secondary nature of nitrogen at high metallicity. However, in the context of galaxy evolution where inflows and outflows have a strong effect on the oxygen abundance we argue that this selection criteria should instead be based on the value of the N2O2 diagnostic itself. For instance, consider a galaxy which has undergone prolonged star formation and enriched its ISM well above solar metallicity such that the secondary nature of nitrogen is unambiguous. Now, suppose this galaxy were to accrete a substantial amount of gas from the IGM. The ISM would be diluted, the metallicity would decrease, and the SFR would increase. The galaxy would move off the main sequence, increasing ${\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}$. All the while, the N2O2 ratio would remain largely unchanged, since the relative abundance of nitrogen and oxygen is unaffected by inflows of pristine gas [@Koppen05; @Masters14]. The high SFR stacks shown in Figure 14 of @Andrews13 are consistent with this picture of inflow driven dilution. Nitrogen can be secondary even at low metallicities, provided the galaxy is sufficiently chemically evolved.
Figure 3 of @Kewley02 shows that the N2O2 diagnostic becomes sensitive to metallicity at $\log$(N2O2) $\sim -1.25$. Our Figure \[fig:N2O2\] illustrates that this happens at the lower range probed by our stacks. The ${\hbox{(O/H)$_{\rm T_e}$}}$ of our stacks does show a clear dependence on N2O2, even at low metallicities. Unevolved galaxies for which nitrogen is still primary could potentially contaminate the stacks. However, the left panel of Figure \[fig:dssfr\] shows that there are relatively few galaxies with $\log$(N2O2) $< -1.25$. Thus we are confident our N2O2 calibrations are valid even though we apply them at low metallicities.
\[c\]\[\]\[1.\][$\odot$]{} \[c\]\[\]\[1.\][$\star$]{}
Which Calibration Is Best? {#sec:use}
--------------------------
Figure \[fig:grids\] summarizes our results in ${\hbox{$M_{\star}$}}$–${\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}$ space and illustrates several systematic effects correlated with ${\hbox{$M_{\star}$}}$ and/or ${\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}$.
The top panel shows the distribution of stacks with measured ${\hbox{(O/H)$_{\rm T_e}$}}$ in ${\hbox{$M_{\star}$}}$-${\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}$ space. The color of each square reflects the metallicity. The second, third, and fourth panels show the residuals for the N2, O3N2, and N2O2 diagnostics, respectively. Red indicates where the strong line diagnostic overestimates the direct method metallicity, while blue indicates the alternative. Column $d$ in Table \[tab:fits\] shows the mean residuals for each calibration. On average the calibrations are accurate to within 0.10 dex, although there are typically 2-3 stacks for each diagnostic that have substantially larger residuals. The calibrations perform worse for the highest metallicity stacks. This is evident in residuals shown in the top panels of Figures \[fig:N2\], \[fig:O3N2\], and \[fig:N2O2\]. The metallicities of the lowest mass stacks are also difficult to accurately predict. This is likely due to the small number ($\sim 5$) of galaxies in these stacks. One or two galaxies with anomoulous line ratios can significantly influence the line ratios of the stack [@Andrews13].
In general, no single calibration vastly outperforms the others, though O3N2 does fare slightly better. O3N2 was the preferred diagnostic for 43% (47/110) of the stacks, followed by N2O2 with 30% (33/110), and N2 was ranked last with 27% (30/110). There does not appear to be any systematic trend where one calibration does better than the others, though N2O2 is only marginally worse than O3N2 for many of the stacks and is subject to fewer biases.
The N2O2 calibration has a larger dependence on ${\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}$ (0.36, column $d$ in Table \[tab:fits\]) than the other calibrations ($\sim 0.2$). This likely reflects the fact that N2 and O3N2 are sensitive to ionization parameter, whereas N2O2 is not. At fixed metallicity, a systematically high ionization parameter (correlated with high ${\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}$) biases the N2 and O3N2 line ratios in the direction of low metallicity. Thus stacks with high ${\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}$ have metal poor line ratios relative to a stack of lower ${\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}$ and identical metallicity. This reduces the inferred dependence of metallicity on ${\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}$. While all three calibrations perform equally well for our sample, these biases may be important considerations for applications to other samples. We emphasize that the rms residuals of the fit to the stacks does not reflect the actual precision of the calibration. As noted in Section \[sec:justify\_stack\], the reliability of the calibrations is primarily determined by the scatter in a given line ratio at fixed ${\hbox{$M_{\star}$}}$ and ${\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}$, which is assumed to mean fixed O/H. This scatter is ultimately a function of ${\hbox{$M_{\star}$}}$, SFR, strong-line diagnostic, and sample selection. We include error bars in the lower corners of Figures \[fig:N2\], \[fig:O3N2\], and \[fig:N2O2\] to show the typical uncertainty for our different ${\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}$ bins, marginalized over ${\hbox{$M_{\star}$}}$. The error bars ($\sim 0.2$ dex) reflect the uncertainty in inferred O/H due to the scatter in strong-line ratio at fixed ${\hbox{$M_{\star}$}}$ and ${\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}$, and typically exceed the widths of the O/H distributions in our bootstrap analysis ($\sim 0.15$ dex).
\[c\]\[\]\[1.\][$\odot$]{} \[c\]\[\]\[1.\][$\star$]{}
\[c\]\[\]\[1.\][$\odot$]{} \[c\]\[\]\[1.\][$\star$]{}
\[c\]\[\]\[1.\][$\odot$]{} \[c\]\[\]\[1.\][$\star$]{}
\[c\]\[\]\[1.\][$\odot$]{} \[c\]\[\]\[1.\][$\star$]{}
Discussion {#sec:discussion}
==========
Application of New Calibrations to Local Galaxies {#sec:local}
-------------------------------------------------
We first apply our newly derived strong line calibrations to the sample of individual star forming galaxies that went into our stacks. In Figures \[fig:N2\_MZR\], \[fig:O3N2\_MZR\], and \[fig:N2O2\_MZR\] we show the distribution of SDSS galaxies (gray contours) and ${\hbox{$M_{\star}$}}$–${\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}$ stacks (colored points) in the M-Z plane. All metallicities are computed using the appropriate strong line calibration. In Figure \[fig:N2\_MZR\] we apply the N2 calibration, in Figure \[fig:O3N2\_MZR\] we apply the O3N2 calibration, and in Figure \[fig:N2O2\_MZR\] we apply the new N2O2 calibration. In each panel the solid (dotted) red lines show the appropriate best fit MZR (scatter) from @Kewley08, in which the MZRs were measured by computing the median $\log$(O/H) as a function of mass. The dot-dashed magenta lines show the MZR from @Tremonti04.
If each ${\hbox{$M_{\star}$}}-{\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}$ bin has a known ${\hbox{(O/H)$_{\rm T_e}$}}$, the uncertainty in the calibration is dominated by the average scatter in a given diagnostic at fixed ${\hbox{(O/H)$_{\rm T_e}$}}$. The error in any given measurement of ${\hbox{(O/H)$_{\rm T_e}$}}$ is typically much smaller than this. We estimate the scatter in a diagnostic at fixed ${\hbox{(O/H)$_{\rm T_e}$}}$ by averaging the scatter in the diagnostic over all masses at fixed ${\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}$. These uncertainties are shown as error bars in the bottom corner of the plots and are generally comparable to the uncertainties in the calibrations ($\sim 0.10$ dex). The error bars on the points themselves represent the error on the mean. Due to the large number of galaxies in most stacks, the mean is typically measured to high precision.
In the case of N2 and O3N2, we find that our direct method strong line calibrations produce MZRs with higher (O/H) normalizations than the @Kewley08 results, as expected from Figures \[fig:N2\] and \[fig:O3N2\]. In the case of N2O2, the normalization of the MZR is only marginally higher than the results from @Kewley08; this is due to the fact that, without accounting for ${\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}$, our N2O2 calibration is very similar to that presented in @Kewley02. The slopes of all of our MZRs are roughly consistent with the results from @Kewley08 and also appear to flatten at low masses ($\log({\hbox{$M_{\star}$}}) \lesssim 8$). Each of the MZRs also agree well with the @Tremonti04 MZR.
Figures \[fig:N2\] and \[fig:O3N2\] suggest that the ${\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}_{1.0}^{1.5}$ bins should follow the @Kewley08 MZR closest, when in fact it is the ${\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}_{0.5}^{1.0}$ bins. This is purely a selection effect due to the difference in binning schemes. @Kewley08 effectively binned in ${\hbox{$M_{\star}$}}$, whereas we have binned in both ${\hbox{$M_{\star}$}}$ and ${\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}$. As shown in Figure \[fig:dssfr\] (top left), the ${\hbox{$M_{\star}$}}$–${\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}$ stacks with high ${\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}$ have lower values of N2 than a corresponding mass stack. This is primarily because at fixed ${\hbox{$M_{\star}$}}$, higher ${\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}$ implies higher ${\hbox{H$\alpha$}}$ flux, and thus lower N2. The reason we bin in ${\hbox{$M_{\star}$}}$ and ${\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}$ is to alleviate the dependence of N2 on ${\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}$; the difference between our results and those of @Kewley08 effectively reveal the magnitude of this bias.
We find that the N2 MZR (Figure \[fig:N2\_MZR\]) asymptotes around solar metallicity and falls slightly below the MZR from @Tremonti04. This is in agreement with previous studies [@Baldwin81; @Pettini04] and occurs because nitrogen becomes the dominant coolant at high metallicity, so N2 saturates. At high stellar masses (and metallicities), O3N2 continues to decrease as the intensity of \[\] decreases with increasing metallicity. Figures \[fig:dssfr\] and \[fig:O3N2\_MZR\] show that O3N2 begins to flatten at high ${\hbox{$M_{\star}$}}$, but this is likely due to the turnover in the MZR.
In the case of the N2O2 MZR (Figure \[fig:N2O2\_MZR\]), we note a marginally higher normalization, and significantly larger scatter at fixed ${\hbox{$M_{\star}$}}$, than the other calibrations. This is likely the result of a larger dependence on ${\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}$. As previously noted, the ionization parameter is likely correlated with ${\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}$ (see the right panel of Figure \[fig:BPT\]). If this is true, the high ${\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}$ stacks will be biased towards low N2 or high O3N2 [@Dopita00; @Kewley02; @Steidel14]. Given the slope of the strong line calibrations, this will mask the dependence of $\log$(O/H) and ${\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}$. Being largely insensitive to ionization parameter, N2O2 likely reflects the true relationship between $\log$(O/H) and ${\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}$.
For most of the ${\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}$ tracks, the scatter in inferred (O/H) between points is surprisingly small and is much less than that seen in ${\hbox{(O/H)$_{\rm T_e}$}}$. This is due to the fact that the inferred (O/H) is merely a reflection of how the strong line diagnostics vary as a function of mass. On average, the strong lines exhibit very smooth behavior with mass [@Kewley08]. This point was also raised in @Steidel14 and suggests that another parameter other than gas phase oxygen abundance (likely ionization parameter) is tightly coupled to both mass and the strong line ratios. Thus we are able to measure the average strong line value to exquisite precision, but the uncertainty in gas phase oxygen abundance for any one galaxy is set by the scatter in a particular diagnostic ratio at fixed ${\hbox{$M_{\star}$}}$ and ${\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}$.
The ${\hbox{$M_{\star}$--$Z$--${\rm SFR}$}}$ Relation {#sec:fmr}
-----------------------------------------------------
\[c\]\[\]\[1.\][$\odot$]{} \[c\]\[\]\[1.\][$\star$]{}
\[c\]\[\]\[1.\][$\odot$]{} \[c\]\[\]\[1.\][$\star$]{}
\[c\]\[\]\[1.\][$\odot$]{} \[c\]\[\]\[1.\][$\star$]{}
Using the masses and newly derived oxygen abundances of galaxies in the local universe, we can investigate the presence of a Fundamental Metallicity Relation (FMR; @Mannucci10 [@LaraLopez10]). The formulation of the FMR from @Mannucci10 states that (1) galaxies lie along the projection of the local ${\hbox{$M_{\star}$--$Z$--${\rm SFR}$}}$ relation that minimizes the scatter in metallicity, and (2) the relationship is redshift invariant. In this section we will focus on the first of these predictions; we will consider evolution of the ${\hbox{$M_{\star}$--$Z$--${\rm SFR}$}}$ relation with redshift in Section \[sec:highz\].
[@Salim14] presented a non-parametric analysis framework for investigating the ${\hbox{$M_{\star}$--$Z$--${\rm SFR}$}}$ relation in local galaxies. When investigating the nature of the ${\hbox{$M_{\star}$--$Z$--${\rm SFR}$}}$ relation, non-parametric techniques are preferred since they do not require a fixed SFR dependence at a given ${\hbox{$M_{\star}$}}$, as is required in the framework of @Mannucci10 or @LaraLopez10. Following @Salim14 [@Salim15], we examine the slope of $12+\log$(O/H) as a function of ${\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}$ at fixed ${\hbox{$M_{\star}$}}$. For each ${\hbox{$M_{\star}$}}$ bin, we assume the form
$$12+\log({\rm O/H}) = \beta + \kappa*{\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}.
\label{eq:slope}$$
While this introduces a parametrization, it allows for a direct comparison of the slope $\kappa$ with previous studies [e.g. @Salim14; @Salim15]. The dependence of $\log$(O/H) on SFR at fixed ${\hbox{$M_{\star}$}}$ is simply $\frac{d\log({\rm O/H})}{d\log({\rm SFR})}\big|_{\small{M_{\star}}} = \frac{d\log({\rm O/H})}{d\Delta \log({\rm SSFR})} = \kappa$. This differs from the parameter $\alpha$ that minimizes the scatter about a surface in ${\hbox{$M_{\star}$--$Z$--${\rm SFR}$}}$ space [e.g., @Mannucci10; @Yates12; @Andrews13]. It is straightforward to convert a value of $\alpha$ to an equivalent value of $\kappa$ if the parametrization of the FMR is known.
@Salim14 find that the slope $\kappa$ is a function of ${\hbox{$M_{\star}$}}$, and becomes flatter at higher masses. They also find that the slope is a function of ${\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}$, and becomes steeper at higher ${\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}$. We apply their framework to the galaxies in our sample. We measure ${\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}$ with Equation \[eq:dssfr\], and apply our new strong line calibrations to derive oxygen abundances.
Each panel of Figure \[fig:salim\_comp\_n2\] shows $\log$(O/H) as a function of ${\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}$ for a given ${\hbox{$M_{\star}$}}$ denoted in the bottom left corner. We include all galaxies and stacks with masses that fall within the $\pm 0.25$ dex ${\hbox{$M_{\star}$}}$ window of each panel. The circles show the direct method abundances of the stacks. The stacks are 0.10 dex wide in ${\hbox{$M_{\star}$}}$, so there are multiple stacks at fixed ${\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}$ within the ${\hbox{$M_{\star}$}}$ window of each panel. The gray contours show the SDSS galaxies with oxygen abundances determined with our new calibration.
For each ${\hbox{$M_{\star}$}}$, we fit $\log$(O/H) as a function of ${\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}$ per Equation \[eq:slope\]. The dashed red lines show the fits resulting from the SDSS galaxies; the dotted red lines show the fits to the stacks. Note that for higher masses ($\log({\hbox{$M_{\star}$}}/M_{\odot}) \gtrsim 10.0$) there are few to no stacks with direct method abundances. While in some cases the slopes derived from the direct method differ from those derived from the individual galaxies (e.g., $\log({\hbox{$M_{\star}$}}/M_{\odot}) = 9.5$), we typically find agreement within the error bars.
The solid green line in each panel shows the median $\log$(O/H) as a function of ${\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}$. The relationship between $\log$(O/H) and ${\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}$ is non-linear and appears to steepen at high ${\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}$, particularly for the lower mass bins. This is in agreement with @Salim14 and illustrates the need for a non-parametric approach when investigating the ${\hbox{$M_{\star}$--$Z$--${\rm SFR}$}}$ relation. Since our detection of auroral lines is biased towards high ${\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}$, we have relatively more direct method measurements at high ${\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}$, which effectively biases the fit to the stacks towards a steeper slope. Accounting for ${\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}$ does lead to a reduction in scatter; the scatter in (O/H) at fixed ${\hbox{$M_{\star}$}}$ and ${\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}$ is somewhat lower than the scatter at fixed ${\hbox{$M_{\star}$}}$ alone. In the case of N2, the scatter in O/H at fixed ${\hbox{$M_{\star}$}}$ is $\sim 0.12$, while the scatter around the running median is $0.07$.
We perform this analysis for the O3N2 and N2O2 diagnostics as well. The results for the O3N2 diagnostic are qualitatively similar to those of the N2 diagnostic. In Figure \[fig:salim\_comp\_n2o2\] we examine the results of this non-parametric approach with the N2O2 diagnostic. The green line shows the median $\log$(O/H) of the individual galaxies, while the dashed (dotted) red lines show the parametrized fit to the slope of the galaxies (stacks). Interestingly, the N2O2 diagnostic removes much of the nonlinearity of the relationship between $\log$(O/H) and ${\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}$; the green and red lines agree across a wide range of ${\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}$. Furthermore, the slope remains relatively steep, even at high masses, which is not the case for the other diagnostics.
The results of the linear fits for each diagnostic are shown in Figure \[fig:fmrFit\]. The left panel shows the measured slope (for both the SDSS galaxies and direct method stack abundances). The right panel shows the corresponding intercept for each fit; the small circles show where the stacks fall in the ${\hbox{$M_{\star}$}}-Z$ plane. The measured intercepts (right panel) closely track the star forming main sequence, which also follows the $Z \propto {\hbox{$M_{\star}$}}^{1/3}$ scaling denoted by the dashed magenta line. This is consistent with momentum driven winds and a mass loading parameter $\eta$ which scales approximately as $\eta \propto {\hbox{$M_{\star}$}}^{-1/3}$ [@Murray05; @Oppenheimer06].
The left panel of Figure \[fig:fmrFit\] presents clear evidence for evolution of the slope $\kappa$ as a function of ${\hbox{$M_{\star}$}}$ for the N2 and O3N2 diagnostics. The slope is steeper at lower masses, in agreement with previous studies [@Ellison08Apj; @Salim14]. We measure $\kappa\sim -0.2$ to $-0.4$. @Andrews13 measured $\alpha = 0.66$ and the slope of the FMR to be 0.43 with the direct method. Converting their direct method $\alpha$ to an equivalent value of $\kappa$ yields $\kappa \sim -0.28$, which is in good agreement with our measurements. Furthermore, the tension between the slope derived from direct method abundances and that derived from strong line inferred abundances is significantly reduced from that found in @Andrews13. Our values of $\kappa$ are on average steeper than @Salim14 found. This is at least in part due to the fact that our new calibrations incorporate ${\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}$ explicitly.
The nonlinear dependence of $\log$(O/H) on ${\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}$ is most prominent in the low mass panels of Figure \[fig:salim\_comp\_n2\]. There is a break in slope between $\log$(O/H)$_{\rm N2}$ and ${\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}$, which appears to denote a boundary between highly star forming galaxies and more moderately star forming galaxies. @Salim14 [@Salim15] interperet this break and the general flattening of the slope with ${\hbox{$M_{\star}$}}$ in the context of models from @Zahid14. They suggest that the ISM of the more evolved galaxies is saturated and thus the gas phase abundances are largely insensitive to inflows of pristine gas and the resulting variations in ${\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}$. In contrast, the more vigorously star forming galaxies have lower gas phase abundances which are more sensitive to inflows of pristine gas. However, the flattening in slope could also be due to the N2 diagnostic losing sensitivity at high metallicities. This would not, however, explain the similar behavior seen for the O3N2 diagnostic (see Figure \[fig:fmrFit\]) which is expected to remain sensitive to oxygen abundance in the high metallicity regime.
The break in slope is not present in Figure \[fig:salim\_comp\_n2o2\] for N2O2. Furthermore, the slope in Figure \[fig:salim\_comp\_n2o2\] is relatively steep and constant for all ${\hbox{$M_{\star}$}}$. Since the N2O2 diagnostic is insensitive to ionization parameter, this may mean that the ionization parameter is more tightly coupled to ${\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}$ in intensely star forming galaxies. For instance, suppose an increase in SFR in a highly star forming galaxy produced a larger increase in ionization parameter than in a more moderately star forming galaxy with the same stellar mass. This would bias the N2 and O3N2 diagnostics in the direction of lower metallicity and cause the slope between inferred $\log$(O/H) and ${\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}$ to steepen. This would explain why the break is present for N2 and O3N2, but not N2O2. We emphasize that Figures \[fig:salim\_comp\_n2\] and \[fig:salim\_comp\_n2o2\] show how changes in ${\hbox{$M_{\star}$}}$ and ${\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}$ affect the diagnostics, from which we only *infer* a metallicity. While the break in slope may be a real effect resulting from the physical processes governing the ${\hbox{$M_{\star}$--$Z$--${\rm SFR}$}}$ relation, there remain potential biases associated with strong line calibrations.
Application of New Calibrations to High Redshift Galaxies {#sec:highz}
---------------------------------------------------------
\[c\]\[\]\[1.\][$\odot$]{} \[c\]\[\]\[1.\][$\star$]{}
Most galaxies found in high redshift surveys are qualitatively similar to gas rich, metal poor, highly star forming galaxies in the local universe [@Steidel14; @Kriek14; @Shapley15; @delosReyes15]. This is at least in part a selection effect. At high redshift, bright emission line galaxies are easier to detect than quiescent galaxies. However, the average SFR and SSFR of the universe does indeed increase with redshift, peaking near $z \sim 2$ [e.g., see the compilation by @AHopkins06]. In this section we investigate how the mean properties of high redshift galaxies compare to those of local star forming galaxies, as well as whether or not the diagnostic tools developed from galaxies in the local universe can yield useful information when applied to high redshift galaxies.
### Are the Calibrations Valid at High Redshift?
The calibrations derived in Section \[sec:results\] incorporate ${\hbox{$M_{\star}$}}$ and ${\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}$ relative to the local star forming main sequence. When applying these calibrations to high redshift galaxies there is an implicit comparison to the local star forming main sequence, rather than the star forming main sequence of the high redshift universe. Since the average star formation rate of the universe evolves with redshift, so does the star forming main sequence. In this sense, the local star forming main sequence is a somewhat arbitrary (albeit convenient) zero point for our calibrations. Utilizing a ${\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}$ defined relative to the high redshift star forming main sequence would require recalibrating the diagnostics using high redshift galaxies. This would merely amount to a zero-point shift [@Salim15], since in our framework the higher (S)SFRs would be balanced by lower metallicities.
One possible concern is whether or not it is appropriate to apply our calibrations to high redshift galaxies. @Steidel14 argue that the position of high redshift galaxies in the BPT diagram is largely independent of (O/H), and primarily determined by the ionization parameter $\Gamma$, which is highly dependent on ${\hbox{$T_{\rm eff}$}}$, the density of star formation, and geometrical effects. They find that the correlation between (O/H) and the strong line ratios is most likely a result of the correlation between $\Gamma$, ${\hbox{$T_{\rm eff}$}}$, and the stellar metallicity which, for young stellar populations, reflects the gas phase metallicity. The average ${\hbox{$T_{\rm eff}$}}$ may indeed evolve with redshift due to the compact, gas rich, low metallicity environments that become more common at higher redshifts. These conditions could result in stellar populations with abnormally hard ionizing spectra that drive unusual ionization conditions and abundances [@Eldridge09; @Brott11; @Levesque12; @Kudritzki00; @Kewley13a]. @Steidel14 show that a factor of 2.5 change in $\Gamma$ has the same order of magnitude effect on N2 as a factor of five change in $Z$. Even in the local universe, a factor of 2.5 variation in ionization parameter from one object to another is not unreasonable [@Zahid12a], although the $z\sim 2.3$ galaxies would require a *systematic* increase in ionization parameter of this order of magnitude. While there is evidence that the ionization conditions of high redshift galaxies are similar to local regions [@Nakajima13], the validity of local strong line calibrations at high redshift is further complicated by the fact that the abundance of nitrogen relative to oxygen may increase with redshift [@Steidel14; @Masters14].
While we do not yet have direct method oxygen abundances for a large sample of $z \geq 2$ galaxies, @Brown14 measured the direct method oxygen abundances and strong line ratios of several Lyman Break Analogs [LBAs; @Heckman05; @Hoopes07; @BasuZych07; @Overzier08; @Overzier09; @Overzier10; @Goncalves10]. LBAs are local ($z \sim 0.2$) versions of the Lyman Break Galaxies which dominated the SFR of the universe at $z \gtrsim 2.5$ [for a review of LBGs, see @Giavalisco02]. In the left panel of Figure \[fig:SL\_highz\] we compare the oxygen abundance determined with our new calibrations with the direct method (O/H) for the four LBAs from @Brown14. The circles, triangles, and inverted triangles denote the deviation of the inferred (O/H) from the direct method (O/H) for our N2, O3N2, and N2O2 calibrations respectively. The gray shaded region shows the average uncertainty of the direct method measurements.
The choice of star formation rate indicator is a source of systematic error. Our calibrations are derived using the SFRs from the ${\hbox{MPA/JHU}}$ pipeline. In order to minimize systematic effects associated with the SFR of LBAs, we adopt the SFRs from the ${\hbox{MPA/JHU}}$ catalog, which agree with the ${\hbox{H$\alpha$}}$ derived SFRs from @Overzier09. While the ${\hbox{H$\alpha$}}+24\mu$m SFRs from @Overzier09 are regarded as the optimal SFR indicator, these values are systematically high compared to the ${\hbox{H$\alpha$}}$ derived SFRs and result in correspondingly low oxygen abundances. Thus we recommend ${\hbox{H$\alpha$}}$ derived SFRs when applying these calibrations.
In general, the oxygen abundances predicted by our new calibrations and the direct method oxygen abundances for these LBAs agree quite well. The biggest difference is the N2O2 based metallicity of the most massive LBA from @Brown14, J005527, which is 1$\sigma$ larger than the direct method metallicity. However, this object displays features consistent with Wolf-Rayet stars, which may drive unusual (N/O) ratios [@Pagel86; @Henry00; @Brinchmann08; @LopezSanchez10; @Berg11]. We conclude that our new calibrations are suitable for use in LBAs, and that our new calibrations will produce reliable oxygen abundance estimates in the high redshift universe if the ionization conditions of LBAs are representative of their high-$z$ counterparts. Nevertheless, direct method abundance measurements for high redshift galaxies are still needed to determine if local calibrations are suitable for high redshift galaxies.
### Application to MOSDEF $z\sim2.3$ Galaxies
The MOSFIRE Deep Evolution Field (MOSDEF) survey [@Kriek14] is a spectrocopic survey investigating the rest frame optical emission lines of high redshift star forming galaxies. @Sanders15 used a sample of MOSDEF galaxies to stack spectra in ${\hbox{$M_{\star}$}}$ and ${\hbox{$M_{\star}$}}$–SFR bins in order to measure the rest frame optical emission lines of $z\sim2.3$ galaxies with high precision. We use the published ${\hbox{$M_{\star}$}}$, SFR, and emission line data from @Sanders15 to calculate ${\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}$ relative to the local star forming main sequence. We apply our new strong line calibrations to the high and low SFR stacks from @Sanders15 (shown as crosses in Figures \[fig:N2\_MZR\] and \[fig:O3N2\_MZR\]). We determine the uncertainty in oxygen abundances using a Monte Carlo technique similar to that used to determine the uncertainties in our own abundances (see Section \[sec:abund\]). The error bars in the ${\hbox{$M_{\star}$}}$ direction show the mass range of galaxies in the stack. These galaxies fall well below the local MZR. This is in agreement with @Sanders15, and other studies which have shown that high redshift, highly star forming galaxies tend to have low gas phase oxygen abundances [e.g. @Erb06; @Maiolino08; @Maier14].
Conceptually, if the gas fueling the star formation has low metallicity, then the ISM of highly star forming galaxies will be relatively metal poor [@Ellison08Apj; @Mannucci10; @LaraLopez10]. However, Figures \[fig:N2\_MZR\] and \[fig:O3N2\_MZR\] also show that high redshift galaxies from @Sanders15 are metal poor relative to our low-$z$ stacks with similar ${\hbox{$M_{\star}$}}$ and SFR. The right panel of Figure \[fig:SL\_highz\] shows a quantitative comparison of where high redshift galaxies fall relative to local galaxies with similar ${\hbox{$M_{\star}$}}$ and SFR. We find that the high redshift galaxies from @Sanders15 have metallicities that are on average $\sim0.1-0.2$ dex lower than local galaxies of the same ${\hbox{$M_{\star}$}}$ and SFR. There is also evidence that the offset in $\log$(O/H) increases with ${\hbox{$M_{\star}$}}$, as noted in @Salim15. This trend holds for both N2 and O3N2. We did not apply our N2O2 calibration as the \[\] $\lambda$3727 Å line does not fall within the spectral range of the MOSFIRE data reported by @Sanders15. The offset of the @Sanders15 galaxies toward lower oxygen abundances than local galaxies with the same ${\hbox{$M_{\star}$}}$ and SFR appears to contradict the existence of an FMR, and requires some redshift dependence of the ${\hbox{$M_{\star}$--$Z$--${\rm SFR}$}}$ relation.
@Zahid14 use analytic and numerical models to quantify the evolution in their datasets. Their model, which they refer to as the Universal Metallicity Relation (UZR), assumes all galaxies evolve along the star forming main sequence. They model the MZR at any epoch as
$$12+\log({\rm O/H}) = Z_O + \log\left[ 1 - \exp\left(-\left[\frac{{\hbox{$M_{\star}$}}}{M_O}\right]^{\gamma}\right)\right].
\label{eq:uzr}$$
They find that the shape of the MZR is constant (i.e. universal). Only the characteristic turnover mass ${\hbox{$M_O$}}$ increases with redshift such that at fixed ${\hbox{$M_{\star}$}}$, O/H decreases with redshift. Above ${\hbox{$M_O$}}$, galaxies have essentially the same metallicity ${\hbox{$Z_O$}}$.
@Salim15 suggest that the high metallicities act as a buffer against inflows diluting the ISM, resulting in the break in $\kappa$ seen in the top panels of Figure \[fig:salim\_comp\_n2\]. With a sufficiently large sample of high redshift galaxies resolving the turnover in the MZR, it may be possible to directly test the evolution of ${\hbox{$M_O$}}$ with redshift within the framework of Section \[sec:fmr\]. If ${\hbox{$M_O$}}$ increases with redshift as argued by @Zahid14, the break in $\kappa$ should occur at a higher mass than observed for local samples of galaxies. @Salim15 examine the ${\hbox{$M_{\star}$--$Z$--${\rm SFR}$}}$ relation with the high redshift galaxies from @Steidel14, as well as local galaxies with relatively high values of ${\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}$. Their results suggest that $\kappa$ flattens at *high* ${\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}$, but current samples of high redshift galaxies are not yet complete enough to reveal a break in $\kappa$ at lower values of ${\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}$.
Summary {#sec:conc}
=======
We have recalibrated strong line diagnostics with direct method oxygen abundances of galaxies and applied the new calibrations to investigate the ${\hbox{$M_{\star}$--$Z$--${\rm SFR}$}}$ relation. We stacked $\sim 2 \times 10^5$ spectra of star forming galaxies in the local universe in ${\hbox{$M_{\star}$}}$ and offset from the star forming main sequence. Our main results are:
- We recalibrated the relationship between ${\hbox{(O/H)$_{\rm T_e}$}}$ and the N2, O3N2, N2O2 strong line ratios. This included incorporation of ${\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}$ as an additional parameter.
- For the N2 and O3N2 diagnostics we find a higher (O/H) normalization, but similar slope, as previous calibrations. We attribute this difference to the fact that previous calibrations are based on individual regions. No single calibration significantly outperforms the others. The O3N2 diagnostic is the most accurate of the three for 43% (47/110) of the stacks, but N2O2 is typically a close second and subject to fewer biases.
- We apply our new calibrations to local star forming galaxies. In the context of galaxy evolution models, our result that the slope of our new calibrations is similar to previous calibrations implies the scaling of galactic outflows with stellar mass remains unchanged.
- We adopt the non-parametric framework presented in @Salim14 to investigate the ${\hbox{$M_{\star}$--$Z$--${\rm SFR}$}}$ relation in the local universe. When using the N2 and O3N2 diagnostics we find variation in the SFR dependence with both ${\hbox{$M_{\star}$}}$ and ${\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}$, as noted in previous studies. The N2O2 diagnostic produces a nearly constant slope, independent of ${\hbox{$M_{\star}$}}$ and ${\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}$. Below $\log({\hbox{$M_{\star}$}}/{M_{\odot}}) \sim 10$, the slopes measured with strong line diagnostics are in agreement with each other and consistent with the direct method slope to within $\sim10\%$. At higher masses, the uncertainty in the direct method slope increases significantly, and the N2 and O3N2 inferred slopes flatten compared to N2O2. We note a modest reduction of scatter in $\log$(O/H) at fixed ${\hbox{$M_{\star}$}}$ and ${\hbox{$\Delta\log$(SSFR)}}$.
- We also apply our new calibrations to high redshift galaxies presented in @Sanders15. We find these galaxies to be systematically metal poor compared to local galaxies of the same ${\hbox{$M_{\star}$}}$ and SFR, and conclude the ${\hbox{$M_{\star}$--$Z$--${\rm SFR}$}}$ relation evolves with redshift.
- It is possible that our O/H estimates of high redshift galaxies are biased by the ionization conditions of the high redshift universe. While direct method measurements of high redshift galaxies are required to definitively test if this is the case, we apply our new calibrations to the LBAs from @Brown14 and find consistent results with the direct method measurements of those systems.
There remains some degree of uncertainty as to whether or not these calibrations are valid in the high redshift universe. The ideal path forward would be to recalibrate these empirical relations at $z \sim 2.3$. While direct method oxygen abundance determinations at high redshift are challenging, recent progress has been made. There have been several direct method abundance measurements obtained at $z \sim 1$ [@Hoyos05; @Kakazu07; @Amorin10; @Amorin12], and @Yuan09 used gravitational lensing to measure ${\hbox{[\ion{O}{iii}]~$\lambda$4363}}$ at $z\sim1.7$. Most recently, @Jones15 showed that $\alpha$ element strong line abundance diagnostics are reliable up to at least $z \sim 0.8$. Additionally, @Steidel14 report that direct method oxygen abundances (in addition the \[\], \[\], ${\hbox{H$\alpha$}}$, ${\hbox{H$\beta$}}$, \[\], and \[\] optical strong lines) will soon be available for a subset of the KBSS-MOSFIRE targets at $z \approx 2.36-2.57$. This will improve constraints on the ${\hbox{$M_{\star}$--$Z$--${\rm SFR}$}}$ relation and ionization conditions in the early universe.
While we have restricted ourselves to two applications of our newly derived calibrations (the ${\hbox{$M_{\star}$--$Z$--${\rm SFR}$}}$ relation and the high redshift universe), there are many other potential applications of these calibrations. For example, a set of abundance diagnostics based on direct method abundances of galaxies rather than individual regions is invaluable for any study concerned with gas phase abundances of galaxies, such as transient surveys like ASASSN [@Shappee14] and ZTF [@Bellm14]. There are also many applications to IFU spectroscopic galaxy surveys [e.g. MaNGA, @Bundy15], particularly in regions of galaxies where the weak lines are not detected. Lastly, next generation galaxy surveys like DESI [@DESI] will be able to make use of these calibrations to study much larger samples of galaxies.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We thank Roberto Maiolino, Gwen Rudie, Samir Salim, Ryan Sanders, and Chuck Steidel for comments on an early draft. We also appreciate many helpful comments and suggestions by the referee.
We appreciate the MPA-JHU group for making their catalog publicly available.
The STARLIGHT project is supported by the Brazilian agencies CNPq, CAPES and FAPESP and by the France-Brazil CAPES/Cofecub program.
Funding for the SDSS and SDSS-II has been provided by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the Participating Institutions, the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Energy, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Japanese Monbukagakusho, the Max Planck Society, and the Higher Education Funding Council for England. The SDSS Web Site is http://www.sdss.org/.
The SDSS is managed by the Astrophysical Research Consortium for the Participating Institutions. The Participating Institutions are the American Museum of Natural History, Astrophysical Institute Potsdam, University of Basel, University of Cambridge, Case Western Reserve University, University of Chicago, Drexel University, Fermilab, the Institute for Advanced Study, the Japan Participation Group, Johns Hopkins University, the Joint Institute for Nuclear Astrophysics, the Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology, the Korean Scientist Group, the Chinese Academy of Sciences (LAMOST), Los Alamos National Laboratory, the Max-Planck-Institute for Astronomy (MPIA), the Max-Planck-Institute for Astrophysics (MPA), New Mexico State University, Ohio State University, University of Pittsburgh, University of Portsmouth, Princeton University, the United States Naval Observatory, and the University of Washington.
\[lastpage\]
[^1]: E-mail: brown@astronomy.ohio-state.edu
|
---
abstract: |
In many biomedical applications, outcome is measured as a “time-to-event” (eg. disease progression or death). To assess the connection between features of a patient and this outcome, it is common to assume a proportional hazards model, and fit a proportional hazards regression (or Cox regression). To fit this model, a log-concave objective function known as the “partial likelihood” is maximized. For moderate-sized datasets, an efficient Newton-Raphson algorithm that leverages the structure of the objective can be employed. However, in large datasets this approach has two issues: 1) The computational tricks that leverage structure can also lead to computational instability; 2) The objective does not naturally decouple: Thus, if the dataset does not fit in memory, the model can be very computationally expensive to fit. This additionally means that the objective is not directly amenable to stochastic gradient-based optimization methods. To overcome these issues, we propose a simple, new framing of proportional hazards regression: This results in an objective function that is amenable to stochastic gradient descent. We show that this simple modification allows us to efficiently fit survival models with very large datasets. This also facilitates training complex, eg. neural-network-based, models with survival data.
**Keywords:** Survival Analysis, Cox Proportional Hazard model, Big data, Streaming Data, Stochastic Gradient Descent, Neural Networks.
author:
- |
Aliasghar Tarkhan and Noah Simon\
Department of Biostatistics\
University of Washington\
Seattle, WA 98195-4322, USA\
atarkhan@uw.edu and nrsimon@uw.edu
bibliography:
- 'ref.bib'
title: 'BigSurvSGD: Big Survival Data Analysis via Stochastic Gradient Descent'
---
Introduction
============
It is commonly of interest in biomedical settings to characterize the relationship between characteristics of an individual and their risk of experiencing an event of interest [eg. progression of a disease, recovery, death, etc. see @Lee1997]. Outcomes of this type are known as “time-to-event” outcomes, and characterizing such relationships is known as Survival analysis [@Schober2018]. In such applications, we often only have partial information on some patients due to censoring (e.g., they might leave the study before experiencing the event of interest).
Cox proportional hazards regression (CoxPH) [@Cox1972] is the most common tool for conducting survival analyses. The CoxPH model assumes a particular semi-parametric relationship between the risk at each given time of experiencing an event and the features of a patient (eg. age, sex, treatment assignment, etc). To estimate, parameters in this model CoxPH regression maximizes a log-concave function known as the “partial likelihood”. Once estimated, this model can predict the person-specific risk of an event (as a function of their features). Such predictions are often used in personalized medicine, eg. in the development of prognostic and predictive biomarkers [@Bjorn2008]. To maximize the partial likelihood, it is most common to use an efficient second-order algorithm such as Newton-Raphson [@MITTAL2014] for datasets with few features (though potentially many observations). Traditionally, CoxPH has been used on data-sets with relatively few observations, though penalized extensions have been developed for high dimensional applications [@Simon2011].
It is increasingly common to have biomedical datasets with a large number of observations, especially with increasing use of electronic medical records [@Raghupathi2014]. Although the CoxPH regression model has been widely used for small-to-moderate numbers of observations, current methodologies for fitting the Cox model have issues on datasets with many observations. In particular, in fitting the Cox model, it is common to leverage the sequential structure of the partial likelihood to vastly speed up computation [from $O(n^2)$ to $O(n)$, see @Simon2011]. However, when there are a large number of observations, this can lead to computational instability (which we illustrate in this manuscript).
The second issue is that the partial likelihood does not naturally decouple over individuals or subsets of individuals. Thus, if the dataset does not fit in memory, the model can be very computationally expensive to fit: Standard distributed optimization methods such as those based the alternating direction method of multipliers [@Boyd2010] cannot be used. This additionally means that the objective is not directly amenable to stochastic gradient-based optimization methods [@Ruder2016]. Unfortunately, to fit more complex neural network-based models, it is most common to use stochastic-gradient-based optimization [@NN]. This decoupling issue makes it impossible or at least very impractical to fit neural-network-based models with time-to-event data.
In this paper, we propose a novel and simple framework for conducting survival analysis using the CoxPH model. Our framework is built upon an objective that is a modification of the usual partial likelihood function. In particular this modified objective decouples over subsets of observations, and allows us to employ stochastic-gradient-based methods that engage only a subset of our data at each iteration. We show that the parameters estimated by this new objective function are equivalent to the original parameters when the assumptions of the CoxPH model hold (and may actually be more robust in the case of model misspecification). In addition, our new objective function is amenable to optimization via stochastic-gradient based methods. Standard stochastic gradient-based algorithms are computationally efficient and stable for this objective and can easily scale to datasets that are too large to fit in memory. We discuss how our new framework can be implemented in both streaming [@Gaber2005] and non-streaming algorithms. We also discuss extending our framework to use mini-batches and we present some recommendations that we have found important, in practice, for performance.
We organize this paper as follows. In Section 2, we review the CoxPH regression model, the partial likelihood, and standard optimization tools used to maximize the partial likelihood. In Section 3, we present our new framework for fitting the CoxPH model and we prove the statistical equivalence of the parameters indicated by our optimization problem and those one from the standard CoxPH model. We also discuss applications of our proposed framework to both streaming and non-streaming algorithms. In addition, we discuss some recommendations that we have found important in practice for performance. In section \[sec4\] we discuss how our framework can be extended to left truncation and right censoring. In section \[sec5\], we discuss the equivalence of our optimization procedure to U-statistics based optimization. In Section \[Sim\], we provide simulation results that compare estimates from stochastic optimization of our modified objective to the current state of the art that estimates parameters by attempting to optimize the usual partial likelihood. In section \[Conclusion\], we conclude our paper and discuss some potential implications of our framework.
Cox Proportional Hazards (Cox PH) Model {#sec2}
=======================================
The Cox PH model proposed by Cox [@Cox1972] is a commonly used semi-parametric regression model in the medical literature for evaluating the association between the time until some event of interest and a set of variable(s) measured on a patient. More formally, suppose on each patient we measure $T$ an event time, and $X = (X_1,\ldots, X_p)$ a vector of numeric features. The Cox model engages with the so-called hazard function $$h(x,t) = \frac{p(t|x)}{S(t|x)}$$ where $p(t|x) = \frac{d}{dt}P(T < t|X=x)$, $S(t|x) = P(T > t|X=x)$. The hazard function, $h(x,t)$, can be thought of as the probability density of having an event at time $t$, given that a patient (with covariates $x$) has not had an event up until that time. In particular the Cox model assumes a particular form for the hazard function: $$\begin{aligned}
h(t, \boldsymbol{x};\boldsymbol{\beta}^*) = h_0(t)e^{f_{\boldsymbol{\beta}^*}(\boldsymbol{x})}
\label{e1}\end{aligned}$$ where $f_{\boldsymbol{\beta}^*}$ is a specified function of parameters $\boldsymbol{\beta}^*=(\beta^*_1, \beta^*_2, \dots, \beta^*_k)$ that determines the role played by $\boldsymbol{x}$ in the hazard; and $h_0(t)$ is a baseline hazard function (independent of covariates). Note that $f_{\boldsymbol{\beta}^*}(\boldsymbol{x})$ may be assumed to be of different forms in different applications: For instance, in many scenarios $k$ is taken to be $p$, and the simple linear model $f_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(\boldsymbol{x})=\boldsymbol{x}^T\boldsymbol{\beta}= + \beta_1 x_1 + \dots + \beta_p x_p$ is used. This model assumes that the manner in which a patient’s covariates modulate their risk of experiencing an event is independent of time. In particular it is encoded entirely in $f_{\boldsymbol{\beta}^*}$. This simplifies estimation and interpretation of the predictive model.
Our aim is to use data to estimate $\boldsymbol{\beta}^*$. In particular we will assume that we have a dataset with $n$ independent observations drawn from the model : $\mathcal{D}^{(n)}= \{\mathcal{D}_i=(y_i, \boldsymbol{x}^{(i)})|i=1,2, \dots, n\}$. For the moment we assume that there is no censoring (all event times are observed), and no ties (all event times are unique). Estimation is conducted using the log-partial-likelihood: $$\begin{aligned}
pl^{(n)}(\boldsymbol{\beta}|\mathcal{D}^{(n)}) &= \operatorname{log}\left(\prod_{i=1}^{n} \frac{h(\boldsymbol{x}^{(i)}; \boldsymbol{\beta})}{\sum_{j \in \mathcal{R}_i}h(\boldsymbol{x}^{(j)}; \boldsymbol{\beta})}\right)\nonumber\\
&= \sum_{i=1}^{n}\left(f_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(\boldsymbol{x}^{(i)})-\operatorname{log}\left(\sum_{j \in \mathcal{R}_i}e^{f_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(\boldsymbol{x}^{(j)})}\right)\right)
\label{e2}\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathcal{R}_i = \{j\,|\,t_j \geq t_i\}$ is the “risk set for patient $j$”. Note that aside from $\mathcal{R}_j$, the expression in is independent of the event times. Extending this partial likelihood to deal with censoring, left-truncation and ties is quite straightforward [@Klein2003], however for ease of exposition we do not include it in this manuscript.
Using the log-partial-likelihood from equation an estimate of $\boldsymbol{\beta}^*$ can be obtained as $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\boldsymbol{\beta}}^{(n)} = \underset{\boldsymbol{\beta}}{\operatorname{argmin}}\left\{-pl^{(n)}(\boldsymbol{\beta}|\mathcal{D}^{(n)})\right\}
\label{e3}\end{aligned}$$ When linear $f_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(\bold{x})=\bold{x}^{\top}\boldsymbol{\beta}= \beta_1 x_1 + \dots + \beta_p x_p$ is used, our objective function in is convex in $\boldsymbol{\beta}$, and thus the tools of convex optimization can be applied to find $\hat{\boldsymbol{\beta}}^{(n)}$ (see *Corollary 1* in Appendix \[appA\] for the proof of convexity). In the current gold standard [survival]{} package in [R]{} [@coxph2019], Newton-Raphson is used to minimize with linear $f$. In the later sections of this manuscript we will refer to this implementation as [coxph()]{}.
For linear $f$, one can show that $\left\|\hat{\boldsymbol{\beta}}^{(n)} - \boldsymbol{\beta}^{*}\right\|_2^2 = O_p\left(n^{-1}\right)$ which is rate optimal [as is standard for estimation in parametric models, see @Van2000].
In current state-of-the-art packages, the structure of the ordered structure of the loss (as well as the gradient, and hessian) are leveraged to improve computational efficiency. In particular, we examine the gradient $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla_{\beta}\Big\{-pl^{(n)}(\boldsymbol{\beta}|\mathcal{D}^{(n)})\Big\}= -\sum_{i=1}^{n}\Big(\dot{f}_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(\bold{x}^{(i)})-\frac{\sum_{j \in \mathcal{R}_i}\dot{f}_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(\bold{x}^{(j)})e^{f_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(\bold{x}^{(j)})})}{\sum_{j \in \mathcal{R}_i}e^{f_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(\bold{x}^{(j)})}}\Big).
\label{e4}\end{aligned}$$ where $\dot{f}_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(\bold{x})=\nabla_{\beta}\{f_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(\bold{x})\}$ is the gradient of $f_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(\bold{x})$ with respect to $\boldsymbol{\beta}$. While a naive calculate would have $n^2$ computational complexity because of the nested summations, this is not necessary. In the case that the times are ordered $t_1 < t_2 <\ldots < t_n$ we see that $R_{i} = R_{i+1}\cup \{i\}$. This allows us to use cumulative sums and differences to calculate the entire gradient in $O(n)$ computational complexity, with a single $n\operatorname{log}(n)$ complexity sort required at the beginning of the algorithm [@Simon2011]. This is also true for calculating the Hessian. Unfortunately, however, when employing this strategy, the algorithm becomes susceptible to roundoff issues, especially with a larger number of observations ($n$) and features ($p$), as seen in Section \[sec:sim-big\].
Additional inspection of the gradient in shows why stochastic-gradient-based methods cannot be used to decouple gradient calculations over observations in our sample: While the gradient can be written as a sum over indices $i=1,\ldots, n$, the denominator for the $i=1$ term involves all observations in the dataset. In the next section, we propose a novel simple modification of optimization problem that admits an efficient stochastic-gradient-based algorithm for estimating $\beta^*$.
Big survival data analysis using SGD: BigSurvSGD {#sec3}
================================================
We begin by reformulating our problem. We consider a population parameter $\boldsymbol{\beta}^{(s)}$, defined as the population minimizer of the expected partial likelihood of $s$ random patients (which we will refer to as “strata of size s”) $$\begin{aligned}
\boldsymbol{\beta}^{(s)} = \underset{\boldsymbol{\beta}}{\operatorname{argmin}}\Big\{\mathbb{E}_{s}[-pl^{(s)}(\boldsymbol{\beta}|\mathcal{D}^{(s)})]\Big\}
\label{e5}\end{aligned}$$ Here we think of $\mathcal{D}^{(s)}$ as a draw of $s$ random patients from our population. Note that the minimum value for $s$ is 2, otherwise, expression (2) becomes zero for all $\beta$. By including a superscript $s$ in $\boldsymbol{\beta}^{(s)}$, we note that this parameter may depend on $s$. In fact, when the assumptions of the Cox model hold then we have $\boldsymbol{\beta}^{(s)} = \boldsymbol{\beta}^{*}$ for all $s$. The proof of this is quite simple, with details given in Appendix \[appA\].
To estimate $\beta^{*}$, we select a small fixed $s$ ($s<<n$) and directly apply stochastic gradient descent to the population optimization problem . In practice this will amount to calculating stochastic gradients using random strata of size $s$. One may note that for $s$ small, there are on the order of $n^s$ such strata. However, results for stochastic gradient descent indicate that under strong convexity of , on the order of only $n$ steps should be required to obtain a rate optimal estimator (converging at a rate of $n^{-1}$ in MSE). See Appendix \[appB\] for the proof of this convergence rate $O(n^{-1})$.
In Section \[sec:sim-big\], we see that this modification mitigates issues with roundoff error, and allows us to computationally efficiently fit survival models with millions of observations and many features.
Pairwise concordance ($s=2$)
----------------------------
An interesting special case is when we choose strata of size $s=2$, and look at pairs of patients. Then, in the case of no censoring, the population minimizer in , i.e., $\boldsymbol{\beta}^{(2)}$ maximizes the expectation of the pairwise log-partial likelihood $$\begin{aligned}
pl^{(2)}(\boldsymbol{\beta}|\mathcal{D}^{(2)}) &= log\Big(\frac{f_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(\bold{x}^{(1)})}{f_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(\bold{x}^{(2)})+f_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(\bold{x}^{(1)})}\Big)1(t_1<t_2)\nonumber\\
&+log\Big(\frac{f_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(\bold{x}^{(2)})}{f_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(\bold{x}^{(1)})+f_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(\bold{x}^{(2)})}\Big)1(t_2<t_1).
\label{ep}\end{aligned}$$ This log-partial-likelihood can be thought of as a smoothed version of the standard concordance measure used in the concordance index [@Peter2012]. Thus, even when the proportional hazards model does not hold, the parameter $\boldsymbol{\beta}^{(2)}$ maintains a useful interpretation as the population minimizer of the average smoothed concordance index. is similar to the objective function for conditional logistic regression (CLR) with strata size $s=2$ [@Breslow1980]. In the deep learning literature, neural net models with a conditional logistic outcome layers are often referred to as Siamese Neural Networks [@Gregory2015], though, to our knowledge, these ideas have not been previously been applied to time-to-event data.
Optimization with SGD
---------------------
Suppose that we have $n_s$ independent strata, $D^{(s)}_1, \ldots, D^{(s)}_{n_s}$ each with $s$ independent patients drawn from our population (with $s\geq 2$). For ease of notation, let $I_m$ denote the indices of patients in strata $D^{(s)}_m$ for each $m \leq n_s$.
We first note, that for any $\boldsymbol{\beta}$ we have
$$\begin{aligned}
\nabla_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}\mathbb{E}_s\left[pl^{(s)}(\boldsymbol{\beta}|\mathcal{D}^{(s)})\right]= \mathbb{E}_s\left[\nabla_{\boldsymbol{\beta}} \left\{pl^{(s)}(\boldsymbol{\beta}|\mathcal{D}^{(s)}_m)\right\}\right], \qquad \textrm{ for all $m\leq n_s$}
\label{e6}\end{aligned}$$
when $\bold{x}$ are drawn from a reasonable distribution (eg. bounded); and $f_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(\bold{x})$ is not too poorly behaved (eg. lipschitz). Here $\nabla_{\boldsymbol{\beta}} \left\{pl^{(s)}(\boldsymbol{\beta}|\mathcal{D}^{(s)}_m)\right\}$ is defined analogously to using $\mathcal{D}^{(s)}_m$ $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla_{\beta}\Big\{-pl^{(s)}(\boldsymbol{\beta}|\mathcal{D}^{(s)}_m)\Big\}= -\sum_{i\in I_m} \left(\dot{f}_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(\bold{x}^{(i)})-\frac{\sum_{j \in \mathcal{R}^m_i}\dot{f}_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(\bold{x}^{(j)})e^{f_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(\bold{x}^{(j)})})}{\sum_{j \in \mathcal{R}^m_i}e^{f_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(\bold{x}^{(j)})}}\right)
\label{e7}\end{aligned}$$ where $R_i^m = \{j\,|\,t_j \geq t_i\, \textrm{ and } i,j\in I_m\}$ are risk sets that include only patients in stratum $m$; and $\dot{f}_{\beta}$ denotes the gradient of $f$ wrt $\beta$.
From here we can give the simplest version of our stochastic gradient descent (SGD) algorithm for . We choose an initial $\hat{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(0)$ (perhaps $=0$), and at each iteration $m=1,\ldots, n_s$, we update our estimate by $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(m) = \hat{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(m-1) + \frac{\alpha_m}{s} \times \nabla_{\beta} \left\{pl^{(s)}(\hat{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(m-1)|\mathcal{D}^{(s)}_m)\right\}.
\label{e8}\end{aligned}$$ Here, $\frac{\alpha_m}{s}$ is the learning rate (and should be specified in advance, or determined adaptively as discussed later in Section \[sec:mmm\]). The computation time to run $n_s$ steps of stochastic gradient descent according to for linear $f_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}$ is $\sim sn_s p = np$ (where $n = sn_s$ is the total sample size). If ordering of risk sets is not leveraged, then $\sim nps$ computation is required. In contrast, Newton’s algorithm for optimizing the full log-partial likelihood requires $\sim np^2$ computation per iteration when the roundoff-error-prone updating rule is used (and $\sim n^2p + np^2$ if not). Additionally, using these small strata of size $s$, we are not prone to roundoff issues when using stochastic optimization (because this sum is calculated separately for each strata).
### Averaging over updates
It has been shown that SGD algorithms for *strongly convex objective-functions* are asymptotically more efficient if we use a running **average** of the iterates as the final estimate [@Ruppert1988; @Polyak1992]. Additionally in this case $\alpha_m = \alpha$ can be set to a fixed value (so long as it is sufficiently small). We denote the running-average estimator by $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(m) = \frac{1}{m}\sum_{i=1}^{m}\hat{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(i)
\label{e9}\end{aligned}$$ Note that the averaging process does not change the values of $\hat{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(m)$. In our simulations in the main manuscript, we use the averaged $\tilde{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(m)$. Strong convexity of the objective in depends on properties of $f_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}$ and (weakly) on the distribution of $\bold{x}$. For linear $f_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}$, and $\bold{x}$ with a non-degenerate distribution, this objective will be strongly convex (See Appendix B for the proof of strong convexity of our objective function). In such cases, standard results [@Bottou2010] show that $\left\|\tilde{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(m) - \boldsymbol{\beta}^{(s)}\right\|_2^2 = O_p(m^{-1})$. As a reminder, this is the statistically optimal rate of convergence for estimating $\boldsymbol{\beta}^{(s)}$ (or equivalently, $\boldsymbol{\beta}^{*}$ when the Cox model holds) from $m$ observations. See Appendix \[appB\] for the proof of this convergence rate $O(m^{-1})$ for averaging over iterates. When we use averaging over iterates, it has been shown that choosing the learning rate as $\alpha_m=\frac{C}{\sqrt{m}}$ (C is a constant) gives us such an optimal convergence rate [@Eric2011]. We choose this learning rate in our simulation studies in Section \[Sim\] where we tune the constant $C$ to get the desired convergence rate.
Streaming vs non-streaming
--------------------------
In the discussion above, we imagined that observations were arriving in a continual stream of strata, and that we were more concerned with the cost of computation than the cost of data collection. The algorithm we described engaged with each strata only once (in calculating a single stochastic gradient). Algorithm 1 in Appendix \[appC\] details an implementation of a streaming algorithm in this imagined scenario. In practice, we generally have a fixed (though potentially large) number of observations, $n$, that are not naturally partitioned into strata. To employ SGD here, we randomly partition our observations into $n_s$ disjoint strata of size $s$, and then carry out our updates in . Additionally, in practice we may want to take more than one pass over the data (and similarly use more than $1$ random partitioning), we discuss this further in Section \[sec:mmm\]. Algorithm 2 in Appendix \[appC\] details an implementation that takes multiple passes over the data (and includes additional bells and whistles discussed in Section \[sec:mmm\]).
### Mini-batches, Moment-based-learning-rate, and Multiple Epochs {#sec:mmm}
For small $s$, the stochastic gradients given in are potentially quite noisy. In these cases, rather than using only a single stratum to calculate the stochastic gradient, it may be preferable to average results over multiple strata. This is known as a using a mini-batch [@Ruder2016] in the SGD literature. In this survival context, we use batches of strata, so a larger strata size $s$ can eliminate the need for mini-batch sizes of greater than $1$.
Choosing a reasonable value for the hyper-parameter $\alpha_m$ (the learning rate) is critical for good practical performance of the algorithm. A number of publications have developed methods for adaptively selecting the learning rate using moments, including [Adagrad]{} [@Duchi2011], and [ADAM]{} [@Kingma2014]. However, it was shown that [ADAM]{} may not converge in some settings and an updated version called [AMSGrad]{} has been proposed [@Sashank2019]. We found substantially improved performance on simulated data with [AMSGrad]{} over the simple non-adaptive updating rule given in , especially in combination with averaging as discussed above.
In practice, taking only a single pass over the data leads to poor empirical performance. We generally use multiple passes (or “epochs”). In particular, for each epoch, we (1) randomly partition our data into strata; then (2) use the last updated iterate of $\hat{\boldsymbol{\beta}}$ from the previous epoch as the initial iterate of $\hat{\boldsymbol{\beta}}$ for the new epoch; and finally (3) apply a full pass of stochastic gradient descent (with eg. averaging and momentum) over the partitioned data. In practice we found that $\sim 100$ epochs was more than enough for very robust convergence (often $10$ was fine).
Extensions for Left Truncation and Right Censoring {#sec4}
==================================================
In practice it is common for participants in a study to leave the study before experiencing an event. This is known as right censoring. In particular it is often assumed that a patient has some random “time until censoring” $C$, and what we observe is $\operatorname{min}(C,T)$, whichever happens first (the event or censoring), along with $\delta = I(T<C)$ an indicator that the patient experienced an event (rather than censoring). Censored patients still contribute some information to estimation of $\boldsymbol{\beta}^{*}$ — in particular, if a patient is censored quite late, then there is a long period of time during which we know they did not experience an event (so likely we should estimate them to be low risk).
In some studies it is common to consider the event time $T$ as the age at which a patient had an event (rather than the calendar on study). This means that patients do not enroll in the study at $T=0$ (and patients can only be observed to fail once they are enrolled). This phenomenon, wherein patients enroll in a study at times other than $T=0$, is known as left-truncation.
When i) the assumptions of the Cox model hold; and ii) censoring and truncation times are independent of event times conditional on covariates $\bold{x}$, it is relatively straightforward to adapt cox regression to accommodate these missingness mechanisms. The partial likelihood is modified in 2 minor ways: 1) The outer summation is only taken over indices for which an event occurred (i.e. that were not censored); and 2) The risk sets, $R_i$, are modified to include only patients currently at risk (who have already been enrolled, and have not yet been censored, or had an event) [@Andersen1993]. We can similarly modify our objective function , and apply our algorithm with only minor modification (a slight change in the gradient).
U-statistic based optimization {#sec5}
==============================
While in this manuscript we discuss obtaining an estimator by directly attempting to minimize the population objective function using SGD, there is a corresponding empirical minimization problem. In particular, for strata of size $s$, one could define an estimator $\hat{\beta}^s$ by $$\hat{\beta}^{(s)} = \underset{\boldsymbol{\beta}}{\operatorname{argmin}}\Big\{-\sum_{\mathcal{D}^{(s)} \subset \mathcal{D}^{(n)}}pl^s(\boldsymbol{\beta}|\mathcal{D}^{(s)})\Big\}
\label{e10}$$ As in a standard U-statistic [@Van2000], this sum is taken over all subsets of $s$ patients out of our original $n$ patients (resulting in ${n\choose s} \sim n^s$ terms). This appears to be a difficult optimization problem, given the enormous number of terms. However, our approach shows that, in fact, only $\sim n$ of those terms need be considered: The majority contain redundant information. In fact, one could see this directly by noting that the objective function in decouples over subsets: An application of stochastic gradient descent here would involve sampling strata with replacement, and (assuming the objective is strongly convex), with averaging over iterates would converge to a tolerance of $1/n$ after $n$ steps. This approach which is known as *incomplete U-statistics* [@Gunnar1976] could be taken more generally for losses defined by $U$-statistics.
Simulation Results {#Sim}
==================
**Data Generation**
We assume that our event time follows the Cox PH model with simple linear $f_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}$ detailed below. We generate the baseline hazard $h_0(t)$ using an exponential distribution with parameters $\lambda=1$. We generate the censoring and event times independently. The details of the data simulation procedure are given below [@Bender2005] $$\begin{aligned}
&\boldsymbol{\beta^*}=\boldsymbol{1}_{P\times 1}\\
&X_i \sim Uniform(-\sqrt{3},\sqrt{3})\,\, (\text{unit-variance uniform variable}),\\
&y_i \sim exp(\mu=e^{-\boldsymbol{X}_i^T\boldsymbol{\beta^{*}}})\,\, (\text{time to event/censoring}),\\
&\delta_i \sim Bernoulli(p=1-p_c),\,\, p_c = Pr(t_i>c_i)\\
\label{e12}\end{aligned}$$ where $y_i=min(t_i, c_i)$, i.e., time to event or censoring whichever comes first. Here $p_c$, the probability of censoring, is a parameter we can tune. Though this is not written in the form of , it is still consistent with the Cox PH model assumptions, with $f_{\boldsymbol{\beta^{*}}}(\boldsymbol{x}) = {\boldsymbol{\beta^{*}}}^{\top}\boldsymbol{x}$. In all comparisons, we include the performance of [coxph()]{} the gold standard [R]{} implementation of Newton’s algorithm for maximizing the partial likelihood.\
We used R version 3.6.1 [@R2019] to conduct the analyses. All simulations were conducted on a quad-core Intel Core i7-3520 M CPU @ 2.9GHz with 12 GB RAM. In all figures, we used mean of mean-square-error (MSE) over datasets for central tendency (curves) and standard error of MSE over datasets for variability (error bars o curves). Our implementation of the SGD procedure described in this manuscript is publicly available in the github repository: [https://github.com/atarkhan/bigSurvSGD]{} [@Tarkhan2020]. The implementation is written in [R]{}, with the computational back-end written in [C++]{}.
Small Data Results {#small-data-results .unnumbered}
------------------
We first evaluate the statistical efficiency of our estimation procedure (using strata sizes of less than $n$). We evaluate mean-squared error (MSE) between estimators $\tilde{\beta}$, and $\hat{\beta}^{(n)}$ and the truth, $\beta^{*}$ over 1000 simulated datasets with number of epochs up to 100. We see that for small strata sizes (eg. 2 and 5), there is some statistical inefficiency: Even though the convergence rate is still $\frac{1}{n}$, the constant in front appears to be worse with small strata sizes. For large strata sizes, there appears to be nearly no statistical inefficiency. For practical purposes, the SGD-based estimators do quite well. This can be seen in Figure \[fig01\].
We next evaluate the performance of averaged SGD with a fixed learning rate, against averaged SGD with an adaptive learning rate (using [AMSGrad]{}) with a fixed strata-size of $20$ for both. In addition, we try various numbers of epochs (from 10 to 100). Performance is shown in Figure \[fig02\] for 1000 simulated datasets. We see that with enough epochs (around 100) both perform well. However, [AMSGrad]{} nearly reaches that performance with as few as 50 epochs, where using a fixed learning rate does not attain that performance with fewer than $100$ epochs. For both of these methods, we tuned our \[initial\] learning-rate to be optimal in these experiments.
![$\operatorname{log}_{10}$(MSE) of estimates from AveAMSGrad (with optimal $C$ for the learning rate defined as $\alpha_m=\frac{C}{\sqrt{m}}$) for different strata sizes ($S$) with B=1, P=10, 100 epochs, and probability of censoring $p_c=0.2$.[]{data-label="fig01"}](fig1BarNoTitle.pdf "fig:")\
![$\operatorname{log}_{10}(MSE)$ of estimates from averaged SGD (AveSGD), averaged AMSGrad (AveAMSGrad), and . We choose the proportionality constant $C=3$ and $C=2$ for learning rate defined as $\alpha_m=\frac{C}{\sqrt{m}}$ for AveAMSGrad and AveSGD, respectively), S=20, B=1, P=10, and probability of censoring $p_c=0.2$.[]{data-label="fig02"}](fig2BarNoTitle.pdf)
In practice, we have found that [AMSGrad]{} is much more robust to misspecification of this initial learning rate. Figure \[fig03\] compares MSE of the estimate from AveAMSGrad for different choices of the proportionality constant in the learning rate over 1000 simulated datasets. We see that selecting the constant $C$ around 2$\sim$5 in our learning rate (defined as $\alpha_m=\frac{C}{\sqrt{m}}$) gives strong performance. However, AveAMSGrad is relatively robust to a wide range of the learning rates around the optimum value due to its capability of adapting the learning rate over iterates.
![$\operatorname{log}_{10}$(MSE) of estimates from AveAMSGrad based on sample size ($n$) with $B=1$, $P=10$, $S=20$, probability of censoring $p_c=0.2$, and different proportional constant $C$ for learning rate defined as $\alpha_m=\frac{C}{\sqrt{m}}$[]{data-label="fig03"}](fig3BarNoTitle.pdf)
We discussed the computational instability of [coxph()]{} in small-to-moderate sized datasets and how our framework can avoid such an instability. Figure \[fig04\] compares the MSE of estimates from for the small-to-moderate sample size ($n$) and number of features ($P$) over 1000 simulated datasets. As we see, performs poorly for larger $P$ and $n$. For instance, with $(P=50, n=1000)$ performs worse than $(P=50, n=100)$. This is because of computational instability with for the larger sample sizes and numbers of features. One important feature of these examples is that we include a large amount of signal (which increases as the number of features increases). With less signal, this instability is less pronounced unless very large sample sizes are used.
![$\operatorname{log}_{10}(MSE)$ of estimates from for different sample size ($n$) and different dimension of coefficient ($P$) with $s=20$ and probability of censoring $p_c=0.2$.[]{data-label="fig04"}](Fig4BarNoTitle.pdf)
Big Data Results {#sec:sim-big .unnumbered}
----------------
We next consider the numerical stability of our algorithm/framework (versus directly maximizing the full partial likelihood using Newton’s algorithm). We generated 100 datasets and we only used one epoch for AveAMSGrad algorithm. Figure \[fig05\] shows a surprising and unfortunate result for [coxph()]{}: We see that as sample size increases drastically, the performance of [coxph()]{} actually stops improving and starts getting worse! In particular for $p = 20$, [coxph()]{} is basically producing nonsense by the time we get to $10,000$ observations for this simulation setup. This indicates that for large datasets the current gold standard may be inadequate, though we do note that there is a large amount of signal in these simulations (more than we might often see in practice). In contrast [BigSurvSGD]{} has no such issues and gives quite strong performance even with only one epoch. Note did not add error bars for ease of illustration for this case.
![MSE of estimates from AveAMSGrad (with proportional constant $C=3$ for learning rate defined as $\alpha_m=\frac{C}{\sqrt{m}}$) and for different values of sample size ($n$) and dimension ($P$) with B=1, s=20, and probability of censoring $p_c=0.2$.[]{data-label="fig05"}](fig5BarNoTitle.pdf "fig:")\
We next examine the computational efficiency of our framework and algorithm. Figure \[fig06\] plots computing time (in seconds) for estimates of from and AveAMSGrad for different sample sizes (we did not add error bars for ease of illustration). We considered four different numbers of covariates $P=10, 20, 50$ and $P=100$ to examine the sensitivity of the computing time to the dimension of $\boldsymbol{\beta}$. In these examples, our algorithm read the data in chunks from the hard-drive (allowing us to engage with datasets difficult to fit in memory). The computing time of our proposed framework increases linearly in the sample size, $n$, (and in $p$). The computing time for also grows roughly linearly in $n$, though it grows quadratically in $p$ (which can be seen from the poor performance with $p=100$). Furthermore, fails for the medium-to-large datasets as it is poorly equipped to deal with datasets that do not easily fit in memory ([R]{} unfortunately generally deals somewhat poorly with memory management). For instance from Figure \[fig06\], with $P=100$ crashes after $10^5$ observations. As a reminder, the statistical performance of the output of [coxph()]{}, due to floating-point issues, degenerates much earlier.
![Computation time (seconds) of estimates from [coxph]{} and AveAMSGrad (with C=3 for $\alpha_m=\frac{C}{\sqrt{m}}$) based on sample size (n) with B=1, s=20, probability of censoring $p_c=0.2$.[]{data-label="fig06"}](Fig2bNoTitle.pdf "fig:")\
Conclusion {#Conclusion}
==========
We propose a simple and novel framework for doing survival analysis under a Cox proportional hazards model. Our framework leverages a modified optimization problem which allows us apply iterative methods over only a subset of our observations at each time. In particular it allows us to leverage the tools of stochastic gradient descent (and its extensions). This results in an algorithm that is more computationally efficient and stable than the current state of the art. We showed that our framework can handle large survival datasets with little difficulty. This framework will also facilitate training complex models such as neural network with large survival datasets.
Appendix {#appendix .unnumbered}
========
Proof of consistency for parameter $\bold{\beta}^{(s)}$ in section 3 {#appA}
====================================================================
\[app:theorem\]
In this appendix, for the sake of completeness, we prove the Fisher consistency of parameter $\boldsymbol{\beta}^{(s)}$. We treat the Cox proportional hazard model as a counting process [@SurvPoint2008]. We assume that censoring and survival times are independent given the covariate vector of interest $\boldsymbol{x}$ and they follow the model (1) with true parameter $\boldsymbol{\beta}^*$. In the following, we define some terminology before proceeding with the proof.
***Definition 1: $dN_i(u)$***. For patient $i$ with time to event $t_i$ define the counting process $dN_i(u)$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\int_a^b g(u)dN_i(u) = \Bigg\{ {0\quad\quad\,\,\, if\quad t_i\not\in [a,b] \atop g(t_i)\quad if\quad t_i\in [a,b]}.\end{aligned}$$ For instance, if we define $g(u)=1$, the above expression is an indicator representing whether patient $i$ failed in interval $[a,b]$ (i.e., 1 represents failure and 0 otherwise). We further define $dN^{(s)}(u)=\sum_{i}^s dN_i(u)$ which is a counting process for failure times over all $s$ patients. We assume that the failure time process is absolutely continuous w.r.t. Lebesgue measure on time so that there is at most one failure at any time $u$ (i.e., no ties).
***Definition 2: $M_i(u)$***. We define $M_i(u)$ to be an indicator representing whether patient $i$ is at risk at time $u$, i.e., $t_i \leq u$. By this definition, $M(u)=\sum_{i}^sM_i(u)$ indicates number of patients who are at risk at time $u$. Note that the independent censoring assumption implies that those $M(u)$ patients at risk at time $u$ (who have not yet failed or been censored) represent a random sample of the sub-spopulation of patients who will survive until time $u$.
***Definition 3: $F(u)$***. Let $F(u)$ denote the filtration that includes all information up to time $u$, i.e., $$\begin{aligned}
F(u)=\{(dN_i(t), M_i(t), x^{(i)}), i=1, \dots, s\,\quad \text{for $t<u$ and $dN^{(s)}(u)$}\}\end{aligned}$$ Note that given $F(u)$, we know whether patient $i$ failed or was censored (i.e., $\delta_i$), when they failed/were censored (i.e., $y_i$), and their covariate vectors $\boldsymbol{x}^{(i)}$.\
Using the above definitions, one can write the log-partial-likelihood as $$\begin{aligned}
pl^{(s)}(\boldsymbol{\beta}|\mathcal{D}^{(s)}) = \sum_{i=1}^s \int_0^\tau \Big\{f_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(\boldsymbol{x}^{(i)})-log\Big(\sum_{l=1}^s M_l(u)exp(f_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(\boldsymbol{x}^{(l)}))\Big)\Big\} dN_i(u)\end{aligned}$$ where $\tau$ is the duration of the study. Note that we keep $f_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(\boldsymbol{x})$ in the most general form and we only assume that it is differentiable in $\boldsymbol{\beta}$ for all $\boldsymbol{x}$. Then the score function may be written as $$\begin{aligned}
U^{s}(\boldsymbol{\beta}) &= \frac{\partial pl^{(s)}(\boldsymbol{\beta}|\mathcal{D}^{(s)})}{\partial \boldsymbol{\beta}} \nonumber\\
&= \sum_{i=1}^s \int_0^\tau \Big(\dot{f}_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(\boldsymbol{x}^{(i)})-\frac{\sum_{l=1}^s M_l(u)\dot{f}_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(\boldsymbol{x}^{(l)})exp(f_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(\boldsymbol{x}^{(l)}))}{\sum_{l=1}^s M_l(u)exp(f_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(\boldsymbol{x}^{(l)}))} \Big)dN_i(u)\nonumber\\
&= \sum_{i=1}^s \int_0^\tau \Big(\dot{f}_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(\boldsymbol{x}^{(i)})-\sum_{l=1}^{s}w_l\dot{f}_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(\boldsymbol{x}^{(l)}) \Big)dN_i(u)\nonumber\\
&= \sum_{i=1}^s\int_0^\tau \dot{f}_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(\boldsymbol{x}^{(i)})dN_i(u)-\sum_{l=1}^{s}\int_0^\tau w_l\dot{f}_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(\boldsymbol{x}^{(l)}) dN^{(s)}(u).
\label{A2}\end{aligned}$$ where $w_l = \frac{M_l(u)exp(f_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(\boldsymbol{x}^{(l)}))}{\sum_{l=1}^s M_l(u)exp(f_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(\boldsymbol{x}^{(l)}))}$ is a weight proportional to the hazard of failure of patient $l$; $dN^{(s)}(u)=\sum_{i=1}^sdN_i(u)$.\
Now we show that the parameter $\boldsymbol{\beta^{(s)}}$ is Fisher consistent, i.e., $E[U^{s}(\boldsymbol{\beta^*})]=0$. $$\begin{aligned}
E_{\boldsymbol{\beta^*}}[U^{s}(\boldsymbol{\beta^*})] &= E_{\boldsymbol{\beta^*}}\Big[\sum_{i=1}^s\int_0^\tau \dot{f}_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(\boldsymbol{x}^{(i)})dN_i(u)-\sum_{l=1}^{s}\int_0^\tau w_l\dot{f}_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(\boldsymbol{x}^{(l)})dN^{(s)}(u)\Big]\nonumber\\
&=\sum_{i=1}^s\int_0^\tau E_{\boldsymbol{\beta^*}}\Big[\dot{f}_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(\boldsymbol{x}^{(i)})dN_i(u)\Big]-\sum_{l=1}^{s}\int_0^\tau E_{\boldsymbol{\beta^*}}\Big[w_l\dot{f}_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(\boldsymbol{x}^{(l)})dN^{(s)}(u)\Big]\nonumber\\
&\stackrel{(a)}{=}\sum_{i=1}^s\int_0^\tau E_{F(u)}\Big[E_{\boldsymbol{\beta^*}|F(u)}[\dot{f}_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(\boldsymbol{x}^{(i)})dN_i(u)]\Big]\nonumber \\
&\,\,- \sum_{l=1}^{s}\int_0^\tau E_{F(u)}\Big[E_{\boldsymbol{\beta^*}|F(u)}[w_l\dot{f}_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(\boldsymbol{x}^{(l)})]dN^{(s)}(u)\Big]\nonumber\\
&\stackrel{(b)}{=}\sum_{i=1}^s\int_0^\tau E_{F(u)}\Big[E_{\boldsymbol{\beta^*}|F(u)}[\dot{f}_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(\boldsymbol{x}^{(i)})dN_i(u)]\Big]\nonumber\\
&- \sum_{l=1}^{s}\int_0^\tau E_{F(u)}\Big[w_l\dot{f}_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(\boldsymbol{x}^{(l)})dN^{(s)}(u)\Big]\nonumber\\
&\stackrel{(c)}{=}\sum_{i=1}^s\int_0^\tau E_{F(u)}\Big[w_i\dot{f}_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(\boldsymbol{x}^{(i)})dN^{(s)}(u)\Big]\nonumber\\
&- \sum_{l=1}^{s}\int_0^\tau E_{F(u)}\Big[w_l\dot{f}_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(\boldsymbol{x}^{(l)})dN^{(s)}(u)\Big]\nonumber\\
&= 0
\label{A3}\end{aligned}$$ where (a) follows from the conditional expectation given the filtration $F(u)$; (b) follows from the fact that $w_l$ and $\dot{f}_{\boldsymbol{\beta^*}}(\boldsymbol{x}^{(l)})$ are known given $F(u)$; (c) follows from the fact that $E_{\boldsymbol{\beta^*}|F(u)}[dN_i(u))]=w_idN(u)$. Since $E_{\boldsymbol{\beta^*}}[U^{s}(\boldsymbol{\beta^*})]=0$, the parameter $\boldsymbol{\beta}^{(s)}$ is Fisher consistent. In the following, we present a sufficient condition under which such a parameter is a global minmizer of $E[-pl^{(s)}(\boldsymbol{\beta}|\mathcal{D}^{(s)})]$.\
***Corollary 1:*** The $\boldsymbol{\beta^{(s)}}$ is a global minimizer of $E[-pl^{(s)}(\boldsymbol{\beta}|\mathcal{D}^{(s)})]$ if $f_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(\boldsymbol{x}^{(i)})$ is an affine function of $\boldsymbol{\beta}$.\
*Proof*. Suppose that we choose $f_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(\boldsymbol{x}^{(l)})$ a convex function of $\boldsymbol{\beta}$. Then, the first term inside summation of $-pl^{(s)}(\boldsymbol{\beta}|\mathcal{D}^{(s)})$ (i.e., $-f_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(\boldsymbol{x}^{(l)})$) is a concave function. We show that the second term inside summation of $-pl^{(s)}(\boldsymbol{\beta}|\mathcal{D}^{(s)})$, i.e., $log\Big(\sum_{l=1}^s Y_l(u)exp(f_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(\boldsymbol{x}^{(l)}))\Big)$ is a convex function through the following steps:\
*Step 1:* $exp(f_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(\boldsymbol{x}^{(l)}))$ is a convex function because $exp(.)$ is a non-decreasing convex function and $f_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(\boldsymbol{x}^{(l)})$ is convex [@Boyd2004 sec. 3.2.4].\
*Step 2:* $\sum_{l=1}^s Y_l(u)exp(f_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(\boldsymbol{x}^{(l)}))$ is a convex function because non-negative weighted sums of convex functions is convex [@Boyd2004 sec. 3.2.1].\
*Step 3:* $log\Big(\sum_{l=1}^s Y_l(u)exp(f_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(\boldsymbol{x}^{(l)}))\Big)$ is a convex function because $log(.)$ is non-decreasing concave function and $\sum_{l=1}^s Y_l(u)exp(f_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(\boldsymbol{x}^{(l)})$ is a convex function [@Boyd2004 sec. 3.2.4].\
Therefore, expression $-f_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(\boldsymbol{x}^{(i)})Y_i(u)+log\Big(\sum_{l=1}^s Y_l(u)exp(f_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(\boldsymbol{x}^{(l)}))\Big)$ is the sum of a concave function and a convex function. A sufficient condition for convexity of this expression is convexity of $-f_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(\boldsymbol{x}^{(i)})$ or equivalently concavity of $f_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(\boldsymbol{x}^{(i)})$. This means that $f_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(\boldsymbol{x}^{(i)})$ needs to be both convex and concave at the same time. The only functions that satisfy this condition are affine functions [@Boyd2004 sec. 3.1.1]. By choosing $f_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(\boldsymbol{x}^{(i)})$ as an affine function, $-pl^{(s)}(\boldsymbol{\beta}|\mathcal{D}^{(s)})$ and hence $E[-pl^{(s)}(\boldsymbol{\beta}|\mathcal{D}^{(s)})]$ become convex functions. Therefore, the parameter $\boldsymbol{\beta^{(s)}}$ becomes a global minimizer of $E[-pl^{(s)}(\boldsymbol{\beta}|\mathcal{D}^{(s)})]$. $\square$
Having the loss function $E[-pl^{(s)}(\boldsymbol{\beta}|\mathcal{D}^{(s)})]$ a convex function motivates us to explore the convergence rate of SGD-based minimization algorithms in the next section.
Convergence rate of SGD-based estimate {#appB}
======================================
In this appendix, for the sake of completeness, we prove that our SGD-based estimate can achieve the convergence rate of $O(n^{-1})$ for choices $f_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(\bold{x})=\boldsymbol{\beta}^T\bold{x}$, $s=2$, and no ties. We also assume that our covariates are bounded, i.e., there exists some $C < \infty$ such that $||\bold{x}||<C$ with probability $1$ and that we consider a domain of optimization $\bold{B}$ such that $\underset{\boldsymbol{\beta}\in \bold{B}}{\operatorname{max}}\Big\{||\boldsymbol{\beta}^T\boldsymbol{x}||\Big\}<\infty$.\
For the sake of simplicity of proof, we rewrite our optimization procedure as $$\begin{aligned}
\boldsymbol{\beta}^{(s)} &= \underset{\boldsymbol{\beta}}{\operatorname{argmin}}\Big\{\mathbb{E}_{s}[-pl^{(s)}(\boldsymbol{\beta}|\mathcal{D}^{(s)})]\Big\}\nonumber\\
&= \underset{\boldsymbol{\beta}}{\operatorname{argmin}}\Big\{\mathbb{E}_{s}[L^{(s)}(\boldsymbol{\beta})]\Big\}\nonumber\\
&= \underset{\boldsymbol{\beta}}{\operatorname{argmin}}\Big\{L(\boldsymbol{\beta})\Big\},
\label{B1}\end{aligned}$$ and we estimate $\boldsymbol{\beta}^{(s)}$ iteratively using SGD from strata of size $s$ through $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(m) = \hat{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(m-1) - \alpha_m \times\nabla_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}L^{(s)}(\hat{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(m-1)|\mathcal{D}^{(s)}_m).
\label{B2}\end{aligned}$$ Authors in [@Eric2011] showed that if the loss function $L^{(s)}(\boldsymbol{\beta})$ satisfies the 4 following conditions, then, we can achieve the optimal convergence rate of $O(m^{-1})$ by choosing $\alpha_k=Cm^{-1}$ for the single SGD-based iterates $\hat{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(m)$ and $\alpha_k=Cm^{-1}$, $r \in [0.5, 1)$ for averaging over iterates $\tilde{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(m)$ (i.e., Polyak-Ruppert average).\
**Condition 1:** Gradient of $L^{(s)}(\boldsymbol{\beta})$ is an unbiased estimate of the gradient $L(\boldsymbol{\beta})$,\
**Condition 2:** Gradient of $L^{(s)}(\boldsymbol{\beta})$ is D-Lipschitz-continuous, i.e., $\forall$ $k\geq 1$ and $\forall$ $\boldsymbol{\beta}_1, \boldsymbol{\beta}_2 \in \mathbb{R}^p$, there exists $D\geq0$ such that, $$\begin{aligned}
||\nabla_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}L^{(s)}(\boldsymbol{\beta}_1)-\nabla_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}L^{(s)}(\boldsymbol{\beta}_2)||\leq D||\boldsymbol{\beta}_1-\boldsymbol{\beta}_2||,
\label{B3}\end{aligned}$$
**Condition 3:** $L(\boldsymbol{\beta})=\mathbb{E}_{s}[L^{(s)}(\boldsymbol{\beta})]$ is $\mu$-strongly convex, i.e., $\forall$ $\boldsymbol{\beta}_1, \boldsymbol{\beta}_2 \in \mathbb{R}^p$, there exists $\mu>0$ such that, $$\begin{aligned}
L(\boldsymbol{\beta}_1) \geq L(\boldsymbol{\beta}_2)+\nabla_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}L(\boldsymbol{\beta}_2)^T(\boldsymbol{\beta}_1-\boldsymbol{\beta}_2)+\frac{\mu}{2}||\boldsymbol{\beta}_1-\boldsymbol{\beta}_2||^2,
\label{B4}\end{aligned}$$
**Condition 4:** Variance of the gradient of $L^{(s)}(\boldsymbol{\beta})$ is bounded, i.e., there exists $\sigma^2 \in \mathbb{R}_{+}$ such that for all $k\geq$, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}(||\nabla_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}L^{(s)}(\boldsymbol{\beta}^*)||^2) \leq \sigma^2, w.p.1,
\label{B5}\end{aligned}$$
In the following, we show that the loss function in our framework, i.e., $L^{(s)}(\boldsymbol{\beta})$ satisfies all four conditions above.\
**Proof of Condition 1:**\
This condition is automatically satisfied based on the definition of $L(\boldsymbol{\beta})=\mathbb{E}_{s}[L^{(s)}(\boldsymbol{\beta})]$ in and that $\nabla_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}L(\boldsymbol{\beta})=\nabla_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}\mathbb{E}_{s}[L^{(s)}(\boldsymbol{\beta})]=\mathbb{E}_{s}[\nabla_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}L^{(s)}(\boldsymbol{\beta})]$.\
**Proof of condition 2:** The loss function $L^{(s)}(\boldsymbol{\beta})$ belongs to $C^\infty$ continuous function family and proving is equivalent to proving $$\begin{aligned}
\exists\, D\geq0,\, s.t., \,\forall \nu \in S_\nu=\{\nu: ||\nu||_2 = 1\},\quad \nu^T\nabla^2_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}L^{(s)}(\boldsymbol{\beta})\nu \leq D
\label{B6}.\end{aligned}$$ For $f_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(\boldsymbol{x})=\boldsymbol{\beta}^T\boldsymbol{x}$, $s=2$ and assuming no ties, $\nabla^2_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}L^{(s)}(\boldsymbol{\beta})$ can be simplified as $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla^2_{\beta}\Big\{L^{(s)}(\boldsymbol{\beta})\Big\}&= w(1-w)\bold{X}\begin{bmatrix}
1 & -1 \\
-1 & 1
\end{bmatrix}\bold{X}^T\nonumber\\
&\times\Big(1(\delta_1=1)1(y_1<y_2)+1(\delta_2=1)1(y_2<y_1)\Big)\nonumber\\
&=w(1-w)(\bold{x}^{(1)}-\bold{x}^{(2)})(\bold{x}^{(1)}-\bold{x}^{(2)})^T\nonumber\\
&\times\Big(1(\delta_1=1)1(y_1<y_2)+1(\delta_2=1)1(y_2<y_1)\Big)
\label{B7}\end{aligned}$$ where $\bold{X} = [\bold{x}^{(1)}, \bold{x}^{(2)}]$; $w = w_1(\bold{x}^{(1)},\bold{x}^{(2)}, \boldsymbol{\beta})= 1-w_2(\bold{x}^{(1)},\bold{x}^{(2)}, \boldsymbol{\beta})=\frac{e^{\boldsymbol{\beta}^T\boldsymbol{x}^{(1)}}}{e^{\boldsymbol{\beta}^T\boldsymbol{x}^{(1)}}+e^{\boldsymbol{\beta}^T\boldsymbol{x}^{(2)}}}$. Note that $1(\delta_1=1)1(y_1<y_2)+1(\delta_2=1)1(y_2<y_1) \leq 1$ and that $w(1-w)\leq0.25$ because $0\leq w \leq 1$. Therefore we have $$\begin{aligned}
\nu^T\nabla^2_{\beta}\Big\{L^{(s)}(\boldsymbol{\beta})\Big\}\nu&\leq 0.25 \times \nu^T(\bold{x}^{(1)}-\bold{x}^{(2)})(\bold{x}^{(1)}-\bold{x}^{(2)})^T\nu\nonumber\\
&=0.25\times ||\nu^T(\bold{x}^{(1)}-\bold{x}^{(2)})||_2^2\nonumber\\
& \leq 0.25\times ||(\bold{x}^{(1)}-\bold{x}^{(2)})||_2^2\times ||\nu||_2^2\nonumber\\
& \stackrel{(a)}{\leq} 0.25 \times (||\bold{x}^{(1)}||_2^2 + ||\bold{x}^{(2)}||_2^2)\nonumber\\
& \leq 0.25 \times 2 \times max(||\bold{x}^{(1)}||_2^2, ||\bold{x}^{(2)}||_2^2)\nonumber\\
& \leq 0.5 \times {\underset{i}{\operatorname{max}}{||\bold{x}^{(i)}||_2^2}},
\label{B8}\end{aligned}$$ where $(a)$ follows the triangle inequality. Therefore, by assuming our covariates $\boldsymbol{x}$ are bounded, gradient of $L^{(s)}(\boldsymbol{\beta})$ is $D-$Lipschitz-continuous with $D=0.5 \times {\underset{i}{\operatorname{max}}{||\bold{x}^{(i)}||^2}}$. This completes the proof of **Condition 2**. $\square$\
**Proof of condition 3:** The loss function $L(\boldsymbol{\beta})$ belongs to the $C^\infty$ continuous function family and proving is equivalent to proving $$\begin{aligned}
\exists\, \mu>0, \, s.t.\, \forall \nu \in S_\nu=\{\nu: ||\nu||_2 = 1\},\quad \nu^TI(\boldsymbol{\beta})\nu \geq \mu
\label{B9}.\end{aligned}$$ where $I(\boldsymbol{\beta}) = \mathbb{E}_{s}[\nabla^2_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}L^{(s)}(\boldsymbol{\beta})]$ is the expected Hessian matrix. Starting from , $I(\boldsymbol{\beta})$ can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
I(\boldsymbol{\beta}) &=E_s\Big[\nabla^2_{\beta}\Big\{L^{(s)}(\boldsymbol{\beta})\Big\}\Big]\nonumber\\
&=E_{X, Y, \Delta}\Big[\nabla^2_{\beta}\Big\{L^{(s)}(\boldsymbol{\beta})\Big\}\Big]\nonumber\\
&\stackrel{(a)}{=}E_{X}\Bigg[E_{Y|X}\Big[E_{\Delta|X, Y}[\nabla^2_{\beta}\Big\{L^{(s)}(\boldsymbol{\beta})\Big\}]\Big]\Bigg]\nonumber\\
&\stackrel{(b)}{=}(1-p_c)E_{X}\Big[w(1-w)(\bold{x}^{(1)}-\bold{x}^{(2)})^T(\bold{x}^{(1)}-\bold{x}^{(2)})\Big]\nonumber\\
&=(1-p_c) \int_{X^{(1)}, X^{(2)}}\Big[w(1-w)(\bold{x}^{(1)}-\bold{x}^{(2)})^T(\bold{x}^{(1)}-\bold{x}^{(2)})\Big]P_{X}(x)\nonumber\\
&\stackrel{(c)}{=} (1-p_c) \int_{\bold{Z}}w(1-w)\bold{Z}^T\bold{Z}P_{\bold{Z}}(\bold{z})
\label{B10}\end{aligned}$$ where $(a)$ follows the expansion of the intersection using conditional probabilities; $(b)$ follow from the fact that $p_c=E_{\Delta}[1(\delta_i=0))]=P_{\Delta}(\delta_i=0)$ is the probability of censoring and that we have $E_{Y}[1(y_1<y_2))+1(y_2<y_1)] = Pr(y_1<y_2) + Pr(y_2<y_1)=1$; $(c)$ follows from the change of variable $\bold{Z}=\bold{X}^{(1)}-\bold{X}^{(2)}$. Note that since random variables $\bold{X}^{(1)}$ and $\bold{X}^{(2)}$ have density with respect to the Lebesgue measure, random variable $\bold{Z}$ also has a density with respect to the Lebesgue measure. Then we can write $\nu^TI(\boldsymbol{\beta})\nu$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\nu^TI(\boldsymbol{\beta})\nu &= (1-p_c)\int_{\bold{Z}}w(1-w)\nu^T\bold{Z}^T\bold{Z}\nu P_{\bold{Z}}(\bold{z})\nonumber\\
&= (1-p_c)\int_{\bold{Z}}w(1-w)||{\nu}^T\bold{z}||_2^2P_{\bold{Z}}(\bold{z})
\label{B11}\end{aligned}$$
Now we prove strong convexity of $L(\boldsymbol{\beta})$ by contradiction. The negation of statement is: $$\begin{aligned}
\forall \mu >0,\, \exists \nu_\mu \in S_\nu=\{\nu: ||\nu||_2 = 1\},\, s.t.\quad \nu_\mu^TI(\boldsymbol{\beta})\nu_\mu < \mu.
\label{B12}\end{aligned}$$
*Claim 1:* Suppose the statement in \[B12\] holds (or equivalently does not hold), then there exists a $\nu^* \in S_\nu=\{\nu: ||\nu||_2 = 1\}$ such that we have $P_\bold{z}(||{\nu^*}^T\bold{z}||_2=0)=1$.\
*Proof:* Since we assumed $\boldsymbol{\beta}^T\boldsymbol{x}$ is bounded, there exists a constant $0<C_w<1$ such that $C_w<w<1-C_w$, and hence $w(1-w)>C_w^2$. Therefore, using , the statement implies that for any $\mu>0$ there exists $\nu_\mu \in S_\nu$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\mu &> \nu_\mu^TI(\boldsymbol{\beta})\nu_\mu=(1-p_c)\int_{\bold{Z}}w(1-w)||\nu_\mu^T\bold{z}||_2^2P_{\bold{Z}}(\bold{z})\nonumber\\
&\stackrel{(a)}{>}(1-p_c)C_w^2\int_{\bold{Z}}||\nu_\mu^T\bold{z}||_2^2P_{\bold{Z}}(\bold{z})\nonumber\\
&=(1-p_c)C_w^2\int_{\bold{Z}}\Big(1(||\nu_\mu^T\bold{z}||_2^2<\epsilon))+1(||\nu_\mu^T\bold{z}||_2^2>\epsilon)\Big)||\nu_\mu^T\bold{z}||_2^2P_{\bold{Z}}(\bold{z})\nonumber\\
&\geq (1-p_c)C_w^2\int_{\bold{Z}}1(||\nu_\mu^T\bold{z}||_2^2>\epsilon)||\nu_\mu^T\bold{z}||_2^2P_{\bold{Z}}(\bold{z})\nonumber\\
&> (1-p_c)C_w^2\epsilon P_{\bold{Z}}(||\nu_\mu^T\bold{z}||_2^2>\epsilon).
\label{B13}\end{aligned}$$ Note that $\epsilon$ is an arbitrary positive value. Therefore, for such a $\nu_\mu$, expression is equivalent to $$\begin{aligned}
P_{\bold{Z}}(||\nu_\mu^T\bold{z}||_2^2>\epsilon) < \frac{\mu}{(1-p_c)C_w^2\epsilon}\quad \forall \mu, \, \epsilon>0
\label{B14}\end{aligned}$$ or equivalently, $$\begin{aligned}
P_{\bold{Z}}(||\nu_\mu^T\bold{z}||_2^2<\epsilon) >1- \frac{\mu}{(1-p_c)C_w^2\epsilon}\quad \forall \mu, \, \epsilon>0.
\label{B15}\end{aligned}$$ Thus, there exists an infinite sequence $\nu_1, \dots, \nu_k, \dots$ such that for the choices of $\mu_k(\delta)=\delta(1-p_c)C_w^2\epsilon$ and $\epsilon_k=\frac{1}{k}$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\forall\,\delta>0\,, \exists\,K>0\,, s.t.\,, \forall\, k > K: Pr(||\nu_k^T\bold{z}||_2\leq \frac{1}{k}) > 1-\delta.
\label{B16}\end{aligned}$$ Since $S_\nu$ is a compact space, this sequence has an infinite subsequence converging to a point $\nu^* \in S_\nu$. For such a converging point $\nu^*$, we can write, for all $k$, $$\begin{aligned}
||{\nu^*}^T\bold{z}||_2 &= ||(\nu^*-\nu_{k}+\nu_{k})^T\bold{z}||_2\nonumber\\
& \stackrel{(a)}{\leq} ||(\nu^*-\nu_{k})^T\bold{z}||_2+||\nu_{k}^T\bold{z}||_2\nonumber\\
& \leq ||\nu^*-\nu_{k}||_2||\bold{z}||_2+||\nu_{k}^T\bold{z}||_2\nonumber\\
& \stackrel{(b)}{\leq} ||\nu^*-\nu_{k}||_2C_z+||\nu_{k}^T\bold{z}||_2,
\label{B17}\end{aligned}$$ where $(a)$ follows the triangle inequality and $(b)$ follows the boundedness of variable $\bold{Z}$ (i.e., $||\bold{z}||_2\leq C_z$) due to boundedness of variable $\bold{X}$. From , we may write $$\begin{aligned}
\forall\,\delta>0\,, \epsilon>0\,, \exists\,K_1>0\,, s.t.\,, \forall\, k > K_1: Pr(||\nu_k^T\bold{z}||_2\leq \frac{\epsilon}{2}) > 1-\delta,
\label{B18}\end{aligned}$$ and since $\nu_k$ converges to $\nu^*$, we may write $$\begin{aligned}
\forall\,\delta>0\,, \epsilon>0\,, \exists\,K_2>0\,, s.t.\,, \forall\, k > K_2: Pr(||\nu^*-\nu_k||_2\leq \frac{\epsilon}{2C_z}) > 1-\delta.
\label{B19}\end{aligned}$$ Then $\forall\,\delta>0$ and $\forall\,\epsilon>0$, for $K_{max}=max(K_1, K_2)$ we have that for all $k>K_{max}$ $$\begin{aligned}
Pr(||{\nu^*}^T\bold{z}||_2 &\leq ||\nu^*-\nu_{k}||_2C_z+||\nu_{k}^T\bold{z}||_2\nonumber\\
& \leq \frac{\epsilon}{2C_z}\times C_z + \frac{\epsilon}{2}=\epsilon) > 1-\delta,
\label{B20}\end{aligned}$$ taking $\epsilon, \delta \rightarrow 0$, we have that $P_{\bold{Z}}(||{\nu^*}^T\bold{z}||_2=0)=1$. This completes the proof of *Claim 1*. $\square$\
*Claim 2:* If random variable $\bold{X}^{(1)}$ and $\bold{X}^{(2)}$ have density with respect to the Lebesgue measure, then we have $P_{\bold{Z}}(||{\nu}^T\bold{z}||_2=0)<1$ for any $\nu \in S_\nu=\{\nu: ||\nu||_2 = 1\}$.\
*Proof:* Random variables $\bold{X}^{(1)}$ and $\bold{X}^{(2)}$ have density with respect to the Lebesgue measure. Therefore, variable $\bold{Z}$ also has a density with respect to the Lebesgue measure. Therefore, for any $\nu \in S_\nu=\{\nu: ||\nu||_2 = 1\}$, $\bold{Z}$ cannot only be on a plane orthogonal to $\nu$. In other words, $$\begin{aligned}
\forall \nu \in S_\nu=\{\nu: ||\nu||_2 = 1\}, \exists \epsilon_{\nu}>0\, \text{and}\, \exists \delta_{\nu}>0\, s.t.\quad P_{\bold{Z}}(||{\nu^*}^T\bold{z}||_2^2>\epsilon_{\nu}) > \delta_{\nu}.
\label{B21}\end{aligned}$$ Then for any $\nu \in S_\nu=\{\nu: ||\nu||_2 = 1\}$, the integral $\int_{\bold{Z}}||\nu^T\bold{z}||_2^2dP_{\bold{Z}}(\bold{z})$ can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{\bold{Z}}||\nu^T\bold{z}||_2^2dP_{\bold{Z}}(\bold{z})&=\int_{\bold{Z}}\Big(1(||\nu^T\bold{z}||_2^2<\epsilon_{\nu}))+1(||\nu^T\bold{z}||_2^2>\epsilon_{\nu})\Big)||\nu^T\bold{z}||_2^2dP_{\bold{Z}}(\bold{z})\nonumber\\
&\geq \int_{\bold{Z}}1(||\nu^T\bold{z}||_2^2>\epsilon_{\nu})||\nu^T\bold{z}||_2^2dP_{\bold{Z}}(\bold{z})\nonumber\\
&> \epsilon_{\nu}\int_{\bold{Z}}1(||\nu^T\bold{z}||_2^2>\epsilon_{\nu})dP_{\bold{Z}}(\bold{z})\nonumber\\
&= \epsilon_{\nu} P_{\bold{Z}}(||{\nu^*}^T\bold{z}||_2^2>\epsilon_{\nu})\nonumber\\
&> \epsilon_{\nu} \delta_{\nu} > 0,
\label{B22}\end{aligned}$$ indicating that $P_{\bold{Z}}(||{\nu}^T\bold{z}||_2=0)<1$ (or $P_{\bold{Z}}(||{\nu}^T\bold{z}||_2=0)\not=1$). This completes the proof of *Claim 2*. $\square$\
*Claim 1* indicated that if the strong convexity statement does not hold, we must have $P_\bold{z}(||{\nu^*}^T\bold{z}||_2=0)=1$. This is in contradiction with the result of *Claim 2* indicating that for random variable $\bold{Z}$ with Lebesgue density we have $P_\bold{z}(||{\nu^*}^T\bold{z}||_2=0)\not=1$. Therefore, is not true and the statement holds, i.e., $L(\boldsymbol{\beta})$ is strongly convex. This completes the proof of **Condition 3**. $\square$\
**Proof of condition 4:** The gradient of $L^{(s)}(\boldsymbol{\beta})$ may be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}L^{(s)}(\boldsymbol{\beta}) = \sum_{i=1}^s1(\delta_i=1)(\bold{x}^{(i)}-\sum_{j \in R_i}w_j\boldsymbol{x}^{(j)}).
\label{B23}\end{aligned}$$ Then we can write $$\begin{aligned}
||\nabla_{\boldsymbol{\beta}}L^{(s)}(\boldsymbol{\beta})||^2 &= ||\sum_{i=1}^s1(\delta_i=1)(\bold{x}^{(i)}-\sum_{j \in R_i}w_j\boldsymbol{x}^{(j)})||^2 \nonumber\\
&\stackrel{(a)}{\leq} \Big(\sum_{i=1}^s(||1(\delta_i=1)||\times||\bold{x}^{(i)}-\sum_{j \in R_i}w_j\boldsymbol{x}^{(j)})||\Big)^2\nonumber\\
&\stackrel{(b)}{\leq} \Big(\sum_{i=1}^s(||\bold{x}^{(i)}||+||\sum_{j \in R_i}w_j\boldsymbol{x}^{(j)}||)\Big)^2\nonumber\\
&\stackrel{(c)}{\leq} \Big(\sum_{i=1}^s(||\bold{x}^{(i)}||+ {\underset{j \in R_i}{\operatorname{max}}{||\boldsymbol{x}^{(j)}||)}} \Big)^2\nonumber\\
&\leq 4S^2{\underset{i}{\operatorname{max}}{||\boldsymbol{x}^{(i)}||^2}}
\label{B24}\end{aligned}$$ where $(a)$ follows from the triangle inequality; $(b)$ and $(c)$ follow from the triangle inequality and that $w_j\leq1$. Therefore, given boundedness of covariates $\bold{x}$, we can choose $\sigma=2S{\underset{i}{\operatorname{max}}{||\boldsymbol{x}^{(i)}}}||$. This completes the proof of **Condition 4**. $\square$\
We showed that all four conditions are satisfied and thus the results in [@Eric2011] give us our claimed convergence rates for both single SGD-based estimates and averaging over estimates (Polyak-Ruppert average).
Implementation of streaming and non-streaming algorithms using BigSurvSGD {#appC}
=========================================================================
In this section, we present the implementation of both streaming and non-streaming mini-batch stochastic gradient descent algorithms using our proposed framework BigSurvSGD. Without loss of generality, we only present algorithms without the moment-based step-size adaptation.
Implementation of a streaming algorithm {#secAC1}
---------------------------------------
As we discussed before, our proposed framework facilitates the implementation of an algorithm dealing with the streaming data. Such an implementation is very straightforward. The coefficient estimate (i.e., $\boldsymbol{\beta}$) is updated in a streaming fashion. Thus there is no need to collect all the data before estimation (as would be required by [coxph()]{}. Each mini-batch can be as small as the size of the strata we use. Thus we will not run into memory issues. Algorithm \[algStreaming\] gives the details of a streaming algorithm using our proposed framework.
**Initialization**:\
Choose strata size $s$\
$\hat{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(0)=\boldsymbol{0}$\
Choose $C$ for $\alpha_m=\frac{C}{\sqrt{m}}$
Implementation of a non-streaming mini-batch gradient descent algorithm {#secAC2}
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
In many cases, it is of interest to consider each datum more than once (this can empirically improve performance). In this case, we will still use a mini-batch stochastic gradient descent algorithm. Here we present the implementation of a non-streaming mini-batch gradient descent algorithm (that includes mini-batches and multiple epochs). We being by splitting our data evenly into mini-batches, each with $K$ strata of size $s$. Then we iteratively update the estimate using batches of strata. Using multiple, rather than single strata per batch results in more stable (less noisy) gradients. We use the learning rate $\frac{\alpha_m}{s\times K}$ instead of $\frac{\alpha_m}{s}$ as the gradient in each step of mini-batch gradient descent is the sum of gradients over $K$ strata with size $s$. Algorithm \[algMiniBatch\] summarizes the implementation of a non-streaming mini-batch gradient descent algorithm using our proposed framework. One strength of such an implementation compared to [coxph()]{} is we can read batches of strata chunk-by-chunk from the hard drive. Therefore, such an implementation can handle large amounts of data without facing memory issues.
**Initialization**:\
Choose strata size $s$\
Choose batch size $K$\
Choose number of epochs $n_E$\
$m=0$\
$\hat{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(0)=\boldsymbol{0}$\
Choose $C$ for $\alpha_m=\frac{C}{\sqrt{m}}$\
0.2in
|
---
abstract: 'We propose to compute Wasserstein barycenters (WBs) by solving for Monge maps with variational principle. We discuss the metric properties of WBs and explore their connections, especially the connections of Monge WBs, to K-means clustering and co-clustering. We also discuss the feasibility of Monge WBs on unbalanced measures and spherical domains. We propose two new problems – regularized K-means and Wasserstein barycenter compression. We demonstrate the use of VWBs in solving these clustering-related problems.'
bibliography:
- 'main.bib'
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Clustering distributional data according to their spatial similarities has been a core issue in machine learning.
Numerous theories and algorithms for clustering problems have been developed to help understand the structure of the data and to discover homogeneous groups
in their embedding spaces
. Clustering algorithms also apply to unsupervised learning problems that pass information from known centroids to unknown empirical samples
. Occasionally, researchers regard clustering as finding the optimal semi-discrete correspondence between distributional data or vice versa.
Optimal transportation (OT) techniques have gained increasing popularity in the past two decades for measuring the distance between distributional data as well as aligning them together. Rooted in the OT theories, several OT-based clustering algorithms have emerged in recent years as alternatives, thanks to their efficiency and robustness. In these works, the researchers discovered the connections between different clustering problems and the OT problem through the Wasserstein barycenter (WB) formulation which computes a “mean” of one or multiple distributions. However, most of them deliver the results as *soft assignments* that need to be further discretized.
In this paper, we propose to compute the Wasserstein barycenter based on Monge OT and explore its natural connections to different clustering problems that prefer *hard assignments*. We base our OT solver on variational principles and coin our method as variational Wasserstein barycenters. We study the metric properties of WBs and use them to explain and solve different clustering-related problems such as regularized K-means clustering, co-clustering, and vector quantization and compression. We also show its immunity to unbalanced measures and its extension to measures on spherical domains. We discuss our method from different angles through comparison with other barycenter methods. We show the advantages of Monge OT-based barycenters in solving geometric clustering problems. We are among the first few that compute Monge barycenters and discover its connections to clustering problems.
Related Work and Our Contributions {#sec:related}
==================================
Computational clustering algorithms date back to [@lloyd1982least; @forgy1965cluster] for solving K-means problems. From then, researchers have proposed different formulations and algorithms such as spectral clustering
and density-based clustering
. Mixture modeling, especially Gaussian mixture modeling, is also considered to be a robust solution to clustering problems
. Hierarchical clustering
and co-clustering
also attracted much attention in the machine learning community. [@xu2005survey] surveys some classic clustering algorithms.
The term “*geometric clustering*” appeared in the early literature, such as [@murtagh1983survey; @quigley2000fade], referring to clustering samples into subspaces according to their location in the metric space, usually the Euclidean space. In [@applegate2011unsupervised], the authors discuss the connection between K-means and another famous problem – the OT distance, or the Wasserstein distance.
The transportation problem has attracted many mathematicians since its very birth. Monge first raised the problem [@monge1781memoire] as finding a measure-preserving map between probability measures; Kantorovich extended the problem to finding a joint probability measure [@kantorovich1942translocation]; Brenier further connected the OT problem to fluid dynamics and convex geometry [@brenier1991polar]. It’s early applications include comparing 1D histograms for image retrieval [@rubner2000earth]. Thanks to efficient OT solvers, e.g., [@cuturi2013sinkhorn],
OT has become a popular tool in machine learning with which we compare distributional data.
Meanwhile, by regarding the OT distance as a metric, we can interpolate in the space of probability measure. [@mccann1997convexity] laid the foundation; [@agueh2011barycenters] developed the problem into a general scenario and coined the term “*Wasserstein barycenters*”. [@cuturi2014fast; @ho2017multilevel; @mi2018variational] relate WBs to K-means like clustering problems and [@leclaire2019fast; @lee2019hierarchical] explored the use of OT for hierarchical clustering. [@claici2018stochastic] is among the latest work on scalable semi-discrete Wasserstein barycenters. Most of them follow Kantorovich’s static OT; few of them follow Monge’s, or Brenier’s, dynamic version that regards OT as a gradient flow in the probability space.
Compared to previous work, our contribution is three-fold:
1\) We derive the WB based on Monge’s OT formulation and explore its connections to different clustering problems; 2) We prove the metric properties of our WB and propose it as a metric for evaluating multi-marginal clustering algorithms; 3) We explore the advantages and disadvantages of Monge WB through empirical comparison with other methods.
Primer on Optimal Transportation {#sec:primer}
================================
We begin by iterating key concepts of optimal transportation (OT), variational OT, and Wasserstein barycenters (WBs). Suppose $\MU, \NU$ are *Borel probability distributions* supported in *Polish spaces* $\X(\x)$, $\Y(\y)$, respectively. Let $\MUS(\X \times \Y)$ be the set of all probability distributions on $\X \times \Y$. Then, we denote by $\PS(\MU,\NU) = \{\PI \in \MUS(\X \times \Y)\ |\ \int_{\X}d\PI(\x, \y) = d\NU(\y), \int_{\Y}d\PI(\x, \y) = d\MU(\x) \}$ the set of all transportation maps $\PI$ between $\MU$ and $\NU$. Thus, $\PI$ is also the joint distribution of $\MU$ and $\NU$ and $d\PI(\x, \y)$ specifies the *mass* transported across $\x$ and $\y$. In addition, we use $\Dist(\x, \y): \X \times \Y \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{\geq 0}$ to specify the transportation cost between $\x$ and $\y$.
Optimal Transportation {#sec:ot}
----------------------
The OT problem is to minimize the total transportation cost: $$\min_{\PI \in \PS(\MU,\NU)} \EnergyL{1}[\PI] = \int_{\X \times \Y} \Dist(\x, \y)^p d\PI(\x, \y), \nonumber$$ where $p \in [1, \infty)$ indicates the moment of the cost function. Then, we call this minimum the *p-Wasserstein distance*: $$\WL{p} = \underset{\PI \in \PS(\MU,\NU)}{\inf} \left(\EnergyL{1}[\PI]\right)^{1/p}. \nonumber$$ The above is the well-known Kantorovich’s OT formulation that allows a partial map that splits the measure $d\MU(\x)$ during transportation. In Monge’s original version, each location $\x$ has a unique correspondence $\y$. If we define such a map as $\T: \X \rightarrow \Y$, then we have $d\PIL{\T}(\x, \y) \equiv d\MU(x)\delta[\y = \T(\x)]$ and Monge OT: $$\label{eq:monge}
\TU{*} = \argmin_{\PI_{\T} \in \PS(\MU,\NU)} \EnergyL{1}[\PI_{\T}] \equiv \int_{\X} \Dist(\x, \T(\x))^p d\MU(\x)$$ $\T$ *pushes forward* $\MU$ to $\NU$, i.e. $\NU = \T\#\MU$; more rigorously, for any measurable set $B \subset \Y,\ \NU[B] = \MU[\TU{-1}(B)]$. We direct readers to [@villani2003topics; @peyre2019computational] for more on OT. In this paper, we focus on Monge OT. In particular, we narrow our discussion to $\X, \Y \subseteq \mathbb{R}^{n}$, $c(\x, \y)= \|\x - \y\|_{2}$, and $p = 2$ unless specified otherwise. Hence, we compute $\WL{2}$.
Variational Optimal Transportation {#sec:vot}
----------------------------------
Directly computing a Monge map is highly intractable and variational methods have been adopted by many researchers. [@de2012blue; @gu2013variational; @levy2015numerical] offer three variational formulations. We follow [@gu2013variational] and in this paper refer to it as *variational OT* or VOT.
Suppose $\NU$ is supported on $\K$ discrete atoms $\bm{\y} = \{\yL{\IdxCentroid}\}_{\IdxCentroid=1}^{\K} \subset \Y$. The problem becomes *semi-discrete OT*. VOT starts with a piece-wise linear function $\theta_{\bm{\h}}(\x) = \underset{\IdxCentroid}{\max} \{\x \yL{\IdxCentroid} + \hL{\IdxCentroid}\}$. Each $\yL{\IdxCentroid}$ associates with a *height* $\hL{\IdxCentroid}$. The gradient, $\nabla\theta_{\bm{\h}}(x) = \yL{\IdxCentroid}$ where $\IdxCentroid$ induces the maximum, serves as a map from $\X$ to $\Y$. It induces a graph: $ \bm{\Region}_{\bm{\h}} = \bigcup\limits_{\IdxCentroid=1}^{\K} \left(\RegionL{\bm{\h}}\right)_{\IdxCentroid}, \left(\RegionL{\bm{\h}}\right)_{\IdxCentroid} \eqdef \{\x \in \X\ |\ \x\yL{\IdxCentroid} + \hL{\IdxCentroid} \geq \x\yL{\IdxCentroidSecond} + \hL{\IdxCentroidSecond}, \forall \IdxCentroidSecond \neq \IdxCentroid\}$. For simplicity, we remove $\bm{\h}$ and use $\RegionL{\IdxCentroid}$ instead. We introduce an energy: $$\label{eq:vot}
\ignore{\min_{\bm{\h}}}\ \EnergyL{2}[\bm{\h}] \eqdef \int_{\bm{0}}^{\bm{\h}} \sum_{\IdxCentroid=1}^{\K} \int_{\RegionL{\IdxCentroid}} d\MU(\x) d\hL{\IdxCentroid} - \sum_{\IdxCentroid = 1}^{\K}\NU(\yL{\IdxCentroid})\hL{\IdxCentroid},$$ whose gradient, $\big\{\int_{\RegionL{\IdxCentroid}} d\MU(\x) - \NU(\yL{\IdxCentroid})\big\}_{\IdxCentroid}$, also integrates to $$\label{eq:theta}
\ignore{\min_{\bm{\h}}}\ \EnergyL{3}[\bm{\h}] \eqdef \int_{\X} \theta_{\bm{\h}}(\x) d\MU(\x) - \sum_{\IdxCentroid = 1}^{\K}\NU(\yL{\IdxCentroid})\hL{\IdxCentroid}.$$ Meanwhile, the *Lagrangian duality* of Monge OT is $$\label{eq:monge_dual}
\begin{gathered}
\max_{\bm{\LagPhi}}\ \min_{\T}\ \EnergyL{4}[\bm{\LagPhi},T]
\eqdef \\ \int_{\X} \big( \|\x - \T(\x)\|_{2}^{2} + \sum_{\IdxCentroid=1}^{\K} \LagPhiL{\IdxCentroid} \big) d\MU(x) - \sum_{\IdxCentroid = 1}^{\K} \LagPhiL{\IdxCentroid}\NU(\yL{\IdxCentroid}),
\end{gathered}$$ where $\bm{\LagPhi} = \{\varphi_\IdxCentroid\}_{\IdxCentroid=1}^{\K}$. simplifies to $$\label{eq:monge_ot_dual}
\begin{gathered}
\max_{\bm{\LagPhi}}\ \EnergyL{4}[\bm{\LagPhi}] \\
= \sum_{\IdxCentroid = 1}^{\K} \int_{\RegionL{\IdxCentroid}'} \big(\|\x - \yL{\IdxCentroid}\|_{2}^{2} + \LagPhiL{\IdxCentroid} \big) d\MU(\x) - \sum_{\IdxCentroid = 1}^{\K} \LagPhiL{\IdxCentroid}\NU(\yL{\IdxCentroid}),
\end{gathered}$$ $\RegionL{\IdxCentroid}' = \{\x \in \X\ |\ \|\x - \yL{\IdxCentroid}\|_{2}^{2} + \LagPhiL{\IdxCentroid} \leq \|\x - \yL{\IdxCentroidSecond}\|_{2}^{2} + \LagPhiL{\IdxCentroidSecond}, \forall \IdxCentroidSecond \neq \IdxCentroid\}$ which coincides with a *power Voronoi diagram*.
We provide detailed derivation for above formulas in Appendix and then prove their following connections.
\[th:energy\_connection\] **1**. The minimum point of $\EnergyL{2}[\bm{\h}]$, , also minimizes $\EnergyL{3}[\bm{\h}]$, . **2**. $\RegionL{\IdxCentroid} \equiv \RegionL{\IdxCentroid}'$. **3**. $\bm{\Region}$ in $\EnergyL{2}[\bm{\h}]$, , induces the Monge map $\T: x \rightarrow \yL{\IdxCentroid}$. **4**. Minimizing $\EnergyL{2}[\bm{\h}]$, , is equivalent to maximizing $\EnergyL{4}[\bm{\h}]$, .
Therefore, we “variationally” minimize $\EnergyL{2}[\bm{\h}]$, , for a *height vector* $\bm{\h}$ and that will produce a Monge map $\TU{*}$.
Wasserstein Barycenters {#sec:wb}
-----------------------
The Wasserstein distance (WD) satisfies all metric properties. The *fréchet mean* of a collection of distributions $\MUNL{1:N} \eqdef \{\MUL{i}\}_{i=1}^{N}$ w.r.t the WD is called the *Wasserstein barycenter* (WB). It is the minimizer of the weighted average: $$\label{eq:wb}
\NU = \underset{\NU \in \MUS(\Y)}{\arg\min} \sum_{i = 1}^{\N} \lambda_{i} \WUL{2}{2}(\MUL{i}, \NU),$$ for $\WeightL{i} \in [0, 1]$ and $\sum_i \WeightL{i} = 1$. We simplify by assuming uniform weights and rewrite it as $$\label{eq:wb2}
\NU = \underset{\NU \in \MUS(\Y)}{\arg\min} \frac{1}{\N} \sum_{i = 1}^{\N} \int_{\XL{i}}\|\x - \TLU{i}{*}(\x)\|_{2}^{2}d\MUL{i}(\x),$$ $s.t.\ \TLU{i}{*}\#\MUL{i} = \NU$ OT for all $i$. Suppose the barycenter $\NU$ is supported on $\K$ discrete atoms $\bm{\y} = \{\yL{\IdxCentroid}\}_{\IdxCentroid=1}^{\K}$. If we fix $\NU(\yL{\IdxCentroid})$ and only allow updating $\bm{\y}$, then readers can notice that is simultaneously solving $\N$ *constrained K-means* problems
using the same set of centroids with fixed capacity, $\bm{\NU} = \{\NU(\yL{\IdxCentroid})\}_{\IdxCentroid=1}^{\K}$. $\TLU{i}{*}$ serves as the optimal *assignment function* in each K-means problem. Note that $\TLU{i}{*}(\x)$ is a *hard assignment* that has only one target because we solve Monge OT.
To clarify notation, we use $\NU$ to denote the probability distribution whether continuous or discrete. If it is discrete, namely a collection of Dirac measures, then we use $\bm{y}$ and $\bm{\NU}$ to denote its supports and measures. $\yL{\IdxCentroid}$ and $\NUL{\yL{\IdxCentroid}}$ specify the location and measure of the $\IdxCentroid$th Dirac measure.
Variational Wasserstein Barycenters {#sec:vwb}
===================================
Solving the WB problem relies on alternatively solving $\N$ OT problems and updating the barycenter, $\NU$. Eventually, $\NU$ minimizes the average WD between empirical distributions and the barycenter. A discrete distribution $\NU$ consists of support and measure $(\bm{\y}, \bm{\NU}) = \{(\yL{\IdxCentroid}, \NUL{\IdxCentroid})\}_{\IdxCentroid=1}^{\K}$. Updating both of them, e.g., [@ye2017fast], is difficult and even troublesome in some cases (see Appendix). In this paper, we follow [@cuturi2014fast] and only update one of them while fixing the other throughout the optimization.
Discrete Barycenters via VOT {#sec:wbvot}
----------------------------
We first solve $N$ VOT problems : $$\label{eq:vwb}
\begin{gathered}
\min_{\{\bm{\hL{i}}\}_{i=1}^{\N}} \EnergyL{5}[\{\bm{\hL{i}}\}] \\
\eqdef \frac{1}{\N} \sum_{i=1}^{\N} \left( \int_{\bm{0}}^{\bm{\hL{i}}} \sum_{\IdxCentroid=1}^{\K} \int_{\RegionL{i, \IdxCentroid}} d\MUL{i}(x) d\hL{i, \IdxCentroid} - \sum_{\IdxCentroid = 1}^{\K}\NUL{\IdxCentroid}\hL{i, \IdxCentroid} \right)\\ \nonumber
\end{gathered}$$ Its derivative w.r.t. the VOT optimizer $\hL{i, \IdxCentroid}$ is $$\label{eq:vwb_dh}
\nabla \EnergyL{5}[\bm{\hL{i}}] = \left\{\pdv{\EnergyL{5}}{\hL{i, \IdxCentroid}} = \int_{\RegionL{i, \IdxCentroid}} d\MUL{i}(\x) - \NUL{\IdxCentroid}\right\}_{\IdxCentroid = 1}^{\K},$$ which, in practice, can be replaced by its stochastic version, $$\label{eq:vwb_sdh}
\pdv{\EnergyL{5}}{\hL{i, \IdxCentroid}} \approx \sum_{\x \in \RegionL{i, \IdxCentroid}} \MUL{i}(\x) - \NUL{\IdxCentroid}, \nonumber$$ where $x$’s are now Monte Carlo samples. Then, we can naturally adopt the gradient descent (GD) update: $$\label{eq:vwb_gd}
\bm{\hL{i}}^{(t+1)} = \bm{\hL{i}}^{(t)} - \eta \nabla \EnergyL{5}[\bm{\hL{i}}].$$ For completeness, we give the second-order derivative in Appendix. Its computation, however, involves integrating over the Voronoi facets and thus is intractable in general.
To solve for $\NU$, we rewrite the objective of the WB as $$\label{eq:wb3}
\begin{split}
\min_{\NU \in \MUS(\Y)} \EnergyL{6}[\NU]
&\eqdef \frac{1}{\N} \sum_{i = 1}^{\N} \int_{\XL{i}}\|\x - \TLU{i}{*}(\x)\|_{2}^{2}d\MUL{i}(\x) \\
& = \frac{1}{\N} \sum_{i = 1}^{\N} \sum_{\IdxCentroid = 1}^{\K} \int_{\RegionL{i, \IdxCentroid}}\|\x - \yL{\IdxCentroid}\|_{2}^{2}d\MUL{i}(\x),
\end{split}$$ $s.t.\ \yL{\IdxCentroid} = \TLU{i}{*}(x)\ \forall \x \in \XL{i}$. The critical point of this quadratic energy w.r.t. each $\yL{\IdxCentroid}$ has a closed form: $$\label{eq:vwb_dy}
\begin{split}
\yLU{\IdxCentroid}{*}
= \frac{\sum_{i = 1}^{\N} \int_{\RegionL{i, \IdxCentroid}} \x d\MUL{i}(\x)}{N\sum_{i = 1}^{N} \int_{\RegionL{i, \IdxCentroid}} d\MUL{i}(\x)}
\approx \frac{\sum_{i = 1}^{\N} \sum_{\x \in \RegionL{i, \IdxCentroid}} x \MUL{i}(\x)}{N\sum_{i = 1}^{\N} \sum_{\x \in \RegionL{i, \IdxCentroid}} \MUL{i}(\x)}, \nonumber
\end{split}$$ which is the center of mass of its correspondence across all measures. The latter expression is the “stochastic” version.
![Ten random nested ellipses (top) averaged according to the Euclidean distance (left) and the Wasserstein distance (right) as implemented by VWB. For a better visual, we use the Euclidean sum instead. Middle is the Euclidean sum after re-centered. The VWB preserves the topology (rainbow colors) of the ellipses.[]{data-label="fig:vwb"}](ed_vs_wd_color.pdf){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
The last step is to derive the update rule for the measure $\bm{\NU}$. is not differentiable w.r.t. $\bm{\NU}$. Still, we follow [@cuturi2014fast; @mi2018regularized] and give the critical point and include the derivation in Appendix. $$\label{eq:vwb_dv}
\begin{split}
\NUUL{*}{\IdxCentroid}
= \frac{1}{N}\sum_{i = 1}^{N} \int_{\RegionLU{i, \IdxCentroid}{*}} d\MUL{i}(\x)
\approx \frac{1}{\N} \sum_{i = 1}^{\N} \sum_{ \x \in \RegionLU{i, \IdxCentroid}{*}} \MUL{i}(\x), \nonumber
\end{split}$$ where $\RegionLU{i, \IdxCentroid}{*} = \{\x\in\XL{i}\ |\ \|\x-\yL{\IdxCentroid}\|_{2}^{2} < \|\x-\yL{\IdxCentroidSecond}\|_{2}^{2}\ \forall \IdxCentroidSecond \neq \IdxCentroid\}$. $\NULU{\IdxCentroid}{*}$ coincides with the result of Lloyd’s K-means algorithm in which the measure on each centroid accumulates all its assigned empirical measures.
Now that we have derived the rules for updating $\T$ and $\NU$, we summarize our algorithm for computing the VWB of a collection of measures $\{\MUL{i}\}_{i}$ in Appendix. As for the initial guess of the barycenter, if not specified, we can either run Lloyd’s algorithm on all the measures as a whole and adopt the resulting $\K$ centroids or uniformly sample the space $\Y$. The choice of the measure on the centroids depends on the specific application. A ubiquitous choice is uniform Dirac measures, i.e. $\NUL{\IdxCentroid} = \frac{1}{\K} \delta[\yL{\IdxCentroid}]$. Figure \[fig:vwb\] suggests that by regarding the WD as the metric, we can find a mean shape on the same manifold, if there exists one.
Our method does converge since we follow coordinate descent and every step is convex [@grippo2000convergence], given the assumption we made in \[sec:ot\] that $\X, \Y \subset \mathbb{R}^{n}$, $c(\x, \y)= \|\x - \y\|_{2}$, and $p = 2$. There are in total $\mathcal{O}(\K \cdot \N)$ variables for computing $N$ Monge maps $\{\TL{i}\}_{i=1}^{\N}$, and $\mathcal{O}(\K)$ variables as the support $\bm{\y}$ and $\mathcal{O}(\K)$ variables as the measure $\bm{\NU}$. We implemented VWB with PyTorch [@paszke2019pytorch]. The code to reproduce the figures in this paper is at <https://github.com/icemiliang/pyvot>.
Metric Properties of (V)WBs {#sec:metric_property}
---------------------------
In spite of extensive studies on metric properties of OT over the past century, the metric properties of Wasserstein barycenters have yet been fully explored. Some pioneer work includes [@papadakis2019approximation; @auricchio2018computing].
However, most of them focus on the barycenter of two measures ($\N=2$). We show in the following that WBs in general ($\N \geq 2$) induce a *generalized metric* (*n-metric*). First, let us define the total Wasserstein distance between the barycenter and all the marginal Borel measures: $$\label{eq:wb_nmetric}
\WBL{\NU}(\MUNL{1:N}) \eqdef \underset{\NU \in \MUS(\Y)}{\inf} \frac{1}{N}\sum_{i = 1}^{N} \WUL{2}{2}(\MUL{i}, \NU),$$ Then, we raise the following two propositions and prove them in Appendix.
\[the:wb\_nmetric\] $\WBL{\NU}(\MUNL{1:N})$ defines a generalized metric among $\{\MUL{i}\}_{i=1}^{\N}$, $N \geq 2$. Specifically, $\WBL{\NU}(\MUNL{1:N})$ satisfies the following properties.\
1) Non-negativity: $\WBL{\NU}(\MUNL{1:N}) \geq 0$.\
2) Symmetry: $\WBL{\sigma_1(1:\N)}(\NU) = \WBL{\sigma_2(1:\N)}(\NU)$, where $\sigma_1(1:N)$ and $\sigma_2(1:\N)$ are different permutations of the set ${1:\N}$.\
3) Identity: $\WBL{\NU}(\MUNL{1:N}) = 0 \Longleftrightarrow \MUL{i} = \MUL{j}, \forall i \neq j$.\
4) Triangle inequality: $\WBL{\NU}(\MUNL{1:N}) \leq \sum_{i=1}^{\N} \WBL{\NU}(\MUNL{1:\N+1 \backslash i})$.
\[the:wb\_nmetric\_bigon\] The bound of the triangle inequality in Proposition \[the:wb\_nmetric\] can be tightened by a linear factor. Specifically, we have $(N/2)\ \WBL{\NU}(\MUNL{1:N}) \leq \sum_{i=1}^{\N} \WBL{\NU}(\MUNL{1:\N+1 \backslash i})$.
The VWB $\NU = \sum_{\IdxCentroid=1}^{\K}\NUL{j}\delta[\yL{\IdxCentroid}] \in \MUS(\Y)$, as a special case of WBs, certainly inherits the metric properties because there is not such a restriction on the continuity of $\Y$. If we denote the total WD for the VWB with $\VWBL{\NU}(\MUNL{1:\N})$ , then we have:
\[the:vwb\_nmetric\]
$\VWBL{\NU}(\MUNL{1:\N})$ induces an n-metric over all $\MUL{i}$’s. In particular, the equal signs in 1) non-negativity and 4) inequality hold if and only if all $\MUL{i}$’s and $\NU$ have the same number of supports with positive Dirac measures $|\MUL{i}| = |\NU| = \K,\ \forall i \in \{1,...,\N\}$.
![Transshipment: transporting measures through a set of discrete relays. Colors on the measures specify correspondences.[]{data-label="fig:ship1"}](ship1.pdf){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
Approximate WDs with VWBs – Transshipment {#sec:transship}
-----------------------------------------
We consider the transshipment problem as finding a Monge map from the source to the target that passes through a relay measure in the middle (see Figure \[fig:ship1\]). We solve it by VWBs. Our discussion comes directly from the conclusions in \[sec:metric\_property\]:
\[the:vwb\_2metric\] As a special case of Corollary \[the:vwb\_nmetric\], $\VWBL{\NU}(\MUNL{1:2})$ induces a (2-)metric between $\MUL{1}$ and $\MUL{2}$. It is lower-bounded by $\frac{1}{4}\WLU{2}{2}(\MUL{1},\MUL{2})$ when
$|\MUL{i}| = |\NU| = K$.
Appendix reveals the proof.
Then, we can use a VWB to connect two measures and regard the total WD as an approximation to the true WD between them. We name it the *variational Wasserstein distance*, or *VWD*: $$\label{eq:vwb_ship}
\begin{split}
\VWLU{2}{2}(\MUL{1}, \MUL{2}) &\eqdef 4 \VWBL{\NU}(\MUNL{1:2})\\
& =\underset{\NU \in \MUS(\Y)}{\inf} 2\ \WUL{2}{2}(\MUL{1}, \NU) + 2\ \WUL{2}{2}(\MUL{2}, \NU). \nonumber
\end{split}$$ We use the toy data above to evaluate the approximation against the number of supports, $K$. The two Gaussian measures share the same covariance matrix; their means differ by 1. Thus, the true WD is $1$. We use the results from linear programming (LP) and Sinkhorn algorithms for reference. Figure \[fig:ship2\] shows that VWD is still accurate with few supports. For each number of supports in the experiments, we run our algorithm 10 times with different random initial locations. We draw the error band with light color. Until $1500$ supports, ratio $0.3$, our algorithm produces stable approximations that have almost zero variance.
![WDs between two Gaussian’s vs. number of supports.[]{data-label="fig:ship2"}](ship_error.pdf){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
On Unbalanced Measures {#sec:unbalanced_ot}
----------------------
When measures are not probabilities or, more generally their integrals do not equal, we are solving *unbalanced OT*. [@benamou2003numerical] first explored the problem. Researchers since then have offered various formulations and perspectives to approach it, e.g. [@liero2018optimal] adding $f$-divergences as regularizers instead of constraints on the marginals. Here, we discuss VOT and VWBs for unbalanced measures. Without loss of generality, let us assume $\int_{\X}d\MU(\x) = w,\ \sum_{\IdxCentroid = 1}^{\K} \NUL{\IdxCentroid} = 1$. We denote the mass in each power Voronoi cell by $w_{\RegionL{\IdxCentroid}} = \int_{\RegionL{\IdxCentroid}}d\MU(\x)$. Inspired by the discussion in [@peyre2019computational], we propose to penalize the quadratic mismatch of the mass for each cell $\IdxCentroid$. $$\label{eq:unbalanced_vot}
\begin{gathered}
\min_{\bm{\Region}}\ \EnergyL{7}[\bm{\Region}] \eqdef
\int_{\X} \|\x - T(\x)\|^2_2 d\MU(\x) + \lambda \sum_{\IdxCentroid = 1}^{\K} \left( w_{\IdxCentroid} - \NUL{\IdxCentroid}\right)^2,
\end{gathered}$$ s.t. $\sum_{\IdxCentroid} w_{\RegionL{\IdxCentroid}} = w$. If $\lambda \rightarrow \infty, w = 1$, reverses to .
In the following, we discuss in two cases: $\NUL{\IdxCentroid} = \frac{1}{\K}$ and a more general one, $\NUL{\IdxCentroid} \in (0,1),\ \sum_{\IdxCentroid = 1}^{\K} \NUL{\IdxCentroid} = 1$.
![Mass difference over iterations for VOT on balanced and unbalanced measures. They follow the same trend and converge at almost the same rate. The resulting clusters are exactly the same.[]{data-label="fig:uot"}](iter.pdf){width="0.85\columnwidth"}
**Case 1:** $\NUL{\IdxCentroid} = \frac{1}{\K}$. It is trivial to verify that minimizing the second term in over $\bm{\Region}$ under its equality constraint yields all $w_{\RegionL{\IdxCentroid}}$’s equal to each other, i.e. $w_{\RegionL{\IdxCentroid}} = \frac{1}{\K}w$. On the other hand, the gradient of the VOT energy has the form $\int_{\RegionL{\IdxCentroid}} d\MU(\x) - \NUL{\IdxCentroid} \equiv w_{\RegionL{\IdxCentroid}} - \frac{1}{\K}w$. The question now is whether $w_{\RegionL{\IdxCentroid}} = \frac{1}{\K}w$ minimizes . If so, then we can instead solve to minimize the second term in .
When $w_{\RegionL{\IdxCentroid}} = \frac{1}{\K}w$, the gradient $\nabla\EnergyL{2}[\bm{\h}] = \{w_{\RegionL{\IdxCentroid}} - \NUL{\IdxCentroid}\}_{\IdxCentroid}$ becomes constant and thus $\bm{\h}$ is being translated at a constant rate. Certainly, translation does not modify a power Voronoi diagram as specified in . Therefore, $\EnergyL{2}[\bm{\h}]$ saturates
. For any other partition such that $\exists\ \RegionL{\IdxCentroid}', w_{\RegionL{\IdxCentroid}'} \neq \frac{1}{\K}w$, we have $$\begin{split}
\sum_{\IdxCentroid=1}^{\K} \int_{\RegionL{\IdxCentroid}} & \left( \|\x - \yL{\IdxCentroid}\|_{2}^{2} + \hL{\IdxCentroid} \right) d\MU(\x) \\
&\leq \sum_{\IdxCentroid=1}^{\K} \int_{\RegionL{\IdxCentroid}'} \left( \|\x - \yL{\IdxCentroid}\|_{2}^{2} + \hL{\IdxCentroid} \right) d\MU(\x).
\nonumber
\end{split}$$ Therefore, $w_{\RegionL{\IdxCentroid}} = \frac{1}{\K}w$ indeed minimizes . Meanwhile, we know that an unweighted Voronoi diagram ($\hL{\IdxCentroid} = 0$) would minimize the first term in . Thus, we can directly give the solution to as $\{\frac{\lambda}{1 + \lambda}\hL{\IdxCentroid}\}_{\IdxCentroid=1}^{\K}$.
**Case 2:** $\NUL{\IdxCentroid} \in (0,1),\ \sum_{\IdxCentroid = 1}^{\K} \NUL{\IdxCentroid} = 1$. It is also trivial to verify that minimizing the second term in over $\bm{\Region}$ yields $w_{\RegionL{\IdxCentroid}} = \NUL{\IdxCentroid}w$ (replace $\frac{1}{K}$ with $\NUL{\IdxCentroid}$). $w_{\RegionL{\IdxCentroid}} = \NUL{\IdxCentroid}w$ also triggers the convergence of VOT as in Case 1.
At this point, we claim that VOT, , minimizes the total transportation cost regardless of the measures equal or not. We leave rigorous proofs to future work. We illustrate the convergence in Figure \[fig:uot\]. The top half shows VOT between balanced measures and the bottom half shows unbalanced measures, $w = 900 = 500 + 2 \times 200, \NUL{\IdxCentroid} = \frac{1}{3}$. Note that the gradient of the VOT and VWB, , correlates to the absolute measure values. Thus, we should scale the step size, $\eta$ in , for each VOT according to the difference of the measure, i.e. $\eta_i / w $, assuming the total for $\NU$ is $1$. Figure \[fig:uot\] shows that under the same (scaled) GD step size, VOT in two cases follows the same trend.
We apply VWBs to unbalanced measures and show in Figure \[fig:uvwb\] the resulting barycenter of two Gaussian’s of different samples, $5$k vs. $1$k. We choose $\lambda = \infty$ in . We can also see that Monge maps are absolutely *binary* and *sparse*.
![Interpolating two Gaussian’s of different number of samples by computing the VWB results in a mean isotropic Gaussian.[]{data-label="fig:uvwb"}](4_4_2.pdf){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
On Spherical Domains {#sec:svwb}
--------------------
Optimal transport on geometric domains other than the Euclidean domain extends its applications [@solomon2015convolutional; @staib2017parallel; @cui2019spherical]. [@cui2019spherical] relates *spherical power Voronoi diagram* to OT on unit spheres. Inspired by that, we study our VWB on spherical domains and its metric properties.
Let us define a new ground metric on a unit sphere, $\mathbb{S}^2 \times \mathbb{S}^2 \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{\geq 0}$, as $\Dist(\x, \yL{\IdxCentroid}) = -\ln\langle\x , \yL{\IdxCentroid}\rangle$ and the OT distance: $$\WL{1}' = \underset{\T \in \PSL{T}(\MU,\NU)}{\inf} \EnergyL{8}[\PI] \eqdef -\int_{\mathbb{S}^2} \ln\langle x , T(x) \rangle d\MU(\x)$$ s.t. $\int_{\mathbb{S}^2}(\psi \circ T)d\MU(x) = \int_{\mathbb{S}^2}\psi d\NU(y)$ for all non-negative $\psi$.
![Interpolating two Gaussian distributions on a sphere w.r.t. the VWD. By using the VWB, we can build sparse connection between the two domains via a few discrete relays.[]{data-label="fig:sphere"}](sphere.pdf){width="0.7\columnwidth"}
Following [@cui2019spherical], we define the *power distance* on a sphere as $c'(\x, \yL{\IdxCentroid}) = -\ln\langle \x , \yL{\IdxCentroid} \rangle / \cos r_{\IdxCentroid}$ and thus the power Voronoi diagram in the spherical domain $\RegionL{\IdxCentroid} \eqdef \{\x \in \mathbb{S}^{2}\ | c'(\x, \yL{\IdxCentroid}) \leq c'(\x, \yL{\IdxCentroidSecond}), \forall \IdxCentroidSecond \neq \IdxCentroid\}$. $r_{\IdxCentroid}$ is the weight of each power cell, it relates to the VOT minimizers by $\cos{r} = e^{h}$. Then, the derivation in \[sec:vot\] gives us the Monge map.
$-\ln\langle\x , \yL{\IdxCentroid}\rangle$ does not satisfy triangle inequality but the other three metric properties. Thus, $\WL{1}'$ inherits those properties. We notice that the proof for Proposition \[the:wb\_nmetric\] does not require triangle inequality. Therefore, the n-metric properties still hold for the barycenter w.r.t. $\WL{1}'$. $$\WBL{1:\N}'(\NU) \eqdef \underset{\NU \in \MUS(\Y)}{\inf} \frac{1}{\N}\sum_{i = 1}^{\N} \WL{1}'(\MUL{i}, \NU)$$ Although $\WL{1}'$ is not a true metric, we can still find a “mean” of multiple marginals by alternatively minimizing the total “distance” as in \[sec:wbvot\]. Figure \[fig:sphere\] shows an example where the VWB simultaneously partitions two domains on the sphere. For simplicity, we draw connections with straight lines.
Geometric Clustering via VWBs {#sec:gcvwb}
=============================
In this section, we further connect VWBs to several clustering problems. We consider a fixed number of clusters, $K$, the quadratic Euclidean distance as the ground metric, and mainly the spatial relation between samples. We refer to this scenario as *geometric clustering*. From now on, we discretize the measures: $\NU = \sum_{\IdxCentroid = 1}^{K}\NUL{\IdxCentroid}\delta[\yL{\IdxCentroid}], \MUL{i} = \sum_{j=1}^{n_i}\MU(\xL{j})\delta[\xL{j}]$ and assume that $n_i \gg K,\ \forall i$.
Regularized K-Means Clustering {#sec:regularized_kmeans}
------------------------------
In light of the discovery of VWBs for unbalanced measures in \[sec:unbalanced\_ot\], we now introduce a relaxed version of the constrained K-means problem. We call it *regularized K-means*.
The classic K-means problem has the objective as follows: $$\label{eq:kmeans}
\min_{\bm{\Region}}\sum_{\IdxCentroid = 1}^{K}\sum_{\x \in \RegionL{\IdxCentroid}}\|\x - \yL{\IdxCentroid}\|_{2}^{2},\ \ \yL{\IdxCentroid} = \frac{1}{|\RegionL{\IdxCentroid}|}\sum_{\x \in \RegionL{\IdxCentroid}} \x,$$ where $|\RegionL{\IdxCentroid}|$ is the number of samples supported in $\RegionL{\IdxCentroid}$. By adding the marginal constraint $\NUL{\IdxCentroid} = \sum_{\x \in \RegionL{\IdxCentroid}}\MU(\x)$ with pre-defined, fixed measures $\{\NUL{\IdxCentroid}\}_{\IdxCentroid = 1}^{K}$, we turn into the *constrained K-means* problem [@bradley2000constrained; @cuturi2014fast], or the *Wasserstein Means* problem coined in [@ho2017multilevel]. As discussed in Section \[sec:unbalanced\_ot\], when the total measures do not equal, such constraints instead become regularizers. Then, we define the objective of the regularized K-means clustering problem as: $$\label{eq:regularized_kmeans}
\min_{\bm{\Region}, \bm{\y}}\sum_{\IdxCentroid = 1}^{\K}\sum_{\x \in \RegionL{\IdxCentroid}}\|\x - \yL{\IdxCentroid}\|_{2}^{2} + \lambda \sum_{\IdxCentroid = 1}^{\K} \left( \NUL{\IdxCentroid} - w_{\IdxCentroid} \right)^{2},$$ where $w_{\IdxCentroid} = \sum_{\x \in \RegionL{\IdxCentroid}}\MU(\x)$. If $\lambda = 0$, becomes K-means; if $\lambda \rightarrow \infty$, becomes Monge OT. As practiced in [@cuturi2014fast; @mi2018variational], we can alternatively solve for $\bm{\Region}$ and $\yL{\IdxCentroid} = 1/|\RegionL{\IdxCentroid}|\sum_{\x \in \RegionL{\IdxCentroid}} \x$. The energy will monotonically decrease and eventually converge into a cycle of one. Figure \[fig:regularized\_kmeans\] illustrates the regularized K-means result which informally looks like an interpolation between K-means and constrained K-means.
![Results from different regularization strength $\lambda$ in . Left is traditional K-means and right is constrained K-means.[]{data-label="fig:regularized_kmeans"}](regularized_kmeans.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
Co-clustering Spatial Features in $\mathbb{R}^{n}$ {#sec:co_cluster}
--------------------------------------------------
Extending the Wasserstein clustering procedure to multiple targets induces the co-clustering problem. In this section, we discuss the connection between co-clustering problems and VWBs. In particular, because we use quadratic Euclidean distances as the ground metric, we focus on co-clustering spatial features embedded in the Euclidean space.
Given multiple distributional data, the goal of co-clustering is to simultaneously partition each domain to 1) minimize the pairwise variance in the same cluster and 2) minimize the pairwise variance for each cluster across domains. We assume all samples reside in $\mathbb{R}^{n}$ equipped with $\|\cdot\|_{2}$, then: $$\begin{split}
\underset{\RRegionL{i}}{\min}\ \EnergyL{9}[\RRegionL{i}] \eqdef & \sum_{i=1}^{\N} \sum_{\IdxCentroid=1}^{\K} \frac{1}{2|\RegionL{i,\IdxCentroid}|} \sum_{\x,\x' \in \RegionL{i,\IdxCentroid}} \|\x - \x'\|_{2}^{2} \\
+ \sum_{\IdxCentroid=1}^{\K} \sum_{1 \leq i < j \leq \N} & \frac{\lambda_{i,j,\IdxCentroid}}{|\RegionL{i,\IdxCentroid}|+|\RegionL{j,\IdxCentroid}|} \sum_{\substack{\x \in \RegionL{i,\IdxCentroid} \\ \x' \in \RegionL{j,\IdxCentroid} }} \|\x - \x'\|_{2}^{2}. \nonumber
\end{split}$$ where $|\RegionL{i,\IdxCentroid}|$ is the number of samples in $\RegionL{i,\IdxCentroid}$; $\lambda_{i,j,\IdxCentroid} \in \{0, 1\}$ specifies the correspondence of the clusters across different domains. Thus, $\sum_{i} \lambda_{i,j,\IdxCentroid} = 1$ and $\sum_{j} \lambda_{i,j,\IdxCentroid} = 1$. As for K-means, we can simplify the pairwise variance with the mean of each cluster at each domain, $\alpha_{i, \IdxCentroid}$: $$\label{eq:cocluster}
\begin{split}
\underset{\RRegionL{i}}{\min}\ \EnergyL{9}[\RRegionL{i}] \equiv & \sum_{i=1}^{\N} \sum_{\IdxCentroid=1}^{\K} \sum_{\x\in \RegionL{i,\IdxCentroid}} \|\x - \alpha_{i, \IdxCentroid}\|_{2}^{2} \\
+ \sum_{\IdxCentroid=1}^{\K} & \sum_{i = 1}^{\N} \sum_{j \neq i} \lambda_{i,j,\IdxCentroid} \sum_{\x \in \RegionL{i,\IdxCentroid}} \|\x - \alpha_{j, \IdxCentroid}\|_{2}^{2}.
\end{split}$$ where $\alpha_{i, \IdxCentroid} = \frac{1}{|\RegionL{i, \IdxCentroid}|} \sum_{\x \in \RegionL{i, \IdxCentroid}} \x$
is the cluster center for each cluster at each domain. The first term of is solving $\N$ K-means problems. The second term is solving $\N(\N-1)$ K-means problems but with the cluster centroids at other domains. Thus, we can further simplify the problem into: $$\label{eq:cocluster2}
\begin{split}
\underset{\bm{\RegionL{i}}}{\min}\ \EnergyL{9}[\bm{\RegionL{i}}] \equiv \ignore{&
\sum_{i=1}^{\N} \sum_{j=1}^{\N} \sum_{\IdxCentroid=1}^{\K} \sum_{\x \in \RegionL{i,\IdxCentroid}} \|\x - \alpha_{j, \IdxCentroid}\|_{2}^{2}\\}
& \sum_{i=1}^{\N} \sum_{\IdxCentroid=1}^{\K} \sum_{\x \in \RegionL{i,\IdxCentroid}} \sum_{j=1}^{\N} \|\x - \alpha_{j, \IdxCentroid}\|_{2}^{2}\\
\end{split}$$ Solving involves alternatively updating partition $\{\bm{\RegionL{i}}\}_{i}$ and the centroid $\{\alpha_{i, \IdxCentroid}\}_{i, \IdxCentroid}$. When updating $\{\bm{\RegionL{i}}\}_{i}$ with fixed $\{\alpha_{i, \IdxCentroid}\}_{i, \IdxCentroid}$, we can rewrite as $$\label{eq:cocluster3}
\begin{split}
\EnergyL{11}[\RRegionL{i}]
= & \sum_{i=1}^{\N} \sum_{\IdxCentroid=1}^{\K} \sum_{\x \in \RegionL{i,\IdxCentroid}} \left[\x - \left[\sum_{j=1}^{\N} \alpha_{j, \IdxCentroid}\right] \right]^2 + C \\
\eqdef & \sum_{i=1}^{\N} \sum_{\IdxCentroid=1}^{\K} \sum_{\x \in \RegionL{i,\IdxCentroid}} \left(\x - \hat{\alpha_{\IdxCentroid}} \right)^2 + C.
\end{split}$$ $C$ is some constant. Thus, we convert co-clustering to $N$ $K$-means problems with the same set of centroids.
Then, we can naturally impose a constraint on the weights, i.e $\int_{\RegionL{i, \IdxCentroid}}d\MUL{i}(\x) = \NUL{\IdxCentroid},\ \forall i,\ \IdxCentroid$, to turn the problem into a VWB problem which is also an $N$ constrained K-means problem. Note, that it is trivial to extend it into a generalized VWB problem, by instead inserting the weighted constraint into the main objective as we did in \[sec:regularized\_kmeans\].
### Regularized VWBs for Co-Clustering {#sec:regularized_vwb}
In addition to purely clustering feature domains according to Wasserstein losses, we can regularize the correspondences based on prior knowledge. Inspired by [@alvarezmelis2019towards; @mi2018regularized], we regularize the correspondence by global invariances. Directly regularizing Monge correspondences is highly intractable because Monge maps are basically binary permutations and thus not differentiable. Therefore, we instead regularize the centroid update process.
To this end, instead of using the average of the centroids as we did in , we estimate the rigid transformation (isometry) between the VWB and the centroids of each domain by minimizing $\|\bm{\y} - H_{i}\bm{\alpha}_{i}\|_{2}^{2}\ \forall i$, subject to $H_i$ composing a rotation and a translation, i.e. $H_i = [R_i|t_i]$. This can be done by singular value decomposition (SVD) with minimum computational costs. After that, we average all the transformations by separately averaging rotations and translations. With the abuse of notation, we simply denote the process by $\widetilde{H} = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i} H_i$, but as we know, we need to factorize the rotations into quaternions before averaging them. The final location for the supports $\bm{\y}$ is given by $\widetilde{\bm{\y}} = \widetilde{H}\bm{\y}$.
Vector Quantization and Data Compression {#sec:compress}
----------------------------------------
Lloyd’s K-means algorithm was initially proposed for vector quantization and has been a fundamental choice for data compression. It centers at using fewer samples to approximate the entire distribution. In light of the connection between VWBs and K-means, we raise the problem of compressing multiple distributional data as a whole with Wasserstein barycenters and propose the VWB as a natural choice. It shares the same objective as the WB. Intuitively, we use sum of WDs to measure the compression error.
By using VOT, we obtain a surjection from each domain to the barycenter. Because we optimize over the height vector $\hhL{i}$ , given empirical samples and the barycenter, we can fully recover the surjection by only using $\hhL{i}$ at the negligible expense of computing the power distance as in . In this way, for a barycenter of size $\K$ of $\N$ empirical distributions each having $M$ samples, we reduce the storage burden from $\mathcal{O}(\N M\K)$, as it would be for Sinkhorn distance-based methods, to $\mathcal{O}(\N\K)$. This is particularly useful when $M$ is large and when we need to store multiple interpolations between marginals.
Furthermore, with the VWB, we do not even need the original distributions to parameterize the compression maps because our method is based on the geometry of the data and given the height vector $\hhL{i}$ and barycenter supports $\bm{\y}$ we can uniquely partition each original domain with a power Voronoi diagram $\RRegionL{i}$; or, equivalently, the graph of the piece-wise linear function $\theta_{\bm{\h}}(\x) = \underset{\IdxCentroid}{\max} \{\x \yL{\IdxCentroid} + \hL{\IdxCentroid}\}$.
Applications {#sec:exp}
============
We demonstrate the use of VWBs with point cloud interpolation and image compression.
Point Cloud Interpolation with Global Invariance {#sec:point_cloud}
------------------------------------------------
Shape interpolation is a typical application of Wasserstein barycenter techniques. We compute the barycenter that has the minimum weighted average WD to all the marginal shapes. When the marginals are congruence to each other, we can leverage the congruency to regularize the process to update the barycenter. We adopt the approach in \[sec:regularized\_vwb\] and compute the VWB that has the minimum VWD to two marginal shapes. The correspondences are regularized by a rigid transformation in order to preserve the global structure of the shape. Ideally, we can obtain a “mean” shape that lies at the middle of the marginals and the rotations to the marginals share the same angles but in opposite directions. Figure \[fig:icp\] shows the result that verifies our hypothesis.
In this experiment, we are given two Kittens off by an unknown rigid transformation. Our goal is to interpolate, by computing a regularized Wasserstein barycenter, a new Kitten in between that is rigid to the original Kittens and the amount of translation and rotation is linear to the weights of the two original Kittens.
The marginal Kittens each have $7,805$ sample points. We assume all the samples have equal weights. They are apart from each other by a rigid transformation composed by a random translation vector $t$ and a random rotation matrix $r$. In this example, they are as follows: $$t = \begin{bmatrix} -1.97\\ -0.73\\ -0.30\end{bmatrix}
\quad
r = \begin{bmatrix} 0.87 &-0.23 & 0.44 \\ 0.41 & 0.84 & -0.36 \\ -0.30 & 0.49 & 0.82\end{bmatrix}$$
![Point cloud interpolation that preserves global structures.[]{data-label="fig:icp"}](icp_color_png.pdf){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
The barycenter Kitten w.r.t. the VWD (variational Wasserstein distance) has $780$ supporting Dirac measures. The regularization strength, $\lambda$, is $10$. One of the post-processing options to transport all the samples from the marginals is that for each sample find its nearest 3 or more cluster centers and use inverse barycenter coordinates to find its new location on the target Kitten in the middle.
Image Compression {#sec:exp_partition}
-----------------
We demonstrate the use of our method for data compression by quantizing the RGB colors of an image into a fixed number of clusters. See Figure \[fig:color\] for the results. The top row shows the original images of dimension $128^2 \times 3$. We embed all the pixels into the RGB color space $\X = \{x \in \mathbb{R}^{3}\ |\ \|x\|_{\infty} \leq 1 \}$. Our goal is to compute, for example, $K=16$ centroids that partition all the pixels into their clusters. In this way, we compress the storage for each pixel from $24$ bits to $4$ bits. The second row in Figure \[fig:color\] shows resulting images of using Lloyd’s K-means(++) algorithm, and the third row shows the results of using our VOT solver. Compared to Lloyd’s, VOT well distributes the centroids into the pixel domain, resulting in a smoother transition from color to color. The correspondences in the color space we show in Appendix also confirm this. Finally, we simultaneously merge and compress the colors from all three images by using VWB. The last row shows the resulting images sharing the same color distribution that only consists of 16 discrete centroids. It has the same $\WL{2}$ to each original color distribution (marginal). In Appendix, we further show the results that comes from the centroids having different $\WL{2}$’s to each marginals, i.e. $\lambda_{i} \neq \frac{1}{N}$ in . We show the RGB color distribution of each image in Appendix.
![Quantizing RGB values from $24$ bits to $4$ bits by solving K-means, OT, and the WB. Solving OT results in smoother images; solving WBs can cluster and merge colors at the same time.[]{data-label="fig:color"}](color.pdf){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
Discussion {#sec:discuss}
==========
We conclude by discussing the advantages and disadvantages of VWBs and several future directions.
Algorithms solving K-means like clustering problems are in general sensitive to initial choices. Common solutions include using a subset of samples and spreading the seeds across the domain, e.g., K-means++. We tried the results from K-means++ as the initial choice for our barycenters and also tried a pre-defined Gaussian distribution whose mean is the average of the means of the marginals as prior knowledge. We did not find visible differences.
Monge maps between discrete measures may not exist, e.g. transporting 3 Dirac points $\{\frac{1}{3}\delta[\xL{j}]\}_{j=1}^{3}$ to 2 Dirac points $\{\frac{1}{2}\delta[\yL{j}]\}_{\IdxCentroid=1}^{2}$. In this case, splitting the mass becomes necessary [@wang2013linear]. Moreover, there might be multiple solutions, and variational solvers cannot recover any of them. An example is transporting $\{\frac{1}{2}\delta[\xL{1}=(0,-1)], \frac{1}{2}\delta[\xL{2}=(0,1)]\}$ to $\{\frac{1}{2}\delta[\yL{1}=(1,0)], \frac{1}{2}\delta[\yL{2}=(2,0)]\}$. There exist two one-to-one maps but VOT cannot recover either because the target measures cannot be distinguished by the piece-wise linear function $\theta_{\bm{\h}}(\x) = \max_{\IdxCentroid} \{\x \yL{\IdxCentroid} + \hL{\IdxCentroid}\}$, in \[sec:vot\]. Therefore, when dealing with stochastic GD, having sufficient samples to represent the domain is key to stabilize VWBs. Luckily, increasing the empirical samples adds little computational burden if we parallelly update the correspondence for each empirical according to its nearest neighbor. On the other hand, Sinkhorn iteration-based OT methods produce soft correspondences that unavoidably result from the entropic regularization, making them robust for discrete measures. Occasionally, the soft correspondences are even desirable because they make the correspondences differentiable [@cuturi2019differentiable]; Monge correspondences, however, are basically permutations which are not differentiable. In summary, our VWB producing Monge maps is suitable for clustering or partitioning problems that require binary, sparse correspondence while Sinkhorn distance-based barycenters have been tested in numerous applications in machine learning for producing robust interpolations.
There are several future directions: 1) In the current implementation, we use exhaustive search to find the nearest centroid for each empirical sample, which takes about $80\%$ of our run time. A faster alternative for nearest neighbor search based on the power distance, which is not a Minkowski distance, will significantly reduce the run time of the VWB; 2) Whether VWBs or WBs for unbalanced measures still induce a generalized metric deserves an answer; 3) Whether our discussion still holds for $ 1 \leq p < 2$ and $p > 2$ deserves an answer; 4) Another branch of computing Monge OT is the multi-scale approach, e.g., [@merigot2011multiscale; @schmitzer2016sparse; @gerber2017multiscale]. It also partitions the target domain into sub-domains. Computing barycenters with multi-scale OT for clustering purposes is worth exploring.
|
---
abstract: 'A generalized spin Sutherland model including a three-body potential is proposed. The problem is analyzed in terms of three first-order differential-difference operators, obtained by combining SUSYQM supercharges with the elements of the dihedral group $D_6$. Three alternative commuting operators are also introduced.'
---
-0.25cm -0.25cm -0.5cm 16.3cm 22.3cm
=cmmib10 at 12 pt =msym10 at 12pt \#1
\#1\#2
plus 1pt minus 1pt
[**Three-body generalization of the Sutherland model**]{}
[**with internal degrees of freedom**]{}
PACS: 03.65.Fd, 02.20.Df, 11.30.Pb
In recent years, the Sutherland one-dimensional $N$-particle model [@sutherland] and its rational limit, the Calogero model [@calogero], have received considerable attention in the literature because they are relevant to several important physical problems (for a list of references, see e.g. [@cq]).
The Sutherland problem can be analyzed in terms of a set of $N$ commuting first-order differential-difference operators [@poly], related to the root system of the ${\cal A}_{N-1}$ algebra [@perelomov] and known in the mathematical literature as Dunkl operators [@dunkl]. Use of the latter leads to a Hamiltonian with exchange terms, connected with an extension of the model for particles with internal degrees of freedom, referred to as the spin Sutherland problem [@ha; @bernard].
A similar type of approach can be employed [@buchstaber] for other integrable models related to root systems of Lie algebras [@perelomov].
In the present letter, we shall deal with a generalized Sutherland three-particle problem including an extra three-body trigonometric potential. Such a problem is related to the exceptional Lie algebra $G_2$, whose Weyl group, of order 12, is the dihedral group $D_6$ [@perelomov]. In contrast with the approaches used elsewhere [@poly; @dunkl; @ha; @bernard; @buchstaber], our starting point will be an analysis of the problem in supersymmetric quantum mechanics (SUSYQM), thereby emphasizing the link between Dunkl operators and SUSYQM.
Let us consider a system of three particles on a circle of length $\pi/a$ interacting via long-range two- and three-body potentials. Its Hamiltonian is defined by $$H = - \sum_{i=1}^3 \partial_i^2
+ g a^2 \sum_{\scriptstyle i,j=1 \atop \scriptstyle i\ne j}^3 \csc^2
\left(a(x_i-x_j)\right)
+ 3f a^2 \sum_{\scriptstyle i,j,k=1 \atop \scriptstyle i\ne j\ne k\ne i}^3
\csc^2 \left(a(x_i+x_j-2x_k)\right), \label{eq:H}$$ where $x_i$, $i=1$, 2, 3, $0\le x_i\le \pi/a$, denote the particle coordinates, $\partial_i \equiv \partial/\partial x_i$, and $g$, $f$ are assumed not to vanish simultaneously and to be such that $g > -1/4$, $f > -1/4$. In the case where $g\ne
0$ and $f = 0$, Hamiltonian (\[eq:H\]) reduces to the Sutherland Hamiltonian [@sutherland].
Throughout this paper, we shall use the notations $x_{ij} \equiv
x_i - x_j$, $i\ne j$, and $y_{ij} \equiv x_i + x_j - 2x_k$, $i\ne j\ne k\ne i$, where in the latter, index $k$ is suppressed as it is entirely determined by $i$ and $j$. Except where otherwise stated, we shall assume that the particles are distinguishable. In the case of indistinguishable particles, an additional symmetry requirement has to be imposed on the wave functions.
For distinguishable particles, the unnormalized ground-state wave function of Hamiltonian (\[eq:H\]), is given by $\psi_0(\xb) = \prod_{i\ne j}
\left|\sin(a x_{ij})\right|^{\kappa} \left|\sin(a y_{ij})\right|^{\lambda}$, and corresponds to the eigenvalue $E_0 = 8 a^2 (\kappa^2 + 3 \kappa \lambda + 3
\lambda^2)$, where $$\kappa \equiv \left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\case{1}{2} (1 + \sqrt{1 + 4g}) & \mbox{if $g\ne 0$}
\\[0.1cm]
0 & \mbox{if $g=0$}
\end{array}\right., \qquad
\lambda \equiv \left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\case{1}{2} (1 + \sqrt{1 + 4f}) & \mbox{if $f\ne 0$}
\\[0.1cm]
0 & \mbox{if $f=0$}
\end{array}\right.,
\label{eq:kappa-lambda}$$ or, equivalently, $g = \kappa (\kappa - 1)$, $f = \lambda (\lambda - 1)$. The proof of this result is based upon the trigonometric identities $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\scriptstyle i,j,k \atop \scriptstyle i\ne j\ne k\ne i} \cot(a x_{ij})
\cot(a x_{jk}) & = & \sum_{\scriptstyle i,j,k \atop \scriptstyle i\ne j\ne k\ne
i} \cot(a y_{ij}) \cot(a y_{jk}) = 2, \nonumber \\
\sum_{\scriptstyle i,j,k \atop \scriptstyle i\ne j\ne k\ne i} \cot(a x_{ij})
\cot(a y_{jk}) & = & 4. \label{eq:trig2} \end{aligned}$$
The three-particle Hamiltonian (\[eq:H\]) can be alternatively considered as that of a particle in three-dimensional space. By using the Andrianov [*et al*]{} generalization of SUSYQM for multidimensional Hamiltonians [@andrianov], $H - E_0$ can therefore be regarded as the $H^{(0)}$ component of a supersymmetric Hamiltonian $\hat H = {\mathop{\rm diag}\nolimits}\left(H^{(0)}, H^{(1)}, H^{(2)}, H^{(3)}\right)$ with supercharge operators $\hat Q^+$, $\hat Q^- = \left(\hat Q^+\right)^{\dagger}$. The matrix elements of the latter can be expressed in terms of six differential operators $$Q^{\pm}_i = \mp \partial_i - \kappa a \sum_{j\ne i} \cot(a x_{ij})
- \lambda a \left(\sum_{j\ne i} \cot(a y_{ij}) - {\sum_{\scriptstyle j,k \atop \scriptstyle i\ne j\ne k\ne i}}\cot(a y_{jk})\right),
\qquad i = 1,2,3, \label{eq:charges}$$ which are obtained from the ground-state wave function by using the recipe $Q_i^{\pm} = \mp \partial_i + \partial_i \chi(\xb)$, where $\chi(\xb) = - \ln
\psi_0(\xb)$. In terms of such operators, $H^{(0)} = Q^+_i Q^-_i$ while $H^{(3)} =
Q^-_i Q^+_i$. Apart from some additive constant, the latter turns out to be given by (\[eq:H\]) with $g = \kappa (\kappa - 1)$, $f = \lambda (\lambda - 1)$ replaced by $g = \kappa (\kappa + 1)$, $f = \lambda (\lambda + 1)$, respectively.
Let us now transform the supercharge operators $Q^-_i$ of Eq. (\[eq:charges\]) into some differential-difference operators $$D_i = \partial_i - \kappa a \sum_{j\ne i} \cot(a x_{ij}) K_{ij}
- \lambda a \left(\sum_{j\ne i} \cot(a y_{ij}) L_{ij} - {\sum_{\scriptstyle j,k \atop \scriptstyle i\ne j\ne k\ne i}}\cot(a y_{jk}) L_{jk}
\right), \label{eq:D}$$ by inserting some finite group elements $K_{ij}$ and $L_{ij} \equiv K_{ij} I_r$. Here $K_{ij}$ are particle permutation operators, while $I_r$ is the inversion operator in relative-coordinate space. In the centre-of-mass coordinate system to be used in the remainder of this paper, they satisfy the relations $$\begin{aligned}
K_{ij} & = & K_{ji} = K_{ij}^{\dagger}, \qquad K_{ij}^2 = 1, \qquad K_{ij} K_{jk} =
K_{jk} K_{ki} = K_{ki} K_{ij}, \nonumber \\
K_{ij} I_r & = & I_r K_{ij}, \qquad I_r = I_r^{\dagger}, \quad I_r^2 = 1,
\label{eq:K-Ir1} \\
K_{ij} x_j & = & x_i K_{ij}, \quad K_{ij} x_k = x_k K_{ij}, \quad I_r x_i = - x_i
I_r, \label{eq:K-Ir2}\end{aligned}$$ for all $i\ne j\ne k\ne i$. The operators 1, $K_{ij}$, $K_{ijk} \equiv K_{ij} K_{jk}$, $I_r$, $L_{ij}$, and $L_{ijk} \equiv K_{ijk} I_r$, where $i$, $j$, $k$ run over the set {1, 2, 3}, are the 12 elements of the dihedral group $D_6$ [@hamermesh].
From their definition and Eqs. (\[eq:K-Ir1\]), (\[eq:K-Ir2\]), it is obvious that the differential-difference operators $D_i$ are both antihermitian and $D_6$-covariant, i.e., $D_i^{\dagger} = - D_i$, $K_{ij} D_j = D_i K_{ij}$, $K_{ij}D_k = D_k K_{ij}$, and $I_r D_i = - D_i I_r$, for all $i\ne j\ne k\ne i$. After some straightforward, although rather lengthy, calculations using again the trigonometric identities (\[eq:trig2\]), one obtains that their commutators are given by $$\left[D_i, D_j\right] = - a^2 \left(\kappa^2 + 3 \lambda^2 - 4 \kappa \lambda I_r
\right) \sum_{k\ne i,j} \left(K_{ijk} - K_{ikj}\right), \qquad i\ne j,
\label{eq:D-com}$$ and that $$\begin{aligned}
-\sum_i D_i^2 & = & - \sum_i \partial_i^2 + a^2 {\sum_{\scriptstyle i,j \atop \scriptstyle i\ne j}}\csc^2(a x_{ij}) \kappa
(\kappa - K_{ij}) + 3 a^2 {\sum_{\scriptstyle i,j \atop \scriptstyle i\ne j}}\csc^2(a y_{ij}) \lambda (\lambda - L_{ij})
\nonumber\\
& & - 6 a^2 \left(\kappa^2 + 3 \lambda^2\right) - a^2 \left(\kappa^2 +
3 \lambda^2 + 12 \kappa \lambda I_r\right) \left(K_{123} + K_{132}\right).
\label{eq:D-square} \end{aligned}$$
From Eq. (\[eq:D-com\]), it is clear that the operators $D_i$ do not commute among themselves, except in the $a \to 0$ limit, i.e., in the rational case considered many years ago by Wolfes [@wolfes], and by Calogero and Marchioro [@marchioro]. Furthermore, Eq. (\[eq:D-square\]) shows that the generalized Hamiltonian with exchange terms $$H_{exch} = - \sum_i \partial_i^2 + a^2 {\sum_{\scriptstyle i,j \atop \scriptstyle i\ne j}}\csc^2(a x_{ij}) \kappa
(\kappa - K_{ij}) + 3 a^2 {\sum_{\scriptstyle i,j \atop \scriptstyle i\ne j}}\csc^2(a y_{ij}) \lambda (\lambda - L_{ij})
\label{eq:Hexch}$$ only differs by some exchange operators from the Hamiltonian $\sum_i \pi_i^2$, written in terms of the generalized momenta $\pi_i = \pi_i^{\dagger} = - i D_i$. In those subspaces of Hilbert space wherein $\left(K_{ij}, L_{ij}\right) = (1,1)$, $(1,-1)$, $(-1,1)$, or $(-1,-1)$, $H_{exch}$ reduces to Hamiltonian (\[eq:H\]) corresponding to $(g,f) = (\kappa (\kappa-1), \lambda
(\lambda-1))$, $(\kappa (\kappa-1), \lambda (\lambda+1))$, $(\kappa (\kappa+1),
\lambda (\lambda-1))$, or $(\kappa (\kappa+1), \lambda (\lambda+1))$, respectively.
As in the case of the Sutherland problem [@bernard], we can try to reformulate the present one in terms of some commuting, albeit non-covariant, differential operators ${\hat D}_i$. Let $${\hat D}_i = D_i + i \kappa a \sum_{j\ne i} \alpha_{ij} K_{ij} + i \lambda a \left(
\sum_{j\ne i} \beta_{ij} L_{ij} - {\sum_{\scriptstyle j,k \atop \scriptstyle i\ne j\ne k\ne i}}\beta_{jk} L_{jk}\right), \label{eq:hatD}$$ where $\alpha_{ij}$ and $\beta_{ij}$ are some real constants. With such a choice, the transformed operators remain antihermitian, i.e., ${\hat D}_i^{\dagger} = - {\hat D}_i$. We shall assume in addition that $\alpha_{ji} = - \alpha_{ij}$ and $\beta_{ji} =
\beta_{ij}$. This assumption is justified by the fact that for $\lambda =
0$ [@bernard], the operators (\[eq:hatD\]) with $\alpha_{ij} = - \alpha_{ji} =
- 1$, $i<j$, do fulfil the required property $\left[{\hat D}_i, {\hat D}_j\right] = 0$.
From definition (\[eq:hatD\]) and the $D_6$-covariance of $D_i$, the new operators ${\hat D}_i$ have the following transformation properties under $D_6$: $$\begin{aligned}
K_{ij} {\hat D}_j - {\hat D}_i K_{ij} & = & - i \kappa a \left(2 \alpha_{ij} + \sum_{k\ne i,j}
\left(\alpha_{ik} - \alpha_{jk}\right) K_{ijk}\right) \nonumber \\
& & - i \lambda a \sum_{k\ne i,j} \left(\beta_{ik} - \beta_{jk}\right) I_r
\left(K_{ijk} + 2 K_{ikj}\right), \qquad i\ne j, \label{eq:hatD-cov1} \\
\left[K_{ij}, {\hat D}_k\right] & = & i a \left[\kappa \left(\alpha_{ik} - \alpha_{jk}
\right) - \lambda \left(\beta_{ik} - \beta_{jk}\right) I_r\right] \left(K_{ijk}
- K_{ikj}\right), \nonumber \\
& & i\ne j\ne k\ne i, \label{eq:hatD-cov2} \\
\left\{I_r, {\hat D}_i\right\} & = & 2i \kappa a \sum_{j\ne i} \alpha_{ij} L_{ij}
+ 2i \lambda a \left(\sum_{j\ne i} \beta_{ij} K_{ij} - {\sum_{\scriptstyle j,k \atop \scriptstyle i\ne j\ne k\ne i}}\beta_{jk} K_{jk}
\right). \label{eq:hatD-cov3}\end{aligned}$$ Hence, they can only be covariant provided $\alpha_{ij} = \beta_{ij} = 0$, i.e., when they coincide with the $D_i$’s.
By using various properties of the operators $D_i$, as well as the relation $\sum_i
D_i = 0$ valid in the centre-of-mass coordinate system, it is straightforward to show that if the constants $\alpha_{ij}$, $\beta_{ij}$ fulfil the three relations $$\alpha_{12} \alpha_{23} + \alpha_{23} \alpha_{31} + \alpha_{31} \alpha_{12}
= -1, \qquad \beta_{12}\beta_{23} + \beta_{23} \beta_{31} + \beta_{31}
\beta_{12} = -1, \label{eq:cond1}$$ $$(\alpha_{23} - \alpha_{31}) \beta_{12} + (\alpha_{31} - \alpha_{12}) \beta_{23}
+ (\alpha_{12} - \alpha_{23}) \beta_{31} = 4, \label{eq:cond2}$$ then the operators ${\hat D}_i$ commute among themselves, and $H_{exch}$ only differs by some additive constant from the Hamiltonian $\sum_i \hat{\pi}_i^2$, where $\hat{\pi}_i = \hat{\pi}_i^{\dagger} = - i {\hat D}_i$. Furthermore, this additive constant can be set equal to zero by normalizing $\alpha_{ij}$ and $\beta_{ij}$ in such a way that the relations $$\alpha_{12}^2 + \alpha_{23}^2 + \alpha_{31}^2 = 3, \qquad
\beta_{12}^2 + \beta_{23}^2 + \beta_{31}^2 = 3, \label{eq:norm}$$ are satisfied.
The constants $\alpha_{ij} = - \alpha_{ji} = -1$, $i<j$, used in Ref. [@bernard], do fulfil the first relation in both Eqs. (\[eq:cond1\]) and (\[eq:norm\]). It should be stressed however that such equations admit other solutions too. It is then easy to prove that the remaining three relations in (\[eq:cond1\])–(\[eq:norm\]) admit four, and only four, solutions for the $\beta_{ij}$’s, compatible with this choice for the $\alpha_{ij}$’s: $(\beta_{12},
\beta_{23}, \beta_{31}) = (-1,1,1)$, $(-1,1,-1)$, $(- 5/3, 1/3, 1/3)$, and $(- 1/3,
5/3, - 1/3)$.
A relation can be established between $H_{exch}$ and a Hamiltonian ${\cal
H}^{(\kappa,\lambda)}$ describing a one-dimensional system of three particles with $SU(n)$ “spins” (or colours in particle physics language), interacting via spin-dependent two and three-body potentials, $${\cal H}^{(\kappa,\lambda)} = - \sum_i \partial_i^2 + a^2 {\sum_{\scriptstyle i,j \atop \scriptstyle i\ne j}}\csc^2(a x_{ij})
\kappa (\kappa - P_{ij}) + 3 a^2 {\sum_{\scriptstyle i,j \atop \scriptstyle i\ne j}}\csc^2(a y_{ij}) \lambda (\lambda -
\tilde P_{ij}). \label{eq:spinH}$$ Here each particle is assumed to carry a spin with $n$ possible values, and $P_{ij}$, $\tilde P_{ij} \equiv P_{ij} \tilde P$ are some operators acting only in spin space. The operator $P_{ij}$ is defined as the operator permuting the $i$th and $j$th spins, while ${\tilde P}$ is a permutation-invariant and involutive operator, i.e., ${\tilde P}\sigma_i = \sigma_i^* {\tilde P}$, for some $\sigma^*_i$ such that $P_{jk} \sigma_i^* = \sigma_i^* P_{jk}$ for all $i$, $j$, $k$, and $\sigma_i^{**} =
\sigma_i$. For $SU(2)$ spins for instance, $\sigma_i = \pm 1/2$, $P_{ij} =
(\sigma^a_i \sigma^a_j + 1)/2$, where $\sigma^a$, $a=1$, 2, 3, denote the Pauli matrices, ${\tilde P}$ may be taken as 1 or $\sigma^1_1 \sigma^1_2 \sigma^1_3$, and accordingly $\sigma_i^* =
\sigma_i$ or $-\sigma_i$. The operators $P_{ij}$ and ${\tilde P}$ satisfy relations similar to those fulfilled by $K_{ij}$ and $I_r$ (cf. Eqs. (\[eq:K-Ir1\]) and (\[eq:K-Ir2\])), with $x_i$ and $-x_i$ replaced by $\sigma_i$ and $\sigma_i^*$ respectively. Hence 1, $P_{ij}$, $P_{ijk} \equiv P_{ij} P_{jk}$, ${\tilde P}$, $\tilde P_{ij}$, and $\tilde P_{ijk} \equiv P_{ijk} \tilde P$ realize the dihedral group $D_6$ in spin space. Such a realization will be referred to as $D_6^{(s)}$ to distinguish it from the realization $D_6^{(c)}$ in coordinate space, corresponding to $K_{ij}$ and $I_r$.
The Hamiltonian ${\cal H}^{(\kappa,\lambda)}$ remains invariant under the combined action of $D_6$ in coordinate and spin spaces (to be referred to as $D_6^{(cs)}$), since it commutes with both $K_{ij} P_{ij}$ and $I_r {\tilde P}$. Its eigenfunctions corresponding to a definite eigenvalue therefore belong to a (reducible or irreducible) representation of $D_6^{(cs)}$. For indistinguishable particles that are bosons (resp. fermions), only those irreducible representations of $D_6^{(cs)}$ that contain the symmetric (resp. antisymmetric) irreducible representation of the symmetric group $S_3$ should be considered. There are only two such inequivalent representations, which are both one-dimensional and denoted by $A_1$ and $B_1$ (resp. $A_2$ and $B_2$) [@hamermesh]. They differ in the eigenvalue of $I_r
{\tilde P}$, which is equal to $+1$ or $-1$, respectively.
In such representations, for an appropriate choice of the parameters $\kappa$, $\lambda$, ${\cal H}^{(\kappa,\lambda)}$ can be obtained from $H_{exch}$ by applying some projection operators. Let indeed $\Pi_{B\pm}$ (resp. $\Pi_{F\pm}$) be the projection operators that consist in replacing $K_{ij}$ and $I_r$ by $P_{ij}$ (resp. $-P_{ij}$) and $\pm {\tilde P}$, respectively, when they are at the right-hand side of an expression. It is obvious that $\Pi_{B\pm}(H_{exch}) = {\cal H}^{(\kappa,\pm\lambda)}$, and $\Pi_{F\pm}(H_{exch}) = {\cal H}^{(-\kappa,\pm\lambda)}$. If $H_{exch}$ has been diagonalized on a basis of functions depending upon coordinates and spins, then its eigenfunctions $\Psi(\xb,\sigmab)$ are also eigenfunctions of ${\cal
H}^{(\kappa,\pm\lambda)}$ (resp. ${\cal H}^{(-\kappa,\pm\lambda)}$) provided that $(K_{ij} - P_{ij}) \Psi(\xb,\sigmab) = 0$ (resp. $(K_{ij} + P_{ij}) \Psi(\xb,\sigmab)
= 0$) and $(I_r \mp {\tilde P}) \Psi(\xb,\sigmab) = 0$. We shall not pursue the determination of the eigenfunctions of ${\cal H}^{(\kappa,\lambda)}$ any further, leaving a detailed derivation for a forthcoming publication.
In conclusion, in the present letter we did propose a three-body generalization of the Sutherland problem with internal degrees of freedom, related to a corresponding problem with exchange terms. For the latter, we did construct both $D_6$-covariant, but non-commuting, and commuting, but non-$D_6$-covariant differential-difference operators, interms of which the Hamiltonian can be expressed in a very simple way. We did show that whereas the former operators can be derived in a well-defined way from SUSYQM supercharges, there is some freedom in the choice of the latter.
[99]{}
B. Sutherland, Phys. Rev. A 4 (1971) 2019; A 5 (1972) 1372; Phys. Rev. Lett. 34 (1975) 1083.
F. Calogero, J. Math. Phys. 10 (1969) 2191, 2197; 12 (1971) 419.
C. Quesne, J. Phys. A 28 (1995) 3533.
A. P. Polychronakos, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69 (1992) 703.
M. A. Olshanetsky and A. M. Perelomov, Phys. Rep. 94 (1983) 313.
C. F. Dunkl, Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 311 (1989) 167.
Z. N. C. Ha and F. D. M. Haldane, Phys. Rev. B 46 (1992) 9359;\
K. Hikami and M. Wadati, Phys. Lett. A 173 (1993) 263;\
J. A. Minahan and A. P. Polychronakos, Phys. Lett. B 302 (1993) 265.
D. Bernard, M. Gaudin, F. D. M. Haldane and V. Pasquier, J. Phys. A 26 (1993) 5219.
V. M. Buchstaber, G. Felder and A. P. Veselov, Elliptic Dunkl operators, root systems, and functional equations, preprint hep-th/9403178 (1994);\
T. Yamamoto, Phys. Lett. A 208 (1995) 293.
A. A. Andrianov, N. V. Borisov and M. V. Ioffe, Phys. Lett. A 105 (1984) 19;\
A. A. Andrianov, N. V. Borisov, M. I. Eides and M. V. Ioffe, Phys. Lett. A 109 (1985) 143.
M. Hamermesh, Group theory (Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass., 1962).
J. Wolfes, J. Math. Phys. 15 (1974) 1420.
F. Calogero and C. Marchioro, J. Math. Phys. 15 (1974) 1425.
|
---
abstract: 'The linear complexity of a periodic sequence over $GF(p^m)$ plays an important role in cryptography and communication \[12\]. In this correspondence, we prove a result which reduces the computation of the linear complexity and minimal connection polynomial of a period $un$ sequence over $GF(p^m)$ to the computation of the linear complexities and minimal connection polynomials of $u$ period $n$ sequences. The conditions $u|p^m-1$ and $\gcd(n,p^m-1)=1$ are required for the result to hold. Some applications of this reduction in fast algorithms to determine the linear complexities and minimal connection polynomials of sequences over $GF(p^m)$ are presented.'
author:
- 'Hao Chen [^1]'
title: '**Reducing the Computation of Linear Complexities of Periodic Sequences over $GF(p^m)$**'
---
Berlekamp-Massey algorithm, Games-Chan algorithm, linear complexity, minimal connection polynomial, cryptography
Introduction
============
For a period $N$ sequence ${\bf a}=a_0,a_1,...,a_{N-1},a_0,...$ over a finite field $GF(p^m)$, its linear complexity $c({\bf a})$ is defined to be the length of the shortest linear feedback shift register to generate it, i.e. the smallest positive integer $k$ such that there exist some $c_1,...,c_k$ in $GF(p^m)$ and $a_{i+k}=c_1a_{i+k-1}+ \cdots +c_ka_i$ hold for all $i \geq 0$. The polynomial $m({\bf a})=1-(c_1x+ \cdots +c_kx^k)$ is called the minimal connection polynomial \[12\].\
The linear complexity of a periodic sequence is considered as the measure of its randomness and plays an important role in the application of the sequence in cryptography and communication. There are many works \[1\],\[2\],\[4\],\[6\],\[8\] ,\[9\],\[10\],\[11\],\[14\],\[15\] and \[16\] on efficient algorithms for determining the linear complexities and minimal connection polynomials of sequences. Some authors also have interesting results about the linear complexities of some special sequences (see \[3\],\[7\] and \[13\]). The famous Berlekamp-Massey algorithm \[11\] can be used to compute the linear complexity and minimal connection polynomial of a period $N$ sequence over $GF(p^m)$ with time complexity $O(N^2)$ (that is, at most $O(N^2)$ field operations in $GF(p^m)$). One of the main advantages of the Berlekamp-Massey algorithm is the input at the step $t$ of the algorithm is the first $t$ elements of the sequence. Actually, the Berlekamp-Massey algorithm only needs $2c({\bf a})$ consecutive elements of the sequence to determine its linear complexity and minimal connection polynomial \[12\]. An adapted fast version of Berlekamp-Massey algorithm due to Blackburn \[1\] can be used with time complexity $O(N(\log N)^2\log\log N)$.\
In \[6\] Games and Chan gave a fast algorithm which can be used to determine the linear complexity and minimal connection polynomial of a period $N=2^t$ binary sequence with time complexity $O(N)$. This algorithm was also generalized to compute the linear complexity and minimal connection polynomial of a period $N=p^t$ sequence over $GF(p^m)$ with time complexity $O(N)$ (see \[5\] and \[8\]). Based on the Games-Chan algorithm, some authors developed fast algorithms \[9\], \[10\] and \[14\] for computing the k-error linear complexities of period $N=2^t$ binary sequences and period $N=p^t$ sequences over $GF(p^m)$. G.Xiao et al. \[15\] and \[16\] gave fast algorithms to compute the linear complexities and minimal connection polynomials of period $N=p^t$ or $N=2p^t$ sequences over $GF(q)$ , when $q$ is a primitive root modulo $p^2$. For sequences of period $N=2^tn$, where $2^t|p^m-1$ and $\gcd(n,p^m-1)=1$, a fast algorithm which can be used to determine their linear complexities more efficiently was given in our paper \[4\].\
It is well known that the linear complexity and minimal connection polynomial of a periodic sequence over $GF(p^m)$ can be understood from its generating function. For a sequence ${\bf
a}=a_0,a_1,...,a_{N-1},a_0,...$ over $GF(p^m)$ of period $N$, its generating function $A(x)=a_0+a_1x+ \cdots +a_ix^i+ \cdots =\Sigma_{i \geq 0}a_ix^i=\frac %%@
{a_0+a_1x+ \cdots +a_{N-1}x^{N-1}}{1-x^N}$. Then the linear complexity of the sequence ${\bf a}$ is $c({\bf a})=\deg(1-x^N)-\deg(\gcd(a_0+a_1x+ \cdots +a_{N-1}x^{N-1},1-x^N))$ and the minimal connection polynomial is $m({\bf a})(x)=\frac {1-x^N}{\gcd(a_0+a_1x+ \cdots +a_{N-1}x^{N-1},1-x^N)}$ \[12\].\
In this correspondence we prove a result which reduces the computation of the linear complexity and minimal connection polynomial of a period $un$ sequence over $GF(p^m)$ to the computation of the linear complexities and minimal connection polynomials of $u$ period $n$ sequences. This reduction result can be combined with various known algorithms to compute the linear complexities of sequences more efficiently. The main result of this correspondence can be thought as a generalization of the result in our previous paper \[4\].
Main Result
===========
Let $m$ be a positive integer, $p$ be a prime number, $u$ be a positive integer such that $u$ divides $p^m-1$, and $n$ be a positive integer such that $\gcd(n,p^m-1)=1$ . It is clear there are $u$ distinct $u$-th roots of unity $x_0,...,x_{u-1}$, where $x_0=1$, in $GF(p^m)$ since $u|p^m-1$. From the condition $\gcd(n,p^m-1)=1$, we can find a unique $b_i \in GF(p^m)$, which is the $n$-th root of $x_i$ for all $i=0,...,u-1$. The following result is the main result of this correspondence.\
[**Theorem.**]{} [*Suppose $p, m, u, n, x_0,...,x_{u-1},
b_0,...,b_{u-1}$ are given as above. Let ${\bf
a}=a_0,a_1,...,a_{un-1},a_0,a_1,...$ be a period $un$ sequence over $GF(p^m)$. Let ${\bf a^j}$ be the period $n$ sequence over $GF(p^m)$ with its first period $a_0+a_nb_j^{n}+ \cdots
+a_{(u-1)n}b_j^{(u-1)n},...,a_ib_j^{i}+a_{n+i}b_j^{n+i}+ \cdots
+a_{(u-1)n+i}b_j^{(u-1)n+i},...,
a_{n-1}b_j^{n-1}+a_{2n-1}b_j^{2n-1}+ \cdots +a_{un-1}b_j^{un-1}$, for $j=0,1,...,u-1$. Then $c({\bf a})=c({\bf a^0})+c({\bf a^1})+
\cdots+c({\bf a^{u-1}})$ and $m({\bf a})(x)=m({\bf
a^0})(b_0^{-1}x)m({\bf a^1})(b_1^{-1}x) \cdots m({\bf a^{u-1}})(b_{u-1}^{-1}x)$.*]{}\
[**Proof.**]{} Let $f(x)=\Sigma_{i=0}^{un-1}a_ix^i$. It is clear $
1-x^{un}= \prod_{i=0}^{u-1} (x_i-x^n)=x_1 \cdots x_{u-1} (1-x^n)
\prod_{i=1}^{u-1} (1-(b_i^{-1}x)^n)$. Any two distinct polynomials among the $u$ polynomials $(1-x^n)$, $(1-(b_1^{-1}x)^n)$,..., $(1-(b_{u-1}^{-1}x)^n)$ are coprime in $GF(p^m)[x]$. Thus $\gcd(f(x),1-x^{un})=\gcd(f(x),1-x^n) \prod_{i=1}^{u-1} \gcd(f(x),1-(b_i^{-1}x)^n)$.\
It is clear $\gcd(f(x),1-x^n)=\gcd(f_0(x),1-x^n)$, where $f_0(x)=\Sigma_{i=0}^{n-1}(a_i+a_{n+i}+ \cdots +a_{(u-1)n+i})x^i$. Thus $c({\bf a^0})=\deg(\frac{1-x^n}{\gcd(f(x),1-x^n)})$ and $m({\bf
a^0})(x)=\frac{1-x^n}{\gcd(f(x),1-x^n)}$. For each $j$ satisfying $1
\leq j \leq u-1$, we set $\gcd(f(x),1-(b_j^{-1}x)^n)=g_j(x)$ and $\gcd(f(b_j y),1-y^n)=h_j(y)$. Then $g_j(x)=h_j(b_j^{-1}x)$. We have $h_j(y)=\gcd(f_j(y),1-y^n)$, where $f_j(y)=\Sigma_{i=0}^{n-1}(a_ib_j^{i}+a_{n+i}b_j^{n+i}+ \cdots
+a_{(u-1)n+i}b_j^{(u-1)n+i})y^i$. Thus $c({\bf
a^j})=\deg(\frac{1-y^n}{h_j(y)})$ and $m({\bf
a^j})(y)=\frac{1-y^n}{h_j(y)}$. Finally $c({\bf
a})=un-[\Sigma_{i=0}^{u-1} \deg(\gcd(f(x),1-(b_{i}^{-1}x)^n))]
=c({\bf a^0})+c({\bf a^1})+ \cdots +c({\bf a^{u-1}})$ and $ m({\bf
a})(x)=m({\bf a^0})(b_0^{-1}x)m({\bf a^1})(b_1^{-1}x)
\cdots m({\bf a^{u-1}})(b_{u-1}^{-1}x)$. The conclusion is proved.\
When $u=2^tn$, the above result was proved in our previous paper \[4\].
In the reduction we need the storage of $u$ elements $b_0=1,b_1,...,b_{u-1} \in GF(p^m)$ in advance. For a period $N=un$ sequence over $GF(p^m)$, where $u|p^m-1$ and $\gcd(n,p^m-1)=1$, we need $\frac{(u-1)N}{u}$ field operations to get the sequence ${\bf a^0}$, $(u-1)N$ field operations to get the elements\
$ b_1,...,b_1^{(u-1)n-1},...,b_{u-1},...,b_{u-1}^{(u-1)n-1}$, and $\frac{(2u-1)(u-1)N}{u}$ field operations to get the sequences ${\bf a^1},...,{\bf a^{u-1}}$. Thus the time complexity of the reduction in the main result is $3(u-1)N$ field operations in $GF(p^m)$.\
Applications
============
In this section we use the main result and some known algorithms to give fast algorithms for computing the linear complexities of sequences over $GF(p^m)$.
[**A. An easy example**]{}\
Let $p$ be an odd prime, $m$ be an arbitrary positive integer and $n$ be a positive integer such that $n$ and $p^m-1$ are coprime. Then we have a unique element $b$ in $GF(p^m)$ such that $b^n=-1$. Here we note $b^{2n}=1$. For arbitrary $a_0,...,a_{n-1} \in GF(p^m)$, let ${\bf
a}=a_0,a_1,...,a_{n-1},-a_0,-a_1,...,-a_{n-1},a_0,...$ be a period $2n$ sequence over $GF(p^m)$ . Set ${\bf
a'}=2a_0,2a_1b,...,2a_ib^i,...,2a_{n-1}b^{n-1},2a_0,...$ , which is a period $n$ sequence over $GF(p^m)$ . From the main result, the linear complexity $c({\bf a})$ is the same as the linear complexity $c({\bf a'})$ and the minimal connection polynomial $m({\bf a})(x)$ is just $m({\bf a'})(bx)$. Thus the linear complexity and minimal connection polynomial of the period $2n$ sequence ${\bf a}$ can be determined from the period $n$ sequence ${\bf a'}$.\
[**B. Combining with the generalized Games-Chan algorithm**]{}\
In this subsection it is assumed that $p$ is a prime number, $m$ is a positive integer and $u$ is a positive integer such that $u$ divides $p^m-1$. We now give a fast algorithm to compute the linear complexity $c({\bf a})$ of a period $N=up^h$ sequence ${\bf a}$ over $GF(p^m)$ with time complexity $O(N)$. Here $u$ is understood as a constant not depending on the sequence. We need the storage of $u$ elements $b_0=1, b_1,...,b_{u-1}$ in advance.\
[**Input:**]{} A period $N=up^h$ sequence ${\bf a}$ over $GF(p^m)$.\
[**Output:**]{} The linear complexity $c({\bf a})$.\
[**Algorithm.**]{}\
Perform the reduction of the main result, we get $u$ period $p^h$ sequences ${\bf a^0},...,{\bf a^{u-1}}$.\
For the period $p^h$ sequences ${\bf a^0},...,{\bf a^{u-1}}$, perform the following generalized Games-Chan algorithm [**GGC**]{}, the outputs are the linear complexities $c({\bf a^0}),...,c({\bf a^{u-1}})$.\
[**GGC Algorithm.**]{}\
1) Initial value: ${\bf s} \leftarrow{\bf s}=(s_0,...,s_{p^h-1})
\in
GF(p^m)^{p^h}$, $N \leftarrow p^h$, $c \leftarrow 0$.\
2) Repeat the following a)-c) until $h=0$.\
a) For a given $p^h$-tuple ${\bf s}$, set ${\bf
s^{(i)}}=(s_{ip^{h-1}},...,s_{ip^{h-1}+p^{h-1}-1})$ for $i=0,...,p-1$, and ${\bf b^{(u)}}=\Sigma_{j=0}^{p-u-1}C_{p-j-1}^u
{\bf s^{(j)}}$, where $u=0,...,p-1$ and $C_{p-u-1}^u$’s are the binomial coefficients.\
b) Find the smallest $w$ such that ${\bf b^{(0)}}={\bf
b^{(1)}}=...={\bf b^{(p-w-1)}}=0$ and ${\bf b^{(p-w)}} \neq 0$ for a $w \in \{1,...,p\}$. Here if ${\bf b^{(0)}} \neq 0$, we set $w=p$.\
c) Do ${\bf s} \leftarrow {\bf b^{(p-w)}}$, $c \leftarrow (w-1)p^{h-1}+c$, and goto a).\
3) When $h=0$ and ${\bf s}=(s_0) \neq 0$, then $c \leftarrow c+1$, otherwise $c \leftarrow c$.\
The final output $c$ of ${\bf GGC}$ is the linear complexity $c({\bf
s})$ of the period $p^h$ sequence ${\bf s}$ over $GF(p^m)$.\
Finally we get the linear complexity of $c({\bf a})=\Sigma _{i=0}^{u-1} c({\bf a^{i}})$ from the main result.\
We refer to \[5\],\[8\] and \[10\] for the generalized Games-Chan algorithm. [**GGC**]{} needs at most $2p^2N'$ field operations in $GF(p^m)$ for determining the linear complexity of a period $N'=p^h$ sequence over $GF(p^m)$. On the other hand we need at most $3(u-1)N$ field operations in the reduction for a given period $N=uN'$ sequence. Thus the above algorithm needs $3(u-1)N+u(2p^2\frac{N}{u})=[3(u-1)+2p^2]N$ field operations in $GF(p^m)$, where $N$ is the period of the input sequence. The coefficient $3(u-1)+2p^2$ is a fixed constant not depending on the sequence. For example, the above fast algorithm can be used to determine the linear complexities of period $N=3 \cdot 7^h$ sequences over $GF(7^m)$ and period $N=3 \cdot 13^h$ sequences over $GF(13^m)$.\
[**Example.**]{} Let ${\bf a}=123401520113061256331....$ be a period $21$ sequence over $GF(7)$. We want to compute its linear complexity and minimal connection polynomial by the above algorithm. First we note $b_0=1$, $b_1=4$ and $b_2=2$ in $GF(7)$. Then\
${\bf a^0}=4424645, {\bf a^1}=4366203, {\bf a^2}=2622130$.\
$c({\bf a})=c({\bf a^0})+c({\bf a^1})+c({\bf a^2})$.\
$m({\bf a})(x)=m({\bf a^0})(x)m({\bf a^1})(4x)m({\bf a^2})(2x)$.\
In the case of $p=7$ we use the generalized Games-Chan algorithm and get\
$c({\bf a^0})=7,m({\bf a^0})=(1-x)^7$,\
$c({\bf a_1})=7,m({\bf a^1})=(1-x)^7$,\
$c({\bf a^2})=7,m({\bf a^2})=(1-x)^7$.\
Finally we have $c({\bf a})=21$ and $m({\bf a})=(1-x)^7(1-4x)^7(1-2x)^7$.\
Comparing with the Blackburn’s algorithm given in \[2\], the reduction to the $u$ period $p^h$ sequences is the same as that in the Blackburn’s algorithm, because in this case the $u$-th root of unity $\alpha$ in \[2\] is an element of $GF(p^m)$.\
[**C. Combining with the Berlekamp-Massey algorithm** ]{}\
We can also apply the reduction of the main result to compute the linear complexity of a period $N=un$ ($\gcd(n,p^m-1)=1$) sequence ${\bf a}$ over $GF(p^m)$, where $u$ divides $p^m-1$ and $n$ is not a power of $p$. In this case, we apply the Berlekamp-Massey algorithm \[11\] with time complexity $O(n^2)$ (or the Blackburn’s version \[1\] of Berlekamp-Massey algorithm with time complexity $O(n(\log n)^2\log
\log n)$ ) to the $u$ period $n$ sequences after the reduction. It is obvious that this would be more efficient than applying the Berlekamp-Massey algorithm directly to the original sequence. However when this reduction is used, we have to know the whole period of the sequence.\
[**D. Combining with the Xiao-Wei-Lam-Imamura algorithm**]{}\
Let $p$ and $q$ be two prime numbers. Suppose $q$ is a primitive root modulo $p^2$, that is, $q$ is the generator of the multiplicative group of residue classes (modulo $p^2$) which are coprime to $p$, then a fast algorithm for determining the linear complexity of a period $N=p^n$ sequence over $GF(q^m)$ with time complexity $O(N)$ was given in \[16\]. Combining with the reduction in our main result, we can determine the linear complexity of a period $N=up^n$ sequence over $GF(q^m)$ with time complexity $O(N)$, if $u$ divides $q^m-1$ , $q$ is a primitive root modulo $p^2$, $p$ and $q^m-1$ are coprime. For example, it is easy to check that $13$ is a primitive root modulo $25$, thus we can determine the linear complexities of period $N=3 \cdot 5^n$ sequences over $GF(13^m)$(if $m \neq %%@
0$, $mod$ $ 4$) with time complexity $O(N)$.\
[**IV. Conclusion**]{}\
We have proved a result reducing the computation of the linear complexity of a period $un$ sequence over $GF(p^m)$, where $u$ divides $p^m-1$ and $\gcd(n,p^m-1)=1$, to the computation of the linear complexities of $u$ period $n$ sequences . Based on this reduction and some known algorithms we can compute the linear complexities of period $un$ sequences over $GF(p^m)$ more efficiently. It seems that the main result might be useful for other problems about the linear complexities of sequences over $GF(p^m)$.\
[**Acknowledgment.**]{} The author wishes to thank the Associate Editor and the anonymous referees for their helpful comments and criticisms on the 1st version of the paper. This work was supported in part by NNSF of China under Grant 90607005 and Distinguished Young Scholar Grant 10225106.\
e-mail: chenhao@fudan.edu.cn\
REFERENCES
\[1\] S.R.Blackburn, Fast rational interpolation,Reed-Solomon decoding and the linear complexity profiles of sequences, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol.43, no.2, pp.537-548, Mar. 1997.\
\[2\] S.R.Blackburn, A generalization of the Discrete Fourier Transform: determining the minimal polynomial of a periodic sequnce, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol.40, no.5, pp.1702-1704, Sept. 1994.\
\[3\] S.R.Blackburn, The linear complexity of the self-shrinking generator, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory,vol.43, no.5, pp.2073-2077, Sept. 1999.\
\[4\] H.Chen, Fast algorithms for determining the linear complexity of sequences over $GF(p^m)$ with period $2^tn$, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol.51, no.5, pp.1854-1856, May 2005.\
\[5\] C.Ding, G.Xiao and W.Shan, The stability theory of stream ciphers, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol.56, Springer-Verlag, 1991.\
\[6\] R.A.Games and A.H. Chan, A fast algorithm for determining the complexity of a binary sequence with period $2^n$, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol.29, no.1, pp.144-146, Jan. 1983.\
\[7\] F. Griffin and I.E.Shparlinski, On the linear complexity profile of the power generator. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol.46, no.5, pp.2159-2162, Sept.2000.\
\[8\] K.Imamura and T.Moriuchi, A fast algorithm for determining the linear complexity of p-ary sequences with period $p^n$, p prime, IEICE Tech. Rep. IT 93-75, pp.73-78, 1993.\
\[9\] T.Kaida, S.Uehara and K.Imamura, An algorithm for the k-error linear complexity of sequences over $GF(p^m)$ with period $p^n$, p prime, Information and Computation, vol. 151, pp.134-147, 1999.\
\[10\] A.G.Lauder and K.G.Paterson, Computation the error linear complexity spectrum of a binary sequence with period $2^n$, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol.49, no.1, pp.273-280, Jan.2003.\
\[11\] J.L.Massey, Shift register synthesis and BCH decoding, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol.15, no.1, pp.122-127, Jan.1969.\
\[12\] A. Menezes, P. van Oorschot and S.Vanstone, Handbook of applied cryptography, CRC Press Inc. 1997.\
\[13\] I.E.Shparlinski, On the linear complexity of the power generator, Designs, Codes and Cryptography, 2001, vol.23, no.1, pp.5-10, Jan.2001.\
\[14\] M.Stamp and C.F.Martin, An algorithm for the k-error linear complexity of binary sequences with period $2^n$, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol.39, no.4, pp.1398-1401, July 1998.\
\[15\] S.Wei, G.Xiao and Z.Chen, A fast algorithm for determining the minimal polynomial of a sequence with period $2p^n$ over $GF(q)$, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol.48, no.10, pp2754-2758, Oct.2002.\
\[16\] G.Xiao, S.Wei, K.Y.Lam and K.Imamura, A fast algorithm for determining the linear complexity of a sequence with period $p^n$ over $GF(q)$, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol.46, no.6, pp.2203-2206, Sept.2000.\
[**Hao Chen**]{} was born in Anhui Province of China on Dec. 21, 1964. He is currently a professor in the Department of Computing and Information Technology of Fudan University, Shanghai, China. His research interests are cryptography and coding, quantum information and computation.
[^1]: H. Chen is with the Department of Computing and Information Technology, School of Information Science and Engineering, Fudan University, Shanghai, 200433, People’s Republic of China
|
---
abstract: 'In a multi-objective game, each individual’s payoff is a *vector-valued* function of everyone’s actions. Under such vectorial payoffs, Pareto-efficiency is used to formulate each individual’s best-response condition, inducing Pareto-Nash equilibria as the fundamental solution concept. In this work, we follow a classical game-theoretic agenda to study equilibria. Firstly, we show in several ways that numerous pure-strategy Pareto-Nash equilibria exist. Secondly, we propose a more consistent extension to mixed-strategy equilibria. Thirdly, we introduce a measurement of the efficiency of multiple objectives games, which purpose is to keep the information on each objective: the multi-objective coordination ratio. Finally, we provide algorithms that compute Pareto-Nash equilibria and that compute or approximate the multi-objective coordination ratio.'
author:
- Anisse Ismaili
bibliography:
- 'newMOG.bib'
title: 'On Existence, Mixtures, Computation and Efficiency in Multi-objective Games'
---
Introduction
============
Game theory and microeconomics assume that individuals evaluate outcomes into scalars. However, bounded rationality can hardly be modeled consistently by agents simply comparing scalars: *“The classical theory does not tolerate the incomparability of oranges and apples.”* [@simon1955behavioral]. Money is another case of scalarization of the values of outcomes. For instance, while ‘making money’ theoretically creates value [@adam1776inquiry], the tobacco industry making money and killing approximately six million people every year [@world2011report] is hardly a creation of value[^1]. In this work, we assume that agents evaluate outcomes over a finite set of distinct objectives[^2]; hence, agents have vectorial payoffs. For instance, in the case of tobacco consumers, this slightly more informative model would keep the information on these three objectives [@conover2014smoking]: smoking pleasure, cigarette cost and consequences on life expectancy. In literature, this model was called games with vectorial payoffs, multi-objective games or multi-criteria games; and several applications were considered (see e.g. [@zeleny1975games; @wierzbicki1995multiple]). Indeed, behaviors are less assumptively modeled by a partial preference: the Pareto-dominance. Using Pareto-efficiency in place of best-response condition induces Pareto-Nash (PN) equilibria as the solution concept for stability, without even assuming that individuals combine the objectives in a precise manner. Pareto-Nash equilibria encompass the outcomes, even under unknown, uncertain or inconsistent preferences.
This paper more particularly addresses two unexplored issues.(1) The algorithmic aspects of multi-objective games have never been studied. (2) Also, the efficiency of Pareto-Nash equilibria has never been a concern.
*Related literature on mixed-strategies and similar strategy spaces.* Games with vectorial payoffs, or multi-objective games, were firstly introduced in the late fifties by Blackwell and Shapley [@blackwell1956analog; @shapley1959equilibrium]. The former shows the existence of a mixed-strategy Pareto-Nash equilibrium in finite two-player zero-sum multi-objective games. The later generalizes this existence result to finite multi-objective games. Both use a definition of mixed-strategy Pareto-Nash equilibria that suffers an inconsistency: pure-strategy Pareto-Nash equilibria are not included in the set of mixed-strategy Nash equilibria (see Sec. \[sec:mixed\]). Nonetheless, there is an established literature on games with vector payoffs that uses this definition. Deep formal works generalized known existence results [@shapley1959equilibrium] to individual action-sets being compact convex subsets of a normed space [@wang1993existence]. Weak Pareto-Nash equilibria can be approximated [@morgan2005approximations]. *Works related to pure strategies and algorithms.* [@wierzbicki1995multiple] achieves to characterize the entire set of Pareto-Nash equilibria by mean of augmented Tchebycheff norms. However, the number of dimensions that parameterize these Tchebycheff norms is algorithmically prohibitive. [@patrone2007multicriteria] shows that a MO potential function guarantees that a Pareto-Nash equilibrium exists in finite MO games.
In Section 3, we show in three different settings that pure-strategy Pareto-Nash equilibria are guaranteed to exist, or very likely to be numerous. In Section 4, we show an inconsistency in the current concept of mixed-strategy PN equilibrium, and propose an extension to solve this flaw. In Section 5, in the fashion of the price of anarchy [@koutsoupias1999worst], we define a measurement of the worst-case efficiency of individualistic behaviors in games, compared to the optimum. In the multi-objective case, it is far from trivial, as worst-case equilibria and optima are not uniquely defined. In Section 6, we show how to compute the set of (worst) pure-strategy Pareto-Nash equilibria for several game structures, and provide algorithms to compute and approximate our multi-objective coordination ratio.[^3]
Preliminaries
=============
A *multi-objective game* (MO game, or MOG) is defined by the following tuple $\left(N,\{A^{i}\}_{i\in N},{{\mathcal{D}}},\{\bm{u}^{i}\}_{i\in N}\right)$:
- The agents set is $N=\lbrace1,\ldots,n\rbrace$. Agent $i$ decides action $a^{i}$ in action-set $A^{i}$.
- The shared list of objectives is denoted by ${{\mathcal{D}}}=\lbrace1,\ldots,d\rbrace$ and every agent $i\in N$ gets her payoff from function $\bm{u}^{i}:A=A^{1}\times\ldots\times A^{n}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{d}$ which maps every overall action to a *vector-valued* payoff; e.g., real $u_{k}^{i}(\bm{a})$ is the payoff of agent $i$ on objective $k$ for action-profile $\bm{a}=(a^{1},\ldots,a^{n})$.
There are five shops (the nodes) in Ocean Shores: $N=\{1,\ldots,5\}$. Each shop/agent $i$ decides between two activities: $A^{i}=\{a^{i},b^{i}\}$; for instance: renting bikes or buggies, selling clams or fruit, etc. That is, agent $i$, in his payoff table $u^i$, decides row $a^{i}$ or $b^{i}$. The edges define neighborhoods around every agent. The payoff of each agent also depends on the actions of her neighbors, and is differentiated on two objectives ${{\mathcal{D}}}=\{1,2\}$ that it would hardly make sence to aggregate, for instance: sales revenue (to buy their daily lives) and the remaining natural resources (so that, in the future, their children could also live). (Here, the payoffs are random integers.)
In the subjective theory of value, every individual evaluates her endowment $(u_{1}^{i},\ldots,u_{d}^{i})$ however she wants based on an utility function $v^{i}:{\mathbb{R}^d}\rightarrow{\mathbb{R}}$. The theory of multi-objective games [@blackwell1956analog; @shapley1959equilibrium] aims at allowing for individuals that behave according to several unknown, uncertain, or inconsistent utility functions. These utility functions are reduced to their common denominator: the Pareto-dominance, as defined below. That vector $\bm{y}\in{\mathbb{R}^d}$ weakly-Pareto-dominates and respectively *Pareto-dominates* vector $\bm{x}\in{\mathbb{R}^d}$ is denoted and defined by: $$\begin{aligned}
\bm{y}{\succsim}\bm{x} & \Leftrightarrow & \forall k\in{{\mathcal{D}}},\quad y_k\geq x_k,\\
\bm{y}{\succ}\bm{x} &\Leftrightarrow & \forall k\in{{\mathcal{D}}},\quad y_k\geq x_k\mbox{~~and~~}\exists k\in{{\mathcal{D}}}, y_k> x_k.\end{aligned}$$ For the preferences of individuals, given an adversary action-profile$\bm{a}^{-i}=(a^j\mid j\neq i)$, this defines a partial rationality on set$\bm{u}^{i}(A^{i},\bm{a}^{-i})=\{\bm{u}^{i}(b^{i},\bm{a}^{-i})\mid b^i\in A^i\}$, which is less assumptive than complete orders, since it does not presume any individual utility function $v^{i}:{\mathbb{R}}^{d}\rightarrow{\mathbb{R}}$. Formally, given a finite set of vectors $X\subseteq{\mathbb{R}^d}$, the set of *Pareto-efficient* vectors is defined as the following set of non-Pareto-dominated vectors: $${\mbox{EFF}}[X]=\{\bm{y}\in X~~|~~\forall \bm{x}\in X,\mbox{~not~}(\bm{x}{\succ}\bm{y})\}.$$ Since Pareto-dominance is a partial order, it induces a multiplicity of Pareto-efficient vectors. These are the best compromises between objectives. Similarly, let ${\mbox{WST}}[X]=\{\bm{y} \in X|\forall \bm{x}\in X,\mbox{not}(\bm{y}{\succ}\bm{x})\}$ denote the worst vectors.
In a multi-objective game, individuals behave according to the Pareto -dominance, inducing the solution concept *Pareto-Nash equilibrium* (${\mbox{PN}}$), formally defined as any action-profile $\bm{a}\in A$ such that for every agent $i\in N$: $$\bm{u}^{i}(a^{i},\bm{a}^{-i})\quad\in\quad{\mbox{EFF}}\left[\quad \{\bm{u}^{i}(b^{i},\bm{a}^{-i})\mid b^{i}\in A^{i}\}\quad\right].$$ We call these conditions *Pareto-efficient responses*. Let ${\mbox{PN}}\subseteq A$ denote the set of Pareto-Nash equilibria. For instance, in Figure 1, action-profile $(b^{1},b^{2},a^{3},b^{4},b^{5})$ is a PN equilibrium, since each action, given the adversary local action profile (column), is Pareto-efficient among the given agent’s two actions (rows). In this example, there are $13$ Pareto-Nash equilibria (depicted in Figure 2).
Such an encompassing solution concept provides the first phase for bounding the efficiency of games. It is well-known that individualistic behaviors can be far from the optimum/maximum in terms of utilitarian evaluation $u(\bm{a})=\sum_{i\in N}u^{i}(\bm{a})$. In single-objective games[^4], this inefficiency is measured by the *Coordination Ratio* $\mbox{CR}=\frac{\min[u(PN)]}{\max[u(A)]}$ [@koutsoupias1999worst], which is more commonly known as the *Price of Anarchy* [@roughgarden2009intrinsic]. However, in the multi-objective case, the utilitarian social welfare $\bm{u}(\bm{a})=\sum_{i\in N}\bm{u}^{i}(\bm{a})$ is a vector-valued function $\bm{u}:A\rightarrow{\mathbb{R}}^d$ with respect to $d$ objectives. To study the efficiency of Pareto-Nash equilibria, we introduce:
- set of *equilibria outcomes* $\quad{\mathcal{E}}\quad=\quad\bm{u}({\mbox{PN}})\quad(\subset{\mathbb{R}^d}),$
- set of *efficient outcomes* $\quad{\mathcal{F}}\quad=\quad{\mbox{EFF}}[\bm{u}(A)]\quad(\subset{\mathbb{R}^d})$.
The utilitarian outcomes are a set of vectors, depicted above. Worst case equilibria and optima are not uniquely defined. The ratio of set of equilibria outcomes ${\mathcal{E}}$ ($\Diamond$) to set of efficient outcomes ${\mathcal{F}}$ ($\times$) would be a ratio of sets, which remains undefined. It would be crucial that such a definition keeps information for every objective. E.g., we want to remember that a car pollutes, or that a cigarette kills, not just that it makes some economic agents happy.
Numerous pure strategy Pareto-Nash equilibria exist.
====================================================
This section demonstrates the existence of pure strategy Pareto-Nash equilibria. Firstly, we write how the existence results from single-objective (SO) games can be retrieved in MO games. Secondly, we generalize the equilibria existence results of single-objective potential games to multi-objective potential games. Thirdly, we show that on average, numerous Pareto-Nash equilibria exist.
Reductions from MO games to SO games
------------------------------------
In the literature, most rationalities are constructed by means of a utility function $v^{i}:{\mathbb{R}}^{d}\rightarrow{\mathbb{R}}$, which is monotonic with respect to the Pareto-dominance, that is: $$\begin{aligned}
\bm{x}{\succ}\bm{y} &\Rightarrow& v^{i}(\bm{x})> v^{i}(\bm{y})\end{aligned}$$ Such functions are called *Pareto-monotonic*. For instance, these include positive weighted sums, Cobb-Douglas utilities, and utility functions in general as assumed by the Arrow-Debreu theorem.
A straightforward consequence is that the set of Pareto-efficient vectors contains the optima of any Pareto-monotonic utility function. Formally, given a MOG $\Gamma$, from Pareto-monotonic utility functions $V=(v^{i}:{\mathbb{R}^d}\rightarrow{\mathbb{R}}|i\in N)$ the single-objective game $V\circ\Gamma=(N,\{A^{i}\}_{i\in N},\{v^{i}\circ \bm{u}^{i}\}_{i\in N})$ results from the given utilities, and one has: ${\mbox{PN}}(V\circ\Gamma)\subseteq{\mbox{PN}}(\Gamma).$ In other words, Pareto-Nash equilibria encompass the game’s outcome, regardless of the unknown preferences.
Also, inclusion ${\mbox{PN}}(V\circ\Gamma)\subseteq{\mbox{PN}}(\Gamma)$ argues for the guaranteed existence of numerous PN equilibria in MO games, under the following assumptions:
1. the structure of the SO game on every objective is the same,
2. equilibria are guaranteed in that structure of SO game,
3. and a positive linear combination of the MO game induces that SO game.
This remark is the canonical argument used in previous results (e.g. [@shapley1959equilibrium; @patrone2007multicriteria]).
Multi-objective potentials
--------------------------
We now explore potential games, as introduced for congestion games by Robert Rosenthal [@rosenthal1973class; @monderer1996potential] and recently generalized to MO games [@patrone2007multicriteria]. The existence of an MO potential function guarantees that at least one Pareto-Nash equilibrium exists [@patrone2007multicriteria]. We go further and completely characterize the set of PN equilibria.
An MO game $\Gamma=\left(N,\{A^{i}\}_{i\in N},{{\mathcal{D}}},\{\bm{u}^{i}\}_{i\in N}\right)$ admits *(exact) potential function* $\bm{\Phi}:A\rightarrow{\mathbb{R}}^{d}$ if and only if for every action-profile $\bm{a}\in A$, for every agent $i\in N$ and for every action $b^{i}\in A^{i}$, one has: $$\forall k\in{{\mathcal{D}}},\quad
\Phi_k(b^{i},\bm{a}^{-i})-\Phi_k(\bm{a})\quad=\quad u^{i}_k(b^{i},\bm{a}^{-i})-u^{i}_k(\bm{a}).$$
That is, function $\bm{\Phi}$ additively accumulates the vectorial values of each deviation.
Given a vector valued function $\bm{\Phi}:A\rightarrow{\mathbb{R}}^{d}$, let the set of *locally efficient* action-profiles ${\mbox{LOC}}(\bm{\Phi})$ be the set of action-profiles $\bm{a}\in A$ such that: $$\bm{\Phi}(\bm{a})\quad\in\quad{\mbox{EFF}}[\{\bm{\Phi}(b^{i},\bm{a}^{-i})\in{\mathbb{R}}^{d}\mid i\in N,b^{i}\in A^{i}\}].$$
Set ${\mbox{LOC}}(\bm{\Phi})$ corresponds to a generalization of local optima for function $\bm{\Phi}$, and is non-empty if sets $N$, ${{\mathcal{D}}}$ and $A$ are finite. Moreover, due to the loose requirement for local efficiency, set ${\mbox{LOC}}(\bm{\Phi})$ is likely to contain numerous action-profiles.
\[th:1\] Let $\Gamma=\left(N,\{A^{i}\}_{i\in N},{{\mathcal{D}}},\{\bm{u}^{i}\}_{i\in N}\right)$ be a *finite multi-objective game*[^5] that admits potential function $\bm{\Phi}$. Then, it holds that: $${\mbox{PN}}(\Gamma)\quad=\quad{\mbox{LOC}}(\bm{\Phi})\quad\neq\quad\emptyset.$$
This theorem completely characterizes the set of Pareto-Nash equilibria as the set of locally efficient action-profiles for function $\bm{\Phi}$, which is a non-empty set with numerous action-profiles. More generally, Theorem \[th:1\] also holds when sets $N$ and ${{\mathcal{D}}}$ are finite and sets $A^i$ are just compact.
Likelihood of equilibrium in random games
-----------------------------------------
Another manner to study whether a ${\mbox{PN}}$-equilibrium exists is to provide a probability distribution on a family of finite games and then discuss the probability of ${\mbox{PN}}$-equilibrium existence. A similar methodology was successfully applied [@goldberg1968probability; @dresher1970probability; @rinott2000number] to SO games in several settings where every SO payoff $u^{i}(\bm{a})$ is independently and identically distributed by a uniform distribution on continuous intervals $[0,1]$. At the heart of this subsection, let random variable $Z$ denote the number of pure Nash-equilibria action-profiles in the game. In the SO case, there is almost surely only one best response. However, when considering MO games, a main technical difference lies in the average number of “best responses” (or here, Pareto-efficient responses), which in most cases exceeds $1$, due to the surface-like shape of the Pareto-efficient set in ${\mathbb{R}}^{d}$, surface which is $(d-1)$ dimensional. Here, we assume a probability distribution ${\mathbb{P}}_{n,\alpha,\beta}$, that builds randomly the Pareto-efficient response tables of an $n$-agent normal form game with $\alpha$ actions-per-agent: for every agent $i$ and every adversary action-profile $\bm{a}^{-i}\in\prod_{j\neq i}A^{j}$, there is a fixed number $\beta:1<\beta\leq\alpha$ of Pareto-efficient responses, for the sake of simplicity.
Given numbers $n\geq2$ of agents, $\alpha\geq2$ of actions-per-agent and $\beta\leq\alpha$ of Pareto-efficient responses, based on probability distribution ${\mathbb{P}}_{n,\alpha,\beta}$, the number $Z$ of Pareto-Nash equilibria satisfies ${\mathbb{E}}[Z] = \beta^n$ and: $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{P}}\left( (1-\gamma)\beta^n\leq {Z} \leq (1+\gamma)\beta^n \right) & \geq & 1 - \frac{1}{\gamma^2 \beta^{n}},\quad\forall\gamma\in(0,1). \end{aligned}$$
It argues for the existence of numerous Pareto-Nash equilibria when there are enough agents and efficient responses, and follows from the Bienaymé-Tchebychev inequality. For instance, (given $\gamma=1/2$) the probability that the number of Pareto-Nash equilibria $Z$ is between $(1/2)\beta^{n}$ and $(3/2)\beta^{n}$, is at least $1-4\beta^{-n}$, which for $\beta=2$ efficient responses and $n=5$ agents, gives ${\mathbb{P}}(16\leq Z\leq48)\geq7/8$.
Consistent extension to mixed strategies {#sec:mixed}
========================================
To guarantee equilibrium existence by means of fixed-point theorems on compact sets [@vnmAndMorgenstern1944; @nash1950equilibrium], the finite action sets of every agent are expanded to include *mixed strategies*. That is: every agent $i$ decides a probability distribution $p^{i}$ in the set $\Delta(A^{i})$ of probability distributions over his action-set $A^{i}$. Each payoff function $\bm{u}^{i}$ is redefined to be the expected utility $$\begin{aligned}
\bm{u}^{i}(\bm{p}) &=& {\mathbb{E}}_{\bm{a}\sim\bm{p}}[\bm{u}^{i}(\bm{a})],\end{aligned}$$ under the mixed-strategy profile $\bm{p}=(p^{1},\ldots,p^{n})\in\prod_{i\in N}\Delta(A^{i})$. This defines a mixed-extension of the original game. The stability concept induced is called a mixed-strategy Nash equilibrium.
In MOGs, Pareto-Nash equilibria based on their original definition by Blackwell [@blackwell1956analog] and Shapley [@shapley1959equilibrium] (below) are those usually considered [@borm1988pareto; @corley1985games; @voorneveld1999potential; @zeleny1975games].
Given finite MO game $\Gamma=\left(N,\{A^{i}\}_{i\in N},\{{{\mathcal{D}}}\},\{\bm{u}^{i}\}_{i\in N}\right)$, a mixed-strategy profile $\bm{p}=(p^{1},\ldots,p^{n})\in\prod_{i\in N}\Delta(A^{i})$ is a mixed-strategy Pareto-Nash equilibrium if and only if it satisfies for every agent $i$: $$\bm{u}^{i}(p^{i},\bm{p}^{-i})\in{\mbox{EFF}}\left[\left\{ \bm{u}^{i}(q^{i},\bm{p}^{-i})\in{\mathbb{R}}^{d}\mid q^{i}\in\Delta(A^{i})\right\} \right]$$
The rational behind this first definition is the following. For every agent $i$, mixed-strategy $p^{i}\in\Delta(A^{i})$ acts as a convex-combination of set of vectorial payoffs $\bm{u}^{i}(A^{i},\bm{p}^{-i})$ and the best-response condition is replaced by the fact that mixed-strategy $p^{i}$ should have a Pareto-efficient evaluation $\bm{u}^{i}(p^{i},\bm{p}^{-i})$ among the elements of this convex set of evaluations $\{\bm{u}^{i}(q^{i},\bm{p}^{-i})\in{\mathbb{R}}^{d}\mid q^{i}\in\Delta(A^{i})\}$. That is, a mixed-strategy Pareto-Nash equilibrium is a pure-strategy Pareto-Nash equilibrium in finite game $\Gamma$’s mixed extension. However, as depicted in Figure \[fig:mix\], Definition 1 fails to fulfill two fundamental requirements:
1. Pure-strategy equilibria must be included in mixed-strategy equilibria.
2. Mixed-strategies also enable to model a risk-averse agent.
Figure 3 demonstrates these side effects.
To fulfill the two requirements, instead of efficient mixed actions, we consider mixtures of efficient pure-actions. As in Figure \[fig:mix\], it corrects both side effects.
Given a finite multi-objective game $\left(N,\{A^{i}\}_{i\in N},\{{{\mathcal{D}}}\},\{\bm{u}^{i}\}_{i\in N}\right)$, a mixed-strategy Pareto-Nash equilibrium is a mixed-strategy profile$\bm{p}=(p^{1},\ldots,p^{n})\in\prod_{i\in N}\Delta(A^{i})$, such that for every agent $i$ and action $a^{i}\in A^{i}$ if $a^{i}$ is played with positive probability $p^{i}(a^{i})>0$, then it holds that $$\bm{u}^{i}(a^{i},\bm{p}^{-i})\quad\in\quad{\mbox{EFF}}\left[\bm{u}^{i}(A^{i},\bm{p}^{-i})\right].$$
![Single-agent three-actions bi-objective game showing inconsistencies. (The coordinates correspond to the bi-objective valuation $(u_1,u_2)$.)[]{data-label="fig:mix"}](Figure3.png)
The three outcomes, $u(A)=\{(1,4),(2,2),(4,1)\}$, are depicted by black dots. With Def. 4, since the mixed outcomes are all convex-combinations of $\{(1,4),(2,2),(4,1)\}$, the Pareto-efficient mixed-strategies are here the convex-combinations of $\{(1,4),(4,1)\}$; and outcome $(2,2)$ is Pareto-dominated. Not every pure-strategy Pareto-Nash equilibrium is a mixed-strategy one, which is a severe inconsistency. Furthermore, since outcome $(2,2)$ is well balanced, it may also be decided with a non-null probability, e.g., if the agent’s utility is concave [@cobb1928theory], or if she is risk-averse [@kahneman1979prospect]. Our *revised* definition considers instead all the convex-combinations of the Pareto-efficient pure actions $\{(1,4),(2,2),(4,1)\}$.
This generalized definition connects in the single-objective case to a less know definition of Nash-equilibria (see [@papadimitriou2007agt], page 30, Theorem 2.1). In this alternative definition, each mixed strategy must be a mixture of pure-strategies that are best-responses. In other words, the support of each mixed strategy must be included in the set of pure-strategy best-responses. Furthermore, concerning existence, since this revised definition contains the former one, (which is guaranteed to exist) the new definition is guaranteed to exist too.
Multi-objective coordination ratio
===================================
In the single-objective case, the coordination ratio measures the efficiency loss of equilibria compared to the optimum. In MO games, we claim that it is critical to study efficiency with respect to every objective. Even after the actions, the game analyst still has access to the vectorial payoffs. In this section, we follow the agenda outlined in the introduction, to define a *multi-objective coordination ratio* $\text{MO-CR}[{\mathcal{E}},{\mathcal{F}}]$ of the set of equilibria outcomes ${\mathcal{E}}$ to the set of efficient outcomes ${\mathcal{F}}$, that fills the critical purpose to keep information on each objective.
First, we state the list of desirable properties that we want the ratio to satisfy. For the purpose of having meaningful divisions and ratios, some vectors are positive in this section. Given vectors $\bm{\rho},\bm{y}\in{\mathbb{R}^d}$ and $\bm{z}\in{\mathbb{R}^d_{+}}$, vector $\bm{\rho}\star \bm{y}\in{\mathbb{R}^d}$ is defined by $\forall k\in{{\mathcal{D}}},(\bm{\rho}\star \bm{y})_{k}=\rho_{k}y_{k}$. Vector $\bm{y}/\bm{z}\in{\mathbb{R}^d}$ is defined by $\forall k\in{{\mathcal{D}}},(\bm{y}/\bm{z})_{k}=y_{k}/z_{k}$. Given vector $\bm{r}\in{\mathbb{R}^d}$ and set of vectors $Y$, set $\bm{r}\star Y$ is defined by $\{\bm{r}\star \bm{y}\in{\mathbb{R}^d_{+}}|\bm{y}\in Y\}$ and for $\bm{r}\in{\mathbb{R}^d_{+}}$, set $Y/\bm{r}$ is defined by $\lbrace \bm{y}/\bm{r}\in{\mathbb{R}^d}|\bm{y}\in Y\rbrace$. Given $\bm{x}\in{\mathbb{R}^d}$, cone ${\mathcal{C}}(\bm{x})$ denotes $\{\bm{y}\in{\mathbb{R}^d}~|~\bm{x}{\succsim}\bm{y}\}$, and given $X\subset{\mathbb{R}^d}$, cone-union ${\mathcal{C}}(X\text{)}$ is defined by $\cup_{\bm{x}\in X}{\mathcal{C}}(\bm{x})$. Vector $\bm{0}$ denotes a vector with $d$ zeros, and $\bm{1}$ denotes a vector with $d$ ones.
The first property that we require from $\mbox{MO-CR}[{\mathcal{E}},{\mathcal{F}}]$ is to be on a *multi-objective ratio scale*. Given ${\mathcal{E}},{\mathcal{F}}\subset{\mathbb{R}^d_{+}}$ and $\bm{r}\in{\mathbb{R}^d_{+}}$, the following shall hold. $$\begin{aligned}
\mbox{MO-CR}[{\mathcal{E}},{\mathcal{F}}]
&\quad\subseteq&
{\mathbb{R}^d}\label{eq:ratio:6}\\
\mbox{MO-CR}[\{\bm{0}\},{\mathcal{F}}]
&\quad=&
\{\bm{0}\}\label{eq:ratio:7}\\
\mbox{MO-CR}[\bm{r}\star{\mathcal{E}},{\mathcal{F}}]
& \quad=&
\bm{r}\star\mbox{MO-CR}[{\mathcal{E}},{\mathcal{F}}]\label{eq:ratio:8}\\
\mbox{MO-CR}[{\mathcal{E}},\bm{r}\star{\mathcal{F}}]
& \quad=&
\mbox{MO-CR}[{\mathcal{E}},{\mathcal{F}}]/\bm{r}\label{eq:ratio:9}\\
{\mathcal{E}}\subseteq{\mathcal{F}}& \quad\Leftrightarrow&
\bm{1}\in \mbox{MO-CR}[{\mathcal{E}},{\mathcal{F}}]\label{eq:ratio:10} \end{aligned}$$ To fix these ideas one can think of $d=1$ and given two positive numbers $e,f$, to the properties of ratio $e/f$. Equation (\[eq:ratio:6\]) states that MO-CR is expressed in a multi-objective space. Equations (\[eq:ratio:7\]), (\[eq:ratio:8\]) and (\[eq:ratio:9\]) state that MO-CR is well-centered and sensitive on each objective to multiplications of outcomes, which is what we want. For instance, if ${\mathcal{E}}$ is three times better on objective $k$, then so is MO-CR. If there are two times more efficient opportunities in ${\mathcal{F}}$ on objective $k'$, then MO-CR is one half on objective $k'$. In other words, the efficiency of each objective independently reflects on MO-CR in a ratio-scale. Equation (\[eq:ratio:10\]) states that if all equilibria outcomes are efficient (i.e. ${\mathcal{E}}\subseteq{\mathcal{F}}$), then this amounts to $\bm{1}\in\text{MO-CR}[{\mathcal{E}},{\mathcal{F}}]$, i.e. the MO game is fully efficient.
These requirements rule out a set of first ideas. For instance, we can rule out comparisons of equilibria outcomes to ideal vector $\mathcal{I}=(\max_{z\in{\mathcal{F}}}\lbrace z_{k}\rbrace|k\in{{\mathcal{D}}})$ does not satisfy requirement (5) to have $\bm{1}\in\text{MO-CR}[{\mathcal{E}},{\mathcal{F}}]$ when ${\mathcal{E}}\subseteq{\mathcal{F}}$. By starting from a social welfare $f:{\mathbb{R}^d_{+}}\rightarrow{\mathbb{R}}_+$, taking ratio $\min f({\mathcal{E}})/\max f({\mathcal{F}})$, induces the same problem.
This measurement should also be non-dictatorial, in the sense that no point of view should be imposed on what the overall efficiency is: no prior choice must be done on the set of efficient outcomes. Formally, if two sets of efficient outcomes ${\mathcal{F}},{\mathcal{F}}'\subset{\mathbb{R}^d_{+}}$ differ even slightly, then this must reflect at least for some numerator set ${\mathcal{E}}$ onto ratio $\text{MO-CR}[{\mathcal{E}},{\mathcal{F}}]$. This amounts to a disjunction on efficient outcomes. Finally $\text{MO-CR}[{\mathcal{E}},{\mathcal{F}}]$ must provide guaranteed efficiency ratios that hold for every equilibrium outcome $\bm{y}\in{\mathcal{E}}$, which amounts to a conjunction on equilibria outcomes. The definition below follows from these requirements.
Firstly, the efficiency of *one* equilibrium $\bm{y}\in{\mathcal{E}}$ is quantified without prior choices on what efficient outcome should we compare it to, as required: $$\begin{aligned}
R[\bm{y},{\mathcal{F}}]\quad =\quad \bigcup_{\bm{z}\in{\mathcal{F}}}{\mathcal{C}}(\bm{y}/\bm{z}), \end{aligned}$$ The idea is that we do not take sides with any efficient outcome. Instead, we define with flexibility and without a dictatorship a disjunctive set of guaranteed efficiency ratios, which lets the differences between two sets of efficient outcomes ${\mathcal{F}},{\mathcal{F}}'\subset{\mathbb{R}^d_{+}}$ reflect onto ratio $\text{MO-CR}[{\mathcal{E}},{\mathcal{F}}]$.
Secondly, in MOGs, on average, there are many Pareto-Nash equilibria. An efficiency *guarantee* $\bm{\rho}\in{\mathbb{R}^d}$ should hold for every equilibrium outcome. It induces this conjunctive definition of the set of guaranteed vectorial ratios: $$\begin{aligned}
R[{\mathcal{E}},{\mathcal{F}}]\quad=\quad\bigcap_{\bm{y}\in{\mathcal{E}}} R[\bm{y},{\mathcal{F}}]. \end{aligned}$$
In fact, because of the conjunction on equilibria outcomes, the set $R[{\mathcal{E}},{\mathcal{F}}]$ only depends on sets ${\mbox{WST}}[{\mathcal{E}}]$ (instead of set ${\mathcal{E}}$) and ${\mathcal{F}}$.
Finally, if two bounds on efficiencies $\bm{\rho}$ and $\bm{\rho}'$ are such that $\bm{\rho}{\succ}\bm{\rho}'$ (e.g. the former guarantees fraction $\bm{\rho}=(0.75,0.75)$ of efficiency and the later fraction $\bm{\rho}'=(0.5,0.5)$), then $\bm{\rho}'$ brings no more information; hence, MO-CR is defined using ${\mbox{EFF}}$ on the guaranteed efficiency ratios $R[{\mbox{WST}}[{\mathcal{E}}],{\mathcal{F}}]$. These points are summed up in the following definition:
\[def:MOCR\] Given an MO game, vector $\bm{\rho}\in{\mathbb{R}^d}$ bounds its inefficiency (i.e. $\bm{\rho}\in R[{\mathcal{E}},{\mathcal{F}}]$) if and only if the following holds (see Fig. 4) : $$\forall \bm{y}\in{\mathcal{E}},\quad\exists \bm{z}\in{\mathcal{F}},\quad \bm{y}/\bm{z}{\succsim}\bm{\rho}.$$ The multi-objective coordination ratio $\text{MO-CR}[{\mathcal{E}},{\mathcal{F}}]$ is then defined as: $$\text{MO-CR}[{\mathcal{E}},{\mathcal{F}}]\quad=\quad{\mbox{EFF}}[R[{\mbox{WST}}[{\mathcal{E}}],{\mathcal{F}}]].$$
![Didactic depiction of a guaranteed vectorial ratio $\bm{\rho}$ from $\text{MO-CR}[{\mathcal{E}},{\mathcal{F}}]$.](Figure4)
The most famous results of the coordination ratio (or price of anarchy) are stated analytically on families of games, for instance on congestion games [@christodoulou2005price; @roughgarden2009intrinsic]. Such results would also be desirable in the multi-objective case. However, the underlying proofs do not survive this generalization: while best response inequalities can be summed in single-objective cases, here, non-Pareto-dominances cannot. This issue is independent of the chosen efficiency measurement and motivates numerical approaches, as proposed in the next section.
Computation
===========
In this section, we provide algorithms for computing the set of pure-strategy Pareto-Nash equilibria and for computing the multi-objective coordination ratio.
Computing pure-strategy Pareto-Nash equilibria
----------------------------------------------
If the MO game is given in *normal form*, then it is made of the MO payoffs of every agent $i\in N$ on every action-profile $\bm{a}\in A$. Since there are $n\alpha^{n}$ such vectors, where recall that $n$ is the number of agents, $\alpha$ the number of actions per agent and $d$ the number of objectives, the length of this input is $L(n)=n\alpha^{n}d$. Then, enumeration of the action-profiles works efficiently with respect to length function $L$, using a simple argument similar to [@gottlob2005pure].
Given a MO game in normal form, computing the set of the best (resp. worst) equilibria outcomes ${\mbox{EFF}}[{\mathcal{E}}]$ (resp. ${\mbox{WST}}[{\mathcal{E}}]$) takes polynomial time $$O(n\alpha^{n+1}d+\alpha^{2n}d)\quad=\quad O(L^{2}).$$ Moreover, if $d=2$, this complexity is lowered to quasi-linear-time $$O(n\alpha^{n}\log_{2}(\alpha))=O(L\log_{2}(\alpha)).$$
provide compact representations of massive multi-agent games when the payoff functions of the agents only depend on a local subset of the agents [@kearns2001graphical]. Graphical games can be generalized in a straightforward manner to assuming vectorial payoffs. Formally, there is a support graph $G=(N,E)$ where each vertex represents an agent, and an agent $i$’s evaluation function only depends on the actions of the agents in his inner-neighbourhood ${\mathcal{N}}(i)=\{j\in N|(j,i)\in E\}$. That is $\bm{u}^i:A^{{\mathcal{N}}(i)}\rightarrow{\mathbb{R}}^d$ maps each local action-profile $\bm{a}^{{\mathcal{N}}(i)}\in A^{{\mathcal{N}}(i)}$ to a multi-objective payoff $\bm{u}^i(\bm{a}^{{\mathcal{N}}(i)})\in{\mathbb{R}}^d$.
An MOGG is a tuple $\left(G=(N,E), \{A^i\}_{i\in N}, {{\mathcal{D}}}, \{\bm{u}^i\}_{i\in N}\right)$. $N$ is the set of agents. $\{A^i\}_{i\in N}$ are their individual action-sets. ${{\mathcal{D}}}$ is the set of all objectives. Every function $\bm{u}^i:A^{{\mathcal{N}}(i)}\rightarrow{\mathbb{R}}^d$ is vector-valued, and its scope is vertex $i$’s neighborhood.
Figure 1 pictures a didactic instance of an MOGG. In the same manner as computing equilibria in graphical games was reduced to junction-tree algorithms [@daskalakis2006computing], it is also possible to exploit a generalized MO junction-tree algorithm [@dubus2009multiobjective; @gonzales2011decision]. However, even though this MO junction-tree algorithm is not in polynomial time (but rather pseudo-polynomial time), it still remains faster than browsing the Cartesian product of action-sets and is tractable on average, as experimented in the appendix. Symmetric games [@jiang2007computing] can also be generalized to MOGs:
In a *multi-objective symmetric game*, individual payoffs are not impacted by the agents’ identities. There is one sole action-set $A^{\ast}$ for every agent $i$. So, when deciding action $a^{\ast}\in A^{\ast}$, the multi-objective reward only depends on the number of agents that decided every action. Consequently, the game is not specified for every action-profile $\bm{a}\in A=\prod_{i\in N}A^{\ast}$ and every agent $i$, but rather for every action $a^{\ast}\in A^{\ast}$ and every *configuration* $c:A^{\ast}\rightarrow\mathbb{N}$, where number $c(a^{\ast})\in\mathbb{N}$ indicates the number of agents deciding action $a^{\ast}$. Therefore, the utility is given by a function $\bm{u}^{\ast}$ such that $\bm{u}^{\ast}(a^{\ast},c)\in{\mathbb{R}}^{d}$ is the payoff for deciding action $a^{\ast}$ when configuration $c$ occurs.
There is a number ${n+\alpha-1 \choose \alpha-1}$ of configurations[^6] to which the MO symmetric game associates MO vectors. As a consequence, generalizing to vectorial payoffs, the representation length is $L=\alpha{n+\alpha-1 \choose \alpha-1}d$, and when the numbers $\alpha$ and $d$ are fixed constant, length is $L(n)\in\Theta\left(\alpha n^{\alpha}d\right)$. Quite simply, for computing ${\mathcal{E}}$, ${\mbox{EFF}}[{\mathcal{E}}]$ and ${\mbox{WST}}[{\mathcal{E}}]$, configurations enumeration already takes polynomial time.
Given a multi-objective symmetric game with fixed $\alpha$,
- computing ${\mbox{PN}}$ and ${\mathcal{E}}$ takes time $O(n^{\alpha}\alpha^{2}d)=O(L\alpha)$;
- computing ${\mbox{EFF}}[{\mathcal{E}}]$ and ${\mbox{WST}}[{\mathcal{E}}]$ takes time $O(n^{2\alpha}d)=O(L^{2})$. If $d=2$, this lowers to $O(L(\alpha+\log_{}(L)))$.
Computing MO-CR
---------------
In this subsection, we address the problem of computing the set $\text{MO-CR}[{\mathcal{E}},{\mathcal{F}}]$, given sets of worst equilibria outcomes ${\mbox{WST}}[{\mathcal{E}}]$ and efficient outcomes ${\mathcal{F}}$. Algorithm 1 (below) computes such set. In the algorithm, set $D^{t}$ denotes a set of vectors. Given two vectors, $\bm{x},\bm{y}\in{\mathbb{R}^d_{+}}$, let $\bm{x}\wedge \bm{y}$ denote the vector defined by $\forall k\in{{\mathcal{D}}},~(\bm{x}\wedge \bm{y})_{k}=\min\{x_{k},y_{k}\}$, let $\bm{x}^{\bm{y}}\in{\mathbb{R}^d_{+}}$ be the vector defined by $\forall k\in{{\mathcal{D}}}, (\bm{x}^{\bm{y}})_k=(x_k)^{y_k}$, and recall that $\forall k\in{{\mathcal{D}}},~(\bm{x}/\bm{y})_{k}=x_{k}/y_{k}$.
\
\[-1.5ex\] [**create** ]{} $D^1\leftarrow \{\bm{y}^1/\bm{z}\in{\mathbb{R}^d_{+}}~|~\bm{z}\in{\mathcal{F}}\}$\
$D^q$
Algorithm 1 outputs $\text{MO-CR}[{\mathcal{E}},{\mathcal{F}}]$ in poly-time $O((qm)^{2d-1}d),$ where $q=|{\mbox{WST}}[{\mathcal{E}}]|$ and $m=|{\mathcal{F}}|$ denote the size of the inputs, and $d$ is fixed.
Algorithm 1 calculates product $\cap_{\bm{y}\in{\mbox{WST}}[{\mathcal{E}}]}\cup_{\bm{z}\in{\mathcal{F}}}{\mathcal{C}}(\bm{y}/\bm{z})$, where there could be $m^q$ terms in the output. This set-algebra of cone-unions is compact.
A decisive corollary is that given an MO game with length $L$ that satisfies $q=O(\text{poly}(L))$, $m=O(\text{poly}(L))$ and both sets ${\mbox{WST}}[{\mathcal{E}}]$ and ${\mathcal{F}}$ are computable in time $O(\text{poly}(L))$, then one can compute $\text{MO-CR}$ in polynomial time $O(\text{poly}(L))$. For instance, it is the case with MO normal forms or MO symmetric games. So this approach is not intractable in the most basic cases.
Approximation of the MO-CR for MO compact representations
---------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately, Algorithm 1 is not practical when the MO game has a compact form and cardinalities $q,m$ are exponentials with respect to the compact size of the game’s representation. For instance, this is the case for multi-objective graphical games. Theorem \[th:approx\] below answers this issue by taking only a small and approximate representation of sets ${\mbox{WST}}[{\mathcal{E}}]$ and ${\mathcal{F}}$, in order to output a guaranteed approximation of sets $\text{MO-CR}$ or $R[{\mbox{WST}}[{\mathcal{E}}],{\mathcal{F}}]$. This suggests the following general method:
1. Given a compact MOG representation, compute quickly an approximation $E^{(\varepsilon)}$ of ${\mbox{WST}}[{\mathcal{E}}]$ and an approximation $F^{(\varepsilon')}$ of ${\mathcal{F}}$.
2. Then, given $E^{(\varepsilon)}$ and $F^{(\varepsilon')}$, use Algorithm 1 to approximate the MO-CR.
For this general method to be implemented rigorously, we must specify the precise definitions of the two approximations required in input, for the desired output to be indeed some approximation of the MO-CR.
Firstly, let us specify the [output]{}. The ratios in $R[{\mbox{WST}}[{\mathcal{E}}],{\mathcal{F}}]$ must be represented, even approximately, but only by using valid ratios of efficiency, as below.
\[def:covering\] Given $R\subset{\mathbb{R}^d_{+}}$ and $\varepsilon>0$, $R^{(\varepsilon)}\subset R$ is a $(1+\varepsilon)$-covering of $R$, if and only if: $$\forall \bm{\rho}\in R,\quad
\exists \bm{\rho}'\in R^{(\varepsilon)}:\quad
(1+\varepsilon)\bm{\rho}' {\succsim}\bm{\rho}$$
For instance, $R[{\mbox{WST}}[{\mathcal{E}}],{\mathcal{F}}]$ is $(1+0)$-covered by $\text{MO-CR}={\mbox{EFF}}[R[{\mbox{WST}}[{\mathcal{E}}],{\mathcal{F}}]]$. Denote $\bm{\varphi}:{\mathbb{R}^d_{+}}\rightarrow{\mathbb{N}^d}$ the discretization into the $(1+\varepsilon)$-logarithmic grid. Given a vector $\bm{x}\in{\mathbb{R}^d_{+}}$, $\bm{\varphi}(x)$ is defined by: $\forall k\in{{\mathcal{D}}},~~\varphi_k(x)=\lfloor\log_{(1+\varepsilon)}(x_k)\rfloor$. A typical implementation of $(1+\varepsilon)$-coverings are the logarithmic $(1+\varepsilon)$-coverings, which consist in taking one vector of $R$ in each reciprocal image of $\bm{\varphi}(R)$. That is, for each $\bm{l}\in\bm{\varphi}(R)$, take one $\bm{\rho}$ in $\bm{\varphi}^{-1}(\bm{l})$. The logarithmic grid is depicted in Fig. \[fig:mo:approx\].
Now we must specify rigorously what approximate representations $E^{(\varepsilon_1)}$ of set ${\mbox{WST}}[{\mathcal{E}}]$, and $F^{(\varepsilon_2)}$ of set ${\mathcal{F}}$ we should take in input, in order to guarantee that $R[E^{(\varepsilon_1)},F^{(\varepsilon_2)}]$ is an $(1+\varepsilon)$-covering of $R[{\mbox{WST}}[{\mathcal{E}}],{\mathcal{F}}]$. Definitions \[def:under:covering\] and \[def:stick:covering\] come from the need of specific approximate representations that will carry the guarantees to the approximate final output $R[E^{(\varepsilon_1)},F^{(\varepsilon_2)}]$.
\[def:under:covering\] Given $\varepsilon>0$, $E\subset{\mathbb{R}^d_{+}}$ and $E^{(\varepsilon)}\subset{\mathbb{R}^d_{+}}$, $E^{(\varepsilon)}$ $(1+\varepsilon)$-[under]{}-covers $E$ if and only if: $$\begin{aligned}
\forall \bm{y}\in E,~~
\exists \bm{y}'\in E^{(\varepsilon)} &:&
\bm{y}{\succsim}\bm{y}'\\
\text{and}~~~
\forall \bm{y}'\in E^{(\varepsilon)},~~
\exists \bm{y}\in E &:&
(1+\varepsilon)\bm{y}'{\succsim}\bm{y}\end{aligned}$$
The first condition states that $E^{(\varepsilon)}$ bounds $E$ from below. The second condition states that this lower bound is precise within a multiplicative $(1+\varepsilon)$. Given $E$, one can implement Definition \[def:under:covering\] by using the log-grid (see e.g. Fig. \[fig:mo:approx\]): $$E^{(\varepsilon)}\leftarrow{\mbox{WST}}\left[~~\left\{~\bm{e}^{\bm{l}}\in{\mathbb{R}^d_{+}}\mid \bm{l}\in\bm{\varphi}\left({\mbox{WST}}[{\mathcal{E}}]\right)\right\}~~\right]$$ where $\bm{\varphi}({\mbox{WST}}[{\mathcal{E}}])=\{\bm{\varphi}(\bm{y})\in{\mathbb{N}^d}\mid\bm{y}\in {\mbox{WST}}[{\mathcal{E}}]\}$, and given $\bm{l}\in{\mathbb{N}^d}$, the vector $\bm{e}^{\bm{l}}$ is defined by $(\bm{e}^{\bm{l}})_k=(1+\varepsilon)^{l_k}$. Now let us state what approximation is required on the set of efficient outcomes ${\mathcal{F}}$.
\[def:stick:covering\] Given $\varepsilon>0$, $F\subset{\mathbb{R}^d_{+}}$ and $F^{(\varepsilon)}\subset{\mathbb{R}^d_{+}}$, $F^{(\varepsilon)}$ $(1+\varepsilon)$-[stick]{}-covers $F$ if and only if: $$\begin{aligned}
\forall \bm{z}'\in F^{(\varepsilon)},~~
\exists \bm{z}\in F &:&
\bm{z}'{\succsim}\bm{z}\\
\text{and}~~~
\forall \bm{z}\in F,~~
\exists \bm{z}'\in F^{(\varepsilon)} &:&
(1+\varepsilon)\bm{z}{\succsim}\bm{z}'\end{aligned}$$
The first condition is easily satisfiable by $F^{(\varepsilon)}\subseteq F$. The second condition states that $F^{(\varepsilon)}$ sticks to $F$. Given $F$, one can implement Definition \[def:stick:covering\] as in Figure \[fig:mo:approx\]: Take one element of ${\mathcal{F}}$ per cell of the logarithmic grid, and then take ${\mbox{WST}}$ of this set of elements. Now we can state that with an approximate Phase 1, the precision transfers to Phase 2 in polynomial time, as follows.
![MO approximations, depictions of under and stick coverings[]{data-label="fig:mo:approx"}](art1/logGridphi.pdf)
$E^{(\varepsilon)}$ (the green dots below ${\mbox{WST}}[{\mathcal{E}}]$) is a $(1+\varepsilon)$-under-covering of set ${\mbox{WST}}[{\mathcal{E}}]$.\
$F^{(\varepsilon)}$ (the three red dots in ${\mathcal{F}}$) is a $(1+\varepsilon)$-stick-covering of the dark-red set ${\mathcal{F}}$.
\[lem:approx\] Given $\varepsilon_1,\varepsilon_2>0$ and approximations $E$ of ${\mathcal{E}}$ and $F$ of ${\mathcal{F}}$, if $$\begin{aligned}
\forall \bm{y}\in{\mathcal{E}}, \exists \bm{y}'\in E,\quad \bm{y}{\succsim}\bm{y}' &
\quad \text{and}\quad &
\forall \bm{y}'\in E, \exists \bm{y}\in{\mathcal{E}},\quad (1+\varepsilon_1)\bm{y}'{\succsim}\bm{y}\label{eq:approx:E}\\
\forall \bm{z}'\in F, \exists \bm{z}\in{\mathcal{F}},\quad \bm{z}'{\succsim}\bm{z} &
\quad \text{and}\quad &
\forall \bm{z}\in{\mathcal{F}}, \exists \bm{z}'\in F,\quad (1+\varepsilon_2)\bm{z}{\succsim}\bm{z}'\label{eq:approx:F}\end{aligned}$$ holds, then it follows that $R[E,F]\subseteq R[{\mathcal{E}},{\mathcal{F}}]$ and: $$\begin{aligned}
\forall \bm{\rho}\in R[{\mathcal{E}},{\mathcal{F}}],\quad \exists \bm{\rho}'\in R[E,F],\quad (1+\varepsilon_1)(1+\varepsilon_2)\bm{\rho}'{\succsim}\bm{\rho}\label{eq:approx:R}\end{aligned}$$
Equations (\[eq:approx:E\]) and (\[eq:approx:F\]) state approximation bounds as in Definitions \[def:under:covering\] and \[def:stick:covering\]. Equations (\[eq:approx:E\]) state that $(1+\varepsilon_1)^{-1}{\mathcal{E}}$ bounds below $E$ which bounds below ${\mathcal{E}}$. Equations (\[eq:approx:F\]) state that ${\mathcal{F}}$ bounds below $F$ which bounds below $(1+\varepsilon_2){\mathcal{F}}$. Crucially, whatever the sizes of ${\mathcal{E}}$ and ${\mathcal{F}}$, there exist such approximations $E$ and $F$ with respective sizes $O((1/\varepsilon_1)^{d-1})$ and $O((1/\varepsilon_2)^{d-1})$ [@papadimitriou2000approximability], yielding the approximation scheme below.
\[th:approx\] Given a compact MOG of representation length $L$, precisions $\varepsilon_1,\varepsilon_2>0$ and two algorithms to compute approximations $E$ of ${\mathcal{E}}$ and $F$ of ${\mathcal{F}}$ in the sense of Equations (\[eq:approx:E\]) and (\[eq:approx:F\]) that take time $\theta_{{\mathcal{E}}}(\varepsilon_1,L)$ and $\theta_{{\mathcal{F}}}(\varepsilon_2,L)$, one can approximate $R[{\mathcal{E}},{\mathcal{F}}]$ in the sense of Equation (\[eq:approx:R\]) in time $O\left(\theta_{{\mathcal{E}}}(\varepsilon_1,L) \quad+\quad \theta_{{\mathcal{F}}}(\varepsilon_2,L) \quad+\quad {(\varepsilon_1 \varepsilon_2)^{-(d-1)(2d-1)}}\right)$.
For MO graphical games, Phase 1 could be instantiated with approximate junction-tree algorithms on MO graphical models [@dubus2009multiobjective]. For MO symmetric action-graph games, in the same fashion, one could generalize existing algorithms [@jiang2007computing]. More generally, for the worst equilibria ${\mbox{WST}}[{\mathcal{E}}]$ and the efficient outcomes ${\mathcal{F}}$, one could also use meta-heuristics with experimental guarantees.
Conclusion: discussion and prospects
====================================
Along with equilibrium existence, potential functions also usually guarantee the convergence of best-response dynamics. This easily generalizes to dynamics where every deviation step is an individual Pareto-improvement. However, when studying a dynamics based on a refinement of the Pareto-dominance, convergence is not always guaranteed.
Pareto-Nash equilibria, which encompass the possible outcomes of MO games, very likely exist. The precision of PN-equilibria inevitably relies on the uncertainty on preferences. A promising research path would be to linearly constrain the utility functions of agents. This would induce a polytope and would boil down to another MO game where every objective corresponds to an extreme point of the induced polytope. The efficiency of several multi-objective games could be analyzed by using the contributions in this paper.
Proof of Theorem 1
==================
Let $0_d\in{\mathbb{R}}^d$ denote the $d$-dimensional MO vector with $d$ zero components. Let $a\in A$ be an action-profile. To state that $a$ is a ${\mbox{PN}}$-equilibrium is equivalent to state that for every agent $i$ and every individual deviation $b^i\in A^i$, it holds that: $$u^i(b^i,a^{-i})
\quad\not{\succ}\quad
u^i(a)$$ From the definition of a potential $\Phi$, it is equivalent to state that, for every agent $i$ and every individual deviation $b^i\in A^i$, it holds that: $$\Phi(b^i,a^{-i})-\Phi(a)
\quad =\quad
u^i(b^i,a^{-i})-u^i(a)
\quad\not{\succ}\quad
0_d$$ That is, $\Phi(b^i,a^{-i})\not{\succ}\Phi(a)$, which means that $a\in{\mbox{LOC}}(\Phi)$.
Furthermore, the existence of local optima for the potential function generalizes to the MO case: The set of locally-Pareto-efficient action-profiles is necessarily non-empty, otherwise, given $t\in\mathbb{N}$, whatever the action-profile $a_{(t)}$, one could always find an action-profile $a_{(t+1)}$ in its neighbourhood of individual deviations, such that $\Phi(a_{(t+1)}){\succ}\Phi(a_{(t)})$. Therefore, one could build an infinite sequence $(a_{(t)})_{t\in\mathbb{N}}$ such that $\Phi(a_{(t+1)}){\succ}\Phi(a_{(t)})$; and since the Pareto-dominance ${\succ}$ is a strict partial order and $\Phi$ a (deterministic) function, one would have an infinite number of distinct action-profiles, contradicting the fact that $|A|\leq \alpha^n$ is finite.
Proof of Theorem 2
==================
We will denote by ${\mathbb{P}}_{n,\alpha,\pi}$ the probability distribution that draws a normal form game (SO or MO) with $n$ agents, $\alpha=\alpha^i=|A^i|$ actions-per-agent, and the payoffs $u^i(a)$ according to the distribution $\pi$ on ${\mathbb{R}}$ or ${\mathbb{R}}^d$. Also, according to ${\mathbb{P}}_{n,\alpha,\pi}$, given an agent $i$ and an action-profile $a=(a^i,a^{-i})$, let us denote by $X_{i,a}\in\{0,1\}$ the random variable (RV) which is equal to $1$ if and only if for agent $i$, the action $a^i$ is a best response (or efficient response) to the adversary action-profile $a^{-i}$. Given an action-profile $a$, let us denote by $Y_{a}=\min_{i\in N}\{X_{i,a}\}$ the binary RV which is equal to $1$ if and only if the action-profile $a$ is a PN equilibrium. Finally, let $Z=\sum_{a\in A} Y_{a}$ denote the number of pure Nash-equilibria action-profiles in the game. For simplicity, we may use the name of a binary random variable as a shorthand for the event that this RV equals $1$. Since for every agent $i$ and every adversary action-profile $a^{-i}$ there is (almost surely) only one best-response $b^i\in A^i$ in $u^i(A^i,a^{-i})$ (because payoffs are almost surely different), an IID uniform distribution on $[0,1]$ amounts to whatever IID distribution that will almost surely draw uniformly one single best-response in $u^i(A^i,a^{-i})$.
*Generalization to multi-objective.* While in the SO case, there is almost surely only one best-response, when considering MO games, the main technical difference lies in the average number of “best-responses” (or here, Pareto-efficient responses) which is in most cases greater than $1$, due to the $(d-1)$ dimensional surface-like shape of the Pareto-efficient set in ${\mathbb{R}}^d$. For instance, it can be shown that when drawing a number $\alpha$ of MO payoffs according to a uniform distribution on the simplex $\mathcal{S}_{{{\mathcal{D}}}}=\{u\in{\mathbb{R}}_+^d\mid \sum_{k\in{{\mathcal{D}}}}u_k\leq 1\}$, then by counting the vectors on the outer face, the number $\beta$ of Pareto-efficient vectors among the $\alpha$ vectors satisfies: $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{E}}[\beta] & \quad \sim \quad &
\frac{d}{(d!)^{1/d}}~~\alpha^{\frac{d-1}{d}}
\quad\quad\quad\text{as}\quad
\alpha\rightarrow\infty
\label{eq:integfac}\end{aligned}$$ in the sense that the ratio of the left and right members of $\sim$ tends to $1$. As a consequence, on the simplex $\mathcal{S}_{{{\mathcal{D}}}}$, one quickly has a number of Pareto-efficient responses $\beta$ strictly greater than $1$ as the number of actions $\alpha$ grows. (The number of objectives $d$ is fixed.)
For the sake of simplicity, we then assume a probability distribution ${\mathbb{P}}_{n,\alpha,\beta}$, that builds randomly an $n$-agents normal form game with $\alpha$ actions-per-agent. For the sake of simplicity, for every agent $i$, and every adversary action-profile $a^{-i}\in\prod_{j\neq i} A^j$, there is a fixed number $\beta:1\leq\beta\leq\alpha$ of Pareto-efficient responses (supposedly, according to some vectorial payoffs $u^i(A^i,a^{-i})$ selected independently and uniformly at random in $A^i$). Recall that the number $\beta$ can be reasonably supposed greater than $1$ (see Equation \[eq:integfac\]).
[@bienayme1867] Recall that the Bienaymé-Tchebychev inequality states that for a random variable $Z$ with expectancy ${\mathbb{E}}[Z]$ and variance ${\text{Var}}[Z]$, for every parameter $\mu\in{\mathbb{R}}_+$ it holds that: $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{P}}(|Z-{\mathbb{E}}[Z]|\geq \mu) &\leq & \frac{{\text{Var}}[Z]}{\mu}\end{aligned}$$ In simple words, a random variable is unlikely to spread more than its variance.
Let us now study the expectation of the number of PN-equilibria ${\mathbb{E}}_{n,\alpha,\beta}[Z]$. One has: $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{E}}_{n,\alpha,\beta}\left[Z\right] &=& {\mathbb{E}}_{n,\alpha,\beta}\left[\sum_{a\in A} Y_a \right] \label{eq14}\\ &=& \sum_{a\in A} {\mathbb{E}}_{n,\alpha,\beta}\left[ Y_a \right] \label{eq15}\\ &=& \sum_{a\in A} {\mathbb{E}}_{n,\alpha,\beta}\left[ \min_{i\in N} X_{i,a} \right] \label{eq16}\\ &=& \sum_{a\in A} {\mathbb{P}}_{n,\alpha,\beta}\left(\wedge_{i\in N} \{X_{i,a}\} \right) \label{eq17}\\ &=& \sum_{a\in A} \prod_{i\in N} {\mathbb{P}}_{n,\alpha,\beta}\left( X_{i,a} \right) \label{eq18}\\ &=& \sum_{a\in A} \prod_{i\in N} \frac{\beta}{\alpha} \label{eq19} \\ &=& \alpha^n (\beta/\alpha)^n \label{eq110}\\ &=& \beta^n \label{eq111} \end{aligned}$$ Equation (\[eq14\]) uses the definition of the RV $Z$. Equation (\[eq15\]) uses the linearity of expectation. Equation (\[eq16\]) uses the definition of the RV $Y_a$. Equation (\[eq17\]) formulates it as an event. Equation (\[eq18\]) uses the independence of payoffs between agents. Equation (\[eq19\]) uses the definition the probability ${\mathbb{P}}_{n,\alpha,\beta}$: uniform. Equation (\[eq110\]) uses that $|A|=\alpha^n$ and that $\prod_{i\in N}(\beta/\alpha)=(\beta/\alpha)^n$. Equation (\[eq111\]) concludes that: ${\mathbb{E}}[Z]=\beta^n$. Therefore, the number of PN-equilibria $Z$ is in expectation an exponential of basis $\beta$ with respect to the number of agents $n$. Let us now study the variance of the number of PN-equilibria $Z$: $$\begin{aligned}
& &{\text{Var}}\left(Z\right) \\ &=& {\text{Var}}\left(\sum_{a\in A} Y_a \right)\label{eq:112}\\ &=& \sum_{a\in A} \sum_{b\in A} {\text{Cov}}(Y_a,Y_b)\label{eq:113}\\ &=& \sum_{a\in A} \sum_{b\in A} {\mathbb{E}}[Y_a Y_b] - {\mathbb{E}}[Y_a] {\mathbb{E}}[Y_b]\label{eq:114}\\ &=& \sum_{b\in A} \sum_{a\in A} \left(\prod_{i\in N}{\mathbb{P}}(X_{i,a} X_{i,b}) - \left(\frac{\beta}{\alpha}\right)^{2n}\right)\label{eq:115} \end{aligned}$$ Equation (\[eq:112\]) uses the definition of the RV $Z$. Equation (\[eq:113\]) is the variance of the sum of RVs $\sum_{a\in A} Y_a$. Equation (\[eq:114\]) uses the definition of the covariance ${\text{Cov}}(Y_a,Y_b)$. In Equation (\[eq:115\]) the first terms ${\mathbb{E}}[Y_a Y_b]=\prod_{i\in N}{\mathbb{P}}(X_{i,a} X_{i,b})$ result from the independences of payoffs between players. The second terms ${\mathbb{E}}[Y_a]{\mathbb{E}}[Y_b]=(\beta/\alpha)^{2n}$ result from the same calculus as for the expectation ${\mathbb{E}}[Z]$. Remark that by symmetry, all the $\alpha^n$ terms of the outer sum are equal. Fixing an action-profile $b\in A$, let us continue this calculus below: $$\begin{aligned}
{\text{Var}}\left(Z\right) &=& \alpha^n \sum_{a\in A} \left(\prod_{i\in N}{\mathbb{P}}(X_{i,a} X_{i,b}) - \left(\frac{\beta}{\alpha}\right)^{2n}\right)\label{eq:116} \end{aligned}$$Now, having fixed an action-profile $b\in A$, given an action-profile $a$ and an agent $i$, let us study the value of the probability ${\mathbb{P}}(X_{i,a}, X_{i,b})$. Remark that it will depend on whether the random variables $X_{i,a}$ and $X_{i,b}$ are independent or not:
- If $a^{-i}\neq b^{-i}$, then the payoffs are independent, and one has the probability: $${\mathbb{P}}(X_{i,a}, X_{i,b})={\mathbb{P}}(X_{i,a}){\mathbb{P}}(X_{i,b})=(\beta/\alpha)^2$$
- If $a^{-i}= b^{-i}$ with $a^i\neq b^i$, then the payoffs are dependent, and one has the probability: $${\mathbb{P}}(X_{i,a}, X_{i,b})={\mathbb{P}}(X_{i,a}~|~X_{i,b}) {\mathbb{P}}(X_{i,b})=\frac{(\beta-1)\beta}{\alpha^2}$$
- Finally, if $a=b$, then ${\mathbb{P}}(X_{i,a}, X_{i,b})={\mathbb{P}}(X_{i,a})=\beta/\alpha$.
Now, (having fixed an action-profile $b\in A$) let us study the terms in the sum $\sum_{a\in A}$. Given an action-profile $a\in A$, one has:\
$\bullet$ If $a=b$, which occurs exactly once, then ${\mathbb{P}}(X_{i,a}, X_{i,b})=\beta/\alpha$, and the term $\prod\nolimits_{i\in N}{\mathbb{P}}(X_{i,a} X_{i,b}) - \left(\beta/\alpha\right)^{2n}$ equals $(\beta/\alpha)^n - \left(\beta/\alpha\right)^{2n}$.\
$\bullet$ If for some agent $i$, it holds that $a^{-i}= b^{-i}$ with $a^i\neq b^i$, then a distinct agent $j$ cannot satisfy $a^{-j}= b^{-j}$, because of $a^i\neq b^i$; hence the other agents (other than agent $i$) fall into the case of $a^{-j}\neq b^{-j}$. This occurs exactly $n(\alpha-1)$ times, and then while it holds that ${\mathbb{P}}(X_{i,a}, X_{i,b})=(\beta-1)\beta/\alpha^2$ for agent $i$, for the other agents $j$, it holds that ${\mathbb{P}}(X_{j,a}, X_{j,b})=(\beta/\alpha)^2$. Therefore, the term $\prod\nolimits_{i\in N}{\mathbb{P}}(X_{i,a} X_{i,b}) - \left(\beta/\alpha\right)^{2n}$ equals $((\beta-1)\beta/\alpha^2)(\beta/\alpha)^{2n-2} - \left(\beta/\alpha\right)^{2n}$, that is:\
$$\begin{aligned}
\prod\nolimits_{i\in N}{\mathbb{P}}(X_{i,a} X_{i,b}) - \left(\beta/\alpha\right)^{2n} &=& \frac {(\beta-1)\beta^{2n-1}-\beta^{2n}} {\alpha^{2n}}\\ &=& \frac {-\beta^{2n-1}} {\alpha^{2n}} \end{aligned}$$ $\bullet$ In the last case, if for every agent $i$, it holds that $a^{-i}\neq b^{-i}$, then the term cancels.\
To conclude, the variance of the number of Pareto-Nash equilibria is: $$\begin{aligned}
&&{\text{Var}}\left(Z\right) \\ &=& \alpha^n \sum_{a\in A} \left(\prod\nolimits_{i\in N}{\mathbb{P}}(X_{i,a} X_{i,b}) \quad-\quad \left(\beta/\alpha\right)^{2n}\right)\label{eq:117}\\ &=& \alpha^n \left((\beta/\alpha)^n - (\beta/\alpha)^{2n}-n(\alpha-1)\beta^{2n-1}/ \alpha^{2n}\right)\label{eq:118}\\ &=& \beta^n \left( 1 - (\beta/\alpha)^n - n(\alpha-1)\beta^{n-1}/\alpha^{n}\right)\\ &=& \beta^n \left( 1 - \quad(\beta/\alpha)^n(1+n(\alpha-1)/\beta)\quad\right)\\ &\leq & \beta^n \end{aligned}$$ To finish, since we have an expectation ${\mathbb{E}}[Z]=\beta^n$ and a variance ${\text{Var}}(Z)\leq\beta^n$, a straightforward use of the Bienaymé-Tchebychev inequality concludes that for any given number $\gamma\in(0,1)$, it holds that: $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{P}}(|Z-\beta^n|\leq \gamma \beta^n) &\geq & 1 - \frac{\beta^n}{\gamma^2 \beta^{2n}}\\ & = & 1 - \frac{1}{\gamma^2 \beta^{n}} \end{aligned}$$
Proofs concerning the properties of the multi-objective coordination ratio
==========================================================================
We show that Definition \[def:MOCR\] satisfies the following. Given ${\mathcal{E}},{\mathcal{F}}\subset{\mathbb{R}^d_{+}}$ and $\bm{r}\in{\mathbb{R}^d_{+}}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\mbox{MO-CR}[{\mathcal{E}},{\mathcal{F}}]
&\quad\subseteq&
{\mathbb{R}^d_{+}}\label{eq:ratio:6:bis}\\
\mbox{MO-CR}[\{\bm{0}\},{\mathcal{F}}]
&\quad=&
\{\bm{0}\}\label{eq:ratio:7:bis}\\
\mbox{MO-CR}[\bm{r}\star{\mathcal{E}},{\mathcal{F}}]
& \quad=&
\bm{r}\star\mbox{MO-CR}[{\mathcal{E}},{\mathcal{F}}]\label{eq:ratio:8:bis}\\
\mbox{MO-CR}[{\mathcal{E}},\bm{r}\star{\mathcal{F}}]
& \quad=&
\mbox{MO-CR}[{\mathcal{E}},{\mathcal{F}}]/\bm{r}\label{eq:ratio:9:bis}\\
{\mathcal{E}}\subseteq{\mathcal{F}}& \quad\Leftrightarrow&
\bm{1}\in \mbox{MO-CR}[{\mathcal{E}},{\mathcal{F}}]\label{eq:ratio:10:bis} \end{aligned}$$
Property (\[eq:ratio:6:bis\])By definition, set $\mbox{MO-CR}[{\mathcal{E}},{\mathcal{F}}]$ is a set of vectors in ${\mathbb{R}^d}$.
Property (\[eq:ratio:7:bis\])If ${\mathcal{E}}=\{\bm{0}\}$, then the condition $\rho\in R[{\mathcal{E}},{\mathcal{F}}]$, which is $\forall \bm{y}\in{\mathcal{E}},$ $\quad\exists \bm{z}\in{\mathcal{F}},$ $\bm{y}/\bm{z}{\succsim}\bm{\rho}$, rewrites $\bm{0}{\succsim}\bm{\rho}$. Then ${\mbox{EFF}}[{\mathcal{C}}(\bm{0})]=\{\bm{0}\}$.
Property (\[eq:ratio:8:bis\])We just need to show that $R[\bm{r}\star{\mathcal{E}},{\mathcal{F}}]=\bm{r}\star R[{\mathcal{E}},{\mathcal{F}}]$. Condition $\rho\in R[\bm{r}\star{\mathcal{E}},{\mathcal{F}}]$ rewrites into $\forall \bm{y}\in{\mathcal{E}},\quad\exists \bm{z}\in{\mathcal{F}},\quad \bm{r}\star\bm{y}/\bm{z}{\succsim}\bm{\rho}$. Then one has $\rho\in \bm{r}\star R[{\mathcal{E}},{\mathcal{F}}]$. The converse also holds by a similar argument.
Property (\[eq:ratio:9:bis\])Similarly, one can show that $R[{\mathcal{E}},\bm{r}\star{\mathcal{F}}]=R[{\mathcal{E}},{\mathcal{F}}]/\bm{r}$.
Property (\[eq:ratio:10:bis\])First, note that since ${\mathcal{F}}$ dominates ${\mathcal{E}}$, it is not possible to have $\bm{\rho}{\succ}\bm{1}$ in $R[{\mathcal{E}},{\mathcal{F}}]$. Second, for every $\bm{y}\in{\mathcal{E}}$, one can then take $z=y$, and since $\bm{1}/\bm{1}{\succsim}\bm{1}$, one has $\bm{1}\in R[{\mathcal{E}},{\mathcal{F}}]$. One can also show that if ${\mathcal{E}}\not\subseteq{\mathcal{F}}$ then $\bm{1}\not\in \mbox{MO-CR}[{\mathcal{E}},{\mathcal{F}}]$.
Proof of Theorem 3
==================
The computation of the best equilibria outcomes ${\mbox{EFF}}[{\mathcal{E}}]$ can be achieved by (1) computing the PN equilibria ${\mbox{PN}}\subseteq A$, then (2) computing the equilibria outcomes ${\mathcal{E}}=u({\mbox{PN}})\subseteq {\mathbb{R}}^d$ and finally (3) computing the best equilibria outcomes ${\mbox{EFF}}[{\mathcal{E}}]\subseteq{\mathcal{E}}$ (or the worst ones ${\mbox{WST}}[{\mathcal{E}}]\subseteq{\mathcal{E}}$).
\(1) For this purpose, for every agent $i\in N$ and each adversary action profile $a^{-i}\in A^{-i}$, one has to compute which individual actions give a Pareto-efficient evaluation in $u^i(A^i,a^{-i})$ (which takes time $O(\alpha^2d)$, or if $d=2$ then $O(\alpha\log_2(\alpha))$), in order to mark which action-profiles can be a PN equilibrium from $i$’s point of view. Hence, computing ${\mbox{PN}}$ takes time $O(n \alpha^{n-1} \alpha^2 d)$ (or if $d=2$ $O(n \alpha^{n} \log_2(\alpha) )$). In the worst case, ${\mbox{PN}}=A$ hence $|{\mbox{PN}}|=O(\alpha^n)$.
Then, (2) computing the image through total-utilitarianism ${\mathcal{E}}=u({\mbox{PN}})$ requires for each $a\in {\mbox{PN}}$ the addition of $n$ vectors, in time $nd|{\mbox{PN}}|=O(n\alpha^n d)$.
\(3) Finally, the computation of ${\mbox{EFF}}[{\mathcal{E}}]$ given ${\mathcal{E}}$ takes time $O(|{\mathcal{E}}|^2 d)=O(\alpha^{2n} d)$; and the same holds for ${\mbox{WST}}[{\mathcal{E}}]$. To sum up, the computation of ${\mbox{EFF}}[{\mathcal{E}}]$ (or of ${\mbox{WST}}[{\mathcal{E}}]$) takes time $O(n \alpha^{n+1} d + \alpha^{2n} d)$. If $d=2$, this significantly lowers to $O(n\alpha^n \log_2(\alpha))$, by using a data structure (e.g. an AVL tree) that orders vectors according to the first objective and does comparisons on the second objective.
Proof of Theorem 4
==================
Since the game is symmetric, every configuration $c$ represents an equivalence class in the set of action-profiles $A$; hence, a set of configurations represents a subset of the action-profiles. Therefore, in order to compute the set of Pareto-Nash equilibria ${\mbox{PN}}\subseteq A$, a set of configurations is an acceptable output and even a more compact one. The problem to decide if a given configuration $c$ is a (pure-strategy) Pareto-Nash equilibrium is easy: one only has to test for every action $a^\ast\in A^\ast$ such that[^7] $c(a^\ast)\geq 1$, if that action is a Pareto-efficient individual decision. An individual deviation to another action $b^\ast\in A^\ast$ induces the configuration $c'$ obtained from the configuration $c$ by subtracting 1 from the number $c(a^\ast)$ and adding 1 to the number $c(b^\ast)$ of agents deciding the action $b^\ast$. Therefore, testing if a configuration $c$ is a ${\mbox{PN}}$ equilibrium takes time $O(\alpha^2 d)$. As a consequence, the computation of the set of ${\mbox{PN}}$ equilibria takes times $O(n^\alpha \alpha^2 d)$, that is poly-time $O(L\alpha)$. Also, computing an utilitarian evaluation $u(c)=\sum_{a^\ast\in A^\ast}c(a^\ast)u^{\ast}(a^\ast,c)\in{\mathbb{R}}^d$ requires $O(\alpha)$ multiplications and additions; hence computing the set of equilibria outcomes ${\mathcal{E}}=u({\mbox{PN}})$ (starting from the set ${\mbox{PN}}$ which size is $O(L)$) also takes poly-time $O(L\alpha)$. Since the number of equilibria outcomes is bounded by the number of configurations, it follows that computing the sets of best and worst equilibria ${\mbox{EFF}}[{\mathcal{E}}]$ and ${\mbox{WST}}[{\mathcal{E}}]$ takes time $O(n^{2\alpha} d)$, that is poly-time $O(L^2)$.
Proof of Theorem 5
==================
In order to compute $\text{MO-CR}={\mbox{EFF}}[R[{\mbox{WST}}[{\mathcal{E}}],{\mathcal{F}}]]$, let us study the structure of $\bigcap_{y\in{\mbox{WST}}[{\mathcal{E}}]}\bigcup_{z\in{\mathcal{F}}}{\mathcal{C}}(y/z)$, by restricting a set-algebra to the following objects:
\[def:coneunion\] For set of vectors $X\subseteq{\mathbb{R}^d_{+}}$, Cone-Union ${\mathcal{C}}(X)$ is: $${\mathcal{C}}(X) \quad=\quad\bigcup_{x\in X}{\mathcal{C}}(x) \quad=\quad\{y\in{\mathbb{R}^d_{+}}~~|~~ \exists x\in X, x{\succsim}y\}$$ Let ${\mathcal{C}}$ denote the set of all cone-unions of ${\mathbb{R}^d_{+}}$.
To define an algebra on ${\mathcal{C}}$, one can supply ${\mathcal{C}}$ with $\cup$ and $\cap$.
\[prop:algebra\] \
Given two descriptions of cone-unions $X^1,X^2\subseteq{\mathbb{R}^d_{+}}$, we have: $${\mathcal{C}}(X^1)\cup{\mathcal{C}}(X^2)\quad=\quad{\mathcal{C}}( X^1\cup X^2 )$$ Given two descriptions of cones $x^1,x^2\in{\mathbb{R}^d_{+}}$, we have: $${\mathcal{C}}(x^1)\cap{\mathcal{C}}(x^2)\quad=\quad{\mathcal{C}}(x^1\wedge x^2)$$ where $x^1\wedge x^2\in{\mathbb{R}^d_{+}}$ is: $\forall k\in{{\mathcal{D}}}, (x^1\wedge x^2)_k=\min\{x^1_k,x^2_k\}$.\
Given two descriptions of cone-unions $X^1,X^2\subseteq{\mathbb{R}^d_{+}}$, we have: $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{C}}(X^1)\cap{\mathcal{C}}(X^2) &=&\left(\cup_{x^1\in X^1}{\mathcal{C}}(x^1)\right)\cap\left(\cup_{x^2\in X^2}{\mathcal{C}}(x^2)\right)\\ &=&\bigcup_{(x^1,x^2)\in X^1\times X^2}{\mathcal{C}}(x^1)\cap{\mathcal{C}}(x^2)\\ &=&\bigcup_{(x^1,x^2)\in X^1\times X^2}{\mathcal{C}}(x^1\wedge x^2)\\ &=&{\mathcal{C}}( X^1\wedge X^2 ) \end{aligned}$$ where $X^1\wedge X^2=\{x^1\wedge x^2~|~x^1\in X^1,~x^2\in X^2\}\subseteq{\mathbb{R}^d_{+}}$.\
Therefore, $({\mathcal{C}},\cup,\cap)$ is stable, and then is a set-algebra.
The three properties derive from set calculus.
The main consequence of Lemma \[prop:algebra\] is that $R[{\mbox{WST}}[{\mathcal{E}}],{\mathcal{F}}]=\cap_{y\in{\mbox{WST}}[{\mathcal{E}}]}\cup_{z\in{\mathcal{F}}}{\mathcal{C}}(y/z)$ is a cone-union. Moreover, one can do the expansion for $\cap_{y\in{\mbox{WST}}[{\mathcal{E}}]}\cup_{z\in{\mathcal{F}}}{\mathcal{C}}(y/z)$ within the cone-unions, using expansions.
\[rk:app:cone\] For a finite set $X\subseteq{\mathbb{R}^d_{+}}$, we have: ${\mathcal{C}}(X)={\mathcal{C}}({\mbox{EFF}}[X])$.
Firstly, we prove ${\mathcal{C}}(X)\subseteq{\mathcal{C}}({\mbox{EFF}}[X])$. If $y\in{\mathcal{C}}(X)$, then there exists $x\in X$ such that $x{\succsim}y$. There are two cases, $x\in{\mbox{EFF}}[X]$ and $x\not\in{\mbox{EFF}}[X]$. If $x\in{\mbox{EFF}}[X]$, then $y\in{\mathcal{C}}({\mbox{EFF}}[X])$, by definition of a cone-union. Otherwise, if $x\not\in{\mbox{EFF}}[X]$, then there exists $z\in X$ such that $z{\succ}x$. And since $X$ is finite, we can find such a $z$ in ${\mbox{EFF}}[X]$, by iteratively taking $z'{\succ}z$ and $z\leftarrow z'$, until $z'\in{\mbox{EFF}}[X]$, which will happen because $X$ is finite and ${\succ}$ is transitive and irreflexive. Hence, there exists $z\in{\mbox{EFF}}[X]$ such that $z{\succ}x{\succsim}y$ and then $z{\succ}y$. Consequently, $y\in{\mathcal{C}}({\mbox{EFF}}[X])$, by definition of a cone-union. Conversely, $Y\subseteq X\Rightarrow {\mathcal{C}}(Y)\subseteq{\mathcal{C}}(X)$ proves ${\mathcal{C}}({\mbox{EFF}}[X])\subseteq{\mathcal{C}}(X)$.
As a consequence of Remark \[rk:app:cone\], for $x\in{\mathbb{R}^d_{+}}$, a simple cone ${\mathcal{C}}(x)$ is fully described by its apex $x$. The main consequence of this remark is that ${\mathcal{C}}(X)$ can be fully described and represented by ${\mbox{EFF}}[X]$. For instance, since $R[{\mbox{WST}}[{\mathcal{E}}],{\mathcal{F}}]$ is a cone-union (thanks to Lemma \[prop:algebra\]), and since $\text{MO-CR}={\mbox{EFF}}[R[{\mbox{WST}}[{\mathcal{E}}],{\mathcal{F}}]]$ (by definition of the MO-CR), then $R[{\mbox{WST}}[{\mathcal{E}}],{\mathcal{F}}]$ is fully represented (as a cone-union) by the MO-CR, which means that $R[{\mbox{WST}}[{\mathcal{E}}],{\mathcal{F}}]={\mathcal{C}}(\text{MO-CR})$.\
Recall that $q=|{\mbox{WST}}[{\mathcal{E}}]|$ and $m=|{\mathcal{F}}|$. In this subsection, we also denote ${\mbox{WST}}[{\mathcal{E}}]=\{y^1,\ldots,y^q\}$ and ${\mathcal{F}}=\{z^1,\ldots,z^m\}$. Let ${\mathcal{A}}_q^m$ denote the set of functions $\pi$ from $\{1,\ldots,q\}$ to $\{1,\ldots,m\}$. (We have: $|{\mathcal{A}}_q^m|=m^q$.)
\
Given ${\mbox{WST}}[{\mathcal{E}}]=\{y^1,\ldots,y^q\}$ and ${\mathcal{F}}=\{z^1,\ldots,z^m\}$, we have: $$R[{\mbox{WST}}[{\mathcal{E}}],{\mathcal{F}}]=\bigcup_{\pi\in{\mathcal{A}}_q^m}\bigcap_{t=1}^{q} {\mathcal{C}}(y^t / z^{\pi(t)})$$ and therefore: $$\text{MO-CR}[{\mathcal{E}},{\mathcal{F}}]\quad=\quad{\mbox{EFF}}\left[\left\{\bigwedge\nolimits_{t=1}^{q}y^t / z^{\pi(t)}~~|~~\pi\in{\mathcal{A}}_q^m\right\}\right]$$
For the first statement, just think of an expansion. We write down $$R[{\mbox{WST}}[{\mathcal{E}}],{\mathcal{F}}]=\cap_{y\in{\mbox{WST}}[{\mathcal{E}}]}\cup_{z\in{\mathcal{F}}}{\mathcal{C}}(y/z)$$ into the layers just below. There is one layer per $y^t$ in ${\mbox{WST}}[{\mathcal{E}}]=\{y^1,\ldots,y^t,\ldots,y^q\}$: $$\begin{array}{ccccccccccl} & ( & {\mathcal{C}}(\frac{y^1}{z^1}) & \cup & {\mathcal{C}}(\frac{y^1}{z^2}) & \cup & \ldots & \cup & {\mathcal{C}}(\frac{y^1}{z^m})& )&\text{layer 1}\\ \bigcap & ( & {\mathcal{C}}(\frac{y^2}{z^1}) & \cup & {\mathcal{C}}(\frac{y^2}{z^2}) & \cup & \ldots & \cup & {\mathcal{C}}(\frac{y^2}{z^m})& )&\text{layer 2}\\ &&&&&\vdots\\ \bigcap & ( & {\mathcal{C}}(\frac{y^q}{z^1}) & \cup & {\mathcal{C}}(\frac{y^q}{z^2}) & \cup & \ldots & \cup & {\mathcal{C}}(\frac{y^q}{z^m})& )&\text{layer q} \end{array}$$ Imagine the simple cones ${\mathcal{C}}(\frac{y^t}{z^{\pi(t)}})$ as vertices and imagine edges going from each vertex of layer $t$ to each vertex of the next layer $(t+1)$. Let the function $\pi:\{1,\ldots,q\}\rightarrow\{1,\ldots,m\}$ denote a path from layer $1$ to layer $q$, where $\pi(t)$ is the vertex chosen in layer $t$. The expansion into a union outputs as many intersection-terms as paths from the first layer to the last one. Consequently, in the result of the expansion into an union, each term is an intersection $\bigcap_{t=1}^{q} {\mathcal{C}}(y^t / z^{\pi(t)})$. Then one has: $$\begin{aligned}
R[{\mbox{WST}}[{\mathcal{E}}],{\mathcal{F}}] &=&\bigcup_{\pi\in{\mathcal{A}}_q^m}\bigcap_{t=1}^{q} {\mathcal{C}}(y^t / z^{\pi(t)})\\ &=&\bigcup_{\pi\in{\mathcal{A}}_q^m} {\mathcal{C}}\left(\bigwedge_{t=1}^{q} y^t / z^{\pi(t)}\right)\\ &=&{\mathcal{C}}\left(\left\{\bigwedge\limits_{t=1}^{q}y^t / z^{\pi(t)}~~|~~\pi\in{\mathcal{A}}_q^m\right\}\right) \end{aligned}$$ The second statement results from the first statement, Lemma \[prop:algebra\] and Remark \[rk:app:cone\]. That $R[{\mbox{WST}}[{\mathcal{E}}],{\mathcal{F}}]={\mathcal{C}}(\text{MO-CR})$ and then ${\mbox{EFF}}[R[{\mbox{WST}}[{\mathcal{E}}],{\mathcal{F}}]]=\text{MO-CR}$ (from Remark 1) concludes the proof.
Ultimately, this proves the **correctness** of Algorithm 1 for the computation of MO-CR, given ${\mbox{WST}}[{\mathcal{E}}]=\{y^1,\ldots,y^q\}$ and ${\mathcal{F}}=\{z^1,\ldots,z^m\}$. It consists in the iterative expansion/construction of the intersection $R[{\mbox{WST}}[{\mathcal{E}}],{\mathcal{F}}]$, which can be seen as dynamic programming on the paths of the layer graph. For $k\in\{1,\ldots,q\}$, we denote $D^t$ the description of the cone-union corresponding to the intersection: $${\mathcal{C}}(D^t)=\cap_{l=1}^{t} \cup_{z\in{\mathcal{F}}} {\mathcal{C}}(y^l/z)$$ Recursively, for $t>1$, ${\mathcal{C}}(D^t)={\mathcal{C}}(D^{t-1})~\cap~(\cup_{z\in{\mathcal{F}}}~{\mathcal{C}}(y^{t}/z))$. From Lemma \[prop:algebra\], Remark \[rk:app:cone\] and Corollary 1, in order to construct, we then have to iterate the following: $$D^t={\mbox{EFF}}[\{\rho ~\wedge~ (y^t/z)~~|~~\rho\in D^{t-1},~~z\in{\mathcal{F}}\}]$$ We now proceed with the **time complexity** of Algorithm 1. At first glance, since there are $m^q$ paths in the layer graph, then there are $O(m^q)$ elements in MO-CR. Fortunately, they are much less, because we have:
\
\[th:mopoa:poly\] Given a MOG and denoting $d=|{{\mathcal{D}}}|$, $q=|{\mbox{WST}}[{\mathcal{E}}]|$ and $m=|{\mathcal{F}}|$, we have: $$|\text{MO-CR}|\leq (qm)^{d-1}$$
Given $\rho\in\text{MO-CR}$, for some $\pi\in{\mathcal{A}}_q^m$, we have $\rho=\bigwedge\nolimits_{t=1}^{q}y^t / z^{\pi(t)}$, and then $\forall k\in{{\mathcal{D}}}, \rho_k=\min_{t=1\ldots q}\{y^t_k / z^{\pi(t)}_k\}$. Therefore, $\rho_k$ is exactly realized by the $k$th component of at least one cone apex $y^t / z^{\pi(t)}$ in the layer graph (that is a vertex in the layer-graph above). Consequently, there are at most as many possible values for the $k$th component of $\rho$, as the number of vertices in the layer graph, that is $qm$. This holds for the $d$ components of $\rho$; hence there are at most $(qm)^d$ vectors in MO-CR. More precisely, by Lemma \[lem:eff\] (below), since MO-CR is an efficient set, then there are at most $(qm)^{d-1}$ vectors in MO-CR.
\[lem:eff\] Let $Y\subseteq{\mathbb{R}^d_{+}}$ be a set of vectors, with at most $M$ values on each component: $$|~{\mbox{EFF}}[Y]~|\leq M^{d-1}$$
For instance, in ${\mathbb{R}}^2_+$, considering the $M\times M$ grid in the plane, there is at most one Pareto-efficient vector per column, hence $|{\mbox{EFF}}[Y]|\leq M$. Think of each vector as having one and $d-1$ components. Fixing these last components, a single-objective optimization problem on the first objective occurs. Hence there is one optimum. Furthermore, there are at most $M^{d-1}$ valuations realized on the $d-1$ other components. If you fix the $d-1$ last components, there is at most one Pareto-efficient vector: it maximizes the first component.
In Algorithm 1, there are $\Theta(q)$ steps. At each step $t$, from Theorem \[th:mopoa:poly\], we know that $|D^{t-1}|\leq (qm)^{d-1}$. Hence, $|\{\rho ~\wedge~ (y^t/z)~~|~~\rho\in D^{t-1},~~z\in{\mathcal{F}}\}|\leq q^{d-1} m^d$, and the computation of the efficient set $D^t$ requires time $O((q^{d-1} m^d)^2 d)$. Ultimately, Algorithm 1 takes $q$ steps and then time $O(q (q^{d-1} m^d)(qm)^{d-1} d)=O((qm)^{2d-1}d)$. If $d=2$, this lowers to $O((q m)^2\log_2(q m))$, by using a data structure (e.g. an AVL tree) that orders vectors according to the first objective and does comparisons on the second objective.
Proof of Lemma 1
================
This proof simply consists in chaining the quantifiers in the definitions, that have been carefully chosen to prove the result.
\(1) First, let us show $R[E,F]\subseteq R[{\mbox{WST}}[{\mathcal{E}}],{\mathcal{F}}]$. Let $\rho'$ be a ratio of $R[E,F]$ and let us show that: $$\forall y\in {\mbox{WST}}[{\mathcal{E}}],~~ \exists z\in {\mathcal{F}},~~ \text{ s.t.: } y{\succsim}\rho'\star z$$ Take $y\in{\mbox{WST}}[{\mathcal{E}}]$. From the first condition, there is a $y'\in E$ such that $y{\succsim}y'$. From MO-CR, there is a $z'$ such that $y'{\succsim}\rho'\star z'$. From the third condition on $z'$, there exists $z\in{\mathcal{F}}$ such that $z'{\succsim}z$. Recap: $y{\succsim}y'{\succsim}\rho'\star z'{\succsim}\rho'\star z$.
\(2) Then, let $\rho$ be a ratio of $R[{\mbox{WST}}[{\mathcal{E}}],{\mathcal{F}}]$, and let us show that$\rho'=(1+\varepsilon_1)^{-1}(1+\varepsilon_2)^{-1}\rho$ is in $R[E,F]$, that is: $$\forall y'\in E,~~ \exists z'\in F,~~ (1+\varepsilon_1) y'{\succsim}(1+\varepsilon_2)^{-1} \rho\star z'$$ Take an element $y'$ of $E$. From the second condition, there is $y\in{\mbox{WST}}[{\mathcal{E}}]$ such that $(1+\varepsilon_1)y'{\succsim}y$. From MO-CR, there is $z\in{\mathcal{F}}$ such that $y{\succsim}\rho\star z$. From the fourth condition on $z$, there exists $z'\in F$ s.t. $z{\succsim}(1+\varepsilon_2)^{-1} z'$. Recap: $(1+\varepsilon_1)y'{\succsim}y{\succsim}\rho\star z{\succsim}(1+\varepsilon_2)^{-1} \rho\star z'$.
Proof of Theorem 6
==================
Applying Algorithm 1 on $E$ and $F$ outputs an $((1+\varepsilon_1)(1+\varepsilon_2))$-covering of $R({\mbox{WST}}[{\mathcal{E}}],{\mathcal{F}})$. Moreover, since we have $|E|=O((1/\varepsilon_1)^{d-1})$ and $|F|=O((1/\varepsilon_2)^{d-1})$, Algorithm 1 takes time $O\left(d/(\varepsilon_1\varepsilon_2)^{(d-1)(2d-1)}\right)$.
Experiments
===========
Experiments were conducted to assess the practicality of our polynomial time and approximation algorithms. We used C++STL on a Linux laptop equipped with CPUs at 1.40Ghz. We fixed $|A^i|=2$ actions per agent. For each parameter-values, we averaged the measures over 5 random instances[^8]. The evaluations $u^{i}_k(a^{\mathcal{N}(i)})$ are drawn uniformly and independently in $|[1,16]|$. In Table 1 (for MOGs) we have $\mathcal{N}(i)=N$. In Table 2 (for MO graphical games), the games were drawn on grid graphs with dimensions $n=n_1\times n_2$, in order to experiment various treewidths[^9]. We chose $n_2\in\{1,2,3\}$ for the interaction-graph’s width, which corresponds to the treewidths $\mathcal{T}\in\{2,4,6\}$.
Computational measures on MO normal forms
-----------------------------------------
In Table \[tab:mog\], we experiment Algorithm 1 on MO games. Table 1’s notations are: $d$ for the number of objectives; $n$ for the number of agents; T(P1) for the cpu-time (seconds) of Phase 1: computing ${\mbox{WST}}[{\mathcal{E}}]$ and ${\mathcal{F}}$; $m=|{\mathcal{F}}|$ and $q=|{\mbox{WST}}[{\mathcal{E}}]|$; T(P2) for the cpu-time (seconds) of Phase 2: computing MO-CR given ${\mbox{WST}}[{\mathcal{E}}]$ and ${\mathcal{F}}$; and finally, (in order to assess the practicality of the algorithm’s output) the size of the resulting MO-CR.
$\begin{array}{c|ccc|ccc|ccc} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{d=2} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{d=3} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{d=4} \\ \hline n & 4 & 8 & 12 & 4 & 8 & 12 & 4 & 8 & 12 \\ \hline T(P1) & 0.00 & 0.08 & 2.40 & 0.00 & 0.07 & 2.45 & 0.00 & 0.08 & 2.44 \\ m & 4.2 & 5.6 & 8.2 & 5.4 & 17.8 & 41.2 & 7.2 & 36.4 & 105.8 \\ q & 2.2 & 4 & 5.8 & 4.4 & 9.8 & 30.2 & 8 & 37.8 & 82.6 \\ \hline T(P2) & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.01 & 0.20 & 0.00 & 0.48 & 30.85 \\ \#\text{MO-CR} & 3.4 & 4.6 & 6 & 3.2 & 22.8 & 31.8 & 13.6 & 44.4 & 154.8 \\ \hline
\end{array} $\
*Observations.* Recall that the normal form is a representation of size $\Theta(n\alpha^n d)$. For instance, for $d=3$, Phase 1, and $n=4,8,12$, the instance to read is made of $192$, $6144$ and $147456$ scalars. The cpu-time cost of Phase 1 depends directly on the size of this input. For $d\leq 3$, Algorithm 1 costs nothing, compared to Phase 1. For $d\geq 4$, we begin to perceive the explosion of Algorithm 1 (Phase 2), while $m,q\simeq 100$. This indicates a practical intractability for $d\geq 4$. Recall that the cost of Algorithm 1 (Phase 2) for $d=4$ is $O((mq)^7)$.
Computational measures on MO graphical games
--------------------------------------------
In Table 2, we experiment the approximation scheme on MO graphical games. After Phase 1, we take smaller representations of ${\mbox{WST}}[{\mathcal{E}}]$ and ${\mathcal{F}}$: a $(1+\varepsilon_1)$-under-covering of ${\mbox{WST}}[{\mathcal{E}}]$ with $\varepsilon_1=6.5\%$, and a $(1+\varepsilon_2)$-stick-covering of ${\mathcal{F}}$ with $\varepsilon_2=3.5\%$, all in order to ensure a $(1+\varepsilon)$-covering of MO-CR, with $\varepsilon\simeq 6.5\%+3.5\%=10\%$ (thanks to Theorem 6). Table 2’s notations are the same as Table 1’s, and we add: $n_2$ for the width of the interaction graph; $m_{\varepsilon}$ for the resulting size (after a proper rounding) of the representation of ${\mathcal{F}}$; and $q_{\varepsilon}$ for the resulting size (after a proper rounding) of the representation of ${\mbox{WST}}[{\mathcal{E}}]$.
$\begin{array}{c|ccc|ccc|ccc} & \multicolumn{9}{c}{d=2} \\
\hline & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{n_2=1} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{n_2=2} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{n_2=3} \\
\hline n & 60 & 120 & 180 & 60 & 120 & 180 & 60 & 120 & 180 \\
\hline T(P1) & 0 & 3 & 13 & 1 & 11 & 43 & 4 & 37 & 159 \\ m & 92 & 212 & 347 & 76 & 186 & 316 & 65 & 174 & 300 \\ q & 47 & 120 & 217 & 49 & 134 & 222 & 46 & 134 & 228 \\ \hline m_{\varepsilon} & 5 & 5 & 4.6 & 5.6 & 5 & 4.4 & 4.6 & 4.8 & 5 \\ q_{\varepsilon} & 7.4 & 7.4 & 7 & 7.6 & 7.4 & 7.2 & 7 & 7.4 & 7.6 \\ \hline T(P2) & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 \\ \#\text{MO-CR} & 3.8 & 2.6 & 3.6 & 3.4 & 3.4 & 3 & 3.6 & 2.4 & 3 \\ \hline \multicolumn{10}{c}{}\\ & \multicolumn{9}{c}{d=3} \\ \hline & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{n_2=1} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{n_2=2} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{n_2=3} \\ \hline n & 12 & 24 & 36 & 12 & 24 & 36 & 12 & 24 & 36 \\ \hline T(P1) & 0 & 1 & 8 & 0 & 2 & 15 & 0 & 4 & 40 \\ m & 42 & 263 & 777 & 44 & 249 & 596 & 49 & 190 & 474 \\ q & 27 & 236 & 645 & 31 & 143 & 506 & 38 & 159 & 448 \\ \hline m_{\varepsilon} & 15.6 & 19.8 & 22.8 & 16.8 & 27.4 & 26.6 & 17.8 & 22 & 25.2 \\ q_{\varepsilon} & 24.8 & 45.8 & 53.2 & 26.2 & 59.2 & 63 & 27.8 & 45.2 & 53 \\ \hline T(P2) & 0.01 & 0.02 & 0.03 & 0.01 & 0.05 & 0.06 & 0.01 & 0.03 & 0.06 \\ \#\text{MO-CR} & 15.6 & 13.4 & 12.8 & 8.8 & 11.8 & 14.4 & 12.4 & 15 & 12.8 \\ \hline
\end{array}$\
*Observations.* As seen in Table 1 when $m,q\simeq 100$, computing MO-CR would be experimentally intractable, if done directly on ${\mbox{WST}}[{\mathcal{E}}]$ and ${\mathcal{F}}$. Fortunately, thanks to the approximation scheme, Algorithm 1 costs almost nothing on the smaller representations of ${\mbox{WST}}[{\mathcal{E}}]$ and ${\mathcal{F}}$, compared to computation of Phase 1.
A raw example of MO-CR
----------------------
The white part corresponds to the set of guaranteed ratios of efficiency\
$\rho\in R[{\mathcal{E}},{\mathcal{F}}]\cap [0,1]^d$ and the dark-blue part to $\rho\notin R[{\mathcal{E}},{\mathcal{F}}]$. Recall that if $\rho\in R[{\mathcal{E}},{\mathcal{F}}]$, then $\rho$ guarantees that for each equilibrium-outcome $y\in{\mathcal{E}}$, there exists an efficient-outcome $z^{(y)}$ such that $y {\succsim}\rho\star z^{(y)}$. Conversely, if $\rho\notin R[{\mathcal{E}},{\mathcal{F}}]$, then there exists an *in-efficient* equilibrium $y\in{\mathcal{E}}$, that is: such that whatever $z\in{\mathcal{F}}$, the guarantee $y {\succsim}\rho\star z^{(y)}$ does *not* hold. In other words, for each $\rho\in R[{\mathcal{E}},{\mathcal{F}}]$, it holds that each equilibrium has at least $\rho$ times some efficiency.
[^1]: Tobacco consumers are free to value and choose cigarettes how it pleases them. However, is value the same when they inhale, as when they die suffocating?
[^2]: It is a backtrack from the subjective theory of value, which typically aggregates values on each objective/commodity into a single scalar by using an utility function.
[^3]: For the proofs, see the long paper:
[^4]: In the single-objective case, Pareto-Nash and Nash equilibria coincide.
[^5]: In a finite multi-objective game, sets $N$, $\{A^{i}\}_{i\in N}$ and ${{\mathcal{D}}}$ are finite.
[^6]: To enumerate the number of ways to distribute number $n$ of symmetric agents into $\alpha$ parts, one enumerates the ways to choose $\alpha-1$ “separators” in $n+\alpha-1$ elements.
[^7]: That is such that the action $a^\ast$ is decided by someone.
[^8]: Though only 5 random instances does not sound like much, the measures of cpu-time were already stable
[^9]: For a formal definition of the treewidth, the reader may refer to [@dechter1989tree; @jensen1994influence] or [@ismaili2016computational].
|
---
abstract: 'We discuss the possible extensions of Bethe/gauge correspondence to quantum integrable systems based on the super-Lie algebras of $A$ type. Along the way we propose the analogues of Nakajima quiver varieties whose cohomology and K-theory should carry the representations of the corresponding Yangian and the quantum affine algebras, respectively. We end up with comments on the ${{\mathcal N}}=4$ planar super-Yang-Mills theory in four dimensions.'
address: 'Simons Center for Geometry and Physics, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY 11794 Kharkevich Institute for Information Transmission Problems, Moscow 127051 RussiaCenter for Advanced Studies, Skolkovo Institute of Science and Technology, 1 Nobel Street, Moscow, 143026 Russia e-mail: nikitastring@gmail.com '
author:
- Nikita Nekrasov
title: |
Superspin chains\
$\uparrow$ [and]{} $\downarrow$\
supersymmetric gauge theories
---
*To Martin Rocek on his super-anniversary, with love*
Introduction
============
Gauge theories with ${{\mathcal N}}=(2,2)$ super-Poincare symmetry have an interesting connection to quantum integrable systems. Perhaps the first instance of such a connection has been spotted in the studies of the two dimensional Yang-Mills theory [@Migdal], interpreted [@Witten:2d] as a topological field theory, which can by obtained [@Witten:1992xu] from a twisted version of the ${{\mathcal N}}=(2,2)$ theory by a (non-unitary) deformation, namely one turns on the twisted superpotentials ${\tilde W}$ and ${\tilde W}^{*}$ which are not complex conjugate. The expression [@Witten:1992xu] for the partition function of the theory on a compact Riemann surface makes it clear the physical states of the topological theory (which are the vacua of the supersymmetric theory) are in one-to-one correspondence with the states of a free particle living on the space of conjugacy classes $T/W$ of the gauge group $G$. For $G = SU(N)$ this system is equivalent to the system of free $N$ fermions on living on a circle. In [@Gorsky:1993pe] this relation has been generalized to allow for certain line operators in gauge theory. In the presence of line operators the formerly free fermions become interacting, but they dynamics remains integrable. The energy eigenvalues of the many-body system is identified with the vacuum expectation value of the local observable ${{\text{Tr}}} {\sigma}^{2}$, where $\sigma$ is the complex adjoint scalar in vector multiplet. In [@MNS] the example of [@Gorsky:1993pe] has been upgraded: one studied the two dimensional (twisted) ${{\mathcal N}}=(2,2)$ $SU(N)$ gauge theory with adjoint chiral multiplet, of twisted mass [@AlvarezGaume:1983ab] $c$, and discovered that the vacua were in one-to-one correspondence with the stationary states of a system of $N$ particles $x_{1}, \ldots , x_{N}$ on a circle, interacting with the repulsive potential $c {\delta}(x_{i}-x_{j})$. This example has been further explored in [@GS]. Then, in [@Nekrasov:2009uh] the general correspondence has been identified: supersymmetric vacua of gauge theories with ${{\mathcal N}}=(2,2)$ $d=2$ Poincare supersymmetry (the theories need not be two dimensional) are the stationary states of some quantum integrable system, i.e. they are the joint eigenvectors of quantum integrals of motion. Moreover, this correspondence has a remarkable social feature: the textbook examples of supersymmetric gauge theories map to the textbook examples of quantum integrable systems. A large class of models has been found where the quantum integrable system is based on quantum algebras of the $A,D,E$-type, such as the spin chains with the corresponding spin group. The dual gauge theory is of the $A,D,E$ quiver-type. The mathematical consequence of this relation is the connection [@Nekrasov:2009uh] between quantum groups: Yangians, quantum affine algebras, elliptic quantum groups, and quantum cohomology, quantum K-theory, and elliptic cohomology, respectively. In the series of remarkable works [@MO; @Okounkov:2015spn; @Aganagic:2016jmx] this connection has been elucidated and put on the firm mathematical ground, moreover, for general quivers, not only of the (affine) $A,D,E$ type. On the physics side the quiver gauge theories in question are softly broken ${{\mathcal N}}=(4,4)$ theories (in two dimensions). The parameter of deformation, the twisted mass corresponding to a specific $U(1)$ R-symmetry, maps to the Planck constant of an integrable system.
In this paper we attempt to extend the realm of the correspondence to the case of super-algebra based quantum integrable systems. We should point out that gauge theories based on supergroups naively make no sense, as the invariant scalar product on the Lie superalgebra is not positive definite, so the theory is not unitary. Nevertheless, the supergroup gauge symmetry is possible in the context of topological field theory, such as Chern-Simons theory in three dimensions, albeit there are caveats [@Vafa:2001qf; @Mikhaylov:2015nsa; @Mikhaylov:2014aoa]. Also, the analytic continuation of a conventional gauge theory may reach the supergroup gauge theory [@Dijkgraaf:2016lym].
Our motivation also includes the desire to get a better understanding of the integrable structure behind the planar limit of ${{\mathcal N}}=4$ super-Yang-Mills theory in four dimensions. It has been discovered, first in a $SU(2)$ sector [@Minahan:2002ve] and then in the general case [@Beisert:2003yb; @Beisert:2004hm; @Beisert:2006ez; @Beisert:2006ib], that the spectrum of anomalous dimensions of local operators is that of a quantum integrable spin chain based on the Yangian $Y(\mathfrak{gl}(4|4))$of the superconformal group , see the excellent review in [@Drummond:2010km]. For most of the integrable spin chains the Bethe equations can be cast in the form: = 1 , i = 1, …, M \[eq:bap\] where $\sigma_i$ are the Bethe roots, and ${\tilde W}$ is the so-called Yang-Yang function. It can be shown, however, that the dressing phase [@Beisert:2006ib] entering the Bethe equations in the ${{\mathcal N}}=4$ super-Yang-Mills and [@Arutyunov:2004vx] on the $AdS_{5} \times {{\mathbb S}}^{5}$ dual side, violates the potentiality of . Despite many works explaining the origin of the dressing phase and investigating its analytic structure, e.g.[@Sakai:2007rk; @Gromov:2007fn; @Dorey:2007xn] the satisfying explanation on the side of the supersymmetric gauge theory with ${{\mathcal N}}=(2,2)$ supersymmetry in two dimensions is missing. The explanation might be the further breaking of supersymmetry $(2,2) \to (0,2)$ [@NS].
In this paper we make a modest step in this direction. We shall propose a class of ${{\mathcal N}}=(2,2)$ quiver gauge theories in two dimensions, whose supersymmetric vacua are in one-to-one correspondence with the Bethe states of closed spin chains based on the Yangian of $\mathfrak{gl}(m|n)$.
The paper is organized as follows. The section $\bf 2$ starts with review of the simplest example of Bethe/gauge correspondence, where the quantum integrable system is the Heisenberg spin chain, while the supersymmetric gauge theory is the gauged linear sigma model with the target space being the cotangent bundle to the Grassmanian of $N$-dimensional planes $V$ in the $L$-dimensional complex vector space $W$. We recall Bethe equations, their Yang-Yang form, and the $T-Q$ equation which is equivalent to them. We also briefly review the generalizations: to other spin groups, to inhomogeneous, twisted and anisotropic cases. The section $\bf 3$ reviews Bethe equations for the superspin chains, based on $\mathfrak{gl}(M|N)$ algebra. The section $\bf 4$ introduces the main character: the gauge theory with the proper structure of its supersymmetric vacua. We’ll see that Bethe equations themselves do not fix the matter content uniquely. We shall propose a family of theories, $L_{\vec t}$ with the parameters $\vec t$ being the mass terms in the superpotential. The ${\vec t} =0, \infty$ theories can be topologically twisted so as to define an $A$-model. The intermediate theories flow, in the infrared, to the ${\vec t} = \infty$ point. However, we believe it is the ${\vec t}=0$ which should be identified with the Bethe/gauge dual of the superspin chain, as the ${\vec t} = \infty$ being effectively a theory with fewer fields, is less rigid, and, in fact, has additional marginal deformation, which masks the Planck constant. The section $\bf 5$ concludes with unfinished business and future directions.
### Acknowledgement
Research was partly supported by RFBR grant 18-02-01081. I am grateful to M. Aganagic, V. Kazakov, A. Okounkov, V. Pestun, S. Sethi, A. Tseytlin and especially E. Ragoucy for discussions. Part of this work was done while I visited Physics Department at Imperial College London in 2013-2017, and IHES in 2013-2018. The results were presented at the 2018 MSRI program “Enumerative geometry beyond numbers” organized by M. Aganagic and A. Okounkov and the 2018 Royal Society meeting “Quantum integrability and quantum Schubert calculus” organized by V. Gorbounof and C. Korff. I thank them for their hospitality.
Finally, I would like to thank Martin Rocek for all his help and for all the conversations we had (and hopefully will have) on life and physics, supersymmetric or not so much.
Heisenberg, Bethe, and Grassmann
================================
Spin chain
----------
The Heisenberg spin chain = \_[a=1]{}\^[L]{} \_[a]{} \_[a+1]{} , \[eq:heisham\] where \_[a+L]{} = \_[a]{} , \[eq:per\] has an $SU(2)$ underlying symmetry: $\vec\sigma_{a} = \left( {\sigma}^x_a, {\sigma}^y_a, {\sigma}^z_a \right)$ are the generators of $SU(2)$ acting at the site $a$ of the length $L$ spin chain. The eigenvectors ( [[C]{}]{}\^[2]{} )\^[ L]{} = \_[N=0]{}\^[L]{} [[H]{}]{}\_[N]{} , \_[[C]{}]{} [[H]{}]{}\_[N]{} = (
L\
N
) are constructed, in the Bethe ansatz approach, from the solutions of the Bethe ansatz equations: \_ = ( )\^[L]{} , = 1, …, N \[eq:bae1\] which can be, equivalently, represented via the so-called T-Q equation: P(x-u) Q(x+2u) + P(x+u) Q(x-2u) = T(x) Q(x) \[eq:tq1\] where Q(x) = \_[=1]{}\^[N]{} ( x - \_ ) , \[eq:qop\] P(x) = x\^[L]{} , \[eq:ad1\] and $T(x)$ is some polynomial of degree $L$. Finally, with the help of the $Y$-observable: Y(x) = one rewrites as: Y(x+2u) + D(x) = , D(x) = \[eq:qchar1\] the content of this equation being the absence of the poles of the left hand side in $x$, other then zeroes of $P(x-u)$. All this generalizes in a relatively straightforward way, both in terms of the spin group symmetry, and the possibilities of the choice of the Hamiltonian. Recall three upgrades: twisting, inhomogeneity and anisotropy. The first two don’t change the underlying symmetry generating algebra, while the last one deforms the rational algebra (the Yangian) into the quantum affine and elliptic quantum algebras, respectively.
The inhomogeneity deforms the Hamiltonian in certain fashion, making the spin interactions, in general, $a$-dependent, and less local, while twisting deforms the boundary conditions to \_[a+L]{} = [[q]{}]{}\^[-]{} \_[a]{} [[q]{}]{}\^ \[eq:twper\] Both deformations preserve integrability. The only aspect of these deformations needed for the Bethe/gauge correspondence is their impact on Bethe equations: the Eqs. deform to \_[’ ]{} = [[q]{}]{} \_[a=1]{}\^[L]{} , = 1, …, N \[eq:bae2\] where P(x) = \_[a=1]{}\^[L]{} (x - \_[a]{}) , \[eq:pp2\] while deforms to P(x-u) Q(x+2u) + [[q]{}]{} P(x+u) Q(x-2u) = (1+[[q]{}]{}) T(x) Q(x) \[eq:tq2\] and to Y(x+2u) + [[q]{}]{} D(x) Y(x)\^[-1]{} = (1+[[q]{}]{}) T(x)/P(x-u)
Gauge theory
------------
The gauge theory for which describe its vacua, is the softly broken ${{\mathcal N}}=(4,4)$ supersymmetric gauge theory in two dimensions, with the gauge group $U(N)$, and $L$ hypermultiplets in fundamental representation. Viewed as an ${{\mathcal N}}=(2,2)$ theory, it has a vector multiplet $(A_{m}, {\sigma})$, an adjoint-valued chiral multiplet ${\Phi}$, and $L$ pairs of chiral multiplets $(Q_{a}, {\tilde Q}^{a})$, $a = 1, \ldots , L$, with $Q_{a} = (Q_{a}^{\beta})_{{\beta}=1}^{N}$ transforming in the fundamental $N$-dimensional representation ${\bf N}$ of $U(N)$, ${\tilde Q}^{a} =({\tilde Q}^{a}_{\beta})_{{\beta}=1}^{N}$ transforming in the conjugate representation $\bar{\bf N}$. In addition, the theory has a superpotential $W = \sum_{a=1}^{L} {\tilde Q}^{a}{\Phi}Q_{a}$, and the twisted masses $u, {\mu}_{a}$, corresponding to the $U(1)_{u} \times U(L)$ global symmetry: $U(L)$ acts on ${\tilde Q}$ in the $L$-dimensional fundamental representation $\bf L$, on $Q$ in the conjugate $\bar{\bf L}$. The $U(1)_{u}$ symmetry acts via: $({\Phi}, Q, {\tilde Q}) \mapsto ({\Phi}e^{2{\mathrm{i}}\alpha} , Q e^{-{\mathrm{i}}\alpha} , {\tilde Q} e^{-{\mathrm{i}}\alpha})$. The list of relevant parameters of the theory concludes with the Fayet-Illiopoulos parameter $r$ and the abelian $\theta$-angle, which are conveniently combined into = e\^[2]{} e\^[-r]{} \[eq:kahler1\] Suppose we are in the phase where the complex adjoint scalar $\sigma$ in the vector multiplet has the vacuum expectation value ${\sigma} = {\rm diag} ({\sigma}_1 , \ldots , {\sigma}_{N})$, as dictated by the potential ${{{\rm tr}}} \left( [{\sigma}, {\sigma}^{\dagger}] \right)^{2}$. The physical masses of the matter fields are:
& |\_ - \_[’]{} +2u| , \_\^[’]{} ,\
& |\_ - \_[a]{} -u | , Q\_[a]{}\^ ,\
& |\_[a]{} - \_ - u| , [Q]{}\^[a]{}\_ .\
\[eq:physma\]
Assuming they are all non-zero we integrate out the matter fields and the non-abelian degrees of freedom in the vector multiplet (these have masses $\sim |{\sigma}_{\beta} - {\sigma}_{\beta'}|$) to produce the effective twisted superpotential = [W]{}\^[tree]{} + [W]{}\^[1-loop]{} , where \^[tree]{} = \_[i=1]{}\^[N]{} \_[i]{} and, with ${\varpi}(x) = \frac{x}{2\pi {\mathrm{i}}} ( {\rm log}(x) - 1 )$, $$\begin{gathered}
{\tilde W}^{\rm 1-loop} = \sum_{\rm fields} {\varpi} (Q_{\rm field} ) = \\
\sum_{\beta,\beta'} {\varpi} ({\sigma}_{\beta} - {\sigma}_{\beta'} + 2u) +
\sum_{\beta,a} \left( {\varpi} ({\sigma}_{\beta} - {\mu}_{a} - u) + {\varpi} ( {\mu}_{a} - {\sigma}_{\beta} - u ) \right)
\label{eq:1loop}\end{gathered}$$ The specific feature of the twisted superpotential, as opposed to the more familiar superpotential, is the multivaluedness of its first derivative, which is related to the discrete nature of the top component $F_{i}$ of the twisted chiral superfield $\Sigma_{\beta} ={\sigma}_{\beta} + \ldots + {\vartheta}{\tilde\vartheta} F_{\beta}$ which enters the Lagrangian of the effective theory through the twisted $F$-term $\int d{\vartheta}d{\tilde\vartheta} {\tilde W} ({\Sigma})$. The minima of the effective potential (which involves the coupling to the field strengths $(F_{\beta})_{i=1}^{N}$ of the abelian gauge fields) are the solutions to the equations: 2 = 1 , = 1, …, N \[eq:susyvac\] which happily coincide with . As long as the masses of the matter fields as well as those of the $W$-bosons are non-zero, the exactness of the one-loop approximation can be justified.
The implications of the identification of with are quite dramatic. One of the unexpected consequences is the realization that the Yangian of $\mathfrak{sl}_{2}$, which is the spectrum generating algebra of the Heisenberg spin chain, must act in the union of Hilbert spaces of *different* quantum field theories, namely $U(N)$ gauge theories with all values of $N$, at least for $N \leq L$. The specific realization of this novel symmetry is not yet completely understood, although the constructions of [@Nakajima; @Varagnolo; @MO] provide the tantalizing hints.
Generalizations
---------------
Let us now briefly review the generalization of the above correspondence to the case of a Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}_{Q}$ based on a quiver $Q$. The vertices $v \in V_{Q}$ are the simple roots while the edges connecting the vertices encode their scalar products. The simple Lie algebras $\mathfrak{sl}_{r+1}$, $\mathfrak{so}_{2r}$, $\mathfrak{e}_{r}$ with $r= 6, 7,8$ and their affine versions are associated with the quivers with $r$ ($r+1$) vertices, which coincide with their Dynkin diagrams.
The spin chain model based on $\mathfrak{g}_{Q}$ depends on the choice of the representation ${{\mathcal H}}_{\bf w}$ of the Yangian $Y(\mathfrak{g}_{Q})$, which, in turn, can be taken to be the tensor product of the so-called evaluation representations $R_{i}({\mu})$, where $i \in V_{Q}$ and ${\mu} \in {{\mathbb C}}$: \_[**w**]{} = \_[i V\_[Q]{}]{} \_[=1]{}\^[w\_[i]{}]{} R\_[i]{}(\_\^[(i)]{}) , \[eq:repspin\] where ${\mu}_{\alpha}^{(i)} \in {{\mathbb C}}$. The multiplicities ${\bf w} = (w_{i})_{i \in V_{Q}}$ are the analogues of $L$, and the evaluation points ${\mu}_{a}^{(i)}$ are the analogues of the parameters ${\mu}_{1}, \ldots , {\mu}_{L}$. Now, the analogue of the spin projection $N$ is the collection ${\bf v} = (v_{i})_{i\in V_{Q}}$, where $v_{i} \in {{\mathbb Z}}_{\geq 0}$.
The Bethe ansatz equations in the case of general $Q$ are sometimes called the nested Bethe equations (in the case of the $A, D, E$ Dynkin diagrams they were written in [@Reshet; @KR]). The unknowns are the Bethe roots ${\sigma}_{\beta}^{(i)}$, where $\beta = 1, \ldots , v_{i}$, $i \in V_{Q}$. These equations have the Yang-Yang potential: $$\begin{gathered}
{\tilde W}_{Q} = \frac{1}{2\pi {\mathrm{i}}} \sum_{i \in V_{Q}} \ {\rm log}{{\mathfrak q}}_{i}\, \sum_{\beta = 1}^{v_{i}} {\sigma}_{\beta}^{(i)} + \\
\sum_{i \in V_{Q}} \sum_{\beta = 1}^{v_{i}} \scriptstyle{\left( \sum_{{\beta}' = 1}^{v_{i}} {\varpi} ( {\sigma}_{\beta}^{(i)} - {\sigma}_{\beta'}^{(i)} + 2u ) +\sum\limits_{a = 1}^{w_{i}} \left( {\varpi} ( {\sigma}_{\beta}^{(i)} - {\mu}_{a}^{(i)} - u ) + {\varpi} ( - {\sigma}_{\beta}^{(i)} + {\mu}_{a}^{(i)} - u ) \right) \right)} + \\
\sum_{e \in E_{Q}} \sum_{{\alpha} = 1}^{v_{s(e)}} \sum_{{\beta}=1}^{v_{t(e)}} \scriptstyle{\left( {\varpi} ( {\sigma}_{\alpha}^{(s(e))} - {\sigma}_{\beta}^{(t(e))} - u + {\mu}_{e} ) + {\varpi} ( - {\sigma}_{\alpha}^{(s(e))} + {\sigma}_{\beta}^{(t(e))} - u - {\mu}_{e} ) \right)} \\
\label{eq:genyy}
\end{gathered}$$ where, in order to write the equations, one introduces some orientation of the edges, thereby defining two maps $s,t: E_{Q} \to V_{Q}$, sending an edge $e \in E_{Q}$ to its source $s(e)$ and the target $t(e)$, respectively. The new entry in is a ${\mathbb C}$-valued $1$-cochain $({\mu}_{e})_{e\in E_{Q}}$ which can be eliminated by redefining ${\mu}_{a}^{(i)}$’s for simply-connected $Q$’s. The observation of [@Nekrasov:2009uh] is that is precisely the effective twisted superpotential of the ${{\mathcal N}}=(4,4)$ theory in two dimensions with the gauge group G\_[**v**]{} = \_[iV\_[Q]{}]{} U(v\_[i]{}) and the hypermultiplets in the representations R\_[H]{} = \_[i V\_[Q]{}]{} Hom ([**w**]{}\_[i]{} , [**v**]{}\_[i]{}) \_[e E\_[Q]{}]{} Hom ([**v**]{}\_[s(e)]{} , [**v**]{}\_[t(e)]{}) where ${\bf w}_{i} \approx {{\mathbb C}}^{w_{i}}$ are the multiplicity spaces, and ${\bf v}_{i} \approx {{\mathbb C}}^{v_{i}}$ are the defining representations of $U(v_{i})$. The parameter $u$ is the twisted mass softly breaking the supersymmetry down to ${{\mathcal N}}=(2,2)$, it corresponds to the $U(1)$ symmetry under which the ${{\mathcal N}}=2$ adjoint chiral multiplets $\Phi_{i}$ in ${{\mathcal N}}=4$ vector multiplets have charge $+2$, while the ${{\mathcal N}}=2$ chiral multiplets in fundamental $Hom ({\bf w}_{i} , {\bf v}_{i})$ and antifundamental $Hom ({\bf v}_{i} , {\bf w}_{i})$ representations, as well as both bi-fundamentals $Hom ({\bf v}_{s(e)} , {\bf v}_{t(e)})$ and its conjugates $Hom ({\bf v}_{t(e)} , {\bf v}_{s(e)})$ have charge $-1$. The parameters ${\mu}_{e}$ are the twisted masses corresponding to the $U(1)_{e}$ symmetry under which $Hom ({\bf v}_{t(e)} , {\bf v}_{s(e)})$ has $+1$ charge, while $Hom ({\bf v}_{s(e)} , {\bf v}_{t(e)})$ has $-1$ charge. The evaluation parameters ${\mu}_{a}^{(i)}$ are the twisted masses for the maximal torus of $U(w_{i})$.
Bethe ansatz for closed super-spin chains
=========================================
The Bethe ansatz equations for the spin chains based on the superalgebra $\mathfrak{gl}(m|n)$ has been found long time ago. We use the formalism of [@Ragoucy:2007kg] and [@Belliard:2008di], adapted to our notations.
### Principal gradation
Let us first discuss the case of the principal gradation Dynkin diagram [@Frappat:1996pb].
The diagram has $n+m-1$ node, with $i = 1, \ldots , m-1$ and $i=m+1, \ldots
m+n-1$ called the bosonic nodes and $i=m$ the fermionic node. The Bethe roots ${\sigma}_{\alpha}^{(i)}$, ${\alpha} = 1, \ldots , v_{i}$ are the roots of the polynomials $Q_{i}(x)$, $i = 1, \ldots , m+n-1$ of degrees $v_{i}$, Q\_[i]{}(x) = \_[=1]{}\^[v\_[i]{}]{} ( x - \_\^[(i)]{} ) \[eq:qbaxi\] We also define $Q_{0}(x) = Q_{m+n}(x) \equiv 1$. Then Bethe equations (we generalized them by including the twist parameters ${\mathfrak q}_i$’s) have the form: whenever $Q_{i}(x) = 0$:
& \_[i]{} = - , ,\
& \_[m]{} = - ,\
& \_[i]{} = - , ,\
\[eq:baesusy\]
with monic polynomials $P_{k}(x)$, $k = 1, \ldots , m-1, \pm , m+1, \ldots, m+n-1$. We see that can be cast in the form = 1 where ${\tilde W}_{\mathfrak{gl}(m|n)}$ is similar to the $Q = A_{m+n-1}$ Yang-Yang function , except that the node $i=m$ contributes differently, and the sign of $u$ is flipped in passing from $i < m$ to $i>m$: $$\begin{gathered}
{\tilde W}_{\mathfrak{gl}(m|n)}
= \frac{1}{2\pi {\mathrm{i}}} \sum_{i =1}^{m+n-1} \ {\rm log}{{\mathfrak q}}_{i}\, \sum_{\beta = 1}^{v_{i}} {\sigma}_{\beta}^{(i)} + \\
\sum_{i =1}^{m-1} \sum_{\beta = 1}^{v_{i}} \scriptstyle{\left( \sum\limits_{{\beta}' = 1}^{v_{i}} {\varpi} ( {\sigma}_{\beta}^{(i)} - {\sigma}_{\beta'}^{(i)} + 2u ) +\sum\limits_{a = 1}^{w_{i}} \left( {\varpi} ( {\sigma}_{\beta}^{(i)} - {\mu}_{a}^{(i)} - u ) + {\varpi} ( - {\sigma}_{\beta}^{(i)} + {\mu}_{a}^{(i)} - u ) \right) \right)} + \\
+ \sum_{i=1}^{m-1} \sum_{{\alpha} = 1}^{v_{i}} \sum_{{\beta}=1}^{v_{i+1}} \scriptstyle{\left( {\varpi} ( {\sigma}_{\alpha}^{(i)} - {\sigma}_{\beta}^{(i+1)} - u) + {\varpi} ( - {\sigma}_{\alpha}^{(i)} + {\sigma}_{\beta}^{(i+1)} - u) \right)}+ \\
+ \sum_{\beta = 1}^{v_{m}} \sum_{a = 1}^{w} \scriptstyle{\left( {\varpi} ( {\sigma}_{\beta}^{(i)} - {\mu}_{a}^{(+)}) + {\varpi} ( - {\sigma}_{\beta}^{(i)} + {\mu}_{a}^{(-)}) \right)} + \\
+ \sum_{i =m+1}^{m+n-1} \sum_{\beta = 1}^{v_{i}} \scriptstyle{\left( \sum\limits_{{\beta}' = 1}^{v_{i}} {\varpi} ( {\sigma}_{\beta}^{(i)} - {\sigma}_{\beta'}^{(i)} - 2u ) +\sum\limits_{a = 1}^{w_{i}} \left( {\varpi} ( {\sigma}_{\beta}^{(i)} - {\mu}_{a}^{(i)} + u ) + {\varpi} ( - {\sigma}_{\beta}^{(i)} + {\mu}_{a}^{(i)} + u ) \right) \right)} + \\
+ \sum_{i=m}^{m+n-1} \sum_{{\alpha} = 1}^{v_{i}} \sum_{{\beta}=1}^{v_{i+1}} \scriptstyle{\left( {\varpi} ( {\sigma}_{\alpha}^{(i)} - {\sigma}_{\beta}^{(i+1)} + u) + {\varpi} ( - {\sigma}_{\alpha}^{(i)} + {\sigma}_{\beta}^{(i+1)} + u) \right)} \\
\label{eq:genyy2}
\end{gathered}$$ where P\_[i]{}(x) = \_[a=1]{}\^[w\_[i]{}]{} ( x - \_[a]{}\^[(i)]{} ) , i = 1, …, m-1, , m+1, …, n+m-1 \[eq:pix\] and ${\rm deg}P_{+} = {\rm deg}P_{-} = w$.
General Dynkin diagram
----------------------
The general Dynkin diagram of $\mathfrak{sl}(m|n)$ is characterized by a collection of $p \geq 1$ integers $0 < l_{1} < l_{2} < \ldots < l_{p} < m+n$, labeling the chosen fermionic simple roots, where, for even $p = 2k$: n = \_[i=1]{}\^[p]{} (-1)\^[i]{} l\_[i]{} = d\_[1]{} + d\_[3]{} + …+ d\_[2k-1]{} , and for odd $p= 2k+1$: m = \_[i=1]{}\^[p]{} (-1)\^[i-1]{} l\_[i]{} = d\_[1]{} + d\_[3]{} + …+ d\_[2k+1]{} , where $d_{0} = m+n- l_{p}$, $d_{i} = l_{p+1-i} - l_{p-i}$, $i = 1, \ldots, p-1$, $d_{p} = l_{1}$, so that all $d_{i} \geq 1$, and $\sum_i d_i = m+n$.
In this paper we shall not discuss the Bethe/gauge correspondence for the general Dynkin diagrams of the $\mathfrak{gl}(m|n)$ superalgebra. We leave this as an exercise.
Supersymmetric gauge theory for superspin chain
===============================================
The first observation about is that it is obtained by fusing two type $A$ quiver theories, $A_{m-1}$ and $A_{n-1}$, with the opposite values of the $u$-parameter. The fusing node $i=m$ is a $U(v_{m})$ ${{\mathcal N}}=(2,2)$ gauge theory which couples to both $A_{m-1}$ and $A_{n-1}$ theories.
Here is the minimal construction, which we found in 2008 [^1] (the paper [@Orlando:2010uu] used the same construction in the $(m|n) = (2|1)$ case, albeit for $\mathfrak{sl}$ rather $\mathfrak{gl}$ superalgebra).
Start with the $A_{m-1} \times A_{n-1}$ ${{\mathcal N}}=(4,4)$ theory with the gauge group $G_{l} \times G_{r}$ where $G_{l} = U(v_{1}) \times \ldots \times U(v_{m-1})$, $G_{r} = U(v_{m+1}) \times \ldots \times U(v_{m+n-1})$, the bi-fundamental hypermultiplets in $( {\bf v}_{i+1}, {\bar{\bf v}}_{i})$, $i = 1, \ldots , m-2$, and $i = m+1, \ldots , m+n-2$, and fundamental hypermultiplets $({\bar{\bf w}}_{i}, {\bf v}_{i})$, $i = 1, \ldots, m-1$, and $i = m+1, \ldots, m+n-1$. Now let us turn on the twisted mass $u$ for the $U(1)_{\sf u}$ symmetry which acts as $U(1)_{u}$ on the fields of the $A_{m-1}$ sector and as $\overline{U(1)_{u}}$ on the fields of the $A_{n-1}$ sector (i.e. the opposite charges). As usual, we turn on the twisted masses for the maximal tori of the flavor symmetry $U(w_{1}) \times \ldots \times U(w_{m-1}) \times U(w_{m+1}) \times \ldots \times U(w_{m+n-1})$.
Now we couple this theory to the ${{\mathcal N}}=(2,2)$ gauge theory with the gauge group $U(v_{m})$, and the bi-fundamental chiral multiplets $B_{m-1} \oplus {\tilde B}_{m-1}$ in $({\bar{\bf v}}_{m-1} , {\bf v}_{m}) \oplus ( {\bar{\bf v}}_{m}, {\bf v}_{m-1})$ and $B_{m} \oplus {\tilde B}_{m}$ in $({\bar{\bf v}}_{m+1} , {\bf v}_{m}) \oplus ( {\bar{\bf v}}_{m}, {\bf v}_{m+1})$ and the fundamental and anti-fundamental chirals $I_{m} \in ({\bar{\bf w}_{-}}, {\bf v}_{m})$ and $J_{m} \in ({\bar{\bf v}_{m}}, {\bf w}_{+})$, where the vector spaces ${\bf w}_{\pm}$ have equal rank $w$.
The matter fields couple to the ${{\mathcal N}}=(2,2)$ adjoint chirals at the $m-1$ and $m+1$ node through the superpotential (in addition to the superpotential inherited from the ${{\mathcal N}}=(4,4)$ theory): \_[1]{}W = \_[[**v**]{}\_[m]{}]{} ( B\_[m-1]{} \_[m-1]{} [B]{}\_[m-1]{} ) - \_[[**v**]{}\_[m]{}]{} ( B\_[m]{} \_[m+1]{} [B]{}\_[m]{} ) Thus, the chiral multiplets $B_{m-1}, {\tilde B}_{m-1}$ have the charge $-1$ under $U(1)_{\sf u}$ while $B_{m+1}, {\tilde B}_{m+1}$ have the charge $+1$ (recall that ${\Phi}_{i}$ has the charge $+2$ for $i < m$ and $-2$ for $i > m$).
A family of theories
--------------------
The minimal choice above reproduces the equations . However this choice lacks the rigidity one expects of the theory with the hidden $Y(\mathfrak{sl}(m|n))$ symmetry. Namely, the $U(1)_{\sf u}$ symmetry is a subgroup in $U(1)_{l} \times U(1)_{r}$, where $U(1)_{l,r}$ acts as $U(1)_{u}$ on the $A_{m-1}$ and on the $A_{n-1}$ portions, respectively, including the bifundamentals $(B_{m-1}, {\tilde B}_{m-1})$ and $(B_{m+1}, {\tilde B}_{m+1})$ (which are fundamental hypermultiplets from the point of view of $A_{m-1}$ and $A_{n-1}$ portions, respectively). One can therefore deform this theory by two twisted masses $u_{l}, u_{r}$, so that the theory we discussed so far would correspond to the case $u_{l} + u_{r} = 0$. It is possible that such deformation also has an interesting Bethe/gauge dual (perhaps the generalized root systems of [@SSS:2018] would make an appearence, with ${\kappa}/(1-{\kappa}) = - u_{r}/u_{l}$).
We propose another solidifier. Introduce the triplet $({\Phi}_{-}, {\Phi}_{0}, {\Phi}_{+})$ of $U(v_{m})$ adjoint chiral multiplets, with the $U(1)_{\sf u}$ charges $+2, 0, -2$, respectively, and add the following terms to the superpotential: \_[2]{}W = \_[[**v**]{}\_[m]{}]{} ( \_[0]{} \[\_[+]{}, \_[-]{}\] - \_[+]{} B\_[m-1]{} [B]{}\_[m-1]{} + \_[-]{} B\_[m+1]{} [B]{}\_[m+1]{} ) \[eq:d2w\] and \_[3]{} W = t\_[1]{} \_[[**v**]{}\_[m]{}]{} \_[+]{} \_[-]{} + t\_[2]{} \_[[**v**]{}\_[m]{}]{} \_[0]{}\^[2]{} . \[eq:lock\] The $U(1)_{\sf u}$-symmetry allows one to add terms like $U({\Phi}_{0})$ with some gauge-invariant polynomial $U(x)$, or $\sum_{l} s_{l} {{\text{Tr}}} \left( {\Phi}_{+} {\Phi}_{-} {\Phi}_{0}^{l}\right)$, however our choices are limited by cubic polynomials as we wish to be able to lift these theories to renormalizable ${{\mathcal N}}=1$ theories in four dimensions (with the XXZ and XYZ-type Bethe duals).
The term can be accompanied by the coupling ${\delta}_{4}W = {{\text{Tr}}} {\Phi}_{0} IJ$ to yet another fundamental hypermultiplet $(I, J) \in ({\bar{\bf w}_{0}} , {\bf v}_{m}) \oplus ({\bar{\bf v}_{m}}, {\bf w}_{0})$. Neither $\Phi_0$ nor $(I,J)$ contribute to the effective twisted superpotential ${\tilde W}$ since ${\Phi}_{0}$ has charge $0$ under $U(1)_{\sf u}$ and $I$ and $J$ have the opposite charges (which can be absorbed into the twisted masses for $U(w_{0})$ flavor symmetry). The nice feature of the $({\Phi}_{0, \pm}, B_{m}, {\tilde B}_{m}, B_{m-1}, {\tilde B}_{m-1}, I,J)$ package is that its Higgs branch coincides with the moduli space of spiked instantons [@NekrasovF] which fit into a three dimensional variety (see [@Soibelman] for the recent work where using these moduli spaces the representations of the cohomological Hall algebra are constructed). In the absence of the $(I,J)$-matter fields the corresponding Higgs branch is the moduli space of folded instantons [@Nbpscft] which we shall discuss in the next section.
We should stress that only the ${\delta}_{3}W$ term provides the rigidity $u_{l}+u_{r}= 0$. Once $t_{1}= t_{2} = 0$ we can turn on both $u_{l}$ and $u_{r}$, leading to the equations describing the quantum cohomology, i.e. the spectrum of the twisted chiral ring: whenever $Q_{i}(x) = 0$,
& = - [[q]{}]{}\_[i]{}\^[-1]{} ,\
& ,\
& =\
& = - [[q]{}]{}\_[m]{}\^[-1]{} ,\
& = - [[q]{}]{}\_[i]{}\^[-1]{} ,\
& ,\
\[eq:baesusy2\]
where ${{\mathfrak q}}_{i} = e^{2\pi {\mathrm{i}}{\vartheta}_{i} - r_{i}}$’s are the Kahler moduli. The $t_{1} = t_{2} = 0$ locus has a bonus feature in the form of a $U(1)_{R}$ symmetry, under which all the fundamentals except $(I,J)$ and bi-fundamentals have charge $0$, all the ${\Phi}_{i}$, ${\Phi}_{\pm}$ fields have charge $+1$, with ${\Phi}_{0}$ having charge $-1$, and $I, J$ having charge $+1$. This symmetry is preserved by the $\beta$-deformation: \_[0]{} \[ \_[+]{}, \_[-]{}\] e\^ ( \_[0]{} \_[+]{} \_[-]{} ) - e\^[-]{} ( \_[0]{} \_[-]{} \_[+]{} ) \[eq:betdef\] Likewise, this $U(1)_{R}$ symmetry is restored in the limit where both $t_{1}$ and $t_{2}$ go to infinity, i.e. ${\Phi}_{\pm}$ and ${\Phi}_{0}$ decouple.
The $U(1)_{R}$ symmetry can be used to define the topological field theory by $A$ twist. After the twist the fields ${\Phi}_{i}, {\Phi}_{\pm}, I, J$ become the $(1,0)$-forms on the worldsheet $\Sigma$, i.e. ${\Phi}_{i} = {\Phi}_{i,z} dz \in {\Gamma} \left( {\rm End}({{\mathcal V}}_{i}) \otimes K_{\Sigma} \right)$, $I = I_{z}dz \in {\Gamma} \left( {\rm Hom}( {\bf w}_{0} , {{\mathcal V}}_{m}) \otimes K_{\Sigma} \right)$, while ${\Phi}_{0}$ becomes the section of ${\rm End}({{\mathcal V}}_{m}) \otimes {{\mathcal T}}_{\Sigma}$. The path integral localizes onto the solutions of the generalized Hitchin equations, which schematically read as follows: \_[|z]{} ( [field]{} ) = ( W / [field]{} )\^ where by the field we mean the lowest component of the chiral multiplet after the twisting.
When $\Sigma = D^{2}$ or ${\Sigma} = {{\mathbb C}}$ one can further deform the theory by subjecting it to the two-dimensional $\Omega$-background. The path integral with the supersymmetric boundary conditions is expected to solve the quantum Knizhnik-Zamolodchikov equation based on superalgebras, cf. [@AOqm].
Conclusions and future prospects
================================
Bethe/gauge correspondence between the finite-dimensional spin chains and two dimensional supersymmetric gauge theories (their anisotropic cousins corresponding to the three and four dimensional theories toroidally compactified to two dimensions) has a parallel correspondence between the quantum integrable systems with infinite-dimensional spaces of states, such as many-body systems, and the four (five, six) dimensional supersymmetric gauge theories subject to a two dimensional $\Omega$-background (times a circle or a torus) [@NS09; @NPS]. The examples discussed in this paper are not an exception to that rule. Namely, there is a four-dimensional theory subject to a two dimensional $\Omega$-background, which corresponds to a many-body system based on superalgebra $\mathfrak{sl}(m|n)$. It was shown in [@Nbpscft] that the [folded instanton]{} theory, i.e. a generalized gauge theory on the spacetime of the form: ${{\mathbb C}} \times {{\mathbb C}} \cup_{0} {{\mathbb C}}$ (in other words, a union of the coordinate planes ${{\mathbb C}}^{2}_{12}$ ($z_{3}= 0$) and ${{\mathbb C}}^{2}_{23}$ ($z_{1}=0$) inside the three complex dimensional space ${{\mathbb C}}^{3}$ with the coordinates $z_{1}, z_{2}, z_{3}$), with the local gauge groups $U(n)$ and $U(m)$ (and local matter content of the ${{\mathcal N}}=2^{*}$ theory), respectively, subject to the $\Omega$-deformations in ${{\mathbb C}}^{1}_{1}$ and ${{\mathbb C}}^{1}_{3}$ with the equivariant parameters ${{{\varepsilon}}}_{1}$ and ${{{\varepsilon}}}_{3}$, respectively, is a theory with the ${{\mathcal N}}=(2,2)$ super-Poincare invariance in two dimensions (i.e. in ${{\mathbb C}}^{1}_{2}$). Its Bethe dual is the deformed elliptic Calogero-Moser system (the trigonometric version was studied in [@SV]): $$\begin{gathered}
{\hat H} = - \frac{\kappa}{2} \sum_{i=1}^{n} \frac{{\partial}^{2}}{\partial x_{i}^2} - \frac{1-\kappa}{2} \sum_{j=1}^{m} \frac{{\partial}^{2}}{\partial y_{j}^2} + \\
+ \frac{\kappa}{1-\kappa} \sum_{i< i'} {\wp} (x_{i} - x_{i'}) + \frac{1-\kappa}{\kappa} \sum_{j<j'} {\wp} (y_{j} - y_{j'}) + \sum_{i,j} {\wp} (x_{i} - y_{j}) \, ,
\label{eq:defcm}\end{gathered}$$ where = It was shown in [@Nbpscft] that the partition function of the theory with the surface defect inserted at some point in ${{\mathbb C}}^{1}_{2}$ (with the monodromy defect at $0 \in {{\mathbb C}}^{1}_{1} \cup_{0} {{\mathbb C}}^{1}_{3}$) is the wavefunction of the quantum system . Specifically, such a partition function is obtained by integration over a ${{\mathbb Z}}_{m+n}$-fixed locus in the moduli space of folded instantons, which is the space of solutions to the following system of equations:
& \[ \_[+]{}, \_[-]{} \] = 0 ,\
& \[ \_[0]{}, \_[+]{} \] + B\_[m+1]{}[B]{}\_[m+1]{} = 0 ,\
& \[ \_[0]{} , \_[-]{}\] + [B]{}\_[m]{} B\_[m]{} = 0\
& \_[-]{} B\_[m+1]{} = \_[+]{} [B]{}\_[m]{} = [B]{}\_[m+1]{} \_[-]{} = B\_[m]{} \_[+]{} = 0 .
We expect that a proper large $m,n$ limit of this model produces a super-version of the quantum intermediate long-wave equation, whose spectrum is determined from the Bethe equations similar to .
On the other hand, the surface defect of the folded instanton theory can be modelled on a two dimensional ${{\mathcal N}}=(2,2)$ gauged linear sigma model albeit on the worldsheet made out of two copies of ${{\mathbb C}}^1$ (more specifically ${{\mathbb C}}^{1}_{1}$ and ${{\mathbb C}}^{1}_{3}$) glued at one point $0$. On either component the low-energy effective target space is the cotangent bundle to the complete flag variety, $T^{*}Fl(m,m-1,\ldots, 1)$ and $T^{*}Fl(n,n-1, \ldots, 1)$, respectively. In addition, there are degrees of freedom localized at $0$, which describe some interaction between the two sigma models. We expect the equivalence between the four dimensional and the two dimensional viewpoints on this system is a way to make contact with the discrete dynamics approach to Bethe ansatz of superalgebras of [@Kazakov:2007fy].
Finally, let us mention another extension of this work. In [@NPS] the $ADE$-type quiver gauge theories in four and five dimensions were analyzed using the $q$-character [@FR] observables, which were generalized to $qq$-characters in [@Nbpscft]. In [@Kimura:2017hez] the theories associated to the non-simply-laced algebras were constructed, together with the corresponding $qq$-characters. It must be possible to include the superalgebras into this picture as well, in particular to define the $qq$-characters for the Yangians and quantum affine algebras based on $\mathfrak{sl}(m|n)$. The surface defects in these theories will presumably carry the ${{\mathcal N}}=2$ structure in two and three dimensions that we described in this note.
[KLLSW]{}
M. Aganagic, K. A. Intriligator, C. Vafa and N. P. Warner, *The Glueball superpotential*, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. [**7**]{}, no. 6, 1045 (2003) doi:10.4310/ATMP.2003.v7.n6.a4 \[hep-th/0304271\].
M. Aganagic and A. Okounkov, *Elliptic stable envelope*, arXiv:1604.00423 \[math.AG\].
M. Aganagic and A. Okounkov, *Quasimap counts and Bethe eigenfunctions*, Moscow Math. J. [**17**]{}, no. 4, 565 (2017) \[arXiv:1704.08746 \[math-ph\]\].
L. Alvarez-Gaume and D. Z. Freedman, *Potentials for the Supersymmetric Nonlinear Sigma Model*, Commun. Math. Phys. [**91**]{}, 87 (1983). doi:10.1007/BF01206053
G. Arutyunov, S. Frolov and M. Staudacher, *Bethe ansatz for quantum strings*, JHEP [**0410**]{}, 016 (2004) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2004/10/016 \[hep-th/0406256\].
N. Beisert and M. Staudacher, *The ${{\mathcal N}}=4$ SYM integrable super spin chain*, Nucl. Phys. B [**670**]{}, 439 (2003) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2003.08.015 \[hep-th/0307042\].
N. Beisert, V. Dippel and M. Staudacher, *A Novel long range spin chain and planar ${{\mathcal N}}=4$ super Yang-Mills*, JHEP [**0407**]{}, 075 (2004) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2004/07/075 \[hep-th/0405001\]. N. Beisert, B. Eden and M. Staudacher, *Transcendentality and Crossing*, J. Stat. Mech. [**0701**]{}, P01021 (2007) doi:10.1088/1742-5468/2007/01/P01021 \[hep-th/0610251\].
N. Beisert, R. Hernandez and E. Lopez, *A Crossing-symmetric phase for $AdS_{5} x S^{5}$ strings*, JHEP [**0611**]{}, 070 (2006) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2006/11/070 \[hep-th/0609044\].
N. Beisert and P. Koroteev, J. Phys. A [**41**]{}, 255204 (2008) doi:10.1088/1751-8113/41/25/255204 \[arXiv:0802.0777 \[hep-th\]\].
S. Belliard and E. Ragoucy, *Nested Bethe ansatz for ’all’ closed spin chains*, J. Phys. A [**41**]{}, 295202 (2008) doi:10.1088/1751-8113/41/29/295202 \[arXiv:0804.2822 \[math-ph\]\].
R. Dijkgraaf, B. Heidenreich, P. Jefferson and C. Vafa, *Negative Branes, Supergroups and the Signature of Spacetime*, JHEP [**1802**]{}, 050 (2018) doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2018)050 \[arXiv:1603.05665 \[hep-th\]\].
N. Dorey, D. M. Hofman and J. M. Maldacena, *On the Singularities of the Magnon S-matrix*, Phys. Rev. D [**76**]{}, 025011 (2007) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.76.025011 \[hep-th/0703104 \[HEP-TH\]\].
J. M. Drummond, *Review of AdS/CFT Integrability, Chapter V.2: Dual Superconformal Symmetry*, Lett. Math. Phys. [**99**]{}, 481 (2012) doi:10.1007/s11005-011-0519-4 \[arXiv:1012.4002 \[hep-th\]\].
L. Frappat, P. Sorba and A. Sciarrino, *Dictionary on Lie superalgebras*, hep-th/9607161.
E. Frenkel, N. Reshetikhin, *The $q$-characters of representations of quantun affine algebras and deformations of $W$-algebras*, arXiv:math/9810055v5 \[math.QA\]
A. A. Gerasimov and S. L. Shatashvili, *Higgs Bundles, Gauge Theories and Quantum Groups*, Commun. Math. Phys. [**277**]{}, 323 (2008) doi:10.1007/s00220-007-0369-1 \[hep-th/0609024\].\
*Two-dimensional gauge theories and quantum integrable systems*, Proc. Symp. Pure Math. [**78**]{}, 239 (2008) \[arXiv:0711.1472 \[hep-th\]\].
A. Gorsky and N. Nekrasov, *Hamiltonian systems of Calogero type and two-dimensional Yang-Mills theory*, Nucl. Phys. B [**414**]{}, 213 (1994) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(94)90429-4 \[hep-th/9304047\].
N. Gromov, V. Kazakov, K. Sakai and P. Vieira, *Strings as multi-particle states of quantum sigma-models*, Nucl. Phys. B [**764**]{}, 15 (2007) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2006.11.018 \[hep-th/0603043\].
N. Gromov and V. Kazakov, *Asymptotic Bethe ansatz from string sigma model on ${{\mathbb S}}^{3} \times {{\mathbb R}}$*, Nucl. Phys. B [**780**]{}, 143 (2007) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2007.03.025 \[hep-th/0605026\].
N. Gromov, V. Kazakov and P. Vieira, *Classical limit of Quantum Sigma-Models from Bethe Ansatz*, PoS SOLVAY [****]{}, 005 (2006) doi:10.22323/1.038.0005 \[hep-th/0703137 \[HEP-TH\]\].
A. Hutsalyuk, A. Liashyk, S. Z. Pakuliak, E. Ragoucy and N. A. Slavnov, *Scalar products of Bethe vectors in the models with $\mathfrak{gl}(m|n)$ symmetry*, Nucl. Phys. B [**923**]{}, 277 (2017). doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2017.07.020
R.A.Janik, *The $AdS_{5} \times S^{5}$ superstring worldsheet $S$-matrix and crossing symmetry*, Phys. Rev. D [**73**]{}, 086006 (2006) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.73.086006 \[hep-th/0603038\].
V.A.Kazakov, A.Marshakov, J.A.Minahan and K.Zarembo, *Classical/quantum integrability in AdS/CFT*, JHEP [**0405**]{}, 024 (2004) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2004/05/024 \[hep-th/0402207\].
V. Kazakov, A. S. Sorin and A. Zabrodin, *Supersymmetric Bethe ansatz and Baxter equations from discrete Hirota dynamics*, Nucl. Phys. B [**790**]{}, 345 (2008) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2007.06.025 \[hep-th/0703147 \[HEP-TH\]\].
T. Kimura and V. Pestun, *Fractional quiver $W$-algebras*, Lett. Math. Phys. [**108**]{}, no. 11, 2425 (2018) doi:10.1007/s11005-018-1087-7 \[arXiv:1705.04410 \[hep-th\]\].
A.N. Kirillov, N. Reshetikhin, *Representations of Yangians and multiplicities of the inclusion of the irreducible components of the tensor product of representations of simple Lie algebras* , (Russian) Zap. Nauchn. Sem. LOMI [**160**]{} (1987), Anal. Teor. Chisel i Teor. Funktsii. 8, 211Ð221, 301; translation in J. Soviet Math. [**52**]{} (1990), no. 3, 3156Ð3164
P. P. Kulish, J. Sov. Math [**35**]{} (1986) 2648 . D. Maulik and A. Okounkov, *Quantum groups and quantum cohomology*, arXiv:1211.1287
A. A. Migdal, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 69, 810 (1975)
J. A. Minahan and K. Zarembo, *The Bethe ansatz for ${{\mathcal N}}=4$ superYang-Mills*, JHEP [**0303**]{}, 013 (2003) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2003/03/013 \[hep-th/0212208\].
V. Mikhaylov, *Analytic Torsion, 3d Mirror Symmetry And Supergroup Chern-Simons Theories*, arXiv:1505.03130 \[hep-th\].
V. Mikhaylov and E. Witten, *Branes And Supergroups*, Commun. Math. Phys. [**340**]{}, no. 2, 699 (2015) doi:10.1007/s00220-015-2449-y \[arXiv:1410.1175 \[hep-th\]\].
G. W. Moore, N. Nekrasov and S. Shatashvili, *Integrating over Higgs branches*, Commun. Math. Phys. [**209**]{}, 97 (2000) doi:10.1007/PL00005525 \[hep-th/9712241\].
H. Nakajima, *Quiver varieties and finite dimensional representations of quantum affine algebras* , arXiv:math/9912158
N. A. Nekrasov and S. L. Shatashvili, *Supersymmetric vacua and Bethe ansatz*, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. [**192-193**]{}, 91 (2009) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysbps.2009.07.047 \[arXiv:0901.4744 \[hep-th\]\].
N. A. Nekrasov and S. L. Shatashvili, *Quantization of Integrable Systems and Four Dimensional Gauge Theories*, doi:10.1142/9789814304634$\_$0015 arXiv:0908.4052 \[hep-th\]. N. Nekrasov, V. Pestun and S. Shatashvili, *Quantum geometry and quiver gauge theories*, Commun. Math. Phys. [**357**]{}, no. 2, 519 (2018) doi:10.1007/s00220-017-3071-y \[arXiv:1312.6689 \[hep-th\]\].
N. Nekrasov, S. Sethi, in progress
N. Nekrasov, *BPS/CFT correspondence: non-perturbative Dyson-Schwinger equations and qq-characters*, JHEP [**1603**]{}, 181 (2016) \[arxiv:1512.05388 \[hep-th\]\
$\underline{~~~~~~~~~~}$, *BPS/CFT correspondence II: Instantons at crossroads, Moduli and Compactness Theorem*, arXiv:1608.07272 \[hep-th\]\
$\underline{~~~~~~~~~~}$, *BPS/CFT correspondence III: Gauge Origami Partition Function and $qq$-characters*, arXiv:1701.00189 \[hep-th\]\
$\underline{~~~~~~~~~~}$, *BPS/CFT correspondence IV: sigma models and defects in gauge theory*, doi:10.1007/s11005-018-1115-7 arXiv:1711.11011 \[hep-th\]\
$\underline{~~~~~~~~~~}$, *BPS/CFT correspondence V: BPZ and KZ equations from $qq$-characters*, arXiv:1711.11582 \[hep-th\]\
N. Nekrasov and N. S. Prabhakar, *Spiked Instantons from Intersecting D-branes*, Nucl. Phys. B [**914**]{}, 257 (2017) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2016.11.014 \[arXiv:1611.03478 \[hep-th\]\].
A. Okounkov, *Lectures on K-theoretic computations in enumerative geometry*, arXiv:1512.07363 \[math.AG\].
D. Orlando and S. Reffert, *Relating Gauge Theories via Gauge/Bethe Correspondence*, JHEP [**1010**]{}, 071 (2010) doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2010)071 \[arXiv:1005.4445 \[hep-th\]\].
A. M. Polyakov, *Supermagnets and sigma models*, doi:10.1142/9789812773784$\_$0036, hep-th/0512310.
E. Ragoucy and G. Satta, *Analytical Bethe Ansatz for closed and open ${\mathfrak{gl}}(M|N)$ super-spin chains in arbitrary representations and for any Dynkin diagrams*, JHEP [**0709**]{}, 001 (2007) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2007/09/001 \[arXiv:0706.3327 \[hep-th\]\].
M. Rapcak, Y. Soibelman, Y. Yang and G. Zhao, *Cohomological Hall algebras, vertex algebras and instantons*, arXiv:1810.10402 \[math.QA\].
N. Reshetikhin, *The spectrum of the transfer matrices connected with Kac-Moody algebras*, Lett. Math. Phys. 14 (10): 235-246, 1987 .
N. Yu. Reshetikhin and P. B. Wiegmann, Phys. Lett. [**B**]{}189 (1987) 125 .
K. Sakai and Y. Satoh, *Origin of dressing phase in ${{\mathcal N}}=4$ super Yang-Mills*, Phys. Lett. B [**661**]{}, 216 (2008) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2008.02.015 \[hep-th/0703177\].
S. Sahi, H. Salmasian and V. Serganova, *Capelli eigenvalue problem for Lie superalgebras and supersymetric polynominals* \[arXiv:1807.07340 \[math.RT\]\].
C. L. Schultz, Physica [**A**]{}122 (1983) 71 .
V. Serganova, lecture at the meeting *Representation Theory, Mathematical Physics and Integrable Systems*, on June 7, 2018 at the Centre International de Rencontres MathŽmatiques (Marseille, France), [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPNC4A6MimA]{}
A. Sergeev and A. Veselov, *Deformed quantum Calogero-Moser problems and Lie superalgebras*, Comm. Math. Phys., 245(2):249Ð278, 2004\
A. Sergeev and A. Veselov, *Generalised discriminants, deformed Calogero-Moser-Sutherland operators and super-Jack polynomials*, Adv. Math., 192(2):341Ð375, 2005.
C. Vafa, *Brane / anti-brane systems and $U(N|M)$ supergroup*, hep-th/0101218.
M. Varagnolo, *Quiver Varieties and Yangians*, arXiv:math/0005277
E. Witten, Comm. Math. Phys. 141 (1991) 153, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02100009
E. Witten, *Two-dimensional gauge theories revisited*, J. Geom. Phys. [**9**]{}, 303 (1992) doi:10.1016/0393-0440(92)90034-X \[hep-th/9204083\].
[^1]: Many thanks to E. Ragoucy for helpful correspondence and patient explanations of the results in [@Ragoucy:2007kg] then and ten years later
|
---
abstract: |
The effect of the built-in supersymmetric quantum mechanical language on the spectrum of the (1+1)-Dirac equation, with position-dependent mass (PDM) and complexified Lorentz scalar interactions, is re-emphasized. The signature of the “quasi-parity” on the Dirac particles’ spectra is also studied. A Dirac particle with PDM and complexified scalar interactions of the form $S\left(
z\right) =S\left( x-ib\right) $ (an inversely linear plus linear, leading to a $\mathcal{PT-}$symmetric oscillator model), and $S\left( x\right)
=S_{r}\left( x\right) +iS_{i}\left( x\right) $ (a $\mathcal{PT}$-symmetric Scarf II model) are considered. Moreover, a first-order intertwining differential operator and an $\eta $-weak-pseudo-Hermiticity generator are presented and a complexified $\mathcal{PT}$-symmetric periodic-type model is used as an illustrative example.
PACS numbers: 03.65.Ge, 03.65.Pm, 03.65.Fd, 03.65. Ca
author:
- |
Omar Mustafa$^{1}$ and S.Habib Mazharimousavi$^{2}$\
Department of Physics, Eastern Mediterranean University,\
G Magusa, North Cyprus, Mersin 10,Turkey\
$^{1}$E-mail: omar.mustafa@emu.edu.tr\
$^{2}$E-mail: habib.mazhari@emu.edu.tr
title: '(1+1)-Dirac particle with position-dependent mass in complexified Lorentz scalar interactions: effectively $\mathcal{PT}$-symmetric.'
---
Introduction
============
A fermion bound to move in the $x$-direction (i.e., $p_{y}=p_{z}=0$) mandates the decomposition of the (3+1)-dimensional Dirac equation into two (1+1)-dimensional equations with two-component spinors and $2\times 2$ Pauli matrices. Whilst the scalar, $S(x)$, and vector, $V(x)$, potentials preserve their Lorentz structures (i.e., the former is added to the mass term of Dirac equation while the minimal coupling is used, as usual, for the latter), the angular momentum and spin are absent in the process. Manifesting, in effect, a mathematically easily assessable and physically more transparent exploration of the (1+1)-Dirac world.
Nevertheless, the supersymmetric quantum mechanical terminology is realized (cf., e.g. \[1-4\]) as a *hidden/built-in symmetry* in the (1+1)-dimensional Dirac equation with “the mainly motivated by the MIT bag model of quarks” Lorentz scalar potential \[5\]. For example, Nogami and Toyama \[1\] have reported that the associated supersymmetric Schrödinger Hamiltonians $H_{1}$ and $H_{2}$ share the same energy spectrum including the lowest states unless Dirac equation allows a zero-mode (i.e., zero-energy bound-state). Moreover, Jackiw and Rebbi \[4\] have reported that if the Lorentz scalar potential is localized (i.e., $S(x)\rightarrow 0$ for $x\rightarrow \pm \infty $) no zero-mode is allowed. That is, only for some Lorentz scalar potentials exhibiting certain *topological* trends, Dirac equation admits zero-mode.
Although the practical/experimental determination of the full spectrum is often proved impossible, exact solvability of quantum mechanical models (relativistic and non-relativistic) remains inviting and desirable. On the *exact-solvability* methodical side, however, attention was (by large) paid to the non-relativistic Schrödinger equation, whereas the relativistic Klein-Gordon and Dirac equations are left unfortunates. Not only within the recent revival of the unusual non-Hermitian complexified Hamiltonians’ settings \[6-13\] , but also within the usual Hermitian ones including those with position-dependent mass (PDM) \[14-19\].
In their pioneering generalization of the non-relativistic quantization recipe (i.e., $\mathcal{PT}$-symmetric Hamiltonians, where $\mathcal{P}$ denotes parity and the complex conjugation $\mathcal{T}$ mimics time reversal.), Bender and Boettcher \[6\] have suggested a tentative weakening/relaxation of Hermiticity as a necessary condition for the reality of the spectrum (i.e., the reality of the spectrum is secured by the exactness of $\mathcal{PT}$ -symmetry). However, Mostafazadeh \[8\] has introduced a broader class of the so-called pseudo-Hermitian Hamiltonians with real spectra (within which $\mathcal{PT}$ -symmetric Hamiltonians form a subclass). He has, basically, advocated the “user-friendly” consensus that neither Hermiticity nor $\mathcal{PT}$ -symmetry serve as necessary conditions for the reality of the spectrum of a quantum Hamiltonian \[6-13\]. Yet, the existence of the real eigenvalues is realized to be associatedwith a non-Hermitian Hamiltonian provided that it is an $\eta $-pseudo-Hermitian, $\eta \,H=H^{\dagger }\,\eta $, with respect to the nontrivial “metric” intertwining operator $\eta $ ($=O^{\dagger }O$, for some linear invertible operator $O:\mathcal{H}{\small \rightarrow }\mathcal{H}$, where $\mathcal{H}$ is the Hilbert space). Furthermore, one may rather choose to be disloyal to the Hermiticity (cf., e.g., Bagchi and Quesne \[10\]), and “linear” and/or “invertible” (cf., e.g., Solombrino \[11\] and Mustafa and Mazharimousavi \[12\]) conditions on the intertwiner $\eta $, and hence relaxing $H$ to be an $\eta $-weak-pseudo-Hermitian.
On the one (among others, some of which are readily mentioned above) of the main stimulants/inspirations of the present article, we may re-collect that quantum particles endowed with PDM constitute useful models for the study of many physical problems. In particular (but not limited to), they are used in the energy density many-body problem, in the determination of the electronic properties of semiconductors and quantum dots \[cf., e.g., the sample of references in \[12-19\]), etc.
In the forthcoming text, we shall focus (in addition to the (1+1)-Dirac particle with PDM in complexified Lorentz scalar interactions) on two main spectral phenomenological properties. Namely the energy-levels crossings (manifested by the “quasi-parity” settings of Znojil’s \[10\] attractive/repulsive-like core) and the related effects to the hidden/built-in supersymmetric terminology in the (1+1)-Dirac equation. Both in the usual Hermitian and the unusual complexified non-Hermitian settings.
The organization of this article is in order. In section 2, we discuss the (1+1)-Dirac equation with PDM and a Lorentz-scalar interaction and re-emphasize Nogami’s and Toyama’s \[1\] hidden/built-in supersymmetric language. We report, in section 3, some consequences of a complexified non-Hermitian $\mathcal{PT}$ -symmetric Lorentz scalar potentials belonging to two different classes: $S\left( x\right) \rightarrow S\left( x-ib\right)
=S\left( z\right) ;$ $x,b\in
\mathbb{R}
,$ $z\in
\mathbb{C}
$ and $S\left( x\right) =S_{r}\left( x\right) +iS_{i}\left( x\right)
;S_{r}\left( x\right) ,S_{i}\left( x\right) \in
\mathbb{R}
$; an inversely linear plus linear and a Scarf II models, respectively. In section 4, we explore one possibility of $\eta $-weak-pseudo-Hermiticity generators via a first-order intertwining differential operator. We exemplify this possibility by an $\eta $-weak-pseudo-Hermitian $\mathcal{PT}$ -symmetric periodic-type model. We conclude in section 5.
(1+1)-Dirac equation with a position dependent mass and a Lorentz Scalar interactions
=====================================================================================
In the presence of a time-independent position-dependent mass , $m\left(
x\right) $, and a Lorentz scalar interaction, $S\left( x\right) $, the (1+1)-dimensional time-independent Dirac equation (in $c=\hbar =1$ units) reads $$H_{D}\Psi \left( x\right) =E\Psi \left( x\right) \text{ };\text{ \ \ }H_{D}=\alpha p+\beta \left[ m\left( x\right) +S\left( x\right) \right] ,$$where $p=-i\partial _{x},$ $\alpha $ and $\beta $ are the usual $2\times 2$ Pauli matrices satisfying the relations $\alpha ^{2}=\beta ^{2}=1$ and $\left\{ \alpha ,\beta \right\} =0$, $E$ is the energy of the Dirac particle, and $\Psi \left( x\right) $ is the two-component spinor. Equation (1) with $$\Psi \left( x\right) =\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\psi _{+}\left( x\right) \\
\psi _{-}\left( x\right)\end{array}\right) \text{ },\text{ }\alpha =\sigma _{2}=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & -i \\
i & 0\end{array}\right) \text{ },\text{ }\beta =\sigma _{1}=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 1 \\
1 & 0\end{array}\right)$$reduces (with $M\left( x\right) =m\left( x\right) +S\left( x\right) $) to$$\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & -\partial _{x}+M\left( x\right) \\
\partial _{x}+M\left( x\right) & 0\end{array}\right) \left(
\begin{array}{c}
\psi _{+}\left( x\right) \\
\psi _{-}\left( x\right)\end{array}\right) =E\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\psi _{+}\left( x\right) \\
\psi _{-}\left( x\right)\end{array}\right)$$which decouples, in turn, into$$\begin{gathered}
\left[ -\partial _{x}+M\left( x\right) \right] \psi _{-}\left( x\right)
=E\psi _{+}\left( x\right) ,\medskip \\
\left[ \partial _{x}+M\left( x\right) \right] \psi _{+}\left( x\right)
=E\psi _{-}\left( x\right) .\medskip\end{gathered}$$This would, with $\omega =\pm 1$, imply a Schrödinger-like equation$$\begin{gathered}
\left\{ -\partial _{x}^{2}+V_{\omega }\left( x\right) \right\} \psi _{\omega
}\left( x\right) =\lambda _{\omega }\psi _{\omega }\left( x\right) ;\medskip
\\
V_{\omega }\left( x\right) =M\left( x\right) ^{2}-\omega M^{\prime }\left(
x\right) \text{ };\text{ }\lambda _{\omega }=E_{\omega }^{2},\medskip\end{gathered}$$where prime denotes derivative with respect to $x$ (i.e., $\partial _{x}$). Nevertheless, a built-in supersymmetric quantum mechanical language is obvious in equation (7). That is, if the superpotential is defined as $W\left( x\right) =-M\left( x\right) $, then the supersymmetric partner potentials are given by$$V_{\omega }\left( x\right) =M\left( x\right) ^{2}-\omega M^{\prime }\left(
x\right) =W^{2}\left( x\right) \pm W^{\prime }\left( x\right) .$$In this case, one would label $H_{-}=$ $-\partial _{x}^{2}+V_{-}\left(
x\right) $ and $H_{+}=$ $-\partial _{x}^{2}+V_{+}\left( x\right) $ as the two partner Hamiltonians (cf., e.g., Alhaidari \[16\], and Sinha and Roy \[3\]). Of course, such supersymmetric language would leave its fingerprints/signature on the spectrum, as shall be witnessed in the forthcoming experiments with both Hermitian and non-Hermitian models.
Consequences of complexified non-Hermitian Lorentz scalar interactions
======================================================================
In this section, we consider two cases: a Dirac particle with $S\left(
x\right) \rightarrow S\left( x-ib\right) =S\left( z\right) $ (where $\mathbb{C}
\ni z=x-ib;$ $\mathbb{R}
\ni x\in \left( -\infty ,\infty \right) $, and $\mathbb{R}
\ni \func{Im}z=-b<0$, i.e., a simple constant downward shift of the coordinate is considered), and Dirac particle with $S\left( x\right)
=S_{r}\left( x\right) +iS_{i}\left( x\right) $, where $S_{r}\left( x\right)
,S_{i}\left( x\right) \in
\mathbb{R}
$.
Dirac particle with a complexified Lorentz scalar $S\left(
x\right) \rightarrow S\left( z\right) \equiv S\left( x-ib\right) $: a $\mathcal{PT-}$symmetrized Znojil’s oscillator
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Dirac particle under the influence of $M\left( z\left( x\right) \right)
=m\left( x\right) +S\left( z\left( x\right) \right) $ (where $z=x-ib;$ $x\in
\left( -\infty ,\infty \right) $, and $\mathbb{R}
\ni \func{Im}x=-b<0$, i.e., a simple constant downward shift of the coordinate is considered) would result in recasting (6) and (7) as$$\left\{ -\partial _{z}^{2}+V_{\omega }\left( z\right) \right\} \psi _{\omega
}\left( z\right) =\lambda _{\omega }\psi _{\omega }\left( z\right) ;\text{ }V_{\omega }\left( z\right) =M\left( z\right) ^{2}-\omega M^{\prime }\left(
z\right) .$$
Then, a Dirac particle endowed with a mass function of the form $m(x)=Bx/4;$ $\mathbb{R}
\ni B\geq 0,$ under the influence of a complexified non-Hermitian Lorentz scalar interaction $S\left( z\right) =\frac{B}{4}z+\frac{A}{z}-i\frac{B}{4}b$ would imply $$M\left( z\right) =\frac{B}{2}z+\frac{A}{z}.$$Which, in effect, yields two complexified non-Hermitian $\mathcal{PT-}$symmetric partner potentials$$V_{\omega }\left( z\right) =\frac{1}{4}B^{2}z^{2}+\frac{A\left( A+\omega
\right) }{z^{2}}+B\left( A-\frac{\omega }{2}\right) \medskip .$$Moreover, it should be noted that $V_{+}\left( z\right) $ represents a $\mathcal{PT-}$symmetric complexified oscillator perturbed by a “shifted by a constant” Znojil’s \[10\] repulsive/attractive core, i. e., with the parametric choice $A=\alpha -\frac{1}{2};$ $\alpha \geq 0$, one gets$$\frac{A\left( A+1\right) }{z^{2}}+B\left( A+\frac{1}{2}\right) =\frac{\left(
\alpha ^{2}-\frac{1}{4}\right) }{z^{2}}+B\left( A+\frac{1}{2}\right) ,$$cf., e.g. Mustafa and Znojil \[7\], and $V_{-}\left( z\right) $ represents a $\mathcal{PT-}$symmetric oscillator perturbed by a shifted/rescaled, say, Znojil’s \[10\] repulsive/attractive core, i.e.,$$\frac{A\left( A-1\right) }{z^{2}}+B\left( A-\frac{1}{2}\right) =\frac{\left(
\alpha ^{2}-\frac{1}{4}\right) -2\left( \alpha -\frac{1}{2}\right) }{z^{2}}-\alpha B.$$Under these settings, one would map Znojil’s results \[10\], taking into account our discussion on the supersymmetric-like partner potentials in (10), and obtain$$\begin{aligned}
\lambda _{+,q} &=&\frac{B}{2}\left( 4n+2q\alpha +2\alpha \right) \medskip
\medskip ;\text{ }n=0,1,2,\cdots ,\medskip \\
\lambda _{-,q} &=&\frac{B}{2}\left[ 4n+\left( \alpha +1\right) \left(
2-2q\right) \right] ;\text{ }n=0,1,2,\cdots .\medskip\end{aligned}$$We observe the supersymmetric language *“signature”* in $\lambda
_{+,q=+1}=\lambda _{-,q=+1}$ for even quasi-parity and $\lambda
_{+,q=-1}+const.=\lambda _{-,q=-1}$ for odd quasi-parity, i.e., $$\lambda _{+,q=+1}=\lambda _{-,q=+1}=2B\left( n+\alpha \right) ,$$and$$\lambda _{-,q=-1}=\lambda _{+,q=-1}+2B=2B\left( n+1\right) .\medskip$$Leading, in effect, (with $E_{+,q}=+\sqrt{\lambda _{+,q}}$ and $E_{-,q}=-\sqrt{\lambda _{-,q}}$) to $$\begin{aligned}
E_{+,q} &=&\left\{
\begin{tabular}{l}
$E_{+,q=+1}=+\sqrt{2B\left( n+\alpha \right) }\medskip $ \\
$E_{+,q=-1}=+\sqrt{2Bn}\medskip $\end{tabular}\right. , \\
E_{-,q} &=&\left\{
\begin{tabular}{l}
$E_{-,q=+1}=-\sqrt{2B\left( n+\alpha \right) }\medskip $ \\
$E_{-,q=-1}=-\sqrt{2B\left( n+1\right) }\medskip $\end{tabular}\right. .\end{aligned}$$Yet, the *energy-levels crossing* phenomenon (a quasi-parity signature on the spectrum above) is also observed unavoidable. That is, the two sets of energies in (17) cross with each other when$$E_{+}\left( n=n_{1},q=+1\right) =E_{+}\left( n=n_{2},q=-1\right)
\Longrightarrow n_{2}-n_{1}=\alpha$$and the sets of energies in (18) cross with each other when$$E_{-}\left( n=n_{3},q=+1\right) =E_{-}\left( n=n_{4},q=-1\right)
\Longrightarrow n_{4}-n_{3}=\alpha -1.$$
Dirac particle with a complexified Lorentz scalar $S\left(
x\right) =S_{r}\left( x\right) +iS_{i}\left( x\right) $: a $\mathcal{PT}$-symmetric Scarf II model
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this section we consider a class of a complexified Lorentz scalar models of the form $S\left( x\right) =S_{r}\left( x\right) +iS_{i}\left( x\right) $ and position-dependent mass $m\left( x\right) \neq 0$ in $M\left( x\right)
=m\left( x\right) +S\left( x\right) $. For simplicity of calculations, we take$$M\left( x\right) =\tilde{M}\left( x\right) +iS_{i}\left( x\right) \text{ };\text{ }\tilde{M}\left( x\right) =m\left( x\right) +S_{r}\left( x\right)$$
If we assume that $\tilde{M}\left( x\right) =\left( A+B\right) \tanh x$ and $S_{i}\left( x\right) =-\left( A-B\right) \func{sech}x$ then$$M\left( x\right) =\left( A+B\right) \tanh x-i\left( A-B\right) \func{sech}x$$and consequently the corresponding supersymmetric $\mathcal{PT}$-symmetric partner potentials are given by$$V_{\pm }\left( x\right) =-C_{1}\func{sech}^{2}x-iC_{2}\func{sech}x\tanh
x+\left( A+B\right) ^{2}$$where $C_{1}=2\left( A^{2}+B^{2}\right) +\omega \left( A+B\right) $ and $C_{2}=\left( 2A+2B+\omega \right) \left( A-B\right) $. It is obvious that $V_{\pm }\left( x\right) $ is the well known complexified $\mathcal{PT}$-symmetric Scarf II model. Moreover, it should be noted that $V_{+}\left(
x\right) $ and $V_{-}\left( x\right) $ imitate the pseudo-supersymmetric $\mathcal{PT}$-symmetric partner potentials $U_{2}\left( x\right) $ and $U_{1}\left( x\right) $, respectively, reported in Eq.s (38)-(40) by Sinha and Roy \[3\]. The solution of which can be easily mapped into the above model, by taking the constant mass in Sinha and Roy \[3\] equals zero, to obtain$$E_{+,n}\left( A,B\right) =+\sqrt{2\left( A+B\right) \left( n+1\right)
-\left( n+1\right) ^{2}}\text{ };\text{ }n=0,1,2,\cdots .$$$$E_{-,n}\left( A,B\right) =-\sqrt{2\left( A+B\right) n-n^{2}}\text{ };\text{ }n=0,1,2,\cdots .$$However, it is obvious that$$E_{+,n}\left( A,B\right) \in
\mathbb{R}
\iff \left[ 2\left( A+B\right) -1\right] \geq n$$and$$E_{-,n}\left( A,B\right) \in
\mathbb{R}
\iff 2\left( A+B\right) \geq n\ .$$This result in effect documents the fact that $\mathcal{PT}$-symmetry is not an enough condition to guarantee the reality of Dirac spectrum but rather it should be complemented by the condition $E_{n}^{2}\geq 0$. Moreover, *energy-levels crossing* phenomenon introduces itself (in this case, of course, not as a quasi-parity effect but rather as a spectral property) in the following scenario: the energy levels in the set (24) perform *energy-levels crossing* among each other when$$E_{+,n_{1}}\left( A,B\right) =E_{+,n_{2}}\left( A,B\right) \Longrightarrow
n_{1}+n_{2}=2\left( A+B-1\right) ,$$and similar trend is also obvious in (25) when$$E_{-,n_{3}}\left( A,B\right) =E_{-,n_{4}}\left( A,B\right) \Longrightarrow
n_{3}+n_{4}=2\left( A+B\right) .$$
Consequences of $\protect\eta $-weak-pseudo-Hermiticity via a first-order intertwiner
=====================================================================================
A complexified non-Hermitian Lorentz scalar interaction, $S\left( x\right)
=S_{r}\left( x\right) +iS_{i}\left( x\right) $, where $S_{r}\left( x\right)
,S_{i}\left( x\right) \in
\mathbb{R}
$, would result in$$\func{Re}V_{\pm }\left( x\right) =m\left( x\right) ^{2}+S_{r}\left( x\right)
^{2}-S_{i}\left( x\right) ^{2}+2m\left( x\right) S_{r}\left( x\right)
-\omega \left[ m^{\prime }\left( x\right) +S_{r}^{\prime }\left( x\right) \right] ,$$$$\func{Im}V_{\pm }\left( x\right) =2m\left( x\right) S_{i}\left( x\right)
+2S_{i}\left( x\right) S_{r}\left( x\right) -\omega S_{i}^{\prime }\left(
x\right)$$We may now work with a Schrödinger-like non-Hermitian Hamiltonian operator $\tilde{H}_{\pm }=-\partial _{x}^{2}+V_{\pm }\left( x\right) $ with the eigenvalues $\lambda _{\pm }=E^{2}$. Then $\tilde{H}_{\pm }$ is an $\eta
$-weak-pseudo-Hermitian (admitting real eigenvalues $\lambda _{\pm
}=E^{2}\in
\mathbb{R}
$) with respect to the first-order Hermitian intertwiner$$\eta =-i\,\,\partial _{x}+G\left( x\right) ,$$where $G\left( x\right) \in
\mathbb{R}
$, if it satisfies the intertwining relation $\eta \tilde{H}_{\pm }=\tilde{H}_{\pm }^{\dagger }\,\eta $ (it is not difficult to show that $\left( \eta
\tilde{H}_{\pm }\right) $ is Hermitian too).
Under such $\eta $-weak-pseudo-Hermiticity settings, the intertwining relation would result in $$\func{Im}V_{\pm }\left( x\right) =-G^{\prime }\left( x\right) ,\text{\ and \
}\func{Re}V_{\pm }\left( x\right) =-G\left( x\right) ^{2}$$to yield, respectively,$$-G^{\prime }\left( x\right) =2m\left( x\right) S_{i}\left( x\right)
+2S_{i}\left( x\right) S_{r}\left( x\right) -\omega S_{i}^{\prime }\left(
x\right) ,$$$$-G\left( x\right) ^{2}=m\left( x\right) ^{2}+S_{r}\left( x\right)
^{2}-S_{i}\left( x\right) ^{2}+2m\left( x\right) S_{r}\left( x\right)
-\omega \left[ m^{\prime }\left( x\right) +S_{r}^{\prime }\left( x\right) \right] .$$Consequently, Eq.(34) implies$$m\left( x\right) +S_{r}\left( x\right) =\frac{-G^{\prime }\left( x\right)
+\omega S_{i}^{\prime }\left( x\right) }{2S_{i}\left( x\right) }.$$Substituting (36) in (35) would yield$$\left[ \frac{-G^{\prime }\left( x\right) +\omega S_{i}^{\prime }\left(
x\right) }{2S_{i}\left( x\right) }\right] ^{2}-\omega \left[ \frac{-G^{\prime }\left( x\right) +\omega S_{i}^{\prime }\left( x\right) }{2S_{i}\left( x\right) }\right] ^{\prime }=\left[ \omega S_{i}\left( x\right) \right] ^{2}-G\left( x\right) ^{2}.$$The simplest solution of which is given by (with $\omega =\pm 1$) the choice$$G_{\pm }\left( x\right) =\omega S_{i}\left( x\right) \implies S_{i,\pm
}\left( x\right) =\omega G\left( x\right) \implies S_{r}\left( x\right)
=-m\left( x\right) .$$
In the forthcoming experiment, we shall be interested in the family of complexified Lorentz scalar interactions of the form $S\left( x\right)
=-m\left( x\right) +iS_{i}\left( x\right) $. With such settings in point, the Dirac Hamiltonian in (1) collapses into$$H_{D}=\sigma _{2}p+i\sigma _{1}S_{i}\left( x\right) =\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & -\partial _{x}+iS_{i}\left( x\right) \\
\partial _{x}+iS_{i}\left( x\right) & 0\end{array}\right) .$$Consequently and without any loss of generality, one may very well recast our $\eta $-weak-pseudo-Hermitian Schrödinger-like Hamiltonian as$$\tilde{H}_{\pm }=-\partial _{x}^{2}+V_{\pm }\left( x\right) =-\partial
_{x}^{2}-G\left( x\right) ^{2}-i\omega G^{\prime }\left( x\right) .$$
An $\protect\eta $-weak-pseudo-Hermitian $\mathcal{PT}$-symmetric periodic-type model
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An $\eta $-weak-pseudo-Hermiticity generator of a periodic nature of the form
$$G(x)=-\frac{4}{3\cos ^{2}x-4}-\frac{5}{4}$$
would imply $\mathcal{PT}$-symmetric periodic-type effective potentials$$V_{\pm }\left( x\right) =-G(x)^{2}-i\omega G(x)^{\prime }=\frac{1}{9}\frac{-30\cos ^{2}x+24}{(\cos ^{2}x-\frac{4}{3})^{2}}+i\frac{4\omega \sin 2x}{3(\cos ^{2}x-\frac{4}{3})^{2}}-\frac{25}{16}$$which, in a straightforward manner, can be rewritten as$$V_{\pm }\left( x\right) =-\frac{6}{(\cos x+2i\omega \sin x)^{2}}-\frac{25}{16}.$$It should be noted here that $V_{+}\left( x\right) $ is the $\mathcal{PT}$-symmetric periodic-type effective potential representing a *“shifted by a constant”* Samsonov-Roy’s \[20\] periodic potential model satisfying $V_{\pm }\left( x\right) =V_{\mp }\left( -x\right) $. Hence, if we defined $$\tilde{V}_{\pm }\left( x\right) =-\frac{6}{(\cos x+2i\omega \sin x)^{2}},$$then (with $\mathcal{P}$ denoting parity)$$\mathcal{P}\tilde{V}_{\pm }\left( x\right) =\tilde{V}_{\pm }\left( -x\right)
=-\tilde{V}_{\pm }\left( x\right) =\tilde{V}_{\mp }\left( x\right) .$$Consequently, $\tilde{V}_{\pm }\left( x\right) $ and $\tilde{V}_{\mp }\left(
x\right) $ mirror reflect each other. A result that provides a safe passage through the transformation $x\longrightarrow y=-x$ and mandates$$\tilde{H}_{\pm }=-\partial _{x}^{2}+V_{\pm }\left( x\right) =-\partial
_{y}^{2}+V_{\mp }\left( y\right)$$
The solution of which is reported for the interval $x\in \left( -\pi ,\pi
\right) $ (equivalently, $y\in \left( -\pi ,\pi \right) $) with the boundary conditions $\psi _{n,\pm }\left( -\pi \right) =\psi _{n,\pm }\left( \pi
\right) =0$ as$$\begin{aligned}
\psi _{n,\pm }\left( x\right) &=&\left\{ \left[ \left( 16-n^{2}\right) \cos
x\mp 2i\left( n^{2}-4\right) \sin x\right] \sin \left[ \frac{n}{2}\left( \pi
\pm x\right) \right] \right. \medskip \notag \\
&&\left. \mp 6n\sin x\cos \left[ \frac{n}{2}\left( \pi \pm x\right) \right]
\right\} (\cos x\pm 2i\sin x)^{-1}\medskip\end{aligned}$$and$$E_{n,\pm }=\pm \sqrt{\lambda _{\pm }}=\pm \sqrt{\frac{n^{2}}{4}-\frac{25}{16}}\text{ };\text{ \ }n=3,4,5,\cdots .\medskip$$It should be reported here that the values of $n<3$ are scarified for the sake of the reality of the spectrum.
Conclusion
==========
In this work, the effect of the built-in supersymmetric quantum mechanical language on the structure of the decomposed (1+1)-Dirac equation, with PDM and complexified Lorentz scalar interactions, is re-emphasized. In the process, the signature of the “quasi-parity” (manifested by Znojil’s attractive/repulsive-like core \[10\]) is also studied. In so doing, a “quasi-free” Dirac particle with PDM (an inversely linear plus linear), a Dirac particle with PDM and complexified scalar interactions, $S\left(
z\right) =S\left( x-ib\right) ;$ $x,b\in
\mathbb{R}
,$ $z\in
\mathbb{C}
$ (an inversely linear plus linear, leading to a $\mathcal{PT-}$symmetric oscillator model), and $S\left( x\right) =S_{r}\left( x\right) +iS_{i}\left(
x\right) ;S_{r}\left( x\right) ,S_{i}\left( x\right) \in
\mathbb{R}
$ (a $\mathcal{PT}$-symmetric Scarf II model) are considered. Moreover, a first-order intertwining differential operator and an $\eta $-weak-pseudo-Hermiticity generator are presented (a complexified $\mathcal{PT}$-symmetric periodic-type model is used).
In the light of our experience above we have observed that the associated supersymmetric signature on the spectrum of the (1+1)-Dirac particle results in exact-isospectral (i.e., including the lowest states) partner Hamiltonians $H_{1}$ and $H_{2}$ for “even” quasi-parity, however, they share the same energy spectrum with a “missing” lowest state for “odd” quasi-parity. Nevertheless, we may report that the *energy-levels crossing* is only feasible among positive-energy states (i.e., above $E=0$) or among negative-energy states (i.e., below $E=0$), at least as long as our illustrative examples are concerned. We may also add that neither the exactness of $\mathcal{PT}$-symmetry nor pseudo-Hermiticity are enough conditions for the reality of the Dirac spectrum, they should be rather complemented by the condition $\mathbb{R}
\ni E^{2}>0$. Finally, one may need to sacrifice some energy states for the sake of the reality of the Dirac particle spectrum.
[99]{} N. Nogami and F. M. Toyama, Phys. Rev. **A 47** (1993) 1708
N. Nogami and F. M. Toyama, Phys. Rev. **A 57** (1998) 93
E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. **B 188** (1981) 513
F. Cooper, A. Khare and U. Sukhatme, Phys. Rep. **251** (1995) 267
C. V. Sukumar, J. Phys. **A**: Math. Gen.** 18** (1985) 2917
F. Cooper et al, Ann. Phys. **187** (1987) 1
A S. de Castro and M. Hott, Phys. Lett **A 342** (2005) 53
A. Sinha and P. Roy, Mod. Phys. Lett. **A 20** (2005) 2377
R. Jackiw and C. Rebbi, Phys. Rev. **D 13** (1976) 3398
A. Chodos et al, Phys. Rev. **D9** (1974) 3471
C. L. Ho, Ann. Phys. **321** (2006) 2170
C. M. Bender and S. Boettcher, Phys. Rev. Lett. [ ]{}**80** (1998) 5243
C. M. Bender, S. Boettcher and P. N. Meisinger: J. Math. Phys. **40** (1999) 2201
B. Bagchi, F. Cannata and C. Quesne, Phys. Lett. **A 269** (2000) 79
A. Khare and B. P. Mandal, Phys. Lett. **A 272 (**2000) 53
V. Buslaev and V. Grecchi, J. Phys.[ A: Math. Gen. ]{}**26** (1993) 5541
M. Znojil and G. Lévai, Phys. Lett. A **271** (2000) 327
B. Bagchi, S. Mallik, C. Quesne and R. Roychoudhury, Phys. Lett. **A 289** (2001) 34
P. Dorey, C. Dunning and R. Tateo, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. **4** (2001) 5679
R. Kretschmer and L. Szymanowski, Czech. J.Phys **54** (2004) 71
M. Znojil, F. Gemperle and O. Mustafa, J. Phys. **A**: Math. Gen. **35** (2002) 5781
O. Mustafa and M. Znojil, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. **35** (2002) 8929
Z. Ahmed, Phys. Lett. **A 290 (**2001) 19
A. Mostafazadeh, J. Math. Phys. **43 (**2002) 2814
A. Mostafazadeh, Nucl.Phys. **B 640** (2002) 419
A. Mostafazadeh, J. Math. Phys. **44 (**2003) 974
A. Mostafazadeh, J. Phys. **A**: Math. Gen. **38** (2005) 3213
A. Sinha and P. Roy, Czech. J. Phys. **54** ( 2004) 129
L. Jiang, L. Z. Yi and C. S. Jia, Phys Lett **A 345** (2005) 279
B. P. Mandal, Mod. Phys. Lett. **A 20** (2005)** **655
M. Znojil, H. Bíla and V. Jakubsky, Czech. J. Phys. **54** (2004) 1143
A. Mostafazadeh and A. Batal, J. Phys.**A**: Math. Gen. **37** (2004) 11645
O. Mustafa, J. Phys. **A**: Math. Gen.** 36** (2003) 5067
B. Bagchi and C. Quesne, Phys. Lett. **A 301** (2002) 173
M. Znojil, Phys. Lett. A **259** (1999) 220
L. Solombrino, J. Math. Phys. **43** (2002) 5439
O. Mustafa and S. H. Mazharimousavi, Czech. J. Phys. ** 56** (2006) 967
O. Mustafa and S. H. Mazharimousavi, Phys. Lett. **A 357** (2006) 295
C S Jia and A de Souza Dutra, J. Phys. **A**: Math. Gen.** 39** (2006) 11877, and the related comment,
O. Mustafa and S. H. Mazharimousavi, J. Phys. **A**: Math. Theor.** 40** (2007) 863
C. Quesne: Ann. Phys. **321** (2006) 1221
C. Quesne and V.M. Tkachuk: J. Phys. **A**; Math and Gen **37** (2004) 4267
T. Tanaka: J. Phys. **A**; Math and Gen **39** (2006) 219
O. von Roos, Phys. Rev. **B 27** (1983) 7547
C. Gang, Phys Lett **A 329** (2004) 22
L. Jiang, L.Z. Yi, and C.S. Jia: Phys. Lett. **A 345** (2005) 279
O. Mustafa and S. H. Mazharimousavi, Phys. Lett. **A 358 ** (2006) 259
O. Mustafa and S. H. Mazharimousavi, J. Phys. **A**: Math. Gen.** 39** (2006) 10537
A.D. Alhaidari: Int. J. Theor. Phys. **42** (2003) 2999
A.D. Alhaidari: Phys. Rev. **A 66** (2002) 042116
A. Puente and M. Casas: Comput. Mater Sci. **2** (1994) 441
G. Bastard: *“Wave Mechanics Applied to Semiconductor Heterostructures” ,* (1988) Les Editions de Physique, Les Ulis
L.I. Serra and E. Lipparini: Europhys. Lett. **40** (1997) 667
B. Bagchi and C. Quesne, Phys. Lett. **A 300** (2002) 173
B.F. Samsonov, P. Roy, J. Phys. **A**: Math. Gen. 38 (2005) L249.
|
---
abstract: 'In this work we provide updated constraints on coupled dark energy (CDE) cosmology with Peebles-Ratra (PR) potential and constant coupling strength $\beta$. This modified gravity scenario introduces a fifth force between dark matter particles, mediated by a scalar field that plays the role of dark energy. The mass of the dark matter particles does not remain constant, but changes with time as a function of the scalar field. Here we focus on the phenomenological behavior of the model, and assess its ability to describe updated cosmological data sets that include the [*Planck*]{} 2018 cosmic microwave background (CMB) temperature, polarization and lensing, baryon acoustic oscillations, the Pantheon compilation of supernovae of Type Ia, data on $H(z)$ from cosmic chronometers, and redshift-space distortions. We also study which is the impact of the local measurement of $H_0$ from SH0ES and the strong-lensing time delay data from the H0LICOW collaboration on the parameter that controls the strength of the interaction in the dark sector. We find a peak corresponding to a coupling $\beta > 0$ and to a potential parameter $\alpha > 0$, more or less evident depending on the data set combination. We show separately the impact of each data set and remark that it is especially CMB lensing the one data set that shifts the peak the most towards $\Lambda$CDM. When a model selection criterion based on the full Bayesian evidence is applied, however, $\Lambda$CDM is still preferred in all cases, due to the additional parameters introduced in the CDE model.'
author:
- 'Adrià Gómez-Valent$^1$'
- Valeria Pettorino$^2$
- Luca Amendola$^1$
bibliography:
- 'UpdateCDE.bib'
title: 'Update on Coupled Dark Energy and the $H_0$ tension'
---
Introduction {#intro}
============
Important observational hints in favor of the positive acceleration of the Universe appeared already more than twenty years ago, thanks to the detection of standardizable high-redshift supernovae of Type Ia (SNIa) and the measurement of their light-curves and redshifts [@Riess:1998cb; @Perlmutter:1998np]. Since then, many other probes have contributed to increase the evidence in favor of the late-time accelerated phase. They range e.g. from the detection of the baryon acoustic peak in the two-point correlation function of matter density fluctuations [@Cole:2005sx; @Eisenstein:2005su] to the very accurate measurement of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) temperature anisotropies by WMAP [@Hinshaw:2012aka] and [*Planck*]{} [@Ade:2013sjv; @Ade:2015xua; @Aghanim:2018eyx]. At the phenomenological level, the easiest explanation for such acceleration is given by the presence of a very tiny cosmological constant in Einstein’s field equations, with an associated energy density which is orders of magnitude lower than the quantum field theoretical estimates made for the vacuum energy density. Protecting such low value from radiative corrections is extremely difficult and constitutes the core of the so-called “old” cosmological constant problem, cf. e.g. [@Weinberg:1988cp; @Martin:2012bt; @Sola:2013gha]. In addition, explaining why the current value of this energy density is of the same order of magnitude as the matter energy density, the so-called “coincidence problem”, is considered by part of the cosmological community as another problem that needs to be addressed. The cosmological constant is a pivotal ingredient of the standard cosmological model, also known as $\Lambda$CDM or concordance model (cf. e.g. the reviews [@Peebles:2002gy; @Padmanabhan:2002ji]), which can explain most of the cosmological observations with high proficiency. Nevertheless, the aforementioned theoretical conundrums, together with few persistent tensions in some relevant parameters of the model as the Hubble parameter $H_0$ [@Aghanim:2018eyx; @Riess:2019cxk] and the root-mean-square ([*rms*]{}) of mass fluctuations at scales of $8h^{-1}$ Mpc [@Macaulay:2013swa], $\sigma_8$ (or $S_8=\sigma_8(\Omega_m^{(0)}/0.3)^{0.5}$ [^1] [@Hildebrandt:2018yau]), with $h$ being the reduced Hubble parameter , motivate theoretical cosmologists to look for alternative scenarios in which these problems can be solved or, at least, alleviated, see [@AmendolaTsujikawaBook; @Joyce:2014kja] and references therein. Wherever the solution comes from, i.e. a departure from General Relativity or some sort of new field describing dark energy (DE), it must mimic very well the behavior of a cosmological constant at low redshifts, meaning that the corresponding effective equation of state (EoS) parameter must be very close to -1, and that the new component must not be able to cluster efficiently at low scales.
{width="7in" height="2.4in"}
In this paper we consider a scenario in which dark matter (DM) particles interact via a force mediated by a scalar field, which in turn drives cosmic acceleration. This scenario is referred to as *coupled dark energy* (CDE). It was originally proposed as a means of alleviating the coincidence problem [@Wetterich:1994bg; @Amendola:1999er], considering not only a potential energy density for quintessence to generate its dynamics, but also allowing an interaction with other sectors of the theory. These interactions extended the original quintessence models [@Peccei:1987mm; @Wetterich:1987fm; @Peebles:1987ek; @Ratra:1987rm]. They cannot be ruled out [*a priori*]{} and, hence, they must be duly constrained by experiments and observations.
Some works already set constraints on this model, but using older cosmological data sets, for instance CMB data from the WMAP satellite and the South Pole Telescope [@Pettorino:2012ts], or considering past (2013, 2015) releases of [*Planck*]{} CMB data in combination with other data sets, as e.g. from baryon acoustic oscillations (BAO) and SNIa, [@Pettorino:2013oxa; @Ade:2015rim]. Intriguingly, these works detected a likelihood peak at a non-vanishing value of the coupling constant. One of the main goals of this paper is then to critically revisit and update these results in the light of the recent strengthening of the $H_0$ tension and of the rich amount of currently available data at our disposal, in particular the [*Planck*]{} 2018 CMB temperature, polarization and lensing data, but also other new cosmological data, for instance Refs. [@Wong:2019kwg; @Gil-Marin:2018cgo]. For constraints on other models with DM-DE interactions see e.g. [@Xia:2013nua; @Pourtsidou:2016ico; @vandeBruck:2016hpz; @vandeBruck:2017idm; @Li:2014cee; @Li:2015vla; @DiValentino:2017iww; @Abdalla:2014cla; @Costa:2016tpb; @Sola:2017znb; @Sola:2017jbl; @Martinelli:2019dau; @Agrawal:2019dlm; @Pan:2020zza], and when the interaction is motivated in the context of the running vacuum models [@Sola:2017jbl; @Sola:2017znb; @Sola:2016ecz; @Gomez-Valent:2018nib; @Tsiapi:2018she].
Coupled dark energy {#sect:CDEmodel}
===================
We consider a CDE scenario, as studied in [@Amendola:1999er; @Amendola:2003wa; @Pettorino:2008ez], to which we refer for a detailed description. We here briefly recall the main equations. This CDE model is formulated in the so-called Einstein or observational frame [@Amendola:2019xqj]. Apart from the Standard Model of Particle Physics and a potential extension accounting for the origin of the neutrino masses, we consider a dark sector described by the following Lagrangian density: $$\label{eq:DarkLagrangian}
\mathcal{L}_{\rm dark} = -\partial_\mu\phi\partial^\mu\phi-V(\phi)-m(\phi)\bar{\psi}\psi+\mathcal{L}_{\rm kin}[\psi]\,,$$ where $\phi$ is the scalar field that plays the role of DE, with potential $V(\phi)$, and $\psi$ is the DM field, considered here to be of fermionic nature, just for illustrative purposes. The DM particles interact with the DE due to the $\phi$-dependent mass term appearing in . Such interaction introduces a fifth force that alters the trajectory in space-time of the DM with respect to the one found in the uncoupled case. Depending on the strength of the force, this model can be force-accelerated, as opposed to fluid-accelerated, adopting the terminology of [@Amendola:2019xqj]. As we do not couple $\phi$ to the standard model sector we avoid the stringent local (solar system) constraints on the violation of the weak equivalence principle [@Will:2005va], and also on screened fifth forces that couple $\phi$ to non-dark matter, e.g. from Casimir experiments [@Elder:2019yyp], precision measurements of the electron magnetic moment [@Brax:2018zfb], or measurements of the Eötvös parameter [@Berge:2017ovy]. They have no impact on the CDE model under study.
{width="7in" height="2.4in"}
The variation of the total action with respect to the metric leads as usual to Einstein’s equations, and the covariant energy of the joint system DM-DE is conserved. Hence, $\nabla^\mu T^{\phi}_{\mu\nu}= +Q_\nu$ and $\nabla^\mu T^{dm}_{\mu\nu}=-Q_\nu$, with $Q_\nu$ defined as $$\label{eq:source}
Q_\nu = \beta \kappa T^{dm}\nabla_\nu\phi\,,$$ where $\kappa=\sqrt{8\pi G}$, $T^{dm}$ is the trace of the DM energy-momentum tensor, and $\beta$ controls the strength of the interaction and is in general a function of $\phi$. If set to zero, we recover the equations of uncoupled quintessence. In this work we consider $\beta$ to be a positive constant.
We assume that the Universe is spatially flat, as supported by CMB information from [*Planck*]{} 2018 when combined with BAO [@Aghanim:2018eyx] and/or SNIa [@Efstathiou:2020wem], with the curvature parameter $\Omega^{(0)}_K$ constrained to be lower than $\sim 2\%$ at $68\%$ c.l. in $\Lambda$CDM. Thus, we can make use of the Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker metric, which at the background level reads $ds^2=a^2(\tau)\left[-d\tau^2+\delta_{ij}dx^i dx^j\right]$, with $a$ being the scale factor, $\tau$ the conformal time, and $x^i$ for $i=1,2,3$ the spatial comoving coordinates. In addition, we treat DM as a pressureless perfect fluid, so the conservation equations for DE and DM can be written, respectively, $$\label{eq:KGeq}
\beta\kappa a^2\rho_{dm} = \phi^{\prime\prime}+2\mathcal{H}\phi^\prime+a^2\frac{\partial V}{\partial\phi}\,,$$ $$\label{eq:consDM}
\rho^\prime_{dm}+3\mathcal{H}\rho_{dm}=-\beta\kappa\rho_{dm}\phi^\prime\,,$$ with $\rho_{dm}$ the DM energy density, $\mathcal{H}=a^\prime/a$, and the primes denoting derivatives [*w.r.t.*]{} the conformal time. All the functions entering these equations are background quantities. If we assume the conservation of the number density of DM particles then their mass evolves as $m(\phi)=m^{(0)}e^{\beta\kappa(\phi^{(0)}-\phi)}$.
A feature of the model is that for $\beta^2<3/2$ it has an unstable (saddle) fixed point at $(\Omega_{dm},\Omega_{\phi})=(1-2\beta^2/3,2\beta^2/3)$, where $\Omega_i=\rho_i/\rho_c$, with $\rho_c$ the critical energy density. This fixed point (dubbed $\phi$MDE in [@Amendola:1999er]) cannot be reached exactly, since there is also a non-null fraction of baryons, but the system can be quite close to it, since the DM energy density is much larger than the baryonic one (cf. ). During this phase the effective EoS parameter, i.e. the ratio of the total pressure and the critical energy density in the Universe, is given by $w_{\rm eff}=\Omega_{\phi}$, and hence the deceleration parameter reads $q=\frac{1}{2}(1+3\,w_{\rm eff})=\frac{1}{2}+\beta^2$. Thus, the coupling between DM and DE makes the Universe more decelerated with respect to the uncoupled quintessence case during the matter-dominated epoch (MDE). This fact together with the fifth force that enters now as a new source term in the Poisson equation help matter inhomogeneities to grow faster for larger values of $\beta$. We also remark that for fixed values of the present energy densities, matter becomes dominant over radiation earlier in time when $\beta>0$, with respect to the uncoupled case. In the CDE scenario, the equation for the DM density contrast $\delta_{dm}=\delta\rho_{dm}/\rho_{dm}$ at deep subhorizon scales ($k\gg \mathcal{H}$) and when non-linear processes are unimportant, reads, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:DMcontrast}
\delta_{dm}^{\prime\prime}+(\mathcal{H}-&&\beta\kappa\phi^\prime)\delta_{dm}^\prime\phantom{XXXX}\nonumber\\
&&-4\pi Ga^2[\rho_b\delta_b+\rho_{dm}\delta_{dm}(1+2\beta^2)]=0\,.\phantom{XX}\end{aligned}$$ If we neglect the contribution of baryons, $\delta_m(a)\sim a^{1+2\beta^2}$. Hence, larger values of $\beta$ enhance the matter power spectrum (see the left plot of ) and leave an imprint on the CMB temperature anisotropies. First, the integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect [@Sachs:1967er] is enhanced during the MDE earlier than in the uncoupled scenario, in which such effect is only relevant after matter-domination; second, the coupling affects lensing of CMB by large scale structure; the interaction also shifts the position of the acoustic peaks to larger multipoles due to the decrease of the sound horizon at the baryon-drag epoch, which is caused by the increase of the mass of the DM particles (this latter effect is however typically very small and subdominant). Finally, the amplitude is suppressed, because of the decrease of $\rho_b/\rho_{dm}$ at recombination. These two effects explain why the coupling strength is degenerate with the Hubble parameter today [@Pettorino:2013oxa], whose value is related to the position and overall amplitude of the first peak. These and other aspects of the structure formation were already discussed in [@Pettorino:2008ez; @Amendola:2011ie; @Baldi:2008ay; @Baldi:2010td]. See therein for further details, and also the plots in .
The quintessence potential only rules the dynamics of $\phi$ in the late-time universe, after the MDE, when the interaction term appearing in the [*l.h.s.*]{} of becomes subdominant. It helps to slow down structure formation processes [*w.r.t.*]{} the flat-potential scenario (for a fixed value of the current DE density). Hence, it can compensate in lesser or greater extent (depending on its steepness) the enhancement of power generated by the fifth force during the MDE (cf. the left plot of and its caption).
We employ the Peebles-Ratra (PR) potential [@Peebles:1987ek; @Ratra:1987rm], $$\label{eq:PeeblesRatra}
V(\phi) = V_0\phi^{-\alpha}\,,$$ with $V_0$ and $\alpha>0$ constants, and the former having dimensions of mass$^{4+\alpha}$ in natural units, since $\phi$ has dimensions of mass. We want to update the constraints on the parameters of the CDE model with PR potential that were obtained in some past works using older CMB data, from WMAP and/or past releases of [*Planck*]{} (cf. [@Amendola:2003eq; @Pettorino:2012ts; @Pettorino:2013oxa; @Ade:2015rim]), so it is natural to stick to here. Also because it has proved to be capable of improving the description of some cosmological data sets with respect to the $\Lambda$CDM model in the non-interactive case [@Sola:2016hnq; @Ooba:2018dzf; @Sola:2018sjf].
The CDE model we are considering (i.e. CDE with PR potential) has three nested models, namely the $\Lambda$CDM, the PR model, and the CDE model with flat potential. They are obtained from the full CDE model with in the limits $(\alpha,\beta)\to (0,0)$, $\beta\to 0$ and $\alpha\to 0$, respectively. We also provide constraints on these scenarios in appendix B.
For recent studies on CDE with an exponential potential, see [@Xia:2013nua; @vandeBruck:2016hpz; @vandeBruck:2017idm; @Agrawal:2019dlm]. We report fitting results for this model too, in appendix C.
Methodology {#sect:methodology}
===========
We have implemented the CDE model described in in our own modified version of the Einstein-Boltzmann system solver `CLASS`[^2] [@Blas:2011rf], which allows us to solve the background and linear perturbations equations and produce the theoretical quantities of interest, as e.g. the matter power spectrum, the CMB anisotropies, the cosmological distances, etc. This implementation has been compared and validated with the interacting dark energy anisotropy (IDEA) code, used in [@Pettorino:2012ts; @Pettorino:2013ia; @Amendola:2007yx; @Ade:2015rim]. The Bayesian exploration of the parameter space of the model in the light of the various data sets described in has been carried out with the Monte Carlo sampler `Montepython`[^3] [@Audren:2012wb]. Our code lets us skip the shooting method that is employed in IDEA to match the initial conditions with the current values of the cosmological energy densities, and this allows us to improve the computational efficiency of our Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) analyses, cf. appendix A for details. We have also used the `Python` package `GetDist`[^4] [@Lewis:2019xzd] to process the chains and obtain the mean values and uncertainties of the parameters reported in Tables \[tab:tab1\]-\[tab:tab3\], as well as the contours of Figs. \[fig:betaCLs\]-\[fig:nolensVSlens\_reduced\]. Finally, we have computed the full Bayesian evidences for all the models and under the various data sets, by processing the corresponding Markov chains with the code `MCEvidence`[^5] [@Heavens:2017afc]. This has allowed us to carry out a rigorous model comparison analysis, which we present in .
Data {#sect:data}
====
Since the last fitting analysis of the CDE model with PR potential, in [@Ade:2015rim], new and more precise data have appeared in the literature. In this paper we perform an exhaustive update of the data sets with respect to those used in [@Ade:2015rim]. The most important changes are: (i) here we make use of the [*Planck*]{} 2018 CMB data [@Aghanim:2018eyx] instead of the 2015 release [@Ade:2015xua]; (ii) we fully update our BAO and redshift-space distortions (RSD) data sets, using now e.g. the data of the last release of the Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey[^6] (BOSS); (iii) we substitute the SNIa sample from the Joint-Light-curve Analysis (JLA) [@Betoule:2014frx] by the Pantheon+MCT compilation [@Scolnic:2017caz; @Riess:2017lxs], which contains the former and includes 323 additional SNIa; (iv) we study the impact of the data on $H(z)$ obtained from cosmic chronometers; (v) instead of using the prior on $H_0$ from [@Efstathiou:2013via], $H_0=(70.6\pm 3.3)$ km/s/Mpc, we use the measurement by the SH0ES collaboration reported in [@Riess:2019cxk] (see and comments therein); and (vi) we also study the effect that the inclusion of the strong-lensing time delay distances measured by H0LICOW has on our constraints. We use, therefore, a much richer data set here than the one employed in [@Ade:2015rim].
Our data set is very similar to the one used by the [*Planck*]{} collaboration in their 2018 analysis of the $\Lambda$CDM and minimal extensions of it [@Aghanim:2018eyx]. There are some differences, though, e.g. we analyze here the effect of cosmic chronometers and the H0LICOW data, something that was not done there. We refer the reader to and reference [@Aghanim:2018eyx] for details.
Description of the individual data sets {#sect:descData}
---------------------------------------
Here we list and describe the individual data sets that we employ in this work to constrain the CDE model that we have presented in , and its nested models. We will study their impact by considering different data set combinations, as explained in .
### Cosmic microwave background {#sect:CMB}
We derive all the main results of this paper making use of the full TTTEEE+lowE CMB likelihood from *Planck* 2018 [@Aghanim:2018eyx], which includes the data on the CMB temperature (TT) and polarization (EE) anisotropies, and their cross-correlations (TE) at both low and high multipoles. We also study what is the impact of also including the CMB lensing likelihood [@Aghanim:2018oex]. Temperature and polarization spectra are already lensed, however the CMB lensing likelihood includes on top of lensed spectra also the 4-point correlation function. Lensing peak sensitivity is to lenses at $z\approx 2$, half-way to the last-scattering surface, with deflection effects at redshifts which are relevant for dark energy models such as CDE. It has in particular been shown in [@Ade:2015rim] that CMB lensing pushes constraints towards $\Lambda$CDM. As stated in [@Aghanim:2018eyx], we note that the lensing likelihood assumes a fiducial $\Lambda$CDM model, with linear corrections to the fiducial model accounted for self-consistently. According to [@Aghanim:2018eyx] this procedure is unbiased, at least up to when the lensing spectrum differs from the fiducial spectrum by as much as 20$\%$, estimated to be larger than differences allowed by the CMB lensing data. While further independent validation of such tests would be interesting for future analyses on modified gravity, we find it important to comment on results with/without CMB lensing inclusion for the purpose of testing non-minimal extensions of $\Lambda$CDM, such as CDE.
### Baryon acoustic oscillations {#sect:BAO}
Baryon acoustic oscillations are a direct consequence of the strong coupling between photons and baryons in the pre-recombination epoch. After the decoupling of photons, the overdensities in the baryon fluid evolved and attracted more matter, leaving an imprint in the two-point correlation function of matter fluctuations with a characteristic scale of around $147$ Mpc that can be used as a standard ruler and to constrain cosmological models. It was firstly measured by [@Cole:2005sx; @Eisenstein:2005su] using the galaxy power spectrum. Since then, several galaxy surveys have been able to provide precise data on BAO, either in terms of the dilation scale $D_V$, $$\frac{D_V(z)}{r_d}=\frac{1}{r_d}\left[D_M^2(z)\frac{cz}{H(z)}\right]^{1/3}\,,$$ with $D_M=(1+z)D_{A}(z)$ being the comoving angular diameter distance and $r_d$ the sound horizon at the baryon drag epoch, or even by splitting (when possible) the transverse and line-of-sight BAO information and hence being able to provide data on $D_{A}(z)/r_d$ and $H(z)r_d$ separately, with some degree of correlation. The surveys provide the values of the measurements at some effective redshift(s). We employ the following BAO data points:
- $D_V/r_d$ at $z=0.122$ provided in [@Carter:2018vce], which combines the dilation scales previously reported by the 6dF Galaxy Survey[^7] (6dFGS) [@Beutler:2011hx] at $z=0.106$ and the one obtained from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey[^8] (SDSS) Main Galaxy Sample at $z=0.15$ [@Ross:2014qpa].
- The anisotropic BAO data measured by BOSS using the LOWZ ($z=0.32$) and CMASS ($z=0.57$) galaxy samples [@Gil-Marin:2016wya].
- The dilation scale measurements by WiggleZ[^9] at $z=0.44,0.60,0.73$ [@Kazin:2014qga]. The galaxies contained in the WiggleZ catalog are located in a patch of the sky that partially overlaps with those present in the CMASS sample by BOSS. Nevertheless, the two surveys are independent, work under different seeing conditions, instrumental noise, etc. and target different types of galaxies. The correlation between the CMASS and WiggleZ data has been quantified in [@Beutler:2015tla], were the authors estimated the correlation coefficient to be $\lesssim 2\%$. This justifies the inclusion of the WiggleZ data in our analysis, although their statistical weight is much lower than those from BOSS and in practice their use does not have any important impact on our results.
- $D_A/r_d$ at $z=0.81$ measured by the Dark Energy Survey (DES)[^10] [@Abbott:2017wcz].
- The anisotropic BAO data from the extended BOSS Data Release (DR) 14 quasar sample at $z=1.19,1.50,1.83$ [@Gil-Marin:2018cgo].
- The combined measurement of the anisotropic BAO information obtained from the Ly$\alpha$-quasar cross and auto-correlation of eBOSS DR14 [@Blomqvist:2019rah; @Agathe:2019vsu], at $z=2.34$.
### Supernovae of Type Ia {#sect:SNIa}
We consider $6$ effective points on the Hubble rate, i.e. $E(z)\equiv H(z)/H_0$, and the associated covariance matrix. They compress the information of 1048 SNIa contained in the Pantheon compilation [@Scolnic:2017caz] and the 15 SNIa at $z>1$ from the Hubble Space Telescope Multi-Cycle Treasury programs [@Riess:2017lxs]. The compression effectiveness of the information contained in such SNIa samples is extremely good, as it is explicitly shown in [@Riess:2017lxs]. See, e.g. Fig. 3 of that reference and the corresponding explanations in the main text.
### Cosmic chronometers {#sect:CCH}
Spectroscopic dating techniques of passively–evolving galaxies, i.e. galaxies with old stellar populations and low star formation rates, have become a good tool to obtain observational values of the Hubble function at redshifts $z\lesssim 2$ [@Jimenez:2001gg]. These measurements do not rely on any particular cosmological model, although are subject to other sources of systematic uncertainties, as to the ones associated to the modeling of stellar ages, see e.g. [@Moresco:2012jh; @Moresco:2016mzx], which is carried out through the so-called stellar population synthesis (SPS) techniques, and also to a possible contamination due to the presence of young stellar components in such quiescent galaxies [@Lopez-Corredoira:2017zfl; @Lopez-Corredoira:2018tmn; @Moresco:2018xdr]. Given a pair of ensembles of passively-evolving galaxies at two different redshifts it is possible to infer $dz/dt$ from observations under the assumption of a concrete SPS model and compute $H(z) = -(1 + z)^{-1}dz/dt$. Thus, cosmic chronometers allow us to obtain the value of the Hubble function at different redshifts, contrary to other probes which do not directly measure $H(z)$, but integrated quantities as e.g. luminosity distances.
In this work we use the 31 data points on $H(z)$ from CCH provided in [@Jimenez:2003iv; @Simon:2004tf; @Stern:2009ep; @Moresco:2012jh; @Zhang:2012mp; @Moresco:2015cya; @Moresco:2016mzx; @Ratsimbazafy:2017vga]. More concretely, we make use of the [*processed*]{} sample provided in Table 2 of [@Gomez-Valent:2018gvm], which is more conservative, since it introduces corrections accounting for the systematic errors mentioned above.
Several authors have employed these data to reconstruct the expansion history of the Universe using Gaussian Processes and/or the so-called Weighted Function Regression method [@Yu:2017iju; @Gomez-Valent:2018hwc; @Haridasu:2018gqm]. These approaches do not rely on a particular cosmological model. They find extrapolated values of the Hubble parameter that are closer to the best-fit $\Lambda$CDM value reported by [*Planck*]{} [@Aghanim:2018eyx], around $H_0\sim (67.5-69.5)$ km/s/Mpc, but still compatible at $\sim 1\sigma$ c.l. with the local determination obtained with the distance ladder technique [@Riess:2018uxu; @Riess:2019cxk]. When BAO data and/or the SNIa from the Pantheon compilation are also incorporated in the analyses together with the CCH, the tension between the local measurement and the one inferred from the reconstruction arises again, but only at a small $\sim 2\sigma$ c.l. [@Yu:2017iju; @Gomez-Valent:2018hwc; @Haridasu:2018gqm].
### Redshift-space distortions {#sect:RSD}
Measurements of the peculiar velocities of galaxies can be obtained from observations of their anisotropic clustering in redshift space. They allow galaxy redshift surveys to obtain constraints on the product of the growth rate of structure, $f(z)=\frac{d\ln \delta_m(a)}{d\ln a}$, and the [*rms*]{} of mass fluctuations at scales of $8h^{-1}$ Mpc, $\sigma_8(z)$. Much of the statistical signal comes, though, from scales where nonlinear effects and galaxy bias are significant and they must be accurately modeled. The modeling techniques have been improved in the last years, making data on RSD to be a reliable tool to constrain cosmological models. These are the measurements that we include in our RSD data set:
- The data point at $z=0.03$ obtained upon combining the density and velocity fields measured by the 2MASS Tully-Fisher (2MTF) and 6dFGS peculiar-velocity surveys [@Qin:2019axr].
- The point reported by SDSS DR7 at $z=0.1$ [@Shi:2017qpr].
- The two data points provided by the Galaxy and Mass Assembly survey (GAMA) at $z=0.18$ [@Simpson:2015yfa] and $z=0.38$ [@Blake:2013nif].
- The four points at $z=0.22,0.41,0.60,0.78$ measured by WiggleZ [@Blake:2011rj].
- The RSD measurements by BOSS from the power spectrum and bispectrum of the DR12 galaxies contained in the LOWZ ($z=0.32$) and CMASS ($0.57$) samples [@Gil-Marin:2016wya].
- The two points at $z=0.60,0.86$ reported by the VIMOS Public Extragalactic Redshift Survey (VIPERS) [@Mohammad:2018mdy].
- The point at $z=0.77$ by VIMOS VLT Deep Survey (VVDS) [@Guzzo:2008ac; @Song:2008qt].
- The measurement by eBOSS DR14 at $z=1.19$, $1.50$, $1.83$ [@Gil-Marin:2018cgo].
- The Subaru FMOS galaxy redshift survey (FastSound) measurement at $z=1.36$ [@Okumura:2015lvp].
The internal correlations between the BAO and RSD data from [@Gil-Marin:2016wya] and [@Gil-Marin:2018cgo] have been duly taken into account through the corresponding covariance matrices provided in these two references.
### Prior on $H_0$ {#sect:H0}
In some of our data set combinations (cf. ) we include the prior on the Hubble parameter $$H_{0,{\rm SH0ES}}=(74.03\pm 1.42) \,{\rm km/s/Mpc},$$ reported by the SH0ES Team in [@Riess:2019cxk]. It is obtained from the cosmic distance ladder and using an improved calibration of the Cepheid period-luminosity relation, based on distances obtained from detached eclipsing binaries located in the Large Magellanic Cloud, masers in the galaxy NGC $4258$ and Milky Way parallaxes. This value of the Hubble parameter is in $4.4\sigma$ tension[^11] with the TTTEEE+lowE+lensing best-fit $\Lambda$CDM model of [*Planck*]{} 2018 [@Aghanim:2018eyx], $H_0=67.36\pm 0.54$ km/s/Mpc.
It has been recently argued in [@Camarena:2019rmj] (and later on also in [@Dhawan:2020xmp; @Benevento:2020fev]) that in cosmological studies it is better to use the SH0ES constraint on the absolute magnitude of the SNIa rather than the direct prior on $H_0$ when combined with low-redshift SNIa data. This is to avoid double counting issues. We do not have this problem, though, since we do not combine the Pantheon compilation with the prior from SH0ES in any of our main analyses (cf. ).
### Strong-lensing time delay distances {#sect:RSD}
In combination with the prior on $H_0$ from SH0ES we also use the angular diameter distances reported by the H0LICOW collaboration[^12]. They analyze six gravitationally lensed quasars of variable luminosity. After measuring the time delay between the deflected light rays and modeling the lenses they are able to measure the so-called time-delay distances $D_{\Delta t}$ (cf. [@Wong:2019kwg] and references therein). We use their reported six time-delay distances (one for each lensed system), and one distance to the deflector B1608+656, which according to the authors of [@Wong:2019kwg] is uncorrelated with the corresponding $D_{\Delta t}$. The relevant information for building the likelihood can be found in Tables 1 and 2 of [@Wong:2019kwg], and their captions. Assuming the concordance model, these distances lead to a value of $H_0=(73.3^{+1.7}_{-1.8})$ km/s/Mpc, which is in $3.2\sigma$ tension with the one obtained from the TTTEEE+lowE+lensing analysis by [*Planck*]{} [@Aghanim:2018eyx].
Combined data sets {#sect:CombiData}
------------------
We proceed now to describe the data set combinations under which we have obtained the main results of this work. They are discussed in detail in . We put constraints using the following combinations: (i) TTTEEE+lowE CMB data from [*Planck*]{} 2018 [@Aghanim:2018eyx], in order to see the constraining power of the CMB when used alone, and also to check whether these data lead to a higher value of $H_0$ than in the $\Lambda$CDM. For simplicity, we will refer to this data set as P18 throughout the paper; (ii) P18+BSC, with BSC denoting the background data set BAO+SNIa+CCH; (iii) We add on top of the latter the linear structure formation information contained in the RSD data, P18+BSC+RSD; (iv) We study the impact of the CMB lensing by also adding the corresponding likelihood, P18lens+BSC+RSD; (v) Finally, we analyze the impact of the prior on $H_0$ from SH0ES [@Riess:2019cxk] and the H0LICOW angular diameter distances [@Wong:2019kwg] by using the data sets P18+SH0ES+H0LICOW, P18lens+SH0ES+H0LICOW and P18+BSC+SH0ES+H0LICOW. The distance ladder and strong-lensing time delay measurements of the Hubble constant are completely independent (see e.g. the reviews [@Verde:2019ivm; @Riess:2020sih]). When combined, they lead to $$\label{eq:H0comb}
H_{0,comb}=(73.74\pm 1.10)\,{\rm km/s/Mpc}\,,$$ in $5.2\sigma$ tension with the best-fit $\Lambda$CDM value reported by [*Planck*]{} 2018 [@Aghanim:2018eyx]. Hence, it is interesting to check what is the response of the CDE model under these concrete data sets, and to compare the results with those obtained using only the CMB likelihood.
{width="6in" height="3.1in"}
Results {#sect:results}
=======
Our main results are presented in Tables \[tab:tab1\]-\[tab:tab2\] and Figs. \[fig:betaCLs\]-\[fig:nolensVSlens\_reduced\]. When we only employ the CMB temperature and polarization data from [*Planck*]{} 2018 [@Aghanim:2018eyx] (i.e. the P18 data set) to constrain the CDE model, the fitting values obtained for $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are compatible at $1\sigma$ c.l. with 0, i.e. with a cosmological constant and no interaction in the dark sector (cf. the first column in ). The value of $H_0$ remains low, roughly $4.1 \sigma$ below the cosmic distance ladder measurement of [@Riess:2019cxk]. Similarly, when we combine *Planck* with BSC background data or with BSC+RSD, we get a value of $H_0$ which is $3.8\sigma$ and $3.7\sigma$ away from the SH0ES value, respectively.
As we have explained in , there is a degeneracy between the strength of the fifth force, i.e. the parameter $\beta$, and the Hubble parameter. CDE is in principle able to lower the value of the sound horizon at the decoupling time, $r_s$, and the amplitude of the first peak of the $\mathcal{D}^{TT}_{l}$’s. The CMB data fix with high precision the angle $\theta_*=r_s/D^{(c)}_A(z_{dec})$, with $D^{(c)}_A(z_{dec})$ the comoving angular diameter distance to the CMB last scattering surface. This means that in order to keep this ratio constant, $H_0$ will tend to grow for increasing values of the coupling strength, so that $D^{(c)}_A(z_{dec})$ decreases and compensates in this way the lowering of $r_s$, while keeping the height of the first peak compatible with data. This positive correlation between $H_0$ and $\beta$ can be appreciated in the left-most contour plot of . The latter shows 1 and 2$\sigma$ posterior probabilities for a selection of cosmological parameters. As discussed, we confirm from the first plot a mild degeneracy between $H_0$ and $\beta$. The strength of the fifth force does not seem to be very degenerate with $\sigma_8$ nor with the potential parameter $\alpha$.
{width="4.5in" height="4.5in"}
Impact of adding background data on top of P18 can be grasped by looking at the one-dimensional posterior distributions of (in blue), and also at the numbers of the second column of . Using the P18+BSC combined data set we find that $\beta$ and $\alpha$ are now $\sim 2.5$ and $\sim 3.1\sigma$ away from 0, respectively. The values of $H_0$ and $\sigma_8$, are however compatible at $1\sigma$ with the ones obtained using only the P18 data set. They are also fully compatible with those obtained with the $\Lambda$CDM under the same data set, which read: $H_0=(68.29\pm 0.37)$ km/s/Mpc, $\sigma_8=0.812^{+0.006}_{-0.008}$. The peaks in $\beta$ and $\alpha$ may indicate a mild preference of low-redshift data, when combined with the CMB, for a non-null interaction in the dark sector and a running quintessence potential. As noted already in [@Ade:2015rim], we remark that this preference does not seem to correspond to a large improvement in the minimum value of $\chi^2$ with respect to the $\Lambda$CDM: under the P18+BSC data set, $\chi^2_{min,{\rm CDE}}-\chi^2_{min,\Lambda}$ is negative, but very close to 0, which means that the CDE model only is able to improve the description of the data in a very marginal way.
The addition of the RSD data to the P18+BSC combined data set doesn’t change much the result: there is a very small shift in the peak of the one-dimensional posterior distribution for $\alpha$ to larger values and the one for $\beta$ to lower ones (see the yellow curves in ). These two facts reduce a little bit the value of $\sigma_8$. The aforesaid peaks are now $\sim 5$ and $\sim 2\sigma$ away from 0, respectively, with a reduction of $\chi^2_{min}$ [*w.r.t.*]{} the $\Lambda$CDM of 1.56 units (cf. , fourth column), i.e. pointing to a very small preference for CDE. The value of $H_0$ is almost unchanged.
If we include also the CMB lensing information, i.e. if we consider the P18lens+BSC+RSD combined data set, posterior probabilities squeeze, as expected, towards the $\Lambda$CDM values. This can be seen in , and also in the fifth column of . Given the caveats explained in , we find important to highlight the specific impact of CMB lensing data with respect to the P18+BSC+RSD data set.
In order to further evaluate the level at which the degeneracy observed in the ($H_0$,$\beta$)-plane can alleviate the tension in the Hubble parameter between *Planck* and $\{$SH0ES, H0LICOW$\}$ data, we perform a Monte Carlo analysis combining those data within the CDE model: results are shown in the third column in and correspond to red contours in . In this case, the best fit corresponds to a value of $\beta =0.0294^{+0.0120}_{-0.0076}$, i.e. at $3\sigma$ from zero coupling, a value of $\alpha =1.32\pm 0.18$, with $\alpha > 0$ at $\sim 7\sigma$ c.l., and $H_0 =(69.43^{+0.72}_{-0.53})$ km/s/Mpc. The raise of $H_0$ is possible thanks to the increase of $\beta$, which in turn needs also larger values of $\alpha$. The tension with the SH0ES+H0LICOW measurement is slightly reduced from $4.8\sigma$ (when only P18 is used to constrain the model, cf. the first column of ) to $3.5 \sigma$ (when also the SH0ES+H0LICOW data are considered). This shifts the $H_0$ value $1.9\sigma$ higher than the best fit using the P18 data set alone, within CDE. Combining also with background data, such as BSC, can partially break degeneracies and leads to $\alpha =0.73^{+0.11}_{-0.27}$, with $\alpha > 0$ at $3.8\sigma$ and $H_0=(68.79^{+0.35}_{-0.40})$ km/s/Mpc at $4.3\sigma$ from the SH0ES+H0LICOW value , reducing the chance of CDE to alleviate the tension, as shown in the penultimate column of the table. Finally, the impact of adding CMB lensing is shown in the last column, where now $\beta=0.0197^{+0.0094}_{-0.0084}$ and $\alpha =0.33^{+0.19}_{-0.23}$, with $\beta>0$ and $\alpha > 0$ at $2.2\sigma$ and $1.6\sigma$, respectively, i.e. shifting back towards $\Lambda$CDM. In this case $H_0=(68.99\pm 0.51)$ km/s/Mpc, $3.9\sigma$ away from the SH0ES+H0LICOW value and even more had we included also BSC.
Finally, we can further quantify the relative ability of the CDE model to describe the various data sets [*w.r.t.*]{} the $\Lambda$CDM cosmology using the Bayes ratio, in alternative to the more approximate $\chi^2$ estimate we mentioned so far. Given a data set $\mathcal{D}$, the probability of a certain model $M_i$ to be the best one among a given set of models $\{M\}$ reads, $$\label{eq:BayesTheorem}
P(M_i|\mathcal{D})=\frac{P(M_i)\mathcal{E}(\mathcal{D}|M_i)}{P(\mathcal{D})}\,,$$ where $P(M_i)$ is the prior probability of the model $M_i$ and $P(\mathcal{D})$ the probability of having the data set $\mathcal{D}$. Obviously, the normalization condition $\sum_{j\in\{M\}}M_j=1$ must be fulfilled. The quantity $\mathcal{E}(\mathcal{D}|M_i)$ is the so-called marginal likelihood or evidence. If the model $M_i$ has $n$ parameters $p^{M_i}_1, p^{M_i}_2,...,p^{M_i}_n$, the evidence takes the following form, $$\label{eq:evidence}
\mathcal{E}(\mathcal{D}|M_i)=\int \mathcal{L}(\mathcal{D}|\vec{p}^{M_i},M_i)\pi(\vec{p}^{M_i}) d^np^{M_i}\,,$$ with $\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{D}|\vec{p}^{M_i},M_i)$ being the likelihood and $\pi(\vec{p}^{M_i})$ the prior of the parameters entering the model $M_i$. The evidence is larger for those models that have more overlapping volume between the likelihood and the prior distributions, but penalizes the use of additional parameters having a non-null impact on the likelihood. Hence, the evidence constitutes a good way of quantifying the performance of the model by implementing in practice the Occam razor principle. If we compare the CDE and $\Lambda$CDM models by assuming equal prior probability for both of them, i.e. $P({\rm CDE})=P(\Lambda {\rm CDM})$, then we find that the ratio of their associated probabilities is directly given by the ratio of their corresponding evidences, i.e. $$\label{eq:BayesRatio}
\frac{P({\rm CDE}|\mathcal{D})}{P(\Lambda {\rm CDM}|\mathcal{D})}=\frac{\mathcal{E}(\mathcal{D}|{\rm CDE})}{\mathcal{E}(\mathcal{D}|\Lambda {\rm CDM})} \equiv B_{{\rm CDE},\Lambda}\,.$$ This is known as Bayes ratio and is the quantity we are interested in. For more details we refer the reader to [@KassRaftery1995; @Burnham2002; @AmendolaTsujikawaBook]. Notice that the computation of is not an easy task in general, since we usually work with models with a high number of (mostly nuisance) parameters, so the integrals under consideration becomes quite involved. We have computed the evidences numerically using the Markov chains obtained from the Monte Carlo analyses and with the aid of the numerical code `MCEvidence` [@Heavens:2017afc], which is publicly available (cf. ). We report the values obtained for the natural logarithm of the Bayes ratio in the last row of . For all the data sets under study we find values of $\ln(B_{{\rm CDE},\Lambda})<-5$, which point to a preference of the $\Lambda$CDM over the CDE model according to Jeffreys’ scale [@KassRaftery1995; @Burnham2002; @AmendolaTsujikawaBook]. Although the CDE model we are studying here is able to reduce slightly the value of $\chi^2_{min}$ [*w.r.t.*]{} the $\Lambda$CDM, it has two additional parameters, namely $\alpha$ and $\beta$. Moreover, the initial value of the scalar field, $\phi_{ini}$, is also left free in the Monte Carlo analysis, cf. Appendix A for details[^13]. It turns out that the decrease in $\chi^2_{min}$ is insufficient to compensate the penalization introduced by the use of these extra parameters. If instead of using the evidences and the Bayes ratio to perform the model comparison we make use of e.g. the Akaike [@Akaike], Bayesian [@Schwarz1978] or Deviance [@DIC] information criteria, we reach similar conclusions[^14]. We want to note, though, that all these information criteria are approximations of the exact Bayesian approach. Although they allow to skip the demanding computation of the evidence , they are only reliable when the posterior distribution is close to a multivariate Gaussian (which is not the case under study), and the Akaike and Bayesian criteria do not take into account the impact of priors nor the existing correlations between the parameters.
Similar results and conclusions are reached using an exponential potential for the scalar field, instead of . They are presented and discussed in appendix C.
Finally, our results are compatible with the ones in [@2020PhRvD.101f3502D]: the inclusion of background and CMB lensing shifts constraints towards $\Lambda$CDM; the model is however different, as ours starts from modifying the Lagrangian, which is not available in [@2020PhRvD.101f3502D]; furthermore, the source function is also different and while the DE EoS parameter $w$ has to be fixed to a very specific value in [@2020PhRvD.101f3502D] in order to match stability conditions specific to that scenario, in our case it varies; the extra parameters leads then to a more negative Bayes ratio, preferring $\Lambda$CDM, more than claimed in [@2020PhRvD.101f3502D].
Conclusions {#sect:conclusions}
===========
Cosmological observations help to test the dark sector, and in particular interactions between dark matter particles, mediated by a dark energy scalar field, as in CDE cosmologies. Up to a conformal transformation, this is another way of testing gravity at large scales. In this paper we carried out this task in one of the simplest and most studied models, namely, a dark energy-dark matter conformal coupling with a Peebles-Ratra potential. CDE might probe helpful to explain the well-known tension between local and cosmological values of $H_0$. Any detection of a varying dark energy potential or interaction would clearly constitute a major result and it is therefore important to monitor the constraints that newer data impose. This is particularly true in view of earlier results that detected a non-zero value of the coupling $\beta$ [@Pettorino:2013oxa; @Ade:2015rim].
We confirm the existence of a peak in the marginalized posterior distribution for $\beta$ and $\alpha$, more or less evident depending on the data set combination. While for P18 + SH0ES + H0LICOW $\beta > 0$ at $3\sigma$ and $\alpha > 0$ at nearly $7 \sigma$, inclusion of background data reduces the evidence to $\beta > 0$ at $2.3\sigma$ and $\alpha > 0$ at nearly $3.8 \sigma$. Inclusion of CMB lensing shifts both values to be compatible with $\Lambda$CDM within 2$\sigma$. We find it important to stress that specifically CMB lensing prefers $\Lambda$CDM, and recalled in the caveats that would deserve further investigation in order to make this result robust also for models that depart from $\Lambda$CDM as much as CDE. In all cases, we find that, overall, the peak does not correspond to a better Bayes ratio and $\Lambda$CDM remains the favored model when employing Bayesian model comparison, given the extra parameters introduced within the model. With regard to $H_0$, we find that under the P18+SH0ES+H0LICOW combined data set the simple coupled model with constant coupling investigated in this work leads to a value in $3.5\sigma$ tension with , or in 4.3$\sigma$ tension when including further background data. The values of $\sigma_8$ are also similar to those found in the $\Lambda$CDM (i.e. $\sigma_8\sim 0.80-0.82$), even when RSD data are considered together with CMB and background data. In this case we find $\beta=0.010^{+0.003}_{-0.009}$ and $\beta=0.015^{+0.007}_{-0.008}$, with and without CMB lensing, respectively. For the values of the coupling strength preferred by the data we find the typical increase of the mass of the DM particles to be $m(\phi_{ini})/m^{(0)}-1\lesssim \mathcal{O}(1)\%$.
The question that naturally arises is then, which modification of CDE can help alleviating the tensions? One can immediately suppose that a varying $\beta$ can go some way towards this. Or, it could be that a model with both energy- and momentum-couplings (see e.g. [@Amendola:2020ldb]), which can introduce a weaker gravity, helps with the tensions. These issues will be investigated in future publications.
[**Acknowledgements**]{} This paper was completed during the COVID-19 pandemic. We thank our institutions for allowing us to work remotely. AGV is funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) - Project number 415335479.
Appendix A: Avoiding the shooting {#appendix-a-avoiding-the-shooting .unnumbered}
=================================
IDEA takes as input parameters the current energy densities of the various species and applies a shooting method (see e.g. [@StoerBulirsch1980]) to find the initial energy densities that lead to the present-day values specified in the input. This is of course a very useful and convenient way of implementing the model, since very often we are interested in computing theoretical quantities by fixing the current energy densities to concrete values, most of the times very close to the best-fit $\Lambda$CDM ones. This trial and error method is unavoidable if one wants to do so. Nevertheless, this is not the most efficient way to proceed at the level of the Monte Carlo analysis. The avoidance of the shooting recursive process by directly using as input parameters the initial conditions of the energy densities instead of their current values allows us to save precious computational time. In our implementation of the CDE model in `CLASS` [@Blas:2011rf] we have skipped the shooting method proceeding in this way. The current energy densities and other quantities of interest, e.g. $H_0$ or $\sigma_8$, are obtained as derived parameters after solving the complete set of Einstein-Boltzmann equations up to $a=1$. We also use as input parameter in the Monte Carlo the initial value of the scalar field, $\phi_{ini}=\phi(a_{ini})>0$, with $a_{ini}=10^{-14}$. On the contrary, $\phi^\prime_{ini}=\phi^\prime(a_{ini})$ can be expressed in terms of other input parameters. Let us show how. By solving in the radiation-dominated epoch (RDE) we find, $$\label{eq:phiPrimeConst}
\phi^\prime(\tau)=150 \beta\, \frac{\Omega_{dm}(a_{ini})}{\kappa a_{ini}}\,\varsigma\sqrt{\omega^{*}_r}+\frac{c_0}{\tau^2}\,,$$ where $c_0$ is a dimensionless integration constant, $\varsigma\equiv 1\,{\rm km/s/Mpc}=2.1332\times 10^{-44}$ GeV (in natural units), and $\omega^{*}_r=\omega_\gamma(1+0.2271 N_{eff})$ is the reduced density parameter of radiation during the RDE. We consider three massive neutrinos with equal mass and $\sum_\nu m_\nu=0.06$ eV, so $N_{\rm eff}=3.046$. The parameter $\omega_\gamma$ is determined by the temperature of the CMB photons at present, which we set to the value reported in [@Fixsen:2009ug], $T^{(0)}_{\gamma}=2.7255\,K$. Notice that the ratio $\Omega_{dm}(a)/a$ appearing in is kept constant during the RDE. To understand this let us consider equation . It can be rewritten as $$\rho_{dm}^\prime+3\mathcal{H}\rho_{dm}\left(1-\beta\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}\Omega_{\phi,{\rm kin}}(a)}\right)=0\,,$$
with $\Omega_{\phi,{\rm kin}}$ being the fraction of scalar field kinetic energy in the Universe. During the RDE $\Omega_{\phi,{\rm kin}}\sim 0$. In addition, $\beta\ll 1$, so we find that $\rho_{dm}\sim a^{-3}$ and, hence, $\Omega_{dm}(a)/a=const.=\Omega_{dm}(a_{ini})/a_{ini}$. The first term in the [*r.h.s.*]{} of is, therefore, constant. The solution does not depend on the form of the scalar field potential, since the impact of the latter is completely negligible during the RDE, and consists of a constant term plus a fast decaying mode, which we will call $\phi^\prime_{\rm cons}$ and $\phi^\prime_{\rm dec}$, respectively. In order to fulfill the BBN constraint on the total energy density at $a_{\rm BBN}\sim 10^{-9}$ one needs to demand $\rho_\phi(a_{\rm BBN})\lesssim 0.1\cdot\rho_r(a_{\rm BBN})$ [@Uzan:2010pm]. This leads to the following condition: $|c_0|<10^{53}$. Now, using the value of $c_0$ that saturates the upper bound we can evaluate the ratio $\phi^\prime_{\rm dec}(a)/\phi^\prime_{\rm cons}(a)$ at any moment of the RDE (knowing that $a(\tau)=100\,\tau\,\varsigma\, \sqrt{\omega_r^{*}}$). In particular, we can compute it at a moment near the end of the RDE, e.g. at $\tilde{a}=10^{-4}$, and see whether the decaying mode can still play an important role at that time. If we do so we obtain $\phi^\prime_{\rm dec}(\tilde{a})/\phi^\prime_{\rm cons}(\tilde{a})\approx 10^{-5}/\beta$. The values of the coupling strength explored in our Monte Carlo analyses are in the range $10^{-3}\lesssim\beta\lesssim 10^{-1}$, so we find $$10^{-4}\lesssim\frac{\phi^\prime_{\rm dec}(\tilde{a})}{\phi^\prime_{\rm cons}(\tilde{a})}\lesssim 10^{-2}\,.$$ This tells us that the decaying mode will play no role in our analysis (even when $c_0$ takes the largest value allowed by the BBN condition), since the observables that we use to constrain the CDE model in this work are insensitive to $\phi^\prime$ at even lower values of the scale factor, i.e. at $a<\tilde{a}$. This is very positive because, in practice, this allows us to set the initial condition of $\phi^\prime(a_{ini})=\phi^\prime_{\rm cons}(a_{ini})$ and reduce in this way the number of parameters that are varied in each step of the Monte Carlo. This also helps to improve the efficiency of our code.
Appendix B: Results for the nested models {#appendix-b-results-for-the-nested-models .unnumbered}
=========================================
Here we present and discuss the fitting results for the two nested models of the CDE scenario that are obtained by turning off the interaction, and also by using a constant potential while keeping active the interaction in the dark sector. These two models are obtained from the general CDE scenario described in by setting $\beta=0$ and $\alpha=0$, respectively. The former corresponds to the PR model [@Peebles:1987ek; @Ratra:1987rm]. In we show the constraints obtained for these models in the light of the P18+BSC+RSD data set, and also compare their statistical performance with the $\Lambda$CDM and the full CDE model. In practice, they both have one additional parameter [*w.r.t.*]{} the $\Lambda$CDM. The PR model has a very effective attractor solution for $\phi$ and $\phi^\prime$ during the radiation-dominated epoch, which can be used to fix the initial conditions of the scalar field and its derivative, so only $\alpha$ enters as an additional parameter (see e.g. [@Sola:2016hnq]). On the other hand, the CDE model with flat potential only has $\beta$ as extra parameter, since the equations are invariant under translations of the scalar field and hence $\phi_{ini}$ can be fixed to an arbitrary value, e.g. 0. Moreover, $\phi^\prime_{ini}$ can be set as explained in the appendix A. shows that in the context of the PR model it is possible to obtain much lower values of $\sigma_8$, loosening in this way the $\sigma_8$ tension. $H_0$, though, is below the one obtained with the $\Lambda$CDM and the other two nested models. These results are fully aligned with those from [@Sola:2018sjf], but now we obtain lesser levels of evidence for the PR model, basically due to the use of the CMB high multipole polarization data, which were not employed in that reference. The reduction in the value of $\chi^2_{min}$ [*w.r.t.*]{} the $\Lambda$CDM is $\sim 2$ units, but $\ln(B_{{\rm PR},\Lambda})<-3$, so there is still more evidence for the concordance model when compared with the PR. One thing that we should explain is why the value of $\chi^2_{min}$ obtained with the PR model is lower than in the general CDE model. We would expect this not to happen, since the latter is an extension of the former, with two extra free parameters. The reason is the following. In our Monte Carlo analysis for the CDE model we cannot explore the region of parameter space with a pure PR behavior. In order this to happen we should produce values of $\beta$ in our chains much lower than the ones we actually produce (which are in all cases greater than $\sim 10^{-3}$ due to the flat prior on $\beta>0$ and its typical variance). These values of $\beta$ always give rise to non-completely negligible effects in the MDE, and hence there is always a departure from the pure PR model. Thus, it is not strange that we find points in parameter space of the PR model which lead to lower values of $\chi^2$ than those found in our analysis of the CDE.
The values of the parameters obtained for the CDE model with $\alpha=0$ remain very close to the $\Lambda$CDM ones (cf. the third column of ). The model sticks to the $\Lambda$CDM because in this case there is no varying potential able to compensate the effects generated by the non-null coupling, so $\beta$ is forced to remain small. In terms of Occam’s razor and the corresponding Bayes ratio there is a preference for the $\Lambda$CDM. The central value of $\beta$ is almost four times smaller than in the general CDE model. Something similar happens in the PR model for $\alpha$, which is now $\sim 7$ times smaller than in the general CDE scenario. Due to the fact that $\alpha$ and $\beta$ can compensate effects from each other, in the general CDE model these two parameters can be quite larger, as it is seen in the last column of .
Appendix C: Constraints on CDE with exponential potential {#appendix-c-constraints-on-cde-with-exponential-potential .unnumbered}
=========================================================
In this brief appendix we complement the results provided in the main body of the paper, which have been obtained using the power-law potential . In we provide constraints on CDE with the exponential potential $$\label{eq:EXP}
V(\phi)=V_0e^{-\lambda\kappa\phi} \,.$$ The constant $\lambda>0$ controls its steepness. As mentioned in , the quintessence potential only rules the scalar field dynamics in the late-time universe, after the $\phi$MDE epoch, when the effects coming from the interaction in the dark sector are already subdominant. Therefore, we should not expect a change in the form of the potential to affect severely the constraints on the coupling strength $\beta$, and this is actually what we find. By comparing the results provided in Tables I and III obtained under the same data sets we notice that both, the central values and uncertainties for $\beta$, are almost identical. They are also similar to the values reported in Table II of [@vandeBruck:2017idm], which were obtained using the CMB likelihoods from [*Planck*]{} 2015, older SNIa, BAO and CCH data, and also older distance ladder priors on the Hubble parameter. Our constraints are a little bit tighter due to the updated (richer) data sets employed here. Also the values of $\lambda$ are quite similar. We note, though, that the central values of $H_0$ are mildly ($\sim 1\sigma$) lower than those obtained with the Peebles-Ratra potential. The values of $\ln\,B_{{\rm CDE},\Lambda}$ are higher (lower in absolute value) since in this model the goodness of fit is kept at the same level as in the CDE model with PR potential, and $\phi_{ini}$ plays no role and can be fixed, reducing thereby the complexity of the model. But they are still below -5. The results obtained with are hence fully consistent with those derived with .
[^1]: The superscripts $(0)$ will denote from now on quantities evaluated at present, i.e. at $a=1$.
[^2]: http://lesgourg.github.io/class\_public/class.html
[^3]: http://baudren.github.io/montepython.html
[^4]: https://getdist.readthedocs.io/en/latest/
[^5]: https://github.com/yabebalFantaye/MCEvidence
[^6]: http://www.sdss3.org/surveys/boss.php
[^7]: http://www.6dfgs.net/
[^8]: https://www.sdss.org/
[^9]: http://wigglez.swin.edu.au/site/
[^10]: https://www.darkenergysurvey.org/es/
[^11]: The tension (in terms of the number of $\sigma$) between two quantities $A\pm\sigma_A$ and $B\pm\sigma_B$ is [*estimated*]{} in this work by using the formula $|A-B|/\sqrt{\sigma_A^2+\sigma_B^2}$, which strictly speaking is only valid if the two values are normally distributed and independent.
[^12]: http://shsuyu.github.io/H0LiCOW/site/
[^13]: In the computation of the evidence for the CDE model we have employed the following flat priors for the extra parameters: $0<\beta<0.1$, $0<\alpha<2$, and $0<\kappa\phi_{ini}<50$. Slightly broader or tighter priors can be considered, but $\ln(B_{{\rm CDE},\Lambda})$ only changes logarithmically, so our conclusions are not very sensitive to them.
[^14]: For instance, Akaike criterion [@Akaike] is given by ${\rm AIC}= \chi^2_{min}+2n$, where $n$ is the number of parameters in the model (the degree of correlation between them is not taken into account). Considering that CDE with PR potential has an effective number of parameters between 2 and 3 we find $2.5<{\rm AIC}_{\rm CDE}-{\rm AIC}_\Lambda<6$ for the scenarios explored in , which leads to a positive preference for $\Lambda$CDM, again using Jeffreys’ scale [@KassRaftery1995; @Burnham2002; @AmendolaTsujikawaBook].
|
---
abstract: 'We present a calculation of the electromagnetic form factor of the pion in $N_f=2+1$ flavor lattice QCD. Calculations are made on the PACS-CS gauge field configurations generated using Iwasaki gauge action and Wilson-clover quark action on a $32^3\times64$ lattice volume with the lattice spacing estimated as $a=0.0907(13)$ fm at the physical point. Measurements of the form factor are made using the technique of partially twisted boundary condition to reach small momentum transfer as well as periodic boundary condition with integer momenta. Additional improvements including random wall source techniques and a judicious choice of momenta carried by the incoming and outgoing quarks are employed for error reduction. Analyzing the form factor data for the pion mass at $M_\pi \approx 411$ MeV and 296 MeV, we find that the NNLO SU(2) chiral perturbation theory fit yields $\left< r^2\right>=0.441 \pm 0.046~{\rm fm}^2$ for the pion charge radius at the physical pion mass. Albeit the error is quite large, this is consistent with the experimental value of $0.452\pm 0.011~{\rm fm}^2$. Below $M_\pi\approx 300$ MeV, we find that statistical fluctuations in the pion two- and three-point functions become too large to extract statistically meaningful averages on a $32^3$ spatial volume. We carry out a sample calculation on a $64^4$ lattice with the quark masses close to the physical point, which suggests that form factor calculations at the physical point become feasible by enlarging lattice sizes to $M_\pi L\approx 4$.'
author:
- |
Oanh Hoang Nguyen$^{a}$, Ken-Ichi Ishikawa$^{b}$, Akira Ukawa$^{a,c}$, Naoya Ukita$^{c}$\
for PACS-CS Collaboration
title: ' Electromagnetic form factor of pion from $N_f=2+1$ dynamical flavor QCD '
---
UT-CCS-60\
Introduction
============
The electromagnetic form factor of pion is an interesting quantity to investigate in lattice QCD. Experimentally it has been measured in a set of experiments [@pdg]. Together with the nucleon form factors, it provides the first important test case of our understanding of hadron structure that arises from the quark content. From lattice QCD point of view, form factor calculations represent one of the first steps going beyond static quantities like the mass spectrum which require only two-point functions. The pion form factor is a natural first choice in this direction since usually pion Green’s functions are statistically the most stable quantities in lattice QCD measurements. An interesting point with the pion form factor $G_\pi(q^2)$ is its slope at the origin as a function of the momentum transfer squared $q^2$, [*i.e.,*]{} the pion charge radius defined by $$\langle r^2\rangle =6\frac{dG_\pi(q^2)}{dq^2}\vert_{q^2=0}.$$ It has been known for some time from chiral perturbation theory analysis [@gasserleutwyler; @gasserleutwyler_2] that this quantity diverges logarithmically with vanishing pion mass squared. Quantitative confirmation of such a behavior would provide an important check on the control of chiral behavior in lattice QCD simulations toward the physical point.
The pioneering lattice QCD calculations of the pion form factor appeared more than 20 years ago [@martinelli; @draper], and a number of studies were carried out over the years. Recently, with the development of simulations with dynamical quarks, several groups have attempted calculations with $N_f=2$ [@brommel; @ETMC; @JLQCD] and $N_f=2+1$ [@RBC] dynamical flavors using a variety of quark actions. The $N_f=2$ calculations employed Wilson-clover [@brommel], twisted mass [@ETMC] or overlap [@JLQCD] quark action, and explored the pion mass region down to $M_\pi\approx 300$ MeV. The values for $\langle r^2\rangle$ from those simulations are significantly smaller than the experimental value, and NNLO fits of SU(2) chiral perturbation theory were needed to find consistency with it at the physical pion mass. For $N_f=2+1$ dynamical flavors, there has been a single calculation employing domain-wall quark action [@RBC], which made measurements at a single pion mass of $M_\pi\approx 300$ MeV. Carrying out NLO analyses in SU(2) and SU(3) chiral perturbation theory, this work found $\langle r^2\rangle$ to be consistent with the experimental value at the upper edge of a 10% error band.
In this paper we present our calculation of the electromagnetic form factor of pion in $N_f=2+1$ dynamical flavor QCD using the Wilson-clover quark action. For measurements we employ the $N_f=2+1$ PACS-CS gauge configurations generated on a $32^3\times 64$ lattice using the Iwasaki gauge action and the Wilson-clover action at a lattice spacing estimated to be $a=0.0907(13)$ fm at the physical point [@pacscs]. Since the pion mass on this gauge configuration set covers the range from $M_\pi\approx 700$MeV down to $156$ MeV, we are able to examine both the known range above $M_\pi\approx 300$MeV and a novel range below toward the physical pion mass.
The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. 2 we present our method to calculate the pion form factor. In order to access the region of small momentum transfer, we use the method of partially twisted boundary condition [@boyle2007; @sachrajda2005; @bedaque2005; @jian], and in order to fight increasing computational cost for smaller pion mass, we apply the method of random wall source [@Z2_1; @Z2_2; @Z2_3; @Z2_4; @Z2_5; @RBC]. In addition we make use of a judicious choice of momenta carried by the incoming and outgoing quarks off the electromagnetic vertex, which helps in reducing statistical fluctuations in the form factor measurements. In Sec. 3 we present the results of pion form factor measurements, and in Sec. 4 we analyze the data as a function of the momentum transfer squared and pion mass. In particular we examine consistency with the predictions of chiral perturbation theory. Finally, in Sec. 5, we discuss our findings closer to the physical point including the results of our test calculation on a $64^4$ lattice with the quark masses tuned to the neighbour of the physical point. We end this work with conclusions in Sec. 6. A preliminary report of this work was presented in [@OanhNguyen].
Methods
=======
Pion electromagnetic form factor
--------------------------------
The electromagnetic pion form factor $G_\pi(Q^2)$ is defined by $$\label{eq:fund4}
\left< \pi^+(\vec{p'})|J_\mu|\pi^+(\vec{p})\right> = (p_\mu + p'_\mu)G_\pi(Q^2),$$ where $Q^2=-q^2=-(p'-p)^2$ is the four-momentum transfer, and $J_\mu$ is the electromagnetic current given in $N_f=2+1$ QCD by $$\label{eq:fund3}
J_\mu = \frac{2}{3} \bar{u}\gamma_\mu{u}-\frac{1}{3} \bar{d}\gamma_\mu{d}-\frac{1}{3} \bar{s}\gamma_\mu{s}.$$ In the limit of vanishing four-momentum transfer $Q^2=0$, the form factor equals unity due to the charge conservation.
We extract the form factor from a suitable ratio of the pion two- and three-point functions. We use a ratio, which has the advantage of simultaneously reducing fluctuations and renormalizing the current, defined as $$\label{eq:ratio}
R(\tau)=\frac{C^{3pt}(\vec{p'},t_f;\vec{p},0;\tau)}{C^{3pt}(\vec{p'},t_f;\vec{p'},0;\tau)} \frac{C^{2pt}(\vec{p'},\tau)}{C^{2pt}(\vec{p},\tau)}
\times \frac{2E_\pi(\vec{p'})}{E_\pi(\vec{p})+E_\pi(\vec{p'})},$$ which converges as $$R(\tau)\to \frac{G^{\rm bare}_\pi(Q^2)}{G^{\rm bare}_\pi(0)}=G_\pi(Q^2),$$ for large $\tau$ and $t_f$. $E_\pi(\vec{p})$ denotes pion energy for spatial momentum $\vec{p}$, $C^{3pt}(\vec{p'},t_f; \vec{p},0;\tau)$ is the three-point function with momenta $\vec{p}$ at the source and $\vec{p'}$ at the sink $t_f$, $$\label{eq:C3pt}
C^{3pt}(\vec{p'},t_f; \vec{p},0;\tau) = \left< \pi^+(\vec{p'},t_f) J_\mu(\tau) \pi^+(\vec{p},0)\right>,$$ and $C^{2pt}(\vec{p},\tau)$ is the two-point function, $$\label{eq:C2pt}
C^{2pt}(\vec{p},\tau) = \left< \pi^+(\vec{p},\tau) \pi^+(\vec{p},0)\right>.$$ After contraction of quark fields, the three-point function consists of the connected and disconnected contributions. The latter vanishes after the gauge field average due to charge conjugation invariance, and hence need not be calculated. Since we assume degeneracy of up and down quark masses in the present calculation, the connected contribution is equal to $$\label{eq:3pt}
C^{3pt}(\vec{p'},t_f; \vec{p},0;\tau) = \sum_{\vec{y},\vec{x}}e^{-i\vec{p'}\vec{y}+i\vec{q}\vec{x}}
\left<Tr[\gamma_5 D^{-1}(0,x) \gamma_\mu D^{-1}(x,y) \gamma_5 D^{-1}(y,0)]\right>.$$ This contribution can be calculated by the traditional source method [@martinelli; @draper].
Choice of momenta carried by quarks
-----------------------------------
The ratio (\[eq:ratio\]) makes use of two- and three-point functions in an appropriate combination to extract the form factor for the renormalized current. The presence of ratios guarantee that statistical fluctuations are suppressed. Nonetheless, making simple choices such as $\vec{p}\ne 0$ and $\vec{p'}=0$, we have observed an increasingly larger fluctuation of the ratio as pion mass is reduced, and this trend worsens for larger momenta. With an interesting choice of momenta, $\vec{p'}\ne \vec{p}$ but $|\vec{p'}|=|\vec{p}|$, the ratio (\[eq:ratio\]) simplifies to $$\label{eq:ratio3ptOnly}
R'(\tau)=\frac{C^{3pt}(\vec{p'},t_f;\vec{p},0;\tau)}{C^{3pt}(\vec{p'},t_f;\vec{p'},0;\tau)}.$$ Since the two-point functions as well as the ratio of energies drop out, leaving just the ratio of three-point functions, we expect this choice to yield better signals than those choices for which all factors are present. Furthermore, one can choose 6 permutations in momentum directions while keeping $|\vec{p'}|=|\vec{p}|$, gaining more statistics.
Partially twisted boundary condition
------------------------------------
The minimum non-zero quark momentum $2\pi/La$ for the periodic boundary condition on a $32^3\times 64$ lattice with a 2 GeV inverse lattice spacing is about 0.4 GeV. To probe the region of smaller momentum transfer as well as to improve the resolution of four-momentum transfer, we apply the method of partially twisted boundary condition [@boyle2007; @sachrajda2005; @bedaque2005; @jian] in which valence quark fields are subjected to twisted boundary condition while periodic boundary condition is kept for sea quark fields. If one imposes the boundary condition given by $$\label{eq:fund45}
\psi(x+Le_j)=e^{2\pi i\theta_j}\psi (x), \qquad j=1,2,3,$$ on a valence quark field, the spatial momentum of that quark is quantized according to $$\label{eq:fund46}
p_j = \frac{2\pi n_j}{L} + \frac{2\pi \theta_j}{L}, \qquad j=1,2,3,$$ where $L$ denotes the spatial lattice size, $e_j$ the unit vector in the spatial $j$-th direction and $\theta_j$ real parameter. In this way one can explore arbitrarily small momentum on the lattice by adjusting the value of twist $\theta_j$.
For the meson two-point function consisting of quark and anti-quark propagators, we apply the twist only to quark and not to antiquark or vice versa. Similarly, for the three-point function, we twist only one or two out of the three quark propagators. In other words, we pretend that each valence quark line in the two- and three-point function quark diagrams carry a different flavor and select the appropriate flavor to apply twisting. In this way we can avoid a twist of a quark line cancelled by the opposite twist of the antiquark line carrying the same flavor [@boyle2007]. This procedure and the twisting of only valence quarks mean that we deal with partially quenched QCD with a different flavor symmetry content in the valence and sea quark sectors. As was discussed in detail in [@sachrajda2005; @bedaque2005] using chiral perturbation theory, the associated effects are expected to appear as finite-size effects exponentially small in spatial volume for channels which do not have final-state interactions such as three-point functions for form factor calculations. Since terms of such magnitude are also present in unitary theory with periodic valence and sea quarks, we ignore this issue in the present work.
The twisted boundary condition can be imposed on a periodic quark field configuration by the following transformation $$\label{eq:fund47}
\psi(x) \longrightarrow U(\theta,x) \psi(x) = e^{2\pi i \sum^{3}_{j=1}{\theta_j x_j/L}} \psi(x).$$ In practice we transfer the twist from the quark sector to the gluon sector by an ${\rm U(1)}$ transformation on the spatial gluon link fields given by $$\label{eq:fund48}
U_i(x) \rightarrow U^\theta_i(x)=e^{2\pi i \theta_i/L}U_i(x), \qquad i=1,2,3.$$ Thus valence quark propagators are solved with the periodic boundary condition but on the PACS-CS gauge configurations twisted by the U(1) transformation above.
In order to check that the term $\frac{2\pi \theta_j}{L}$ acts as true physical momentum, we carried out a test of the energy-momentum dispersion relation of the pion on some PACS-CS configurations. Of the two valence quarks inside the pion, we twisted one quark with a twist angle $\vec{\theta}=(\theta, \theta, \theta)$ and left the other untwisted. In Fig. \[fig:checkTBC13700\](a) we plot the effective energy for the ground state, two values of the twist angle and their combination with the first integer momenta at the hopping parameters $\kappa_{s}=0.1364$, $\kappa_{ud}=0.13700$ where $M_\pi \approx 702$ MeV. The propagator is fitted over $t=7-27$ to extract the energy $E(\vec p)$. Errors are estimated by the jackknife method with the bin size of 100 trajectories. The results are plotted in Fig. \[fig:checkTBC13700\](b), together with the expected behavior, $$\label{eq:DispersionRel}
E\left(\vec p \right)^2 = \left( aM_\pi \right)^2 + \left( \frac{2\pi}{L}\vec n + \frac{2\pi}{L}\vec\theta \right)^2,$$ which demonstrates clearly that the term $\frac{2\pi \theta_j}{L}$ acts as true physical momentum. The two data points on the right represent combinations of an integer momentum $(1,0,0)$ and a twist. The energy-momentum relation is correctly reproduced in this case as well.
Random wall source
------------------
At light quark masses the computing cost for inversion of Dirac operator becomes very expensive. Thus we have employed some improvements for obtaining the form factor with acceptable statistical errors at reasonable computing time. The first improvement is to utilize the random wall source. This method has a long history and has been applied to two-point functions in a variety of contexts. More recently, applications to three-point functions have shown their effectiveness for form factor calculations [@ETMC; @RBC]. We consider the use of $Z(2) \otimes Z(2)$ random noisy source as introduced in [@Z2_3].
Consider a set of random sources whose real and imaginary components are randomly chosen from $Z(2)$ for each site, color and spin, $$\label{eq:Impr2}
\{\eta^{(n)}(x)_{a\alpha} \in Z(2) \otimes Z(2) | n = 1...N\}.$$ This set has the property that in the limit $N \rightarrow \infty$ $$\label{eq:Impr3}
\langle\eta_{a\alpha}^{(n)}(x) \eta_{b\beta}^{\dagger(n)}(y)\rangle_n =
\frac{1}{N}\sum_{n=1}^N \eta_{a\alpha}^{(n)}(x) \eta_{b\beta}^{\dagger(n)}(y) \rightarrow \delta_{xy}\delta_{ab}\delta_{\alpha\beta}.$$ To use this kind of source in calculating correlators, one can choose it to be a set of random wall source located at $t_0$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Impr4}
\eta_{a\alpha}^{(n)}(\vec{x},t|t_0) \in Z(2) \otimes Z(2) &|& t = t_0 \nonumber\\
= 0 &|& t \neq t_0,\end{aligned}$$ $$\label{eq:Impr5}
\langle\eta_{a\alpha}^{(n)}(\vec{x},t|t_0) \eta_{b\beta}^{\dagger(n)}(\vec{y},t|t_0)\rangle_n = \delta_{xy}\delta_{ab}\delta_{\alpha\beta},
\qquad N \rightarrow \infty.$$ Making use of (\[eq:Impr5\]) to rewrite the pion two-point function at zero momentum as, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Impr6}
\nonumber
C(\tau;\vec{0}) &=& \sum_{\vec{x},\vec{y}} tr \left( D^{-1}(\vec{y},t; \vec{x},t_0) D^{-1\dagger}(\vec{y},t; \vec{x},t_0) \right) \\\nonumber
&=& \sum_{\vec{x},\vec{y},\vec{z}}
\Big( D^{-1}_{a\alpha,b\beta}(\vec{y},t; \vec{x},t_0) \left[ \delta_{xz}\delta_{bc}\delta_{\beta\kappa} \right]
D^{-1\dagger}_{c\kappa,a\alpha}(\vec{y},t; \vec{z},t_0) \Big)\\
&=& \sum_{\vec{y}} \left< \psi^{(n)}(\vec{y},t|t_0) \psi^{\dagger(n)}(\vec{y},t|t_0) \right>_n,\end{aligned}$$ where $\psi^{(n)}$ is the solution vector of the Dirac equation, $$\label{eq:Impr7}
\psi^{(n)}(\vec{y},t|t_0) = \sum_{\vec{x}} D^{-1}(\vec{y},t; \vec{x},t_0) \eta^{(n)}(\vec{x},t|t_0).$$
\
With a random $Z(2) \otimes Z(2)$ wall source the solution for quark propagator needs only single inversion instead of $3\times 4=12$ corresponding to color and Dirac components required for a point source or smeared source. When the number of configurations in the ensemble is large enough, even if one uses a single random source for each configuration, (\[eq:Impr5\]) is expected to hold in the ensemble average. One may expect to obtain meson correlators of a similar statistical quality as with the traditional point source with only 1/12 of computing time.
In Fig. \[fig:C2ptPointVSZ2\], we compare the effective pion mass plot calculated on a set of 10 configurations at $\kappa_s=0.1364,\kappa_{ud}=0.13700$ ($M_\pi \approx 702~$MeV) from the PACS-CS ensemble using (a) point source, (b) single random $Z(2) \otimes Z(2)$ wall source, and (c) smeared source. We observe that the signal with the random $Z(2) \otimes Z(2)$ wall source is somewhat better than that for point source, while the signal for smeared source is better than that with the random $Z(2) \otimes Z(2)$ wall source. Using 4 random wall sources for each configuration, we observed that the quality of signal becomes comparable to that for smeared source. Since the computing time is still $4/12=1/3$ for the random wall source, we employ the method of random wall source with 4 sets of random wall sources in our measurements. In addition we repeat measurements with the source located at $t=0,16,32,48$ since the time extent of our lattice is 64.
Measurements
============
We apply our calculational setup to a subset of the PACS-CS gauge configurations [@pacscs] corresponding to the degenerate up-down hopping parameter in the set $\kappa_{ud} = \{0.13700$, $0.13727$, $0.13754$, $0.13770\}$. The hopping parameter of strange quark is fixed at $\kappa_s = 0.1364$.
The first set of measurements, which we call data set I, is made with an exponentially smeared source and local sink, setting the final pion at zero momentum $\vec{p'}=\vec{0}$ and varying that of the initial pion $\vec{p}$ in the three-point function. The fixed sink time $t_f$ in the ratio (\[eq:ratio\]) needs to be chosen large enough to eliminate excited states contributions. However, statistical fluctuations increase as $t_f$ increases, and examining measurement results, we choose $t_f=24$ to balance the two opposite features. The twist technique is applied to the quark running from the source to the current. Two values are chosen for the twist angle $\vec{\theta}=\left(\theta, \theta, \theta\right)$ such that the smallest four-momentum transfer of the current takes the value $Q^2({\rm GeV^2})=0.01841$ or $0.04237$. Adding integer momenta, we then collect data for $Q^2$ in the range $0.01841 {\rm ~GeV}^2 \leq Q^2 \leq 0.7302{\rm ~GeV}^2$. The statistics of data set I is given in Table \[table:stat\_dataset1\] together with pion and kaon mass. Results of data set I have been previously reported in [@OanhNguyen].
In order to extract the form factor, we fit the plateau of the ratio $R(\tau)$ by a constant. The fitting range should be chosen around the symmetry point between the source and the sink, with additional considerations on the time interval required for the pion state to become dominant. Since we employ an exponential smeared source and a point sink, we shift the fitting range one time unit closer to the source than the symmetric point $t_f/2=12$.
In Fig. \[fig:Plateau\_PFF\](a) we plot the ratio $R(\tau)$ at various momentum transfer for the pion mass $M_\pi \approx 702$ MeV. At this pion mass we have good signals for all 7 values of the four-momentum transfer. There is a good plateau from $\tau=8$ to 15 for every momentum transfer. Thus at this pion mass we can choose the fitting range from $\tau=8$ to 15 to extract the form factor. However, as the pion mass decreases, the plateau signal becomes worse as exhibited in Fig. \[fig:Plateau\_PFF\_296\](a) for the lightest case of $M_\pi\approx 296$ MeV where the ratio $R(\tau)$ at the two smallest momentum transfers, $Q^2({\rm GeV^2})=0.01841$ and $0.04237$, is shown. We then choose larger values for the starting point of the fitting range for better suppression of excited states at lighter pion masses. The error is estimated by the jackknife method using 10 configurations corresponding to 50 hybrid molecular dynamics time units as the bin size after checking saturation of the magnitude of error as function of bin size. Fit results for the pion form factor are listed in Table \[table:PFF\_dataset1\].
$\kappa_{ud}$ $\kappa_{s}$ $M_\pi$ (MeV) $M_K$ (MeV) \#conf measured $\theta$
--------------- -------------- --------------- ------------- ----------------- ------------------
0.13700 0.1364 702 792 40 0.18423, 0.28112
0.13727 0.1364 570 716 40 0.18467, 0.28265
0.13754 0.1364 411 637 40 0.18585, 0.28672
0.13770 0.1364 296 596 160 0.18814, 0.29450
: Statistics of data set I.[]{data-label="table:stat_dataset1"}
[c c c c c c c c c c]{}\
$Q^2$(GeV$^2$) & 0.01842 & 0.04237 & 0.1163 & 0.1258 & 0.1682 & 0.3651 & 0.7302\
$G_\pi(Q^2)$ & .9825(24) & .9609(43) & .8834(120) & .8780(134) & .8511(188) & .7313(186) & .5875(200)\
\
\
$Q^2$(GeV$^2$) & 0.01842 & 0.04237 & 0.1132 & 0.1223 & 0.1623 & 0.3651 & 0.7302\
$G_\pi(Q^2)$ & .9836(37) & .9604(61) & .8816(154) & .8746(160) & .8400(184) & .6934(212) & .5191(189)\
\
\
$Q^2$(GeV$^2$) & 0.01841 & 0.04237 & 0.1062 & 0.1143 & 0.1495 & 0.3651 & 0.7302\
$G_\pi(Q^2)$ & .9730(54) & .9428(66) & .9036(315) & .8920(319) & .8805(476) & .5999(535) & .4706(574)\
\
\
$Q^2$(GeV$^2$) & 0.01842 & 0.04237 & 0.09612 & 0.1030 & 0.1324 & 0.3651 & 0.7302\
$G_\pi(Q^2)$ & .9728(44) & .9372(72) & .8624(310) & .8456(343) & .7929(452) & .9758(3376) & .6115(1943)\
We observe in Table \[table:PFF\_dataset1\] for data set I that the error for the form factor becomes large toward small pion mass and large momentum transfer. In order to improve the quality of data, we repeat the measurements (i) choosing the incoming and outgoing pions to have momenta with the same magnitude $|\vec{p'}|=|\vec{p}|$, and (ii) applying 4 random $Z(2) \otimes Z(2)$ wall sources located at $t=0,16,32,48$ for the lattice time extent of 64. The twist technique is applied to two quarks running from the source to the current and from the current to the sink. Five values are employed for the twist angle of form $\vec{\theta}=\left(\theta, 0, 0\right)$ and its permutations such that four-momentum transfer of the current takes the value $Q^2({\rm GeV}^2)=0.02, 0.04, 0.06, 0.08, 0.10$. Those values of $\theta$ are independent of $M_\pi$ as is easily checked for the momentum configuration chosen here. The fixed sink time $t_f$ is chosen to be 28, larger than that of data set I, for better suppression of excited states and also from examination of the dependence of the ratio on $t_f$. The fitting range is chosen symmetric around $t=14$ since the source is local after averaging over the $Z(2) \otimes Z(2)$ random numbers. We call this set of data as data set II. Statistics and results of data set II are tabulated in Table \[table:stat\_dataset2\] and Table \[table:PFF\_DataSet2\]. Results for $R'(\tau)$ for $M_\pi \approx 702$ MeV are plotted in Fig. \[fig:Plateau\_PFF\](b). One can see that the form factors of the data set II have much smaller error bars compared to those of data set I. We also plot results for the case of pion mass $M_\pi \approx 296 \rm MeV$ in Fig. \[fig:Plateau\_PFF\_296\](b).
$\kappa_{ud}$ $\kappa_{s}$ $M_\pi$ (MeV) $M_K$ (MeV) \#conf measured $Q^2($ GeV $^2)$
--------------- -------------- --------------- ------------- ----------------- ----------------------------- --
0.13700 0.1364 702 792 40 0.02, 0.04, 0.06, 0.08, 1.0
0.13727 0.1364 570 716 40 0.02, 0.04, 0.06, 0.08, 1.0
0.13754 0.1364 411 637 40 0.02, 0.04, 0.06, 0.08, 1.0
0.13770 0.1364 296 596 160 0.02, 0.04, 0.06, 0.08, 1.0
: Statistics of data set II.[]{data-label="table:stat_dataset2"}
-------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------
$M_\pi$(MeV) bin size 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10
702 50$\tau$ 0.9818(5) 0.9645(9) 0.9473(17) 0.9308(17) 0.9155(22)
570 50$\tau$ 0.9796(6) 0.9562(17) 0.9385(23) 0.9217(27) 0.9030(31)
411 50$\tau$ 0.9727(11) 0.9506(23) 0.9229(34) 0.9083(52) 0.8927(75)
296 50$\tau$ 0.9733(16) 0.9462(45) 0.9221(50) 0.8911(70) 0.8959(96)
-------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------
: Pion form factor obtained with data set II[]{data-label="table:PFF_DataSet2"}
Pion electromagnetic form factor and charge radius
==================================================
Monopole analysis of the $Q^2$ dependence of the form factor
------------------------------------------------------------
\
Figure \[fig:PQ2Mono\] shows the momentum transfer dependence of our data for the pion form factor at all simulated pion masses. The data set I and II are consistent with each other within the estimated errors. The experimental pion form factor is phenomenologically reasonably described by a monopole form suggested by the vector meson dominance model, $$G_\pi(Q^2) = \frac{1}{1+{Q^2/M^2_{mono}}}.
\label{eq:Mono}$$ Our data are accordant with the ansatz; solid lines in Fig. \[fig:PQ2Mono\] are fits to the monopole form (\[eq:Mono\]). For monopole analysis, we utilize the form factor data in the range up to $Q^2 = 0.08~\rm GeV^2$ at $M_\pi = 296~\rm MeV$ and up to 0.10 $\rm GeV^2$ at 411 MeV, since at larger four-momentum transfers plateau signals are not clear. The fitted values of the monopole mass $M^2_{mono}$ can be used to estimate the pion electromagnetic charge radius [*via*]{} $\left<r^2\right>=6/M^2_{mono}$. Results are tabulated in Table \[table:BothDataSet\_r2\] and plotted in Fig. \[r2\_Mpi\]. The charge radius exhibits an increase as pion mass decreases.
---------------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------- -- --
$\kappa_{ud}$ 0.13700 0.13727 0.13754 0.13770
$\left<r^2\right>$(fm$^2$) 0.2174(27) 0.2538(38) 0.3129(84) 0.3352(160)
$\chi^2/d.o.f$ 0.51(12) 1.01(12) 1.12(19) 0.44(11)
---------------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------- -- --
: Pion squared charge radius calculated from the monopole fit of data set I and II. Errors are estimated by Jackknife method with bin size of 50 $\tau$.[]{data-label="table:BothDataSet_r2"}
ChPT analysis to NLO
--------------------
For small values of momentum transfer and pseudo-scalar meson masses, we expect ChPT to provide a description of the pion form factor as a function of those variables. Here we analyze our data in terms of ChPT to NLO. The analytical expression for the form factor has been worked out long time ago both for ${\rm SU(2)_L \times SU(2)_R}$ [@gasserleutwyler] and ${\rm SU(3)_L \times SU(3)_R}$ [@gasserleutwyler_2] cases, which is given by $$G_\pi^{SU(2),NLO}(Q^2) = 1 + \frac{2Q^2}{f^2}l^r_6 + \frac{2M_\pi^2}{f^2} \left[ - \frac{sL}{6} + \frac{H(s)}{N} \right],
\label{PFF_SU2_NLO}$$ and $$G_\pi^{SU(3),NLO}(Q^2) = 1 - \frac{4Q^2}{f^2_0}L^r_9 + \frac{2M_\pi^2}{f_0^2} \left[ - \frac{sL}{6} + \frac{H(s)}{N} \right]
+ \frac{M_K^2}{f_0^2} \left[ - \frac{s_KL_K}{6} + \frac{H(s_K)}{N} \right],
\label{PFF_SU3_NLO}$$ where $$H(x) = -\frac{4}{3} + \frac{5}{18}x - \frac{x-4}{6} \sqrt{\frac{x-4}{x}}{\rm log} \left( \frac{\sqrt{\frac{x-4}{x}}+1}{\sqrt{\frac{x-4}{x}}-1}\right),$$ and $f$ and $f_0$ are the decay constant in the SU(2) and SU(3) chiral limit, respectively. In the above equations, we made use of the following definitions: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:constants}
N &=& (4\pi)^2,\\\nonumber
s &=& \frac{-Q^2}{M_\pi^2}, s_K = \frac{-Q^2}{M_K^2},\nonumber\\
L &=& \frac{1}{N}{\rm log}(\frac{M^2_\pi}{\mu^2}),L_K = \frac{1}{N}{\rm log}(\frac{M^2_K}{\mu^2}).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Besides the decay constant at the chiral limit, the SU(2) formula (\[PFF\_SU2\_NLO\]) involves $l^r_6$ as the only unknown LEC, and the same situation holds for the SU(3) case, (\[PFF\_SU3\_NLO\]), with $L^r_9$ as the unknown LEC. Calculating the slope at the origin of the momentum transfer yields the expressions for the charge radius: $$\left< r^2\right>_{SU(2),NLO} = -\frac{2}{f^2} \left( 6l^r_6 + \frac{1}{N} + L \right),
\label{r2_SU2_NLO}$$ $$\left< r^2\right>_{SU(3),NLO} = -\frac{2}{f_0^2} \left( -12L^r_9 + \frac{3}{2N} + L + \frac{L_K}{2}\right).
\label{r2_SU3_NLO}$$
------------------- ------------------ ---------------- ------------------------------------- ------------------ ---------------- ------------------------------------- -- --
$M_\pi (\rm MeV)$
$l^r_6(\mu=1/a)$ $\chi^2/d.o.f$ $\left< r^2 \right>_{phys}$(fm$^2$) $L^r_9(\mu=1/a)$ $\chi^2/d.o.f$ $\left< r^2 \right>_{phys}$(fm$^2$)
296 -0.00737(45) 0.29(10) 0.366(14) 0.00256(19) 0.29(10) 0.380(14)
411 -0.00728(26) 2.34(26) 0.363(8) 0.00260(11) 2.31(26) 0.383(8)
------------------- ------------------ ---------------- ------------------------------------- ------------------ ---------------- ------------------------------------- -- --
: NLO ChPT fit of $G_\pi(Q^2)$ at fixed pion mass $M_\pi$. LEC’s are calculated at $\mu=1/a=2.176$ GeV. The decay constants in the chiral limit are taken from the work of PACS-CS collaboration [@pacscs]: $f=124.8(5.1) {\rm \ MeV}, f_0=116.0(8.8) {\rm \ MeV}$. Those values are determined with pion masses up to 411 MeV. Physical value of the squared charge radius, $\left<r^2\right>_{phys}$, is calculated at the physical pion mass for the SU(2) case and at the physical pion and kaon masses for the SU(3) case.[]{data-label="table:PFF_ChPT_NLO-f"}
\
In Table \[table:PFF\_ChPT\_NLO-f\] we present results of NLO fits of the form factor for both SU(2) and SU(3) ChPT. Fits are made fixing the pion mass at each of the two lightest values, $M_\pi=411$ and $296$ MeV, available in our data set. Let us first look at the SU(3) results. In this case the measured kaon and pion masses are used in the fit, while the physical masses are substituted for computing the charge radius at the physical point from the fit results. The charge radius extrapolated to the physical point, while consistent within the error for the two pion mass values, falls short of the experiment by about 15%. The SU(2) results in Table \[table:PFF\_ChPT\_NLO-f\] are similar. The value for the charge radius predicted at the physical pion mass is about 20% smaller than experiment. We find similar values in the previous studies [@brommel; @ETMC; @JLQCD; @RBC] carried out over a similar range of pion mass.
In Fig. \[fig:R2\_ChPT\_NLO-f\] we plot the fit curves of the pion form factor together with curves from the monopole ansatz for the case of $M_\pi=296$ MeV for (a) SU(2) and (b) SU(3) ChPT to NLO. The pion mass dependence of the squared charge radius $\left< r^2\right> (\rm fm^2)$ which results from the fits are given in the panels (c) and (d) for the SU(2) and SU(3) cases, respectively. Filled circles are the estimates from the monopole ansatz, and the asterisk on the left is the experimental value. As indicated in the panels (c) and (d), the NLO ChPT predictions for $\left< r^2\right>$ at 296 MeV are smaller than that obtained from the monopole ansatz. These differences are also visible in the panels (a) and (b) as indicated in the magnified region of small four-momentum transfers.
The NLO ChPT fit at $M_\pi=296$ MeV has a smaller $\chi^2/d.o.f$ compared to that of monopole fit tabulated in Table \[table:BothDataSet\_r2\]. This is not the case at the pion mass of 411 MeV, however, where $\chi^2/d.o.f$ of the NLO ChPT fit is significantly larger than that of the monopole fit. As we shall discuss below in Fig. \[fig:R2\_ChPT\_NLO\_411\_Qsq010\](a) for the SU(2) case, this is due to an upward curvature of the form factor data as $Q^2$ increases to 0.08 and 0.10 GeV$^2$. Higher order terms in $Q^2$ need to be included in order to explain the behavior of our data for the form factor at 411 MeV.
------------------- ------------------ ---------------- ------------------------------------- ------------------ ---------------- ------------------------------------- --
$M_\pi (\rm MeV)$
$l^r_6(\mu=1/a)$ $\chi^2/d.o.f$ $\left< r^2 \right>_{phys}$(fm$^2$) $L^r_9(\mu=1/a)$ $\chi^2/d.o.f$ $\left< r^2 \right>_{phys}$(fm$^2$)
296 -0.01238(66) 0.29(10) 0.457(18) 0.00577(33) 0.29(10) 0.462(18)
411 -0.01408(45) 2.38(27) 0.502(12) 0.00666(22) 2.37(27) 0.509(12)
------------------- ------------------ ---------------- ------------------------------------- ------------------ ---------------- ------------------------------------- --
: NLO ChPT fit of $G_\pi(Q^2)$ utilizing $M_\pi^2/f_\pi^2$ as the expansion parameter at fixed pion mass $M_\pi$. Values of the decay constant at the simulation points are $f_\pi = 151.7(2.7)\rm MeV$ and 162.8(2.6) MeV at $M_\pi = 296 \rm MeV$ and 411 MeV, respectively. The physical decay constant, $f^{phys}_\pi = 132.7(5.5)\rm MeV$, is obtained from analysis of data with pion masses up to 411 MeV. Physical value of the squared charge radius, $\left<r^2\right>_{phys}$, is calculated at the physical pion mass for the SU(2) case and and at the physical pion and kaon masses for the SU(3) case.[]{data-label="table:PFF_ChPT_NLO-fpi"}
\
We now investigate the choice of the decay constant to be used in the NLO ChPT fit. With an uncertainty of order $O(p^6)$, the decay constant in (\[PFF\_SU2\_NLO\]) and (\[PFF\_SU3\_NLO\]) can be chosen to be $f_\pi$ measured at each pion mass. Table \[table:PFF\_ChPT\_NLO-fpi\] shows results for NLO fits using $M_\pi^2/f_\pi^2$ as the expansion parameter. We observe a large difference in the results depending on whether one uses $f$ or $f_\pi$ for the SU(2) case and $f_0$ or $f_\pi$ for the SU(3) case. The fit results for $l^r_6$ and $L^r_9$ if one uses $f_\pi$ are larger than those of the fit using $f$ and $f_0$ by 40 to 60%, which raises the values of $\left< r^2 \right>_{phys}$ at the physical point by 20 to 30%. Predictions for the charge radius from these fits overestimate the experimental value while those employing $f$ underestimate it. This uncertainty clearly indicates the importance of $p^6$ terms in the ChPT interpretation of our form factor data at the considered range of pion mass.
Comparison of results using $f$ and $f_\pi$ for the SU(2) case at 411 MeV are made in Fig. \[fig:R2\_ChPT\_NLO\_411\_Qsq010\]. The left panels (a) and (c) are results obtained with $f$ while those using $f_\pi$ are shown in the right panels (b) and (d). In both cases, NLO ChPT fits do not explain the upward curvature of the form factor data at $Q^2=0.08$ and 0.10 GeV$^2$.
We should note that the SU(2) ChPT analysis requires tuning of the strange quark mass $m_s$ to the physical value, or alternatively, the dependence of the SU(2) LEC’s on $m_s$ around its physical value has to be determined from data. For the Wilson-clover quark action, there is an additional subtlety that the strange quark mass, as defined [*via*]{} the PCAC relation, varies with changing up-down quark hopping parameter even if the strange quark hopping parameter is kept fixed. Our data taken for only one value of the strange quark hopping parameter, however, is not detailed enough to fully resolve the $m_s$ dependence. We leave such a precise determination of the $m_s$ dependence for future work.
ChPT analysis to NNLO
---------------------
The ChPT analysis to NLO presented in the previous subsection indicates that the NLO is not sufficient for the pion mass as large as $M_\pi\approx 300-400$ MeV. Attempts have been made to carry out fits to NNLO of ChPT [@ETMC; @JLQCD], and we try this procedure here for the SU(2) case.
The NNLO formula for the vector form factor is given by [@ChPT_NNLO] $$\begin{aligned}
G_\pi^{SU(2),NNLO}(Q^2) = 1 &+& 2x_2\left[ \frac{1}{6}(s-4)\bar{J}(s)+s\left( -l^r_6 -\frac{L}{6} - \frac{1}{18N} \right) \right] \nonumber\\
&+& 4x_2^2\left( P_V^{(2)}+U_V^{(2)} \right) + O(x_2^3),
\label{eq:Gpi_SU2_NNLO}\end{aligned}$$ where $$x_2=\frac{M_\pi^2}{f_\pi^2},
\label{eq:parameter}$$ with $f_\pi$ the decay constant at the pion mass $M_\pi$, which is related to the decay constant $f$ in the SU(2) chiral limit through $$f_\pi=f\left[1 + 2\frac{M_\pi^2}{f^2}\left(l^r_4-L\right)\right],
\label{eq:decayconstant}$$ at NLO of SU(2) ChPT. The two functions $P^{(2)}_V$ and $U^{(2)}_V$ are given by $$\begin{aligned}
P^{(2)}_V&=&s\Big[ -\frac{1}{2}k_1+\frac{1}{4}k_2 - \frac{1}{12}k_4 + \frac{1}{2}k_6 - l^r_4 \left( 2l^r_6 + \frac{1}{9N} \right)
+\frac{23}{36}\frac{L}{N} + \frac{5}{576N} + \frac{37}{864N^2} + r^r_{V1}\Big]\nonumber\\
&&+ s^2\Big[\frac{1}{12}k_1 - \frac{1}{24}k_2 + \frac{1}{24}k_6
+\frac{1}{9N} \left( l^r_1-\frac{1}{2}l^r_2 + \frac{1}{2}l^r_6 - \frac{1}{12}L - \frac{1}{384} - \frac{47}{192N}\right) + r^r_{V2}\Big]\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
U^{(2)}_V&=&\bar{J} \Big[
\frac{1}{3}l^r_1(-s^2+4s) + \frac{1}{6}l^r_2(s^2-4s) + \frac{1}{3}l^r_4(s-4) + \frac{1}{6}l^r_6(-s^2+4s)\\\nonumber
&&-\frac{1}{36}L(s^2+8s-48)+\frac{1}{N}\left( \frac{7}{108}s^2 - \frac{97}{108}s + \frac{3}{4} \right)\Big]\\\nonumber
&&+\frac{1}{9}K_1(s) + \frac{1}{9}K_2(s)\left( \frac{1}{8}s^2-s+4 \right) + \frac{1}{6}K_3(s) \left( s-\frac{1}{3} \right) -\frac{5}{3}K_4(s)
,\end{aligned}$$ and the integral functions $\bar{J},K_1,K_2,K_3,K_4$ are defined by $$\left[
\begin{array}{c}
\bar{J} \\
K_1\\
K_2\\
K_3\\
\end{array}
\right]
=\left[
\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & 0 & z & -4N \\
0 & z & 0 & 0 \\
0 & z^2 & 0 & 8 \\
Nzs^{-1} & 0 & \pi^2(Ns)^{-1} & \pi^2 \\
\end{array}
\right]
\left[
\begin{array}{c}
h^3 \\
h^2 \\
h \\
-(2N^2)^{-1} \\
\end{array}
\right],$$ and $$K_4=\frac{1}{sz}\left( \frac{1}{2}K_1 + \frac{1}{3}K_3 + \frac{1}{N}\bar{J} + \frac{(\pi^2-6)s}{12N^2} \right)
,$$ where $$h(s)=\frac{1}{N\sqrt{z}} ln\frac{\sqrt{z}-1}{\sqrt{z}+1}, \qquad z = 1-\frac{4}{s}.$$ As well as notations in (\[eq:constants\]), we also use $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:constants2}
k_i &=& [4l^r_i-\gamma_iL] L,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:gamma_consts}
\gamma_1=1/3, \gamma_2=2/3, \gamma_4=2, \gamma_6=-1/3.\end{aligned}$$ From (\[eq:Gpi\_SU2\_NNLO\]) the NNLO ChPT expression for the squared charge radius reads, $$\begin{aligned}
\left< r^2 \right>_{SU(2),NNLO} &=& -\frac{2}{f_\pi^2}\left( 6l^r_6 + L + \frac{1}{N} \right)\\\nonumber
&+& \frac{4M_\pi^2}{f_\pi^4} \left[ -3k_1 + \frac{3}{2}k_2 - \frac{k_4}{2} + 3k_6 -12l^r_4l^r_6
+ \frac{1}{N} \left( -2l^r_4 + \frac{31}{6}L + \frac{13}{192} - \frac{181}{48N} \right) + 6r^r_{V1}
\right].\end{aligned}$$
exp. parameter $M_\pi(\rm MeV)$ $l^r_6(\mu=1/a)$ $10^4 r^r_{V1}$ $10^4 r^r_{V2}$ $\chi^2/d.o.f$ $\left< r^2 \right>_{phys}$
------------------- ------------------ ------------------ ----------------- ----------------- ---------------- ----------------------------- -- --
$M_\pi^2/f^2$ 296, 411 -0.0098(11) 1.67(51) 1.04(60) 0.63(9) 0.420(31)
$M_\pi^2/f_\pi^2$ 296, 411 -0.0103(18) 3.4(1.8) 3.3(1.6) 0.72(10) 0.441(44)
: NNLO ChPT SU(2) fit of $G_\pi(Q^2)$ using data at 2 lightest pion masses. The result in the first row is obtained by using $f=124.8(5.1)$ MeV in the SU(2) chiral limit [@pacscs], while that in the second row by substituting the measured values of $f_\pi$. []{data-label="table:PFF_ChPT_SU2_NNLO_2lightest"}
For checking the convergence at NNLO, we carry out fits employing both $M_\pi^2/f^2$ and $M_\pi^2/f_\pi^2$ as the expansion parameter. For the former fit we use (\[eq:decayconstant\]) to reexpand the expression for the form factor to the necessary order, and use the value of $f$ obtained in [@pacscs]. Besides the pion decay constant the ChPT formula of the form factor to NNLO depends on 5 other LECs: $l^r_1-l^r_2/2,l^r_4,l^r_6,r^r_{V1},r^r_{V2}$. It is very difficult to find a stable fit in the 5-dimension parameter space. Therefore we fix $l^r_1,l^r_2$ at the phenomenology values since they were calculated with small error bar from experimental data[@ChPT_NNLO_4]. For $l^r_4$, which is only required in the formulation with $f_\pi$, we apply the value obtained by an NLO fit of data in the range $M_\pi\leq 411$ MeV by the PACS-CS collaboration[@pacscs].
We find that stable fits are difficult to obtain unless we utilize data at more than a single pion mass in the fit procedure. The fit result obtained with data for the two pion masses $M_\pi=296$ and 411 MeV, which were used for the NLO analysis, is listed in Table \[table:PFF\_ChPT\_SU2\_NNLO\_2lightest\] and shown in Figs. \[fig:ChPT\_SU2\_NNLO\_2lightest-f\] and \[fig:ChPT\_SU2\_NNLO\_2lightest-fpi\]. Combining the data at the two pion masses is acceptable since strange quark mass does not vary much, $m_s=89.8(1.3)$ and 92.2(1.3) MeV at $M_\pi=296$ and 411 MeV, respectively [@pacscs]. We observe that the results for $l^r_6$ are consistent between the two fits within the error of 10–15% and so are the predictions for the squared charge radius at the physical point, indicating that ChPT reasonably converges at NNLO up to $M_\pi\approx 400$ MeV and $Q^2\approx 0.01$ GeV$^2$. This is also seen by plotting the NLO and NNLO contributions separately as shown in Figs. \[fig:ChPT\_SU2\_NNLO\_2lightest-f\] and \[fig:ChPT\_SU2\_NNLO\_2lightest-fpi\]. The squared charge radius predicted at the physical point is close to the experimental value and is consistent within statistics errors of 10%.
Toward the physical point – a $64^4$ lattice calculation –
===========================================================
While ChPT to NNLO yields a reasonable result for the physical pion charge radius, the estimated error of 10% is quite large. We feel that for a convincing understanding of the physical pion charge radius one needs to explore the region of pion mass closer to the physical point than the value $M_\pi\approx 300$ MeV analyzed so far.
The PACS-CS gauge configurations has one more set corresponding to $M_\pi\approx 156\rm \ MeV$. We tried to calculate the form factor on this set, and found that the pion two- and three-point correlators exhibit very large fluctuations, to the extent that taking a meaningful statistical average is difficult. This trend becomes more pronounced as the twist carried by quarks becomes larger. Since $LM_\pi\approx 2.3$ at this pion mass for $L=32$, we suspect that this phenomenon is caused by a small size of the lattice relative to the pion mass, and consequent increase of large fluctuations.
A natural remedy to this difficulty is to employ larger lattices as one moves toward the physical pion mass. PACS-CS collaboration has been pushing a simulation on the physical point on a $64^4$ lattice as a continuation of the work on a $32^3\times 64$ lattice. The hopping parameter of the run is adjusted to the best estimate of the physical point $(\kappa_{ud}, \kappa_s) = ( 0.137785, 0.13665)$. We have used a subset of those configurations to calculate the pion form factor on a $64^4$ lattice. This requires much computer time, and hence we have only 4 configurations measured so far. We used the same setup as for the data set II, namely, (i) the incoming and outgoing pions in the three-point function carry momenta of the same magnitude $|\vec{p'}|=|\vec{p}|$ but point in different directions, (ii) 4 random $Z(2) \otimes Z(2)$ wall sources located at $t=0,16,32,48$ are employed, (iii) the twist technique is applied to the two quarks running from the source to the current and from the current to the sink, and (iv) four values are chosen for the twist angle $\vec{\theta}=\left(\theta, 0, 0\right)$ and its permutations such that the four-momentum transfer of the current takes the value $Q^2({\rm GeV}^2)=0.02, 0.04, 0.06, 0.08$. The fixed sink time $t_f$ is chosen to be 28.
![Triangle symbols represent effective mass obtained from measurement of 4 configurations of a size $64^4$ with 4 source points located at $t=0,16,32,48$ and 4 random sources for each source location. Center lines exhibit PACS-CS estimation of pion mass calculated from larger statistics of 53 configurations.[]{data-label="fig:C2ptData_64latt"}](Meff.eps)
Since we use 4 random sources for each of the 4 locations of the source in time, our measurement on 4 configurations gives 64 two-point functions. The pion effective mass from our measurement together with the PACS-CS estimate of pion mass calculated from larger statistics of 53 configurations is shown in Fig. \[fig:C2ptData\_64latt\]. Although only 4 configurations have been used, one can already observe a plateau-like behavior for pion effective mass in this figure. The central value from the PACS-CS estimate corresponds to $M_\pi\approx 135$ MeV. This is somewhat smaller than the charged pion mass, and significantly smaller than $M_\pi=156$ MeV considered earlier on a $32^3\times 64$ lattice where we encountered problem of large fluctuations.
![Momentum dependence of the form factor at $M_\pi\approx 135$ MeV with measurement taken on 4 configurations of a $64^4$ lattice. Black line is a fit of two data points closest to $Q^2=0$ to the monopole ansatz (\[eq:Mono\]).[]{data-label="fig:PFF_Q2_64latt"}](GpivsQ2.eps)
In Fig. \[fig:PFF\_64latt\] we plot the ratio $R'(\tau)$ obtained from the 4 configurations. Making a constant fit over $\tau=12-16$ yields the result for the form factor displayed in Fig. \[fig:PFF\_Q2\_64latt\]. Our data seems reasonable up to $Q^2=0.06~$GeV$^2$. Estimating the slope at the origin by a monopole fit to the two points closest to $Q^2=0$, we obtain $\left< r^2 \right>=0.675(285) {\rm fm}^2$. While the error is too large to seriously discuss consistency with experiment, it is certainly encouraging that the value is larger than those obtained at $M_\pi$ of about 300 MeV, and that the physical point simulation appears possible for the pion electromagnetic form factor on a $64^4$ lattice.
Conclusion
==========
We have presented a lattice calculation of the pion electromagnetic form factor in 2+1 dynamical flavor QCD with the O(a)-improved Wilson-clover quark action and Iwasaki gauge action.
In order to obtain data with reasonable error at light quark masses close to the physical point, we have utilized some improved techniques besides traditional methods for the form factor calculation. We have shown that, choosing momenta of the incoming and outgoing pions to have the same magnitude but different directions, the ratio for extracting the pion form factor becomes statistically much better behaved. We have confirmed the validity of the twisted boundary condition and employed it to explore the form factor in the region of small four-momentum transfer. Application of the random $Z(2) \otimes Z(2)$ wall source has helped us to save computing time considerably.
![$\left< r^2 \right>(\rm fm^2)$ in comparison with previous studies. The left-most filled circle represents our NNLO SU(2) ChPT prediction at the physical pion mass.[]{data-label="fig:6464_r2"}](R2vsMpi2.eps)
Our data for the pion mean-square charge radius $\left< r^2 \right>$ agree with recent data of other groups, and show that $\left< r^2 \right>$ increases toward the physical value as $M_\pi$ decreases. Nevertheless, on a $32^3\times64$ lattice, we could extract reasonable data only down to $M_\pi \approx 296$ MeV.
ChPT analysis of the form factor utilizing NLO SU(3) or SU(2) formula lead to the squared charge radius which is smaller than experiment by 15–20%. Employing ChPT to NNLO improves the agreement. In fact our NNLO SU(2) fit using $M_\pi^2/f_\pi^2$ as the expansion parameter yields $\left<r^2\right>_{phys} = 0.441(44)(13)(\rm fm^2)$ where the first error is statistical and the second error due to the error in the lattice spacing.
We feel that a complete explanation of the behavior of the squared charge radius would require successful calculation of the form factor below $M_\pi\approx 300$ MeV. Our experience points toward the necessity of enlarging the lattice size sufficiently. A sample calculation on a $64^4$ lattice indicates that the $64^4$ lattice with $M_\pi L\approx 4$ probably satisfies the requirement. We leave further exploration of the form factor calculation on such a lattice as future work.
Numerical calculations for the present work have been carried out under the “Interdisciplinary Computational Science Program” of Center for Computational Sciences, University of Tsukuba. We thank the members of the PACS-CS Collaboration for discussions. This work is supported in part by Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (Nos. 16740147, 18104005, 20740123, 20740139 ).
[99]{}
K. Nakamura [*et al.*]{} (Particle Data Group), *Review of Particle Physics, J. Phys.* [**G37**]{}, 075021 (2010).
J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler, *Chiral perturbation theory to one loop*, *Ann. Phys.* [**158**]{}, 142 (1984)
J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler, *Chiral perturbation theory: expansions in the mass of the strange quark*, *Nucl. Phys.* [**B250**]{} (1985) 465.
G. Martinelli, Christopher T. Sachrajda,, *A Lattice Calculation of the Pion’s Form-Factor and Structure Function*, *Nucl. Phys.*, [**B306**]{}, 865 (1988)
T. Draper, R. M. Woloshyn, W. Wilcox, and K.-F. Liu, *The pion form factor in lattice QCD , Nucl. Phys.* [**B318**]{}, 319 (1989)
D. Brommel et al. (QCDSF/UKQCD Collaboration), *The Pion form-factor from lattice QCD with two dynamical flavours*, *Eur. Phys. J.*, [**C51**]{}, 335 (2007)
R. Frezzotti et al., *Electromagnetic form factor of the pion from twisted-mass lattice QCD at N(f) = 2*, *Phys. Rev. D* [**79**]{}, 074506 (2009)
S. Aoki et al. (JLQCD/TWQCD Collaboration), *Pion form factors from two-flavor lattice QCD with exact chiral symmetry*, *Phys. Rev.* [**D80**]{}, 034508 (2009)
P. A. Boyle et al., *The pion’s electromagnetic form factor at small momentum transfer in full lattice QCD*, *JHEP* [**0807**]{}, 112 (2008)
S. Aoki et al. (PACS-CS Collaboration), *2+1 Flavor Lattice QCD toward the Physical Point*, *Phys. Rev.* [**D79**]{}, 034503 (2009)
Jonathan M. Flynn et al. *Hadronic form factors in lattice QCD at small and vanishing momentum transfer, JHEP* [**05**]{}, 016 (2007)
C. T. Sachrajda and G. Villadoro, *Twisted boundary conditions in lattice simulations*, *Phys. Lett.*, [**B609**]{}, 73 (2005)
P.F. Bedaque and J.-W. Chen, *Twisted valence quarks and hadron interactions on the lattice*, *Phys. Lett.*, [**B616**]{}, 208 (2005)
F. J. Jiang and B. C. Tiburzi, *Flavor twisted boundary conditions, pion momentum, and the pion electromagnetic form factor, Phys. Lett* [**B645**]{}, 314 (2007)
K. Bitar et al, *The QCD finite temperature transition and hybrid Monte Carlo, Nucl. Phys.* [**B313**]{} 348, (1989)
H.R. Fiebig and R.M. Woloshyn, *Monopoles and chiral-symmetry breaking in three-dimensional lattice QED, Phys. Rev.* [**D42**]{} 3520, (1990).
S.-J. Dong and K.-F. Liu, *Stochastic estimation with Z(2) noise*, *Phys. Lett.* [**B328**]{} (1994) 130 \[[arXiv:hep-lat/9308015]{}\]
M. Foster and C. Michael, *Quark mass dependence of hadron masses from lattice QCD*, *Phys. Rev.* [**D59**]{} (1999) 074503
C. McNeile and C. Michael, *Decay width of light quark hybrid meson from the lattice*, [*P*hys. Rev.]{} [**D73**]{} (2006) 074506 \[[arXiv:hep-lat/0603007]{}\]
Oanh Hoang Nguyen, *Pion form factor from 2+1 dynamical flavor lattice QCD using the O(a) improved Wilson-clover quark formalism*, *PoS(LATTICE 2009)* 129 \[[arXiv:hep-lat/1003.3321]{}\]
RBC-UKQCD Collaborations, C. Allton [*et al.*]{}, *Physical results from $2+1$ flavor domain-wall QCD and SU(2) chiral perturbation theory*, *Phys. Rev. D* [**78**]{}, 114509 (2008).
J. Bijnens, G. Colangelo, and P. Talavera, *The vector and scalar form factors of the pion to two loops* *J. High Energy Phys.* [**05**]{} (1998) 014
J. Bijnens, and P. Talavera, *Pion and kaon electromagnetic form factors*, arXiv:hep-ph/0203049
G. Colangelo, J. Gasser, and H. Leutwyler, *$\pi\pi$ scattering*, *Nucl. Phys.* [**B603**]{}, 125 (2001).
|
---
abstract: 'Given an immersion $\varphi:{{{\bf P}^{1}}}\to{{{\bf P}^{2}}}$, we give new approaches to determining the splitting of the pullback of the cotangent bundle. We also give new bounds on the splitting type for immersions which factor as $\varphi:{{{\bf P}^{1}}}\cong D\subset X\to{{{\bf P}^{2}}}$, where $X\to{{{\bf P}^{2}}}$ is obtained by blowing up $r$ distinct points $p_i\in{{{\bf P}^{2}}}$. As applications in the case that the points $p_i$ are generic, we give a complete determination of the splitting types for such immersions when $r\leq 7$. The case that $D^2=-1$ is of particular interest. For $r\leq8$ generic points, it is known that there are only finitely many inequivalent $\varphi$ with $D^2=-1$, and all of them have balanced splitting. However, for $r=9$ generic points we show that there are infinitely many inequivalent $\varphi$ with $D^2=-1$ having unbalanced splitting (only two such examples were known previously). We show that these new examples are related to a semi-adjoint formula which we conjecture accounts for all occurrences of unbalanced splitting when $D^2=-1$ in the case of $r=9$ generic points $p_i$. In the last section we apply such results to the study of the resolution of fat point schemes.'
address:
- |
Dipartimento di Matematica e CIRAM\
Università di Bologna\
40126 Bologna, Italy
- |
Department of Mathematics\
University of Nebraska\
Lincoln, NE 68588-0130 USA
- |
Dipartimento di Matematica\
Università di Bologna\
40126 Bologna, Italy
author:
- Alessandro Gimigliano
- Brian Harbourne
- Monica Idà
date: 'February 3, 2011'
title: On plane rational curves and the splitting of the tangent bundle
---
[^1]
Introduction {#intro}
============
We work over an algebraically closed ground field ${K}$. We are interested in algebraic immersions $\varphi:{{{\bf P}^{1}}}\to{{{\bf P}^{n}}}$, thus $\varphi$ is a projective morphism which is generically injective and generically smooth over its image. The fact that $\varphi$ need not be everywhere injective or smooth means that the image $\varphi({{{\bf P}^{1}}})$ may have singularities. It is well-known that any vector bundle on ${{{\bf P}^{1}}}$ splits as a direct sum of line bundles [@refB; @refG]. This applies in particular to the pullback $\varphi^*T_{{{{\bf P}^{n}}}}$ of the tangent bundle. It turns out to be more convenient, yet equivalent, for us to study the splitting of the pullback $\varphi^*\Omega_{{{{\bf P}^{n}}}}(1)$ of the first twist of the cotangent bundle. Thus we will focus on $\varphi^*\Omega_{{{{\bf P}^{n}}}}(1)$; it is isomorphic to ${{\mathcal O}}_{{{{\bf P}^{1}}}}(-a_1)\oplus\cdots\oplus{{\mathcal O}}_{{{{\bf P}^{1}}}}(-a_n)$ for some integers $a_i$. By reordering if necessary we may assume $a_1\leq
a_2\leq\cdots\leq a_n$; we call $(a_1,\ldots,a_n)$ the *splitting type* of $\varphi^*\Omega_{{{{\bf P}^{n}}}}(1)$. Pulling the Euler sequence $$0\to \Omega_{{{{\bf P}^{n}}}}(1)\to {{\mathcal O}}_{{{{\bf P}^{n}}}}^{\oplus n+1}\to {{\mathcal O}}_{{{{\bf P}^{n}}}}(1)\to 0$$ back via $\varphi$, it follows that $a_1+\cdots+a_n=d_C$, where $d_C$ is the degree of $C=\varphi({{{\bf P}^{1}}})$.
The question arises as to what splitting types can occur. Most of the work on this problem is moduli-theoretic: given putative splitting types, one asks if there are any $\varphi$ with those invariants and if so, what one can say about the space of all such $\varphi$, or about the generic $\varphi$, etc. See for example [@refAs1; @refAs2; @refRm]. When $\varphi$ is an embedding, one can ask for the splitting type of the normal bundle of $\varphi({{{\bf P}^{1}}})$. This question has also attracted attention; see for example among many others. However, if $n=2$ this latter question is not of much interest, both because the normal bundle is itself a line bundle and because $C$ must at most be either a line or a conic. In contrast, there is still much that is not yet understood regarding the splitting types of $\varphi^*\Omega_{{{{\bf P}^{2}}}}(1)$.
When $n=2$, the splitting types have the form $(a_1,a_2)$ for integers $0\leq a_1\leq a_2$ such that $a_1+a_2=d_C$. We will denote $(a_1,a_2)$ by $(a_C,b_C)$ and refer to it as the splitting type of $C$, and we will refer to $\gamma_C=b_C-a_C$ as the *splitting gap*. When the gap is at most 1 (i.e., when $\gamma_C$ is as small as parity considerations allow), we will say that $C$ has *balanced* splitting or is *balanced*, and we will say that $C$ is *unbalanced* if the gap is more than 1.
The multiplicities of the singularities of $C$ heavily influence $\gamma_C$. For example, if $C$ has a point of multiplicity $m$, then results of Ascenzi [@refAs1] show that $$\label{Ascenzibnds}
\min(m,d_C-m)\leq a_C\leq\min\Big(d_C-m,\Big\lfloor \frac{d_C}{2}\Big\rfloor\Big);$$ see Lemma \[splitlem\] and Proposition \[Ascenzi\]. These bounds are tightest when we use the largest possible value for $m$; i.e., when $m$ is the multiplicity $m_C$ of a point of $C$ of maximum multiplicity. If $2m_C+1\geq d_C$, it follows from these bounds that $a_C=\min(m_C,d_C-m_C)$ and hence $b_C=\max(m_C,d_C-m_C)$ and $\gamma_C=|2m_C-d_C|$. This prompts us to make the following definition.
A rational projective plane curve $C$ is *Ascenzi* if $2m_C+1\geq d_C$.
Ascenzi curves exist. For example, it is easy to see that for each $d\geq 3$ there is a rational projective plane curve $C$ of degree $d_C=d$ with exactly one singular point, of multiplicity $m_C=d_C-1$. It follows that each such $C$ is Ascenzi, and its splitting type is $(1,d_C-1)$.
The main problem which we study here can be stated as follows:
\[compprob\] Given a subspace $V=\langle \varphi_0,\varphi_1,\varphi_2 \rangle$ of dimension 3 in $K[{{{\bf P}^{1}}}]_d$ which gives a linear series $g^2_d$ on ${{{\bf P}^{1}}}$ defining a morphism which is an isomorphism on a nonempty open subset, find the splitting type $(a_C,b_C)$ for the rational curve $C\subset {{{\bf P}^{2}}}$ given by the $g^2_d$, and, when $C$ is not Ascenzi, determine conditions on the singularities of $C$ which force the splitting to be unbalanced.
This problem is closely related to that of determining the syzygies of the homogeneous ideal $(\varphi_0, \varphi_1, \varphi_2)$, since, as is well-known (see Lemma \[b1\]), $a_C$ is the least degree of such a syzygy. These syzygies are of independent interest; see for example [@refISV], which studies the loci of $V$’s inside the Grassmaniann $G(3,K[{{{\bf P}^{1}}}]_d)$ with respect to their syzygies, and determines the dimensions of the loci.
We give two additional computational solutions to the first part of Problem \[compprob\] by showing that $b_C$ can be computed in terms of the saturation degree of the ideal $(\varphi_0, \varphi_1, \varphi_2)\subset{K}[{{{\bf P}^{1}}}]$ (see Theorem \[b2\]), and by showing how to determine $\gamma_C$ using the computationally efficient method of moving lines (see Theorem \[splittingM\]), which was originally developed to compute implicit equations of curves when given a parameterization [@refSGD; @refSSQK].
Note that for a general immersion $\gamma_C$, the singularities of $C$ are nodes (i.e., $m_C\leq 2$) whose disposition in ${{{\bf P}^{2}}}$ is almost never generic. Thus if $C$ is a general rational curve of degree $d_C>5$, then $C$ cannot be Ascenzi, and thus the splitting gap is not completely determined by . Nonetheless, Ascenzi proved that the general rational curve $C$ is balanced [@refAs1].
But what can one say if it is not $C$ which is general, but rather it is the points at which $C$ is singular which are general? Thus we propose to study $\gamma_C$ for rational curves $C$ when the points at which $C$ is singular are generic points of ${{{\bf P}^{2}}}$; i.e., given generic points $p_1,\ldots,p_r\in{{{\bf P}^{2}}}$, we require that $C$ be smooth away from the points $p_i$, and that $C'$ be smooth, where $C'$ is the proper transform of $C$ on the surface $X$ obtained as the blow up $\pi:X\to {{{\bf P}^{2}}}$ of ${{{\bf P}^{2}}}$ at the points $p_i$ (so not only is $C$ smooth away from the points $p_i$, but $C$ does not have any additional infinitely near singularities). The immersion $\varphi$ in this situation factors as ${{{\bf P}^{1}}}=C'\subset X\to{{{\bf P}^{2}}}$, so that $\varphi({{{\bf P}^{1}}})=\pi(C')=C$. In general, given a smooth rational curve $D$ on $X$, it is convenient to use $a_D$, $b_D$ and $\gamma_D$ with the obvious meanings; i.e., $a_D=a_{\pi(D)}$ etc. Similarly, we will say that $D$ is Ascenzi if $\pi(D)$ is. To simplify statements of our results, we will also say $D$ is Ascenzi if $\pi(D)$ is a point. In these terms the problem we propose to study, which is still open, is:
\[prob\] Given a blow up $\pi:X\to{{{\bf P}^{2}}}$ at $r$ generic points $p_i$, determine $\gamma_D$ for smooth rational curves $D\subset X$.
Given a curve $C\subset{{{\bf P}^{2}}}$ and distinct points $p_i$, we will denote ${\rm mult}_{p_i}(C)$ by $m_i(C)$. Note if $m_i(C)= 0$, then $p_i\not\in C$, and if $m_i(C)= 1$, then $p_i\in C$ but $C$ is smooth at $p_i$. Given the blow up $\pi:X\to{{{\bf P}^{2}}}$ at distinct points $p_1,\ldots, p_r\in{{{\bf P}^{2}}}$ and a divisor $D$ on $X$, it is well known that the divisor class $[D]$ (i.e., the divisor modulo linear equivalence) can be written uniquely as $[dL-m_1E_1-\cdots-m_rE_r]$, where $L$ is the pullback via $\pi$ to $X$ of a line, and $E_i=\pi^{-1}(p_i)$. If $D\subset X$ is a smooth rational curve with $d>0$, then $C=\pi(D)$ is also a rational curve, and we have $[D]=[d_CL-m_1(C)E_1-\cdots-m_r(C)E_r]$. We will refer to the integer vector $(d_C,m_1(C),\ldots,m_r(C))$ as the *numerical type* of $C$ (or, by extension, of $D$) with respect to the points $p_i$.
Thus for example, $(d,d-1)$ is an unbalanced Ascenzi type (i.e., the numerical type of an unbalanced Ascenzi curve) for every $d\geq 4$. Computer calculations suggest many types also arise for unbalanced non-Ascenzi curves with generically situated singular points, but up to now only two have been rigorously justified (see Example \[AEpairs\] for these two). In contrast, the following theorem is proved in §\[7pts\]:
\[7ptthm\] Let $X$ be the blow up of $r$ generic points of ${{{\bf P}^{2}}}$. Among numerical types of smooth rational curves $D\subset X$, the following holds:
- for $r\le6$, $(10,4,4,4,4,4,4)$ is the unique non-Ascenzi type and curves of this type have balanced splitting;
- for $r=7$ there are infinitely many non-Ascenzi types, and for all but finitely many of these types the curves have unbalanced splitting.
Our results in §\[7pts\] completely solve Problem \[prob\] for $r\leq7$ by classifying the numerical types for all smooth rational curves $D\subset X$ for $r\leq 7$ generic points, and by determining the splitting gaps of curves of each type.
For larger values of $r$, a natural special case of Problem \[prob\] is to consider exceptional curves; i.e., smooth rational curves $D\subset X$ with $D^2=-1$. This case arises, for example, when studying graded Betti numbers for minimal free resolutions of ideals of fat points supported at generic points $p_i$ (see [@refF1; @refF2; @refGHI1] and also §\[appls\]), but this case is of interest in its own right, since the exceptional curves represent an extremal case of Problem \[prob\]. Indeed, if ${\rm char}({K})=0$, it is known [@refD1; @refD2] for every $r$ that every smooth rational curve $D\subset X$ satisfies $D^2\geq -1$. This is only conjectural if $r>9$ when ${\rm char}({K})>0$, but it is true in all characteristics if $r\leq9$. For if $r<9$, then $-K_X$ is ample, hence $D^2 \geq -1$ follows from the adjunction formula, $D^2=2g_D-2-K_X\cdot D$, since $g_D=0$ for a smooth rational curve $D$. If $r=9$, then $-K_X$ is merely nef, so this argument gives only $D^2\geq -2$, but one can show that if $D^2=-2$, then $D$ reduces by a Cremona transformation centered in the points $p_i$ to $L-E_1-E_2-E_3$, which contradicts the fact that the points $p_i$ are generic. For an exposition of the conjectural status when $r>9$, see [@refH3].
When $r<9$ it is known that there are only finitely many numerical types of exceptional curves, and they all are Ascenzi (see §\[9pts\]). Thus the first interesting case of Problem \[prob\] for exceptional curves is $r=9$, for which we have the following result (proved, as well as Theorem \[thm2\] below, in §\[9pts\]):
\[classificationthm\] If $X$ is the blow up of $r=9$ generic points of ${{{\bf P}^{2}}}$, then:
- $X$ has only finitely many Ascenzi exceptional curves;
- up to the permutations of the multiplicities, the only numerical type of an unbalanced Ascenzi exceptional curve is $(4,3,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1)$; but
- $X$ has infinitely many unbalanced non-Ascenzi exceptional curves.
Heretofore only one non-Ascenzi exceptional curve was proved to have unbalanced splitting (this being the one of type $(8,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,1,1)$ [@refFHH Lemma 3.12(b)(ii)]; see Example \[AEpairs\]) when $r=9$. Computational experiments suggest that $X$ also has infinitely many balanced exceptional curves when $r=9$. Proving that is still an open problem, but it would follow (see Remark \[infnonAscbal\]) if Conjecture \[9ptconj\] which we state below is true.
Our proof of Theorem \[classificationthm\](c) applies the following sufficient numerical criterion for an exceptional curve with $r=9$ to have unbalanced splitting:
\[thm2\] Let $E$ be an exceptional divisor on the blow up $X$ of ${{{\bf P}^{2}}}$ at $r=9$ generic points $p_i$. If $d_E=E\cdot L$ is even and each $m_i=E\cdot E_i$ is odd, then $a_E\leq (d_E-2)/2$ and $\gamma_E\geq 2$.
The hypothesis that $d_E$ be even and each $m_i$ be odd is equivalent to the existence of a divisor class $[A]$ on $X$ such that $2[A]=[E+K_X+L]$. The proof that $a_E\leq (d_E-2)/2$ depends on showing that $A$ has nontrivial linear syzygies and relating these to syzygies of the trace of $A$ on $E$. I.e., it depends on showing that the kernel of $\mu_A:H^0({{\mathcal O}}_X(A))\otimes H^0({{\mathcal O}}_X(L))\to H^0({{\mathcal O}}_X(A+L))$ is nontrivial, and relating it to the kernel of $H^0( {{\mathcal O}}_E(A))\otimes H^0({{\mathcal O}}_X(L))\to H^0({{\mathcal O}}_E(A+L))$.
The formula $[A]=[E+K_X+L]/2$, which we can paraphrase by saying that $A$ is a semi-adjoint of $L+E$, is suggestive of some deeper structure that so far remains mysterious, but extensive computational evidence suggests that the existence of $A$ is both necessary and sufficient for $C$ to be unbalanced. In fact, up to permutation of the entries, there are 1054 numerical types of exceptional curves $E$ on the blow up $X$ of ${{{\bf P}^{2}}}$ at $r=9$ generic points such that the image of $E$ is a curve $C$ of degree at most 61 (the number 61 is an arbitrary choice but large enough to give us some confidence in testing our conjectures). For all of these 1054 the splitting gap was computed to be at most 2 (according to computations using randomly chosen points in place of generic points), with the gap being exactly 2 in precisely the 39 cases for which an $A$ occurs with $2[A]=[E+K_X+L]$. We thus make the following conjecture:
\[9ptconj\] Let $E$ be an exceptional divisor on the blow up $X$ of ${{{\bf P}^{2}}}$ at $r=9$ generic points $p_i$. Then there is a divisor class $[A]$ with $2[A]=[E+K_X+L]$ if and only if $\gamma_E>1$, in which case $\gamma_E=2$ and $a_E=(E\cdot L-2)/2$.
Proving the conjecture would give a complete solution to Problem \[prob\] for exceptional curves with $r=9$. It would also allow one to determine the number of generators in every degree but one in any minimal set of homogeneous generators for any fat point ideal with support at up to 9 generic points of ${{{\bf P}^{2}}}$; see §\[appls\].
Computational evidence suggests more is true. Conjecture \[9ptconj\] is a special case of the following more general conjecture which relates the occurrence of unbalanced splittings to the existence of a certain divisor $A$, but whereas Conjecture \[9ptconj\] specifies the divisor $A$ precisely, it is not yet clear how to find $A$ in the context of our more general conjecture. To state the conjecture, we need the following definition:
The *linear excess* of a divisor $A$, written ${\rm le}(A)$, is the dimension of the kernel of $\mu_A$.
Note that if ${\rm le}(A)=1$ then $h^0( {{\mathcal O}}_X(A))\geq2$, and in particular $|A|$ is not empty.
\[rptconj\] Let $E$ be an exceptional divisor on the blow up $X$ of ${{{\bf P}^{2}}}$ at $r$ generic points. Then $a_E = min \{a\ |\ A\cdot E = a\}$, where the minimum is taken over all divisors $A$ such that $-K_X\cdot A=2$, $h^1({{\mathcal O}}_X(A))=0$ and ${\rm le}(A)=1$. In particular, $E$ has unbalanced splitting if and only if $A\cdot E <\lfloor\frac{E\cdot L}{2}\rfloor$ for some such divisor $A$.
In Section \[compgap\] we describe explicit computational methods for determining splitting invariants. All of the computational methods, however, involve first having a parameterization $\varphi$. In case $C$ is the image in ${{{\bf P}^{2}}}$ of a smooth rational curve on a blow up $X$ of ${{{\bf P}^{2}}}$ at generic points $p_i$, we recall in §\[params\] an efficient way to obtain a parameterization by reducing $C$ to a line via quadratic transformations (see also [@refGHI1 §A.2.1]). In §\[eulerosubsect\] and §\[mul\] we study the problem from a ${{{\bf P}^{1}}}$-centered point of view. We show how the splitting type is related to the saturation index of the homogeneous ideal $(\varphi_0, \varphi_1, \varphi_2)$ and we recover Ascenzi’s result, Lemma \[splitlem\].
In Section \[sect3\] we obtain our new bounds on the splitting invariants of smooth rational curves $D$ on surfaces $X$ obtained by blowing up distinct points $p_i$ of ${{{\bf P}^{2}}}$, which we apply to Problem \[prob\] to obtain our results for the case of $r\leq 9$ generic points.
Finally, in Section \[appls\] we explain how our results can be applied to the study of the graded Betti numbers of fat point subschemes of ${{{\bf P}^{2}}}$. In particular, we describe an infinite family of fat point schemes having generic Hilbert function and “bad resolution".
Computing the splitting gap {#compgap}
===========================
Ascenzi’s bounds {#Ascenzisubsect}
----------------
The cotangent bundle $ \Omega_{{{{\bf P}^{2}}}}$ of the plane will be denoted simply by $\Omega$. If $\pi:X\to{{{\bf P}^{2}}}$ is the morphism obtained by blowing up distinct points $p_i$, then as noted above a basis for the divisor class group ${\rm Cl}(X)$ (of divisors modulo linear equivalence) is given by the classes $[E_i]$ of the exceptional divisors $E_i=\pi^{-1}(p_i)$ and the class $[L]$ of the pull back $L$ of a line in ${{{\bf P}^{2}}}$. Given a curve $C\subset{{{\bf P}^{2}}}$ of degree $d$, with singularities at $p_1,\dots,p_r$, and multiplicity $m_{p_i}(C)=m_i$ at $p_i$, the class $[C']$ of the strict transform $C'$ of $C$ is $[dL-\sum m_iE_i]$. If $C\subset {{{\bf P}^{2}}}$ is an integral curve such that $C'\subset X$ is smooth and rational, we identify ${{{\mathcal O}}}_{C'}(k)$ with ${{{\mathcal O}}}_{{{{\bf P}^{1}}}}(k)$. We recall that $C'$ is an *exceptional curve* in $X$ if it is smooth and rational with $-1=(C')^2=d^2-\sum m_i^2$, which by the adjunction formula implies $-1=K_X\cdot C'=-3d+\sum m_i$, since $[K_X]=[-3L+E_1+\cdots+E_r]$.
Given a divisor $F$ on $X$, we will use $F$ to denote its divisor class and sometimes even the sheaf ${{\mathcal O}}_X(F)$, and we will for convenience write $H^0(F)$ for $H^0({{\mathcal O}}_X(F))$.
Now assume that $C$ is the image of a smooth rational curve $C'\subset X\to{{{\bf P}^{2}}}$ whose class is $[C']=[dL-\sum_im_iE_i]$. The Euler sequence on ${{{\bf P}^{2}}}$ $$0 \to \Omega (1) \to {{{\mathcal O}}}_{{{{\bf P}^{2}}}} \otimes H^0({{{\mathcal O}}}_{{{{\bf P}^{2}}}}(1)) \to{{{\mathcal O}}}_{{{{\bf P}^{2}}}}(1) \to 0$$ is a sequence of vector bundles, hence its pullback to $X$ restricted to $C'$ is still exact and gives a short exact sequence of bundles $$\label{eqn1}
0 \to \pi^*\Omega (1)|_{C'} \to{{{\mathcal O}}}_{C'}\otimes H^0({{{\mathcal O}}}_{X}(L)) \to {{{\mathcal O}}}_{C'}(d) \to 0.$$ We have $$\pi^*\Omega(1)|_{C'}\cong{{{\mathcal O}}}_{C'}(-a_{C'})\oplus{{{\mathcal O}}}_{C'}(-b_{C'})$$ with $0\leq a_{C'}\leq b_{C'}$ and $a_{C'}+ b_{C'}=d=d_C$, where $d_C$ is the degree of $C$. We can now rewrite as $$\label{eqnstar}
0 \to {{{\mathcal O}}}_{C'}(-a_{C'})\oplus{{{\mathcal O}}}_{C'}(-b_{C'}) \to{{{\mathcal O}}}_{C'}\otimes H^0({{{\mathcal O}}}_{X}(L)) \to {{{\mathcal O}}}_{C'}(d) \to 0.$$
In analogy with the Euler sequence, for each $i$ there is a bundle ${\mathcal M_i}$ giving a short exact sequence of bundles $$0 \to {\mathcal M_i} \to {{{\mathcal O}}}_X \otimes H^0({{{\mathcal O}}}_X(L-E_i)) \to{{{\mathcal O}}}_X(L-E_i) \to 0.$$ Restricting to $C'$ gives $$0 \to {\mathcal M_i}|_{C'} \to {{{\mathcal O}}}_{C'} \otimes H^0({{{\mathcal O}}}_X(L-E_i)) \to{{{\mathcal O}}}_{C'}(L-E_i) \to 0.$$ Using the injection of bundles ${{\mathcal O}}_X(L-E_i)\to{{\mathcal O}}_X(L)$ one can show that ${\mathcal M_i}$ is a subbundle of $\pi^*\Omega (1)|_{C'}$ isomorphic to ${{\mathcal O}}_{C'}(m_i-d)$, and the sheaf quotient turns out to be isomorphic to the bundle ${{{\mathcal O}}}_{C'}(-m_i)$. Given the isomorphism $\pi^*\Omega (1)|_{C'}\cong {{{\mathcal O}}}_{C'}(-a_C)\oplus{{{\mathcal O}}}_{C'}(-b_C)$, we thus have an exact sequence $$0\to {{\mathcal O}}_{C'}(m_i-d)\to {{{\mathcal O}}}_{C'}(-a_C)\oplus{{{\mathcal O}}}_{C'}(-b_C)\to {{{\mathcal O}}}_{C'}(-m_i)\to 0$$ from which the following result of Ascenzi [@refAs1] is a direct consequence (see the proof of Theorem 3.1 of [@refF1] for details; also see [@refF2]).
\[splitlem\] Let $C$ be a rational plane curve of degree $d=d_C$ and assume that $C$ has a multiple point of multiplicity $m$; let $a=a_C$, $b=b_C$. Then we have $\min(m,d-m)\leq a\leq \min(d-m, \lfloor\frac{d}{2}\rfloor)$. Thus if $d>2m+1$, then $m\leq a\leq \lfloor\frac{d}{2}\rfloor$, while if $d\leq 2m+1$ (i.e., $C$ is Ascenzi), then the splitting type is completely determined: if $d\leq 2m$ it is $(d-m,m)$, and if $d=2m+1$ it is $(m,d-m)$.
Splitting type, syzygies and the parameterization ideal {#eulerosubsect}
-------------------------------------------------------
We denote the homogeneous coordinate ring of ${{{\bf P}^{1}}}$ by $S={K}[s,t]={K}[{{{\bf P}^{1}}}]$ and that of ${{{\bf P}^{2}}}$ by $R={K}[x_0,x_1,x_2]={K}[{{{\bf P}^{2}}}]$.
Every rational curve $C \subset {{{\bf P}^{2}}}$ can be defined parametrically by homogeneous polynomials $\varphi_0,\varphi_1,\varphi_2\in S$ with no common factor and which give a $g^2_d$ series on ${{{\bf P}^{1}}}$. They therefore define a morphism $\varphi: {{{\bf P}^{1}}} \to {{{\bf P}^{2}}}$ corresponding to the ring map
$$\label{eqn2}
\begin{array}{cccc}
\widetilde \varphi : & R= {K}[x_0, x_1,x_2]& \to & S={K}[s,t]\\
&&&\\
& x_i & \mapsto &\varphi_i=\varphi _i(s,t).
\end{array}$$
The kernel of this homomorphism is a principal ideal, generated by the implicit equation of the curve $C$.
Assume as before that $C$ is the image of a smooth rational curve $C'\subset X\to{{{\bf P}^{2}}}$ where $X$ is obtained by blowing up distinct points of ${{{\bf P}^{2}}}$. For notational simplicity, we set $a=a_C$, $b=b_C$ and $V=H^0({{{\mathcal O}}}_{X}(L))$. Consider the sequence twisted by $k-d$ for various $k\in \mathbb Z$: $$0 \to {{{\mathcal O}}}_{C'}(-a-d+k)\oplus{{{\mathcal O}}}_{C'}(-b-d+k) \to
{{{\mathcal O}}}_{C'}(-d+k)\otimes V \to {{{\mathcal O}}}_{C'}(k) \to 0 \eqno(\star)_k$$ and search for the minimum $k\geq0$ such that $(\star)_k$ is exact on global sections. But $$H^1({{{\mathcal O}}}_{C'}(-a-d+k)\oplus{{{\mathcal O}}}_{C'}(-b-d+k) )=0$$ if and only if $k\geq b+d-1$, so for any $k\geq b+d-1$ we have the following exact sequences $$0 \to H^0({{{\mathcal O}}}_{C'}(-a-d+k))\oplus H^0({{{\mathcal O}}}_{C'}(-b-d+k)) \to H^0({{{\mathcal O}}}_{C'}(-d+k))\otimes V
\xrightarrow{\psi_k} H^0({{{\mathcal O}}}_{C'}(k) ) \eqno{(\star\star)_k}$$ with $\psi_k$ surjective for $k\geq b+d-1$. Note that we can identify $\bigoplus_kH^0({{{\mathcal O}}}_{C'}(k) )$ with $S$. Thus by taking the direct sum over all $k$, we obtain an exact sequence of graded $S$-modules. With this in mind, we will write $S( \ell)_k$ in place of $H^0({{{\mathcal O}}}_{C'}(\ell+k))$.
Now choose three linear forms $f_0,f_1,f_2$ which give a basis of $V$. Then an arbitrary element $$\sum_{i=1,\dots,q} (h_i \otimes \sum_{j=0,1,2} c_{ij}f_j) \in S(-d)_k \otimes V$$ (where the $c_{ij}$ are constants) can be written as $\sum_{j=0,1,2} \widetilde h_j \otimes f_j$ with $\widetilde h_j= \sum_{i=1,\dots,q} c_{ij}h_i $, and the map $\psi_k$ becomes $$\begin{array}{cccc}
\psi _k: & S(-d)_k \otimes V & \to & S_{k} \\
&&& \\
& \sum_{j=0,1,2} \widetilde h_j \otimes f_j& \mapsto & \sum _{j=0,1,2} (\widetilde h_j)(f_j|_{C'})
\end{array}$$ or, applying the natural identification of $S(-d)_k \otimes V$ with $S(-d)_k ^{\oplus 3}$, $$\begin{array}{cccc}
\psi _k: & S(-d)_k ^{\oplus 3}& \to & S_{k} \\
&&& \\
& ( \widetilde h_0, \widetilde h_1, \widetilde h_2)& \mapsto & \sum _{j=0,1,2} (\widetilde h_j)(f_j|_{C'})
\end{array}$$ Notice that in the identification of $C'$ with ${{{\bf P}^{1}}}$, $|L|$ gives divisors of degree $d$ when restricted to $C'$, hence the $f_j|_{C'}$ are forms of degree $d$ in the coordinate ring of ${{{\bf P}^{1}}}$. We usually choose $f_j=x_j$, $j=0,1,2$.
Taking direct sums of $(\star\star)_k$ for $k\geq b+d-1$ gives the following exact sequence of graded $S$-modules $$0 \to(\oplus _{k\geq b+d-1} S(-a-d)_k)\oplus (\oplus _{k\geq b+d-1} S(-b-d)_k) \to \oplus _{k\geq b+d-1} S(-d)_k ^{\oplus 3} \xrightarrow{\oplus\psi_k}\oplus _{k\geq b+d-1} S_k\to 0$$ and by sheafifying we get back the exact sequence $(\star)_0$: $$0 \to {{{\mathcal O}}}_{C'}(-a-d)\oplus{{{\mathcal O}}}_{C'}(-b-d) \to {{{\mathcal O}}}_{C'}(-d)^{ \oplus3} \to {{{\mathcal O}}}_{C'} \to 0.$$
Now assume the curve $C \subset {{{\bf P}^{2}}}$ is given by parametric equations , and that the basis $f_0,f_1,f_2$ of $V$ we chose above is $x_0,x_1,x_2$. Since the restriction of $x_j$ to $C$ is $\varphi_j$, we have $f_j|_{C'}=\varphi_j$ for $j=0,1,2$.
Notice that $C$ is a line if and only if there is a degree zero relation $\sum c_j\varphi_j =0$ among $\varphi_0,\varphi_1,\varphi_2$, with $c_j\in {K}$; that is, if and only if $\varphi_0,\varphi_1,\varphi_2$ is not a minimal system of generators for the ideal $J := (\varphi_0,\varphi_1,\varphi_2)$. For the rest of §\[eulerosubsect\] we assume $C$ is not a line, i.e. that $d\geq 2$. Also notice that if we change the basis $f_0,f_1,f_2$ of $V$ their restrictions to $C'$ still generate the same ideal $J$.
Regarding $J$ as a graded $S$-module, consider its minimal graded free resolution $$\label{eqn3}
0 \to S(-c-d)\oplus S(-e-d)
\xrightarrow{\hbox{\tiny$\left(
\begin{matrix}
\alpha_0 & \beta _0 \\
\alpha_1 & \beta _1 \\
\alpha_2 & \beta _2
\end{matrix}
\right)$}}
S(-d)^{ \oplus3}
\xrightarrow{\hbox{\tiny$(\varphi_0\ \varphi_1\ \varphi_2)$}}
J\to 0,$$ so we have $1\leq c\leq e$, $\deg \alpha_j=c$ and $\deg \beta_j=e$. If we sheafify the sequence , we get the following exact sequence of ${{{\mathcal O}}}_{C'}={{{\mathcal O}}}_{{{{\bf P}^{1}}}}$-modules: $$\label{eqn4}
0 \to {{{\mathcal O}}}_{C'}(-c-d)\oplus{{{\mathcal O}}}_{C'}(-e-d) \to
{{{\mathcal O}}}_{C'}(-d)^{ \oplus3} \to {{{\mathcal O}}}_{C'} \to 0.$$ Since the zero scheme of the ideal $J$ is the empty set, hence by the homogeneous Nullstellensatz the associated sheaf is ${{{\mathcal O}}}_{C'}$. Comparing this with $(\star)_0$, we see that $(c,e)=(a,b)$, i.e.:
\[b1\] Let $C$ be a rational plane curve of degree $d\geq 2$ and consider the pair $(a,b)$ with $1\leq a \leq b$ and $a+b=d$. Then $(a,b)$ is the splitting type of $C$ if and only if $a$ is the minimal degree of a sygyzy of $J$.
Alternatively, recall that the *saturation* of a homogeneous ideal $J\subseteq(s,t)\subset S$ is the largest homogeneous ideal ${\rm sat}(J)\subseteq (s,t)$ such that for some $i\geq 1$, ${\rm sat}(J)\cap (s,t)^i=J\cap (s,t)^i$. We call the least such $i$ the *saturation degree* of $J$. If $i=1$, we say $J$ is *saturated*. For example, if $J\subseteq (s,t)$ has homogeneous generators with no non-constant common factor, such as $J=(s^3,t^2)$, then $(s,t)={\rm sat}(J)$ by the homogeneous Nullstellensatz, and the saturation degree of $J$ is the least degree $i$ such that $J_i=S_i$. Thus the saturation degree in such a case can be computed from the Hilbert function of $J$ (i.e., from the function giving the dimension of $J_i$ as a function of $i$). We now have:
\[b2\] Assume $C \subset {{{\bf P}^{2}}}$ is a rational curve of degree $d\geq 2$ with splitting type $(a,b)$, $a\leq b$, which is given by parametric equations . If $\sigma(\varphi)$ denotes the saturation degree of the ideal $(\varphi_0 ,\varphi_1 , \varphi_2)$, then $$b+d-1=\sigma(\varphi)\leq 2d-2.$$
If $k\geq b+d-1$ the sequence in degree $k$ is the same as $(\star\star)_k$. On the other hand, $(\star\star)_k$ is not exact on the right for $k\leq d+b-2$, so $J_k=S_k$ if and only if $k\geq b+d-1$, hence $b+d-1=\sigma(\varphi)$. Since $b\leq d-1$, we also have $\sigma(\varphi) \leq 2d-2$.
Parametric equations and multiple points {#mul}
----------------------------------------
Assume that our rational plane curve $C$ is given by parametric equations as in , and has a multiple point $p$ of multiplicity $m$, where $p=[\ell_0,\ell_1,\ell_2]$. We can assume $\ell_0=1$; we define $q(s,t)$ to be the greatest common factor of $\varphi_1 (s,t)-\ell_1\varphi_0(s,t)$ and $\varphi_2
(s,t)-\ell_2\varphi_0(s,t)$. Hence there exist $h,g \in S_{d-m}$ such that $\varphi_1 =\ell_1\varphi_0+qh$ and $\varphi_2
=\ell_2\varphi_0+qg$.
The generic line through $p$, $\alpha (x_1-\ell _1x_0)+\beta (x_2-\ell _2x_0)=0$, meets $C$ at $p$ with multiplicity $m$; i.e., the equation $q(\alpha h+\beta g)=0$ has $m$ roots counted with multiplicity corresponding to the point $p$. Hence the polynomial $q$ defines a divisor $m_1p_1+\dots + m_rp_r$ on ${{{\bf P}^{1}}}$, with $\varphi (p_1)=\dots =\varphi (p_r)=p$ and $m_1+\dots+m_r=m$.
This means that for each point $p$ of multiplicity $m$ for $C$ the ideal $J=(\varphi_0 ,\varphi_1 , \varphi_2)$ can be written as $J=(\varphi_0, qh,qg)$ with $\deg(\varphi_0)=d$, $
\deg(q)=m$, $\deg(h)=\deg(g)=d-m$ for $q$, $g$, $h$ depending on the singular point $p$. This allows us to better understand Theorem \[b2\] and to recover Lemma \[splitlem\].
\[Ascenzi\] Let $C \subset {{{\bf P}^{2}}}$ be a rational plane curve of degree $d$ given parametrically by $\varphi : {{{\bf P}^{1}}} \rightarrow {{{\bf P}^{2}}}$, as before. Let $p\in C$ be a multiple point $p$ of multiplicity $m\geq 1$, and let $(a,b)$ be the splitting type of $C$. Then $a\geq \min \{m,d-m\}$ and $b\leq \max \{m,d-m\}$, with $(a,b)=(d-m,m)$ if $d\leq 2m$, and $(a,b)=(m,d-m)=(m,m+1)$ if $d=2m+1$.
As above, let $J=(\varphi_0,\varphi_1,\varphi_2)=(\varphi_0, qh,qg)$ where $\varphi_0, q,h,g \in S={K}[s,t]$, $\deg(\varphi_0)=d$, $\deg(q)=m$ and $\deg(h)=\deg(g)=d-m$. Since $h,g$ have no common factor, as well as $\varphi_0, qh,qg$, we have $\dim
_K \langle h,g\rangle=2$, and $J_{d} =\langle\varphi_0\rangle\oplus
\; q\langle h,g\rangle$. We now look at the multiplication maps $$\nu _k: J_{d} \otimes S_{k} \to S_{d+k}.$$ Let $\bar k$ be the least $k$ such that $\nu _{\bar k}$ is onto; the saturation degree $\sigma (\varphi)$ of $J$ is $d+\bar k$, and by Theorem \[b2\], $b=\bar k+1$.
We first prove that $\nu _{m-2}$ is never onto, so we conclude that $b \geq m$: we have $ Im(\nu)_{m-2} = \varphi _0 S_{m-2} +q(h,g)_{d-2}$ with $q(h,g)_{d-2} \subseteq qS_{d-2}$, hence $\dim Im(\nu)_{m-2}\leq m-1+d-1= d+m-2 <\dim S_{d+m-2}$.
Since both $(h,g)$ and $(\varphi_0, q)$ are regular sequences in $S$, we have the minimal free resolutions for the ideals $(h,g)$ and $(\varphi_0, q)$ of $S$: $$0\to S(-2d+2m)\to \oplus ^2 S(-d+m) \to (h,g)\to 0 \eqno{(\star')}$$
$$0\to S(-d-m)\to S(-d)\oplus S(-m) \to (\varphi_0 , q)\to 0
\eqno{(\star'')}$$
Assume $d\leq 2m$; then $(\star')$ gives $\dim (h,g)_{d-1} = 2\dim S(m-1) - \dim
S(-d+2m-1) = 2m-(2m-d) = d$, so $(h,g)_{d-1}= S_{d-1}$, this implying that $(h,g)_{k}= S_{k}$ for $k\geq d-1$.
Let us consider $\nu _{m-1}$. We have $J_{d} =\langle \varphi_0\rangle \oplus \; q\langle h,g\rangle$, so that $Im (\nu _{m-1})= \varphi_0
S_{m-1} + q(h,g)_{d-1}=\varphi_0 S_{m-1} + qS_{d-1}=(\varphi_0 ,
q)_{d+m-1}$. The sequence $(\star'')$ gives $\dim (\varphi_0 ,
q)_{d+m-1} = m+d $, so that $\nu _{m-1}$ is surjective and $b=m$ in this case. Since we are in the assumption $d-m\leq m$, in particular we have $b\leq \max \{m,d-m\}$, and hence $a\geq \min \{m,d-m\}$.
Now let $d= 2m+u$, with $u\geq 1$. From the resolution $(\star')$ of $(h,g)$ we get that $(h,g)_{d+u-1}=S_{d+u-1}$ and this implies, as in the previous case, that $\nu_{d-m-1}$ is surjective, i.e. that $b\leq d-m$. Since we are in the assumption $d-m>m$, we have $b\leq \max \{m,d-m\}$. In particular, when $u=1$, this trivially implies that $(a,b)=(m,d-m)=(m,m+1)$.
A moving line algorithm for the splitting type {#CAD}
----------------------------------------------
These kinds of questions are of interest also to people working in Computer Aided Geometric Design (CAD). In fact one of the problems they are interested in is how to compute the implicit function defining a rational plane curve which is given by parametric equations. This is a classical problem in algebraic geometry, traditionally solved via resultants, but this gives rise to computing determinants of rather large matrices, hence it is quite valuable to find more efficient ways to get the implicit equation. One of the ways this is done is by the method of “moving lines" [@refCSC; @refSSQK; @refSGD]. We will see that this approach also offers algorithms with which we are able to deal with the splitting problem.
\[0\] A *moving line of degree $k$ for $C$* is an equation of the form $\alpha_0(s,t)x_0+\alpha_1(s,t)x_1+\alpha_2(s,t)x_2=0$ where $\alpha_i(s,t)\in K[s,t] _k$, such that $\alpha_0(s,t)\phi_0(s,t)+\alpha_1(s,t)\phi_1(s,t)+\alpha_2(s,t)\phi_2(s,t)$ is identically zero; hence a moving line of degree $k$ is nothing else than a family of lines parameterized by ${{{\bf P}^{1}}}$, giving a syzygy of degree $k$ of the ideal $(\phi_0,\phi_1,\phi_2)$ in ${
\kappa }[s,t] $. Hence, if $Syz(\phi)$ is the sygyzy module of the parameterization $\phi$ for the curve $C$, $(\alpha_0,\alpha_1,\alpha_2)\in Syz(\phi)_k$.
Now assume $d=2n$, and let us write explicitly the parameterization of $C$: $\phi _i=\phi_{i0}s^{2n}+\dots+\phi_{i,2n}t^{2n}$ for $i=0,1,2$. Consider a moving line in degree $n-1$ for $C$: $\beta_0(s,t)x_0+\beta_1(s,t)x_1+\beta_2(s,t)x_2=0$ where $\beta_i(s,t)=\sum _{k=0}^{n-1}B_{ik}s^kt^{n-1-k}$, satisfying the condition $\beta_0(s,t)\phi_0(s,t)+\beta_1(s,t)\phi_1(s,t)+\beta_2(s,t)\phi_2(s,t)\equiv 0,$ that is $$\label{ast1}
\sum _{i=0}^{2}\sum _{k=0}^{n-1}\sum _{j=0}^{2n}B_{ik}\phi_{ij}s^{2n+k-j}t^{n-1-k+j}\equiv 0.$$ Note that each monomial in $s$ and $t$ has total degree $3n-1$. Rewriting in terms of the powers $t^l$, we have $$\label{ast2}
\sum_{l=0}^{n-1}\sum _{i=0}^{2}\sum _{a,b}B_{i,n-1-b}\phi_{ia}s^{3n-1-l}t^l\equiv 0,$$ where the inner sum is over all $a$ and $b$ such that $0\leq a\leq2n$, $0\leq b\leq n-1$ and $a+b=n-1-l$. This homogeneous polynomial is identically zero if and only if all of the coefficients are zero; i.e., if and only if for each $0\leq l\leq n-1$ we have $$\sum _{i=0}^{2}\sum _{a,b}B_{i,n-1-b}\phi_{ia}=0.$$
Hence to say that there exists a moving line in degree $n-1$ for $C$ is equivalent to saying that the following linear system of $3n$ equations in the $3n$ variables $B_{00}, \dots, B_{2,n-1}$ has a non-trivial solution: $$\underbrace{
\left(\begin{matrix}
\phi_{0,2n}&\phi_{1,2n}&\phi_{2,2n}&0& \dots &0\\
&\dots& & &\dots &\\
0& \dots &0&\phi_{0,0}&\phi_{1,0}&\phi_{2,0}
\end{matrix}\right)}_M
\left(\begin{matrix}
B_{00} \\
B_{10}\\
B_{20}\\
\vdots \\
B_{0,n-1}\\
B_{1,n-1}\\
B_{2,n-1}
\end{matrix}\right)
=
\left(\begin{matrix}
0 \\
0\\
0\\
\vdots \\
0\\
0\\
0
\end{matrix}\right)$$ where the $3n\times 3n$ matrix of the system $M(\phi) = M = (m_{u,v})$ is defined by $m_{u,v}$ as follows: writing $v=3w+i$ as a multiple of 3 with remainder $i$ (so $0\leq i \leq2$), then $m_{u,v}=\phi_{i,2n+w-u}$ if $0\leq 2n+w-u\leq 2n$, and $m_{u,v}=0$ otherwise.
So, if $d=2n$, we have proved that there exists a moving line in degree $n-1$ for $C$ if and only if $\det M=0$. Moreover, ${\rm rk}\ M= 3n-p$ if and only if there are exactly $p$ independent moving lines in degree $n-1$ for $C$.
In the odd degree case, $d=2n+1$, the same kind of computation gives a condition analogous to , with an equation of degree $3n$ in $s,t$; hence $M$ becomes a $(3n+1) \times 3n$ matrix, and the analogous linear system has a non-trivial solution if and only if ${\rm rk}\ M\leq 3n-1$; as before we find that there are exactly $p$ independent moving lines in degree $n-1$ for $C$ if and only if ${\rm rk}\ M= 3n-p$.
Notice that if there are exactly $p$ independent moving lines, i.e. $\dim Syz(\phi)_{n-1} =
p$, then there is a unique moving line of degree $n-p$, or, equivalently, the splitting type of $C$ is $(n-p,n+p)$.
In summary, we have the following result (see also [@refSGD Proposition 5.3]):
\[splittingM\] Let $C\subset {{{\bf P}^{2}}}$ be a rational curve of degree $d =2n+\delta$, $\delta \in \{0,1\}$, parameterized by $\phi _i=\phi_{i0}s^{2n}+\dots+ \phi_{i,2n}t^{2n}$ for $i=0,1,2$, and define the $(3n+\delta)\times 3n$ matrix $$M(\phi)=M = (m_{u,v})_{0\leq u \leq 3n-1+\delta, 0\leq v \leq 3n-1}$$ as follows: writing $v=3w+i$ as a multiple of 3 with remainder $i$ (so $0\leq i \leq2$), then $m_{u,v}=\phi_{i,2n+w-u}$ if $0\leq 2n+w-u\leq 2n$, and $m_{u,v}=0$ otherwise. Then the splitting type of $C$ is $(n-p,n+p)$ if and only if ${\rm rk}\ M =
3n-p$.
Thus Theorem \[splittingM\] gives an algorithm to compute the splitting type of every rational plane curve once we have a parameterization for it.
Finding parameterizations {#params}
-------------------------
Let $\pi:X\to{{{\bf P}^{2}}}$ be the blow up of $r\geq 3$ distinct points $p_i\in{{{\bf P}^{2}}}$. Then, as noted earlier, the divisor classes of $L, E_1,\ldots,E_r$ give an integer basis for ${\rm Cl}(X)$. This basis is, moreover, orthogonal with respect to the intersection form. The intersection form is uniquely specified by $L^2=1$ and the fact that $E_i^2=-1$ for all $i$.
The Weyl group $W(X)$ is a subgroup of orthogonal transformations on ${\rm Cl}(X)$. It is generated by the elements $s_0,\ldots,s_{r-1}\in W(X)$ where $s_i(D)=D+(v_i\cdot D)v_i$ and where $v_0=[L-E_1-E_2-E_3]$ and $v_i=[E_i-E_{i+1}]$ for $0<i<r$. Note that $W(X)$ really depends only on $r$, not on $X$. The action of the elements $s_1,\ldots,s_{r-1}$ corresponds to permuting the classes of the divisors $E_i$, and the action of $s_0$ corresponds to a quadratic Cremona transformation $T$ centered at $p_1, p_2$ and $p_3$. But whereas $T$ is defined only when the points $p_1, p_2$ and $p_3$ are not collinear, $s_0$ is defined formally and thus it and every other element of $W(X)$ makes sense regardless of the positions of the points $p_i$. It is useful to note that $s_v(D)=D+(v\cdot D)v\in W(X)$ whenever $v=v_{ij}$ for $v_{ij}=[E_i-E_j]$, or $v=v_{ijk}$ for $v_{ijk}=[L-E_i-E_j-E_k]$ with $i<j<k$. When $v=v_{ijk}$, $s_v$ corresponds to a quadratic Cremona transformation $T'$ centered at $p_i,p_j,p_k$. Such a $T'$ can be given explicitly. For example, let $H_{ij},H_{ik},H_{jk}\in R={K}[x_0,x_1,x_3]$ be linear forms where $H_{ij}$ defines the line through $p_i$ and $p_j$, and likewise for $H_{ik}$ and $H_{jk}$. Then a specific such $T'$ can be given by defining $T'(p)$ for any point $p=[a,b,c]$ other than $p_i,p_j$ and $p_k$ by $T'(p)=[(H_{ij}H_{ik})(a,b,c), (H_{ij}H_{jk})(a,b,c), (H_{ik}H_{jk})(a,b,c)]$, where, for example, $(H_{ij}H_{ik})(a,b,c)$ means evaluation of the form $H_{ij}H_{ik}$ at $(a,b,c)$. Moreover, the linear system of sections of $D=dL-m_1E_1-\cdots-m_rE_r$ can be identified with those of $s_{v_{ijk}}D$, but where we regard $D$ as being with respect to blowing up the points $p_1,\cdots,p_r$, under the identification we must regard $s_{v_{ijk}}D$ as being with respect to blowing up the points $q_1,\ldots,q_r$, where $q_l=T'(p_l)$ for $l\not\in\{i,j,k\}$, and where $q_i=(1,0,0)$, $q_j=(0,1,0)$ and $q_k=(0,0,1)$.
If $C=\pi(C')$ is a curve of positive degree, where $C'$ is some an exceptional curve on $X$, then as long as $r\geq 3$ and the points $p_1,\ldots,p_r$ are sufficiently general, there is in fact [@refN] a Cremona transformation $T:{{{\bf P}^{2}}} -\,\!-\!\to{{{\bf P}^{2}}}$ whose locus of indeterminacy is contained in the set of points $p_i$ and such that the image of $C'$ is a line. One can find such a $T$ by finding a sequence of elements $u_1=v_{i_1j_1k_1},\ldots, u_l=v_{i_lj_lk_l}$ such that $w=s_{u_1}\cdots s_{u_l}$ where $w\in W(X)$ is an element such that $w([C'])$ has the form $[L-E_i-E_j]$ for some $i<j$. Composing the quadratic Cremona transformations corresponding to each $s_{u_i}$ gives the desired transformation $T$. Pulling the parameterization of the line corresponding to $L-E_i-E_j$ back via $T$ gives a parameterization of $\pi(C')$.
Suppose we would like to parameterize a quartic $Q$ having double points at $p_1,p_2$ and $p_3$ and passing through $p_4,\ldots,p_8$ for appropriately general points $p_i\in{{{\bf P}^{2}}}$. The class of the proper transform of $Q$ is $F=[4L-2E_1-2E_2-2E_3-E_4-\cdots-E_8]$. We choose $u_1=[L-E_i-E_j-E_k]$ so that $u_1\cdot F$ is as small as possible, hence $u_1=[L-E_1-E_2-E_3]$ and we define $F_1=s_{u_1}(F)=[2L-E_4-\cdots-E_8]$. There are several choices for $u_2=[L-E_i-E_j-E_k]$ such that $u_2\cdot F_1$ is as small as possible; e.g., $u_2=[L-E_6-E_7-E_8]$, which gives $F_2=s_{u_2}(F_1)=[L-E_4-E_5]$. Let $T_1$ be a Cremona transformation corresponding to $s_{u_1}$ (i.e., $T_1$ is a quadratic transformation centered at $p_1,p_2$ and $p_3$) and let $T_2$ be a Cremona transformation corresponding to $s_{u_2}$ (i.e., $T_2$ is a quadratic transformation centered at $T_1(p_6),T_1(p_7),T_1(p_8)$). If we take $T=T_2T_1$, then $T(Q)$ is the line $\Lambda$ through $q_4=T_2T_1(p_4)$ and $q_5=T_2T_1(p_5)$. If $\varphi$ is a parameterization of this line (given for example by the pencil of lines through any point not on the line $\Lambda$), then $T^{-1}\circ\varphi$ parameterizes $Q$.
In general it is easier to compute the successive parameterizations $T_l^{-1}\circ\varphi$, $T_{l-1}^{-1}\circ T_l^{-1}\circ\varphi$, $\ldots$, $T^{-1}\circ\varphi=T_1^{-1}\circ\cdots\circ T_l^{-1}\circ\varphi$, since this involves working in the ring $S={K}[s,t]$ which has only two variables, rather than first finding $T^{-1}$ (which would be in terms of elements of $R={K}[x_0,x_1,x_2]$) and then composing with $\varphi$. Also, one should keep in mind that at each successive parameterization, the component functions may have a common factor which must be removed. For example, for our parameterization of $Q$ we can take the pencil of curves composing the complete linear system $|s_{u_1}s_{u_2}(L-E_1)|$. But $s_{u_1}s_{u_2}(L-E_1)=3L-2E_1-E_2-E_3-E_6-E_7-E_8$, so the components of the parameterization of $Q$ are the restrictions to $Q$ of a basis of the cubics singular at $p_1$ and passing through $p_2,p_3,p_6,p_7$ and $p_8$. But at each stage, $T_i$ is quadratic, so the composition $T^{-1}$ is defined in terms of homogeneous polynomials of degree $2l$, which in our case would be 4. The difference is accounted for by the components of $T^{-1}|_\Lambda$ having a common factor, in this case a common linear factor.
Looking for sygyzies coming from the plane {#dal piano}
------------------------------------------
Here we explain the idea which underlies Conjecture \[rptconj\]. We continue with the notation established earlier in this section. Let $\varphi=(\varphi_0,\varphi_1,\varphi_2)$ be a parameterization of a rational plane curve of degree $d$, let $J=(\varphi_0,\varphi_1,\varphi_2)\subset S$ be the ideal generated by the components of $\varphi$, and let $\widetilde \varphi$ be the associated ring map given in . Consider a syzygy $(\alpha_0, \alpha_1, \alpha_2)$ of $J$; thus $\alpha_0\varphi_0+ \alpha_1\varphi_1 + \alpha_2\varphi_2 =0$ for some $\alpha_i\in S_k$ for some $k$.
\[from the plane\] We say that the sygyzy $(\alpha_0, \alpha_1, \alpha_2)$ *comes from ${{{\bf P}^{2}}}$* if there are $A_0,A_1,A_2
\in K[{{{\bf P}^{2}}}]_q $, such that $A_0x_0+A_1x_1+A_2x_2=0$, and there exists $p
\in S_{dq-k}$, with $\widetilde \varphi(A_i) = p\alpha_i$. Hence a sygyzy $(\alpha_0, \alpha_1, \alpha_2)$ comes from ${{{\bf P}^{2}}}$ if and only if there exists $q\in {\mathbb N}$ such that the following colon ideal is nonzero in degree $dq-k$; i.e., $$[(\varphi_0,\varphi_1,\varphi_2)^q:(\alpha_0,\alpha_1,\alpha_2)]_{dq-k} \neq
\{0\}.$$
\[8,3,3\] Given the blow up $X$ of ${{{\bf P}^{2}}}$ at general points $p_1,\ldots,p_r$, the first and simplest example of a non-Ascenzi rational curve $C$ with unbalanced splitting type has class $[C]=[8L-3E_1-3E_2-\dots -3E_7]$. Indeed, the splitting type of $C$ is $(3,5)$ (see [@refFHH] and [@refGHI2]). Notice that $C$ is not exceptional, but $[8L-3E_1-3E_2-\dots -3E_7-E_8-E_9]$ is the class of an exceptional curve, and moreover this exceptional curve has the same splitting type as does $C$, and our discussion applies equally well to this exceptional curve as it does to $C$.
Given that the splitting type is $(3,5)$, Lemma \[b1\] tells us that the image $\overline C$ of $C$ in ${{{\bf P}^{2}}}$ has a parameterization $\varphi$ with a syzygy of degree 3. This syzygy in fact comes from ${{{\bf P}^{2}}}$. To see this, note that the linear system of cubics through 7 general points has a linear syzygy. In fact, there is a relation $A_0x_0+A_1x_1+A_2x_2=0$, where $A_0,A_1, A_2$ is a basis for $|3L-E_1-\cdots-E_7|$ regarded as a subspace of the space of degree 3 forms $|3L|$ on ${{{\bf P}^{2}}}$. Moreover $(3L-E_1-\cdots-E_7)\cdot C=3$, hence the relation on the $A_i$’s forces a relation of degree $k=3$ among the restrictions $\varphi_i$ of the $L_i$’s to $C$. Since $\overline C$ has degree $d=8$, and each $A_i$ has degree $q=3$, we see each $\widetilde\varphi(A_i)$ has degree $24=dq$. The common factor $p$ is a form on ${{{\bf P}^{1}}}$ of degree 21 vanishing on the inverse images in ${{{\bf P}^{1}}}$ of the 7 points $p_i\in\overline C$, and we have $\deg(p)=21=dq-k$. Even if we did not already know that $a_C=3$, we would see by Lemma \[b1\] that $a_C\leq 3$. Since $a_C\geq3$ by Lemma \[splitlem\], we recover the fact that $a_C=3$.
If, as is the case in the preceding example, $a_C$ is smaller than “expected” (i.e., smaller than $\lfloor\frac{d}{2}\rfloor$), then the three forms $\varphi_0,\varphi_1,\varphi_2$ do not give a generic $g^2_d$, since for three generic forms of degree $d$ over ${{{\bf P}^{1}}}$ the minimal degree of a syzygy is $\lfloor\frac{d}{2}\rfloor$ by [@refAs1]. All known examples lead us to conjecture that this “non-generic situation" occurs only when the presence of a syzygy of smaller than expected degree is “forced" by something happening in ${{{\bf P}^{2}}}$, i.e. because the syzygy comes from ${{{\bf P}^{2}}}$, and thus there is a linear relation in $k[{{{\bf P}^{2}}}]$ among polynomials whose restriction to $C$ has degree $a<\lfloor\frac{d}{2}\rfloor$ (modulo taking away common factors). Thus Conjecture \[rptconj\] comes from the expectation that what happened in Example \[8,3,3\] should be what always happens when we get unbalanced splitting. The explicit statement we give for Conjecture \[rptconj\] includes some additional restrictions on the $A_i$ (that they be sections of a divisor $A$ of a particular form), since examples lead us to expect these additional restrictions are always satisfied.
\[NBAC\] Suppose $C$ is an Ascenzi plane curve with non-balanced splitting. Thus $C$ is of the form $(d,m_1,\dots ,m_r)$ where we may assume $m_1>m_2\geq\dots \geq m_r$, and we have $d<2m_1-1$. Then Conjecture 2 holds with $A=L-E_1$: there is a syzygy of degree $a_C=d-m_1$ on the parameterization functions $\varphi_i$ parameterizing $C$; this syzygy comes from ${{{\bf P}^{2}}}$, specifically from the linear syzygy on the pencil of lines through $p_1$, and we have $a_C=(dL-m_1E_1-\cdots-m_rE_r)\cdot (L-E_1)$ as asserted by Conjecture \[rptconj\]. See also Remark \[AEpairsrem\].
\[K\_7\] In Example \[8,3,3\] we have $C^2=1$ and $A = -K_7$, where $-K_7=3L-E_1-\cdots-E_7$ is an anticanonical divisor for the blow up of ${{{\bf P}^{2}}}$ at 7 points. In fact, $h^0(C)=3$ and $|C|$ is a homaloidal net (i.e., $[C]$ is in the Weyl group orbit of $[L]$), so a smooth irreducible curve $C_2\in |2C|$ is rational, and we have $C_2\cdot A=2a_C$. Thus by Conjecture \[rptconj\] we expect $a_{C_2}\leq 2a_C$; i.e., that the splitting gap will be (at least) double for $C_2$, and this is indeed the case, as we now show. More generally, consider a smooth irreducible curve $C_r\in|rC-(r-1)E_8|$. The fact that the splitting types of $C_r$ are $(3r,5r)$ follows by applying Lemma \[splitlem\] together with the forthcoming Proposition \[unbalsplitting\], using $A = 3L- E_1- \dots - E_7$ as in Example \[AEpairs\]. In the same way we can construct a plethora of similar examples, such as a curve $C'_4$ of type $(32,12,12,12,12,12,12,12,2,2,2)$ and a curve $C'_6$ of type $(48,18,18,18,18,18,18,18,18,3,2,2,2,2,2,2,2)$, whose splitting types are $4(3,5)=(12,20)$ and $6(3,5)=(18,30)$, respectively.
Splitting type of rational plane curves with specified singularities {#sect3}
====================================================================
In this section we will consider the splitting type for rational curves of the form $\pi(D)$, where $D\subset X$ is a smooth rational curve and $\pi:X\to{{{\bf P}^{2}}}$ is the blowing up of ${{{\bf P}^{2}}}$ at $r$ distinct points $p_1,\ldots,p_r$. Note that if we write $[D]=[d_DL-m_1E_1-\cdots-m_rE_r]$, there is no loss of generality in assuming that $m_D=m_1$ is the maximum of the $m_i$.
New bounds on splitting types {#newbnds}
-----------------------------
By Lemma \[splitlem\], we have the bound $a_D\leq d_D-m_D=A\cdot D$, where $A=L-E_1$. As Remark \[AEpairsrem\] will explain, the following proposition generalizes this bound. It shows that we can sometimes get better bounds on $a_D$ by finding other divisors $A$ such that $\mu_A$ has nontrivial kernel.
\[unbalsplitting\] Let $X$ be obtained by blowing up $r$ distinct points of ${{{\bf P}^{2}}}$. Let $L, E_1,\ldots,E_r$ be the corresponding basis of the divisor class group of $X$. Let $D\subset X$ be a smooth rational curve and let $A$ be a divisor such that $h^1(A)=0$, $H^0(A-D+L)=0$ and ${\rm le}(A)\ge1$. Then $a_D\leq A\cdot D$, and equality holds if, moreover, $D$ is exceptional such that ${\rm le}(A)={\rm le}(A+D)$ and $\mu_A$ is surjective.
Since ${\rm le}(A)\ge1$, we must have $h^0(A)>1$, hence $A\cdot L>0$, so $h^2(X,A)=0$. Because $h^1(X,A)=0$ by hypothesis, by taking cohomology of $$0 \to {{\mathcal O}}_X(A) \to {{\mathcal O}}_X(A+L) \to {{\mathcal O}}_L(A+L) \to 0$$ we see that $h^1(X, A+L)=0$. From the diagram $$\begin{matrix}
0 & \to & {{\mathcal O}}_X(A-D)\otimes H^0(L) & \to & {{\mathcal O}}_X(A)\otimes H^0(L)
& \to & {{\mathcal O}}_D(A)\otimes H^0(L) & \to & 0 \cr
{} & {} & \downarrow & {} & \downarrow & {} & \downarrow & {} & {} \cr
0 & \to & {{\mathcal O}}_X(A-D+L) & \to & {{\mathcal O}}_X(A+L) & \to & {{\mathcal O}}_D(A+L) & \to & 0 \cr
\end{matrix}$$ we get the following diagram, which has exact rows, by taking cohomology: $$\begin{matrix}
0 & \to & H^0(A)\otimes H^0(L) & \to & H^0({{\mathcal O}}_D(A))\otimes H^0(L)
& \to & H^1(A-D)\otimes H^0(L) & \to & 0 \cr
{} & {} & \downarrow \raise3pt\hbox to0in{$\scriptstyle\mu_A$\hss} & {}
& \downarrow\raise3pt\hbox to0in{$\scriptstyle\mu_2$\hss} & {}
& \downarrow\raise3pt\hbox to0in{$\scriptstyle\mu _3$\hss} &
{} & {} \cr
0 & \to & H^0(A+L) & \to & H^0({{\mathcal O}}_D(A+L))
& \to & H^1(A-D+L)& \to & 0 \cr
\end{matrix}$$ Thus we get an inclusion ${\rm ker}(\mu_A)\subseteq {\rm ker}(\mu_2)$ but by we have ${\rm ker}(\mu_2)=
H^0(D, {{\mathcal O}}_D(A\cdot D-a_D))\oplus H^0(D, {{\mathcal O}}_D(A\cdot D-b_D))$. Since $a_D\leq b_D$, this means $0< h^0(D, {{\mathcal O}}_D(A\cdot D-a_D))$, hence $a_D\leq A\cdot D$. For the rest, a similar argument applied to $$\begin{matrix}
0 & \to & {{\mathcal O}}_X(A)\otimes H^0(L) & \to & {{\mathcal O}}_X(A+D)\otimes H^0(L)
& \to & {{\mathcal O}}_D(A+D)\otimes H^0(L) & \to & 0 \cr
{} & {} & \downarrow & {} & \downarrow & {} & \downarrow & {} & {} \cr
0 & \to & {{\mathcal O}}_X(A+L) & \to & {{\mathcal O}}_X(A+D+L) & \to & {{\mathcal O}}_D(A+D+L) & \to & 0 \cr
\end{matrix}$$ shows that $H^0({{\mathcal O}}_D(A\cdot D-a_D-1))\oplus H^0({{\mathcal O}}_D(A\cdot D-b_D-1))=0$ if ${\rm le}(A)={\rm le}(A+D)$ and $\mu_A$ is surjective, and hence that $A\cdot D<a_D+1$, which gives $A\cdot D=a_D$.
The following lemma will be useful in identifying candidate divisors $A$.
\[lelemma\] Let $X$ be obtained by blowing up $r$ distinct points of ${{{\bf P}^{2}}}$. Let $A=dL-\sum_im_iE_i$ be a divisor on $X$ such that $d\ge0$, $-K_X\cdot A=2$ and $h^1(A)=0$.
- If $3h^0(A)-h^0(A+L)\ge1$ (in which case we know ${\rm le}(A)\ge1$), then $A^2+1\geq L\cdot A$.
- If $A^2+1\geq L\cdot A$, then ${\rm le}(A)\ge1$.
From $h^1(A)=0$, $A\cdot L=d \ge 0$ and $$0 \to {{\mathcal O}}_X(A) \to {{\mathcal O}}_X(A+L) \to {{\mathcal O}}_L(A+L) \to 0$$ we see that $h^0(A+L)=h^0(A)+A\cdot L+2$. Since $d\ge0$, we have $h^2(A)=0$. Since also $h^1(A)=0$ and $-A\cdot K_X=2$, we have $2h^0(A)=A^2-A\cdot K+2=A^2+4$ by Riemann-Roch, which says $h^0(A)-h^1(A)+h^2(A)=(A^2-K_X\cdot A)/2+1$. (a) This is just a calculation: $1\le3h^0(A)-h^0(A+L)=2h^0(A)-A\cdot L-2
=A^2+2-A\cdot L$, which gives the result.
\(b) This time we have ${\rm le}(A)\geq 3h^0(A)-h^0(A+L)=2h^0(A)-A\cdot L-2
=A^2+2-A\cdot L\ge1$.
\[AEpairsrem\] Assume $X$ is obtained by blowing up $r\ge1$ distinct points $p_i$ of ${{{\bf P}^{2}}}$, and consider a smooth rational curve $D\subset X$ with $[D]=[d_DL-m_1E_1-\cdots-m_rE_r]$. Assume that $m_D=m_1$ is the maximum of the $m_i$. Now let $A=L-E_1$. By Lemma \[lelemma\](b), we have ${\rm le}(A)\geq1$, although it is of course obvious in this case that $A$ has a nontrivial linear syzygy and it is not hard to check that in fact ${\rm le}(A)=1$. If $d_D>2$ we have $(A-D+L)\cdot L<0$ and hence $h^0(X, A-D+L)=0$ so by Proposition \[unbalsplitting\] we obtain $a_D\leq (L-E_1)\cdot D=d_D-m_D$, which is just the upper bound given in Lemma \[splitlem\].
\[AEpairs\] Here we assume $X$ is obtained by blowing up $r=9$ generic points $p_i$ of ${{{\bf P}^{2}}}$. (We pick $r=9$ to have a single value of $r$ big enough to accommodate the discussion in this example.) Two non-Ascenzi types of plane rational curves with generically situated singularities were previously known to have unbalanced splitting (both with gap 2), namely $(8,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,0,0)$ [@refFHH Lemma 3.12(b)(ii)] and $(12, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2,0)$ [@refGHI1 §A2.1]. We show how our results recover the splittings in these cases. We focus on the first case (the second case can be done exactly the same way). First consider $A=3L-E_1-\cdots-E_7$. Since the points $p_i$ are not special, it’s clear that $h^1(X,A)=0$, so Lemma \[lelemma\](b) implies that ${\rm le}(A)\geq1$, but by [@refH2 Theorem IV.1] we know $\mu_A$ is surjective. Since $h^0(X,A)=3$ and $h^0(X,A+L)=8$, we see in fact ${\rm le}(A)=1$. Since $[8L-3(E_1+\cdots+E_7)]$ is in the $W(X)$-orbit of $[L]$, we know (see [@refN]) that there is a smooth rational curve whose class is $[8L-3(E_1+\cdots+E_7)]$; let $C$ be any such curve. We have $h^0(X, A-C+L)=0$ since $(A-C+L)\cdot L<0$. Thus $a_C\leq A\cdot C=3$ by Proposition \[unbalsplitting\]. From Ascenzi’s lower bound $a_C\geq m_C=3$ we see that we actually have $a_C=3$ here. (If we instead consider the exceptional curve $E$ whose class is $[8L-3(E_1+\cdots+E_7)-E_8-E_9]$, then the same argument shows that $a_E=3$, but moreover it is also true that ${\rm le}(A+E)=1$, and thus $a_E=3$ would follow from Proposition \[unbalsplitting\] alone, but the simplest argument to show ${\rm le}(A+E)=1$ involves using the fact that $a_E=3$.)
\[MoreAEpairs\] Again let $X$ be the blow up of ${{{\bf P}^{2}}}$ at $r$ generic points. Here we determine the splitting for several non-Ascenzi exceptional curves $E$ using the same method as in the previous example but with different choices for $A$. First assume $[E]=[12L -5(E_1+\cdots+E_4)-3(E_5+\cdots+E_9)]$ but this time take $A=5L-2(E_1+\cdots+E_4)-(E_5+\cdots+E_9)$. It’s clear that $A$ is effective and nef (since $A=D-K_X$ for $D=2L-E_1-\cdots-E_4$ and both $D$ and $-K_X$ are effective and nef), and since $-K_X\cdot A=2$ it follows from [@refH] that $h^1(X, A)=0$. Thus Lemma \[lelemma\](b) implies that ${\rm le}(A)\geq1$. As before, we have $(A-E+L)\cdot L<0$ so $h^0(X, A-E+L)=0$. Thus $a_E\leq A\cdot E=5$ by Proposition \[unbalsplitting\] and using Ascenzi’s lower bound we again have equality, $a_E=5$.
Here are a few additional pairs which work the same way. For simplicity we give only the numerical types corresponding to $A$ and $E$. In each case we obtain $a_E=m_E$: $$\begin{array}{llll}
A:& (7, 3, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1) &E:& (18, 8, 8, 8, 6, 6, 5, 3, 3, 3, 3)\\
A:& (9, 4, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2) &E:& (20, 9, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 5, 5, 5)\\
A:& (7, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1) &E:& (20, 9, 9, 7, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 3, 1)\\
A:& (7, 3, 3, 3, 3, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1) &E:& (20, 9, 9, 9, 9, 4, 4, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3)
\end{array}$$ It is not always so easy to determine $a_E$ exactly. For example, if $E$ is an exceptional curve of type $(40, 15, 15, 15, 13, 13, 13, 13, 13, 9)$, then $A=(E+K_X+L)/2$ has type $(19, 7, 7, 7, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 4)$, and $h^1(X,A)=0$ by the methods of [@refH], while $h^0(X,A-E+L)=0$ since $(A-E+L)\cdot L<0$. Applying Lemma \[lelemma\](b) we have ${\rm le}(A)\geq1$, but Proposition \[unbalsplitting\] and Ascenzi’s bounds give only $15\leq a_E\leq A\cdot E=19$. Computer calculations indicate that in fact $a_E=19$, as predicted by Conjecture \[9ptconj\].
Each $A$ in Example \[MoreAEpairs\] has $-K_X\cdot A=2$. For reasons that so far remain mysterious, when an exceptional curve $E$ has unbalanced splitting it always seems possible to find an $A$ such that not only do we have ${\rm le}(A)=1$ and $E\cdot A=a_E$, but in addition such that $-K_X\cdot A=2$.
Smooth rational curves on 7 point blow ups {#7pts}
------------------------------------------
Here we classify all classes $[C]=[dL-m_1E_1-\cdots-m_rE_r]$ where $C$ is a smooth rational curve on the blow up $X$ of ${{{\bf P}^{2}}}$ at $r\leq7$ generic points. Since the case $r=7$ subsumes $r<7$, we will assume $r=7$. As we will see, $r=7$ is the least $r$ such that there are infinitely many non-Ascenzi $C$; moreover, all but finitely many of these are unbalanced. The method we use here can be used to find all Ascenzi and all non-Ascenzi $C$ when $r=8$, but there will be many more cases to analyze if one wants also to determine the splitting types. For $r\leq8$, the Weyl group $W(X)$ is finite. The case $r>8$ will be more difficult, at least partly due to the fact that $W(X)$ is then infinite.
In the next result, we show that the class of every smooth rational curve $C$ on the blow up $X$ of ${{{\bf P}^{2}}}$ at 7 generic points is in the Weyl group orbit either of $E_7$, $H_0+dH_1$, $H_2+dH_1$, $2H_0$ or of $H_1$, where $H_0=L$, $H_1=L-E_1$ and $H_2=2L-E_1-E_2$.
\[list7\] Let $X$ be the blow up of ${{{\bf P}^{2}}}$ at $r\leq7$ generic points. The numerical types $(d,m_1,\ldots,m_7)$ of all smooth rational $C\subset X$, up to permutations of the $m_i$’s, are given in the following lists, where the corresponding splitting gap $\gamma _C$ in each case which is not Ascenzi is given.
The types for the orbit of $E_7$ are $(0$, $0$, $0$, $0$, $0$, $0$, $0$, $-1)$, $(1$, $1$, $1$, $0$, $0$, $0$, $0$, $0)$, $(2$, $1$, $1$, $1$, $1$, $1$, $0$, $0)$ and $(3$, $2$, $1$, $1$, $1$, $1$, $1$, $1)$, all of which are Ascenzi.
The types for the orbit of $H_0+dH_1$ are:to.5in $(1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0)+d(1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0)$, which is Ascenzito.5in $(2, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0)+d(1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0)$, which is Ascenzito.5in $(2, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0)+d(2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0)$, which is Ascenzito.5in $(3, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0)+d(1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0)$, which is Ascenzito.5in $(3, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0)+d(2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0)$, which is Ascenzito.5in $(3, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0)+d(3, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0)$, which is Ascenzito.5in $(4, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 0)+d(2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0)$, which is Ascenzito.5in $(4, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 0)+d(3, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0)$, which is Ascenzito.5in $(4, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 0)+d(4, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1)$, which is Ascenzito.5in $(4, 3, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1)+d(3, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0)$, which is Ascenzito.5in $(5, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 0)+d(3, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0)$, which is Ascenzito.5in $(5, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 0)+d(5, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1)$, which is Ascenzi if and only if $d = 0$; $\gamma_C=|d-1|$to.5in $(5, 3, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1)+d(2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0)$, which is Ascenzito.5in $(6, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1)+d(3, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0)$, which is Ascenzito.5in $(6, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1)+d(4, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1)$, which is Ascenzito.5in $(6, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1)+d(5, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1)$, which is Ascenzi if and only if $d < 2$; $\gamma_C=d$to.5in $(7, 3, 3, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2)+d(4, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1)$, which is Ascenzito.5in $(7, 3, 3, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2)+d(5, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1)$, which is Ascenzi if and only if $d = 0$; $\gamma_C=d+1$to.5in $(8, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3)+d(5, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1)$, which is never Ascenzi; $\gamma_C=d+2$
The types for the orbit of $H_2+dH_1$ are:to.5in $( 2, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0)+d(1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0)$, which is Ascenzito.5in $( 3, 2, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0)+d(1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0)$, which is Ascenzito.5in $( 3, 2, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0)+d(2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0)$, which is Ascenzito.5in $( 4, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 0, 0)+d(2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0)$, which is Ascenzito.5in $( 4, 3, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0)+d(1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0)$, which is Ascenzito.5in $( 4, 3, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0)+d(3, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0)$, which is Ascenzito.5in $( 5, 3, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 0)+d(2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0)$, which is Ascenzito.5in $( 5, 3, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 0)+d(3, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0)$, which is Ascenzito.5in $( 6, 3, 3, 3, 2, 1, 1, 1)+d(2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0)$, which is Ascenzito.5in $( 6, 3, 3, 3, 2, 1, 1, 1)+d(4, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1)$, which is Ascenzito.5in $( 6, 4, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1)+d(3, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0)$, which is Ascenzito.5in $( 6, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 0)+d(3, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0)$, which is Ascenzito.5in $( 7, 4, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2, 1)+d(3, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0)$, which is Ascenzito.5in $( 7, 4, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2, 1)+d(4, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1)$, which is Ascenzito.5in $( 8, 4, 4, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2)+d(4, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1)$, which is Ascenzito.5in $( 8, 4, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 1)+d(5, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1)$, which is Ascenzi if and only if $d < 2$; $\gamma_C=d$to.5in $( 9, 4, 4, 4, 3, 3, 3, 2)+d(4, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1)$, which is Ascenzito.5in $( 9, 4, 4, 4, 3, 3, 3, 2)+d(5, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1)$, which is Ascenzi if and only if $d = 0$; $\gamma_C=d+1$to.5in $(10, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 3)+d(5, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1)$, which is never Ascenzi; $\gamma_C=d+2$
The types for the orbit of $2H_0$ are:to.5in $( 2, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0)$, which is Ascenzi to.5in $( 4, 2, 2, 2, 0, 0, 0, 0)$, which is Ascenzi to.5in $( 6, 4, 2, 2, 2, 2, 0, 0)$, which is Ascenzi to.5in $( 8, 4, 4, 4, 2, 2, 2, 0)$, which is Ascenzi to.5in $( 8, 6, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2)$, which is Ascenzi to.5in $(10, 6, 4, 4, 4, 2, 2, 2)$, which is Ascenzi to.5in $(10, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 0)$, which is not Ascenzi; $\gamma_C=0$ to.5in $(12, 6, 6, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2)$, which is Ascenzi to.5in $(14, 6, 6, 6, 6, 4, 4, 4)$, which is not Ascenzi; $\gamma_C=2$ to.5in $(16, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6)$, which is not Ascenzi; $\gamma_C=4$
The types for the orbit of $H_1$ are: to.5in $(1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0)$, which is Ascenzi to.5in $(2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0)$, which is Ascenzi to.5in $(3, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0)$, which is Ascenzi to.5in $(4, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1)$, which is Ascenzi to.5in $(5, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1)$, which is Ascenzi
Let $C$ be a smooth rational curve on $X$. Because $r=7$, $X$ is a Del Pezzo surface, and hence $-K_X$ is ample. Thus by adjunction we have $C^2=-2-C\cdot K_X \geq -1$. In addition, $W(X)$ is finite (of order $2^{10}3^{4}5^17$; see [@refM 26.6]), and so is the set of classes $[C]$ of rational curves $C$ with $C^2=-1$ (i.e., the classes of exceptional curves). In fact, there are 56 of them (giving the 4 classes listed up to permutations in the statement of the theorem),and their classes are precisely the orbit of $E_7$ (see [@refM Proposition 26.1, Theorem 26.2(iii)]). We note that these all are Ascenzi.
Now say $C^2>-1$; then $C$ is nef, hence there is an element $w\in W(X)$ such that $D=w[C]$ is a non-negative integer linear combination of the classes of $H_0=L$, $H_1=L-E_1$, $H_2=2L-E_1-E_2$, and $H_i=3L-E_1-\cdots-E_i$ for $3\leq i\leq 7$ [@refH Lemma 1.4, Corollary 3.2]. Note that $H_7=-K_X$.
Write $D=[\sum_ia_iH_i]$. If $a_j>0$ for some $j\geq 3$, then we have $-D\cdot K_X\leq D\cdot H_j \leq D\cdot\sum_ia_iH_i=D^2$, which violates $D^2=-2-D\cdot K_X$. Thus $D=[a_0H_0+a_1H_1+a_2H_2]$. If $a_0$ and $a_2$ are both positive, then we get another violation, $-D\cdot K_X\leq D\cdot (H_0+H_2) \leq D^2$, so either $a_0=0$ or $a_2=0$. If $a_0=0$, we cannot have $a_2\geq 2$, since then $D^2=a_1a_2+a_2(2a_2+a_1)\geq 2(2a_2+a_1)=-D\cdot K_X$. Likewise, if $a_2=0$, we cannot have $a_0>2$ nor can we have $a_0\geq2$ if $a_1\geq1$. All that is left are the classes of $H_0+dH_1$, $2H_0$, $H_1$ and $H_2+dH_1$ for $d\geq0$, all of which it is easy to see are classes of smooth rational curves. For example, $H_0+dH_1$ corresponds to a plane curve of degree $d+1$ with a singular point of multiplicity $d$. To find the numerical types $(d_C,m_1,\ldots,m_7)$ of all smooth rational $C$, it is now enough to compute the orbit of each $D$ under $W(X)$, as we have done to produce the lists in the statement of the theorem.
We now determine the splitting gaps for the non-Asscenzi cases. First consider the curve $C$ of type $(10,4,4,4,4,4,4)$. Since $a_C\leq d_C/2 =5$, it suffices to show that $a_C>4$ to prove that the gap is 0. By twisting by ${{\mathcal O}}_C(C)$, we obtain an exact sequence $$0\to {{\mathcal O}}_C(4-a_C)\oplus{{\mathcal O}}_C(4-b_C)\to {{\mathcal O}}_C(C)\otimes H^0(L) \to {{\mathcal O}}_C(C+L) \to0.$$ To show $a_C>4$ it now suffices to show this is exact on global sections, since $h^0(C, {{\mathcal O}}_C(C)\otimes H^0(L)) = 15 = h^0(C, {{\mathcal O}}_C(C+L))$. But exactness follows from the fact that $H^0(C)\otimes H^0(L)\to H^0(C+L)$ is surjective (see [@refH2]) by taking global sections of the following diagram $$\begin{matrix}
0 & \to & {{\mathcal O}}_X\otimes H^0(L) & \to & {{\mathcal O}}_X(C)\otimes H^0(L)
& \to & {{\mathcal O}}_C(C)\otimes H^0(L) & \to & 0 \cr
{} & {} & \downarrow & {} & \downarrow & {} & \downarrow & {} & {} \cr
0 & \to & {{\mathcal O}}_X(L) & \to & {{\mathcal O}}_X(C+L) & \to & {{\mathcal O}}_C(C+L) & \to & 0 \cr
\end{matrix}$$ and applying the snake lemma.
We now find $a_C$ for the remaining non-Ascenzi cases. By applying Lemma \[splitlem\], and Proposition \[unbalsplitting\] with $A=3L-E_1-\cdots-E_7$, we have $m_C\leq a_C\leq C\cdot A$, and except for $(5, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 0) + d(5, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1)$, in each case we have $m_C=C\cdot A$, so $a_C=m_C$.
Finally, we consider the case $(5, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 0) + d(5, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1)$ for $d>0$. The preceding argument shows only that $2+2d\leq a_C\leq 3+2d$, but in fact, $a_C=3+2d$ for $d>0$ and $a_C=2$ for $d=0$ (hence the splitting gap is $|d-1|$). Certainly $a_C=5$ if $d=1$, since a curve of type $(10, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 1)$ is a proper transform of, but isomorphic to, a curve of type $(10, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 0)$ and thus has the same splitting type.
To see $a_C=3+2d$ when $d>1$, let $F$ and $G$ be smooth rational curves with $[F]=[5L-2(E_1+\cdots+E_6)]$ and let $[G]=[5L-2(E_1+\cdots+E_6)-E_7]$. Thus $[C]=[F+dG]$; note also that $2F-C=F-dG$. Taking cohomology of the diagram $$\begin{matrix}
0 & \to & {{\mathcal O}}_X(2F-C)\otimes H^0(L) & \to & {{\mathcal O}}_X(2F)\otimes H^0(L)
& \to & {{\mathcal O}}_C(2d+2)\otimes H^0(L) & \to & 0 \cr
{} & {} & \downarrow & {} & \downarrow & {} & \downarrow & {} & {} \cr
0 & \to & {{\mathcal O}}_X(L+2F-C) & \to & {{\mathcal O}}_X(2F+L) & \to & {{\mathcal O}}_C(7d+7) & \to & 0 \cr
\end{matrix}$$ gives the following commutative diagram: $$\begin{matrix}
0 & \to & H^0({{\mathcal O}}_X(2F))\otimes H^0(L) & \to & H^0({{\mathcal O}}_C(2d+2))\otimes H^0(L) & \to & H^1({{\mathcal O}}_X(2F-C))\otimes H^0(L) & \to & 0 \cr
{} & {\vbox to.2in{\vss}} & \downarrow \mu_2 & {\lower.15in\vbox to.15in{\vss}} & \downarrow \mu_3 & {} & \downarrow \mu_1 & {} & {} \cr
0 & \to & H^0({{\mathcal O}}_X(2F+L)) & \to & H^0({{\mathcal O}}_C(7d+7)) & \to & H^1({{\mathcal O}}_X(L+2F-C)) & \to & 0 \cr
\end{matrix}$$
For each $i$, let $V_i={\rm ker}(\mu_i)$. The results of [@refH2] show that $V_2=0$. If we also show that $V_1=0$, then the snake lemma shows that $H^0({{\mathcal O}}_C(2d+2-a_C))\oplus H^0({{\mathcal O}}_C(2d+2-b_C))=V_3=0$, and thus that $a_C>2d+2$, so $a_C=2d+3$.
To justify that $V_1=0$, consider $$\begin{matrix}
0 & \to & {{\mathcal O}}_X(F-(d+1)G)\otimes H^0(L) & \to & {{\mathcal O}}_X(F-dG)\otimes H^0(L)
& \to & {{\mathcal O}}_G(1)\otimes H^0(L) & \to & 0 \cr
{} & {} & \downarrow & {} & \downarrow & {} & \downarrow & {} & {} \cr
0 & \to & {{\mathcal O}}_X(L+F-(d+1)G) & \to & {{\mathcal O}}_X(L+F-dG) & \to & {{\mathcal O}}_G(6) & \to & 0. \cr
\end{matrix}$$ We know $h^0(X, {{\mathcal O}}_X(F-dG))=h^0(X, {{\mathcal O}}_X(L+F-dG))=0$ for all $d\geq2$ since $(F-dG)\cdot L<0$ and $(L+F-dG)\cdot L<0$. Also, $h^2(X, {{\mathcal O}}_X(F-dG))=h^2(X, {{\mathcal O}}_X(L+F-dG))=0$ for all $d\geq2$ by duality, since $G$ is nef and $G\cdot(K_X-(F-dG)))<0$ and $G\cdot(K_X-(L+F-dG))<0$. Thus we can use Riemann-Roch to obtain $h^1(X, {{\mathcal O}}_X(F-dG)) = 2d-3$ and $h^1(X,{{\mathcal O}}_X(L+F-dG)) = 7d-10$ when $d\geq 2$.
When $d=1$, $h^1(X, {{\mathcal O}}_X(F-dG))=h^1(X, {{\mathcal O}}_X(E_7))=0$ and $h^1(X, {{\mathcal O}}_X(L+F-dG))=h^1(X, {{\mathcal O}}_X(L+E_7))=0$. Taking cohomology when $d=1$ now gives a commutative diagram with exact rows: [$$\begin{matrix}
0 & \to & H^0(X,{{\mathcal O}}_X(F-G))\otimes H^0(L) & \to & H^0({{\mathcal O}}_G(1))\otimes H^0(L) & \to & H^1({{\mathcal O}}_X(F-2G))\otimes H^0(L) & \to & 0 \cr
{} & {} & \downarrow & {} & \downarrow & {} & \downarrow & {} & {} \cr
0 & \to & H^0({{\mathcal O}}_X(L+F-G)) & \to & H^0({{\mathcal O}}_G(6)) & \to & H^1({{\mathcal O}}_X(L+F-2G)) & \to & 0. \cr
\end{matrix}$$]{} The left vertical map is an isomorphism and the middle vertical map is injective (since the splitting type of $G$ is $(2,3)$), so the snake lemma tells us that the right vertical map is injective.
Now take cohomology again but with some $d\geq 2$. We obtain another commutative diagram with exact rows: [$$\begin{matrix}
0 & \to & H^0({{\mathcal O}}_G(1))\otimes H^0(L) & \to & H^1({{\mathcal O}}_X(F-(d+1)G))\otimes H^0(L) & \to & H^1({{\mathcal O}}_X(F-dG))\otimes H^0(L) & \to & 0 \cr
{} & {} & \downarrow & {} & \downarrow & {} & \downarrow & {} & {} \cr
0 & \to & H^0({{\mathcal O}}_G(6)) & \to & H^1({{\mathcal O}}_X(L+F-(d+1)G)) & \to & H^1({{\mathcal O}}_X(L+F-dG)) & \to & 0. \cr
\end{matrix}$$]{} By induction the right vertical map is injective and we saw above that the left one is also injective, hence so is the middle one; i.e., $V_1=0$ for all $d\geq0$.
\(a) By inspection of the statement of Theorem \[list7\], we see that in order for $C$ to fail to be Ascenzi, its image in the plane must have at least 6 singular points, and we see that there is a unique numerical type with exactly 6, namely $(10, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4)$, and its splitting gap is 0.
\(b) This follows from inspection of the statement of Theorem \[list7\].
Exceptional curves on 9 point blow ups {#9pts}
--------------------------------------
We would like to apply our results to the case of blow ups $X$ of ${{{\bf P}^{2}}}$ at $r=9$ generic points. To do so it will be helpful to collect some facts about the exceptional divisors on such an $X$.
As mentioned in the introduction, the case $r=9$ is the first interesting case for the problem of splitting types of exceptional curves on blow ups of ${{{\bf P}^{2}}}$ at $r$ generic points, since the exceptional curves have only finitely many numerical types when $r<9$. The numerical types for $r<8$ are obtained by deleting 0 entries from those for $r=8$ so it’s enough to list the types for $r=8$. Up to permutations of the entries $m_i$, the types for $r=8$ are as follows [@refM]: $(0,0,\ldots,0,-1)$, $(1,1,1,0,\ldots,0)$, $(2,1,1,1,1,1,0,\ldots,0)$, $(3,2,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,\ldots,0)$, $(4,2,2,2,1,1,1,1,1)$, $(5,2,2,2,2,2,2,1,1)$, and $(6,3,2,2,2,2,2,2,2)$. As is evident, these all are Ascenzi.
For $r=9$ it is well known that there are infinitely many numerical types of exceptional curves [@refN]. The recognition that only finitely many of them are Ascenzi seems to be new. To proceed to justify both of these facts, we begin by recalling how to write down the numerical types of exceptional curves for $r=9$. The result is old enough to be hard to attribute, especially in the form we will need, so for the convenience of the reader we include a proof.
\[enumexc\] Let $X\to {{{\bf P}^{2}}}$ be obtained by blowing up $r=9$ distinct points $p_i$, with $L,E_1,\ldots,E_9$ the usual basis of the divisor class group ${\rm Cl}(X)$ with respect to this blow up.
- A class $[E]\in {\rm Cl}(X)$ satisfies $E^2=E\cdot K_X=-1$ if and only if $[E]=v+(v^2/2)[K_X]+[E_9]$ for an element $v\in{\rm Cl}(X)$ with $v\cdot K_X=v\cdot E_9=0$. Moreover, the element $v$ is unique.
- Assume the points $p_i$ are generic. Then a class $[E]\in {\rm Cl}(X)$ satisfies $E^2=E\cdot K_X=-1$ if and only if $[E]$ is the class of an exceptional curve. Thus the classes of exceptional curves are exactly the classes of the form $v+v^2[K_X]/2+[E_9]$ for $v\in K_X^\perp\cap E_9^\perp$.
\(a) If $[E]=v+(v^2/2)[K_X]+[E_9]$ where $v\cdot K_X=v\cdot E_9=0$, then it is just a calculation to check that $E^2=E\cdot K_X=-1$. Conversely, if $E^2=E\cdot K_X=-1$, then $(E-E_9)\cdot K_X=0$. But $K_X^\perp$ is negative semi-definite and even (i.e., $v\in K_X^\perp$ implies $2 | v^2\leq 0$) with the only elements $v\in K_X^\perp$ having $v^2=0$ being multiples of $[K_X]=[-3L+E_1+\cdots+E_9]$. If $r=(E-E_9)\cdot E_9$, then $[(E-E_9)+rK_X]$ is in $K_X^\perp\cap E_9^\perp$, which is known to be negative definite, spanned by the classes of the elements $r_0=L-E_1-E_2-E_3, r_1=E_1-E_2,\ldots, r_7=E_7-E_8$. If we set $v=[(E-E_9)+rK_X]$, we obtain $[E]=v-r[K_X]+[E_9]$ and now using the fact that $E^2=E\cdot K_X=-1$, we find that $v^2=-2r$, hence $[E]=v+v^2[K_X]/2+[E_9]$. To see uniqueness, assume $v+(v^2/2)[K_X]+[E_9]=w+(w^2/2)[K_X]+[E_9]$. Then $v+(v^2/2)[K_X]=w+(w^2/2)[K_X]$, so $v^2/2=-E_9\cdot (v+(v^2/2)K_X)=
-E_9\cdot (w+(w^2/2)K_X)=w^2/2$, so $(v^2/2)[K_X]=(w^2/2)[K_X]$ and hence $v=w$.
\(b) To prove the backward implication, note that, by adjunction, if $E$ is an exceptional curve, then $E^2=E\cdot K_X=-1$. Conversely, assume $E^2=E\cdot K_X=-1$. Since $X$ is obtained by blowing up generic points, $[-K_X]$ is the class of a reduced and irreducible curve $\Gamma$ with $-K_X^2=0$, and moreover there are no smooth rational curves $C$ with $-K_X\cdot C=0$; such a curve $C$ must have $C^2=0$, but there are no such $(-2)$-curves, since $[C]$ would reduce by a Cremona transformation centered in the points $p_i$ to $[L-E_1-E_2-E_3]$ (see [@refH4 §0], [@refK]), but the images $p_i'$ of the points $p_i$ under the transformation are generic [@refN proof of Lemm 2.5] so no three of the points $p_i'$ can lie on a line. Since $\Gamma \cdot E=1$ and there are no $(-2)$-curves, it follows by [@refLH Proposition 3.3] that $E$ is an exceptional curve.
A class $E$ with $E^2=E\cdot K_X=-1$ need not be the class of an exceptional curve when $r>9$; for example, $[K_X]$ is such a class when $r=10$, but since $L$ is nef and $L\cdot K_X=-3$, $[K_X]$ is not the class of an effective divisor.
We now show for $r=9$ that there are only finitely many exceptional curves $E$ satisfying the condition $d_E\leq 2m_E+1$ and hence there are only finitely many Ascenzi exceptional curves when $r=9$. In fact, we show more:
\[finAscprop\] Let $X\to {{{\bf P}^{2}}}$ be obtained by blowing up $r=9$ distinct points $p_i$. Then for each integer $j$ there are only finitely many classes $E$ of exceptional curves such that $d_E-2m_E\leq j$.
Let $L,E_1,\ldots,E_9$ be the basis of the divisor class group ${\rm Cl}(X)$ with respect to the blow up $X\to {{{\bf P}^{2}}}$. Since $E$ is effective and $L$ is nef, we have $d_E=E\cdot L\geq 0$. Moreover, since $d_E-2m_E=E\cdot(L-2E_i)$ for some $i$, it is enough to show for each $i$ that there are only finitely many $E$ such that $E\cdot(L-2E_i)\leq j$. The proof is the same for each $i$; we will thus consider the case $i=1$. Since any exceptional curve $C$ satisfies $C^2=C\cdot K_X=-1$, it is enough to show that there are only finitely many classes $E$ (whether or not they are classes of exceptional curves) with $E^2=E\cdot K_X=-1$ such that $E\cdot(L-2E_1)\leq j$ and such that $d_E\geq0$. If we find an upper bound on $d_E$, depending only on $j$, we will be done. To obtain it, note by Proposition \[enumexc\](a) that we have $E=v+v^2[K_X]/2+[E_9]$ for some $v=[a_0r_0+a_1r_1+\cdots+a_7r_7]=[a_0L-(a_0-a_1)E_1-b_2E_2-\cdots-b_8E_8]
\in K_X^\perp\cap E_9^\perp$. Hence $E\cdot(L-2E_1)=-a_0+2a_1-v^2/2$, and, since $v\cdot K_X=0$, $2a_0+a_1=b_2+\cdots+b_8$. Thus the average $\bar{b}=(b_2+\cdots+b_8)/7$ is $(2a_0+a_1)/7$. Working formally over the rationals, let $w=[a_0L-(a_0-a_1)E_1-\bar{b}(E_2+\cdots+E_8)]$, so $w\in K_X^\perp\cap E_9^\perp$ and $w^2/2=(5a_0a_1-4a_1^2-2a_0^2)/7$. Due to the fact that the intersection form is negative semi-definite on $K_X^\perp$ and the general fact for averages that the square of an average is at most the average of the squares and hence $7\bar{b}^2\leq b_2^2+\cdots+b_8^2$, we have $0\leq -w^2/2\leq -v^2/2$. Thus $E\cdot(L-2E_1)=-a_0+2a_1-v^2/2\geq -a_0+2a_1-w^2/2=(2a_0^2+4a_1^2-5a_0a_1-7a_0+14a_1)/7$. The substitution $a_0=x+5y-2$ and $a_1=4y-3$ gives $(2a_0^2+4a_1^2-5a_0a_1-7a_0+14a_1)/7=(2x^2+14y^2-14)/7$.
Since $d_E=E\cdot L = a_0-3v^2/2$, we have $j\geq E\cdot (L-2E_1)=-a_0+2a_1-v^2/2=d_E/3-4a_0/3+2a_1$. Using the substitution $a_0=x+5y-2$ and $a_1=4y-3$ and simplifying gives $d_E\leq 3j+4(x-y)+10$, where $j\geq (2x^2+14y^2-14)/7$. Using Lagrange multipliers, we see that the maximum value of $x-y$ given $j\geq (2x^2+14y^2-14)/7$ occurs for $x=\lambda/4$ and $y=-\lambda/28$ when $j= (2x^2+14y^2-14)/7$, hence $$d_E\leq 3j+\Big\lfloor 4\sqrt{4j+8}\Big\rfloor+10.
\eqno{(\circ)}$$ Clearly there are only finitely many classes $E=d_EL-m_1E_1-\cdots-m_9E_9$ with $d_E\geq0$ and $E^2=-1$ satisfying $(\circ)$.
\[BoundOnDegree\] Let $X$ be the blow up of ${{{\bf P}^{2}}}$ at 9 distinct points. Then every Ascenzi exceptional curve $E\subset X$ has $d_E\leq 26$ and the only one with unbalanced splitting is $E=4L-3E_1-E_2-\cdots-E_9$ (up to indexation of the $E_i$).
The Ascenzi exceptional curves $E$ satisfy $d_E-2m_E\leq 1$. If we set $j=1$ in $(\circ)$, then $d_E\leq 26$; i.e., on a blow up $X$ of ${{{\bf P}^{2}}}$ at 9 points every Ascenzi exceptional curve $E$ must have $d_E\leq 26$. In order for an Ascenzi exceptional curve $E$ to be unbalanced, we must have $m_E-(d_E-m_E)\geq 2$; i.e., we must have $d_E-2m_E\leq -2$. But in the notation of the proof of Proposition \[finAscprop\], $d_E-2m_E\leq -2$ implies $-2\geq E\cdot(L-2E_1)\geq (2x^2+14y^2-14)/7$, which forces $x=y=0$, hence $-2= E\cdot(L-2E_1)=(2x^2+14y^2-14)/7$ and thus $|\bar{b}|=|b_2|=\cdots=|b_8|$. But $x=y=0$ gives $a_0=-2$, $a_1=-3$ and $\bar{b}=-1$, so $E=4L-3E_1\pm E_2\pm \cdots\pm E_9$, and now $E\cdot K_X=-1$ forces $E=4L-3E_1- E_2- \cdots- E_9$.
\[AscenziList\] Given fixed integers $d>0$ and $r>0$, it is not hard using the action of $W(X)$ to find all classes $[E]=[d_EL-m_1E_1-\cdots-m_rE_r]$ of exceptional curves satisfying $d_E\leq d$, where for efficiency it is best to require $m_1\geq \cdots\geq m_r$. The method uses the fact that one can reduce any exceptional class $[E]$ to some $[E_i]$ by successively applying quadratic transforms $s_{ijk}$, centered at $E_i$, $E_j$ and $E_k$, choosing $i,j$ and $k$ so that $d_E$ drops as much as possible each time (just choose $i,j,k$ to maximize the sum $m_i+m_j+m_k$). Applying this in reverse, one starts with $[E_1]$ and applies $s_{ijk}$ for various choices of $i,j,k$. One continues doing this to the new classes one obtains; eventually one will have a list of classes $[E]$ with $d_E\leq d$ such that whenever one applies $s_{ijk}$ for any choice of $i,j,k$ to any $[E]$ on the list one always obtains (up to permutations of the $m_i$) another $[E]$ on the list or an $E$ with $d>dE$. The list then is complete.
By using such an exhaustive procedure, we have found all $[E]$ with $d_E\leq 61$ for a blow up of ${{{\bf P}^{2}}}$ at 9 generic points. There are all together 1054 exceptional classes $[E]=[d_EL-m_1E_1-\cdots-m_9E_9]$ with $d_E\leq 61$ and $m_1\geq \cdots\geq m_9$. Of these, 42 are Ascenzi, as follows. By Corollary \[BoundOnDegree\], there are no other Ascenzi exceptional curves for $r=9$.
There is only one Ascenzi $E$ with $d_E-2m_E\leq-2$. It’s numerical type is:
4 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Those Ascenzi $E$ with $d_E-2m_E=-1$ are:
1 1 1 7 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 11 6 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3
3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 5 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 13 7 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3
5 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1
Those Ascenzi $E$ with $d_E-2m_E=0$ are:
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 8 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 14 7 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 3
2 1 1 1 1 1 8 4 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 14 7 6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 10 5 4 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 16 8 6 5 5 5 5 5 4 4
6 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 12 6 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 2 18 9 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 5
6 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 12 6 5 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 20 10 7 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
And those Ascenzi $E$ with $d_E-2m_E=1$ are:
5 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 13 6 5 5 5 4 4 3 3 3 19 9 7 6 6 6 6 6 6 4
7 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 13 6 6 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 19 9 7 7 6 6 6 5 5 5
9 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 2 1 15 7 6 5 5 5 5 4 4 3 21 10 7 7 7 7 7 6 6 5
9 4 4 4 3 3 2 2 2 2 15 7 6 6 5 4 4 4 4 4 21 10 8 7 7 6 6 6 6 6
11 5 4 4 4 4 4 3 2 2 17 8 6 6 6 6 5 5 4 4 23 11 8 8 7 7 7 7 7 6
11 5 5 4 4 3 3 3 3 2 17 8 7 6 5 5 5 5 5 4 25 12 8 8 8 8 8 8 7 7
13 6 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 2
In order to demonstrate that there are infinitely many non-Ascenzi exceptional curves on a blow up of ${{{\bf P}^{2}}}$ at $r=9$ generic points, it will be useful first to prove two lemmas.
\[usefullemma2\] Let $X$ be the blow up of ${{{\bf P}^{2}}}$ at $r=9$ generic points. Let $E$ be an exceptional curve for which there is a divisor $A$ such that $[2A]=[E+K_X+L]$. Then $E$ has unbalanced splitting.
We easily check that $-K_X\cdot A=2$. If $E\cdot L=0$, then $E=E_i$ for some $i$ and there is no $A$ such that $[2A]=[E+K_X+L]$. Thus we may assume that $E\cdot L>0$, and we now have $1+A^2=A\cdot L=L\cdot E/2-1\geq 0$ since $L\cdot E$ is even and positive. Since $A\cdot L\geq0$ we know $h^2(X, A)=0$. Now from Riemann-Roch we have $h^0(X,A)\geq (A^2-K_X\cdot A)/2+1=(1/2)(L\cdot E/2-2-K_X\cdot A)+1
=(L\cdot E)/4+1>0$.
By [@refLH Lemma 4.1], the class of every effective divisor is a non-negative sum of $[-K_X]$ and prime divisors of negative self-intersection. Since $X$ is a generic blow up, the only prime divisors of negative self-intersection are the exceptional curves [@refH]. But $E\cdot L\geq2$ so $2A\cdot E=-2+L\cdot E\geq0$, and for any exceptional curve $C\neq E$ we have $2A\cdot C=(E+K_X+L)\cdot C\geq C\cdot K_X=-1$. Since $2A\cdot C$ is even we must have $2A\cdot C\geq0$. Since $A$ is effective and meets $-K_X$ and every exceptional curve non-negatively, $A$ is nef, but now $-K_X\cdot A>0$ implies $h^1(X,A)=0$ by [@refH].
We now have ${\rm le}(A)\geq1$ by Lemma \[lelemma\], and since $(A-E+L)\cdot L<0$, we have $h^0(X,A-C_A+L)=0$, so $a_E\leq A\cdot E$ Proposition \[unbalsplitting\], hence $\gamma_E= d_E-2a_E\geq d_E-2A\cdot E=2$. Thus $E$ has unbalanced splitting.
\[usefullemma\] Let $X$ be the blow up of ${{{\bf P}^{2}}}$ at $r=9$ generic points. Let $[E]=[dL-m_1E_1-\cdots-m_9E_9]$ be the class of an exceptional curve with $m_1\geq\cdots\geq m_9\geq 0$ and $d\geq 2m_1-1$. Let $A=E+E_1-sK_X$ for $s=d-2m_1+1$ and let $C_A=2A-K_X-L$. Then $[C_A]$ is the class of an exceptional curve with unbalanced splitting.
Direct calculation shows $C_A^2=K_X\cdot A=-1$, hence $[C_A]$ is the class of an exceptional curve by Proposition \[enumexc\], and it has unbalanced splitting by Lemma \[usefullemma2\].
Parts (a) and (b) follow from Corollary \[BoundOnDegree\]. Consider part (c). By Proposition \[enumexc\](b), there are infinitely many exceptional curves on $X$. For any fixed $d$, there can be at most finitely many classes $E=dL-m_1E_1-\cdots-m_9E_9$ with $E^2=-1$. Thus for any $d$, there are infinitely many exceptional curves $E$ with $E\cdot L\geq d$. By Corollary \[BoundOnDegree\], for $d>26$ none of these infinitely many exceptional curves is Ascenzi, and hence for each such exceptional curve $E$ we have $d_E> 2m_E+1$. For each such $E$ we thus have by Corollary \[usefullemma\] an unbalanced exceptional $C_A$ with $C_A\cdot L>E\cdot L\geq d$, and hence there are infinitely many non-Ascenzi unbalanced exceptional curves.
By Lemma \[usefullemma2\], $E$ has unbalanced splitting since there is a divisor $A$ with $2A=E+K_X+L$, hence $\gamma_E\geq 2$ and $a_E=(d_E-\gamma_E)/2\leq (d_E-2)/2$.
\[infnonAscbal\] Let $X$ be the blow up of $r=9$ generic points of ${{{\bf P}^{2}}}$. Here we explain why there are infinitely many non-Ascenzi exceptional curves $E\subset X$ for which there is no divisor $A$ satisfying $2A=E+K_X+L$. (Note if Conjecture \[9ptconj\] is true, each such $E$ must have balanced splitting.) We know $X$ has infinitely many classes $[E']=[d_{E'}L-m_1E_1-\cdots-m_9E_9]$ of exceptional curves $E'$, and we may assume $m_1\geq m_2\geq \cdots \geq m_9\geq 0$. We have seen that only finitely many of them are Ascenzi. As in the proof of Theorem \[classificationthm\], there are infinitely many $E'$ such that $2A=E'+K_X+L$ for some $A$. For each such $E'$, we thus see $d_{E'}$ is even and each $m_i$ is odd. Note that $E'\cdot(L-E_7-E_8-E_9)>0$, because $m_1\geq m_2\geq \cdots \geq m_9\geq 0$ implies $E'\cdot(L-E_1-E_2-E_3)\leq E'\cdot(L-E_4-E_5-E_6)\leq E'\cdot(L-E_7-E_8-E_9)$, so if we had $E'\cdot(L-E_7-E_8-E_9)\leq0$, we would have $1=E'\cdot(-K_X)=E'\cdot((L-E_1-E_2-E_3)+(L-E_4-E_5-E_6)+(L-E_7-E_8-E_9))\leq0$. But $[E]=s_{789}([E'])$ is the class of an exceptional curve $E$, and $E'\cdot(L-E_7-E_8-E_9)>0$ implies that $d_E>d_{E'}$ where $d_E$ is odd.
\[twoptsofview\] Let $X$ be the blow up of ${{{\bf P}^{2}}}$ at $r=9$ generic points. By Conjecture \[9ptconj\], an exceptional curve $E$ on $X$ has unbalanced splitting if and only if there is a certain divisor $A$ with $-K_X\cdot A=2$. In the conjecture, $[A]$ has the form $[E+K_X+L]/2$, but in Corollary \[usefullemma\], $[A]$ has the form $[E'+E''-sK_X]$ where $E'\ne E''$ are exceptional curves and $s\geq0$. However, as noted in the proof of Lemma \[usefullemma2\], the class of every effective divisor on $X$ is a non-negative sum of $[-K_X]$ and classes of prime divisors of negative self-intersection. Thus if $D$ is an effective divisor with $-K_X\cdot D=d$, then we can write $[D]$ as a sum of classes of $d$ exceptional curves plus some non-negative multiple of $[-K_X]$. In particular, if $[A]=[E+K_X+L]/2$, then we also have $[A]=[E'+E''-sK_X]$ as above.
Application to graded Betti numbers for fat points {#appls}
==================================================
Let $p_1,\ldots,p_r\in{{{\bf P}^{2}}}$ be points. A 0-dimensional subscheme $Z\subset{{{\bf P}^{2}}}$ with support contained in the set of points $p_i$ is called a *fat point* subscheme if it is defined by a homogeneous ideal $I\subset
R = {K}[{{{\bf P}^{2}}}]$ of the form $I=\cap_i(I(p_i)^{m_i})$ where each $m_i$ is a non-negative integer. In this case we will write $I=I_Z$, and $Z=m_1p_1+\cdots+m_rp_r$. The least degree $t$ such that the homogeneous component $I_t$ of $I$ of degree $t$ is non-zero is denoted $\alpha(Z)$, or just $\alpha$ if $Z$ is understood.
We are interested in determining the minimal free graded resolution for the ideal $I$ of a scheme of fat points in ${{{\bf P}^{2}}}$; our aim, following the work in [@refF1], [@refFHH], [@refGHI1], [@refGHI2] and [@refGHI3], is to study the graded Betti numbers of $I$ when the support of $Z$ is given by generic points in ${{{\bf P}^{2}}}$.
Notice that the values of the Hilbert function of $Z$, $h_Z(k) =
\dim R_k - \dim I_k$, are described, under the genericity assumption, by a well known conjecture by means of which one can explicitly write down the function $h_Z$ given the multiplicities $m_i$. Various equivalent versions of this conjecture have been given (see [@refS], [@refH5], [@refGi], [@refHi]). We will refer to them collectively as the SHGH Conjecture. Roughly, the SHGH conjecture says that $h_Z(k)$ does not assume the expected value if and only if the linear system $|I_k|$ presents a multiple fixed rational component.
When trying to state a conjecture for the graded Betti numbers of $I$, the situation turns out to be much more complicated. For general simple points, it is known that the minimal resolution is “as simple as it can be", i.e. for each $ k$, $\mu_k : I_k \otimes
R_1 \rightarrow I_{k+1}$ has maximal rank. So, the first problem that comes to mind is to understand in which cases the resolution of $I_Z$ can be different from the resolution of $l(Z)=length (Z)$ general simple points, which amounts to finding the values $k$ for which $\mu_k$ does not have maximal rank.
Of course there are trivial cases with “bad resolution", namely those for which $Z$ has “bad postulation". Hence we are interested first in finding cases where $Z$ is supported on generic points and has generic Hilbert function (assuming SHGH), but it has a “bad resolution". In those cases (e.g., see [@refGHI2 Remark 2.3]) it is easy to check that the only value of $k$ for which $\mu_k$ might not have maximal rank is $k=\alpha$.
Our idea, consistent with the known examples, is that the “troubles" are always given by the existence of rational curves whose intersection with the fat point scheme $Z$ is too high with respect to the behavior of the cotangent bundle on the curve, or, to be more precise, to the splitting of the pull back of the cotangent bundle on the normalization of the curve. In other words, the scheme $Z$ has a “too high secant" rational curve. This is the analogue of what happens with curves in ${{{\bf P}^{3}}}$, where, for example, the generic rational quintic curve postulates well but has a bad resolution, and this is due to the fact that the quintic has a 4-secant line (see [@refGLP]).
For example, $Z=3p_1+3p_2+p_3+p_4+p_5$ should be generated by quintics, but it is not since the line $L$ through $p_1$ and $p_2$ is a fixed component for the quintics. Another way to look at this is that the intersection of $Z$ with $L$ is a scheme of length 6, while $\Omega (6) \vert_L \cong {{\mathcal O}}_{L}(4)\oplus{{\mathcal O}}_{L}(5)$, so that its sections vanishing on $Z$ also vanish along $L$; i.e., $Z\cap L$ imposes independent conditions on one direct summand, but not on ${{\mathcal O}}_{L}(4)$, with the result that the cokernel of $H^0(\Omega (6) \vert_L) \to H^0(\Omega (6)\vert_Z)$ is non-zero. But this cokernel is the surjective image of the cokernel of $\mu_5(Z)$, and hence $\mu_5(Z)$ cannot be surjective (for a detailed explanation, see [@refGHI2], especially the commutative diagram in the proof of [@refGHI2 Proposition 4.2], analogous to below).
Other plane curves $C$ can play the role of $L$, but understanding $\Omega(k+1)\vert_C$ is more difficult when $C$ is not a smooth rational curve, because when $C$ is not smooth and rational, $\Omega\vert_C$ need not split. One way to deal with this is to look at $(\pi^*\Omega (k+1))\vert_{C'}$ for smooth rational curves $C'\subset X$, where $\pi:X\to{{{\bf P}^{2}}}$ is the blow up of points $p_i$ (and hence typically $C'$ is the normalization of some plane curve $C$). The forms in $I_k$ will correspond to divisors in the class of $F_k = kL-m_1E_1-\dots
-m_rE_r$. In order to study the maps $\mu_k$, we will, equivalently, consider the maps $\mu_{F_k}: H^0(F_k)\otimes H^0(L) \rightarrow
H^0(F_{k}+L)$; since we are interested in the case $k=\alpha$, we set $F=F_\alpha$.
So consider a rational curve $C \subset {{{\bf P}^{2}}}$ whose strict transform $C' \subset X$ is smooth and irreducible; setting $t=F\cdot C'$, $a=a_{C'}$, $b=b_{C'}$, via twisting the sequence by $F$ we get: $$\label{eqn4b}
0 \to {{{\mathcal O}}}_{C'}(t-a)\oplus{{{\mathcal O}}}_{C'}(t-b) \to
F|_{C'}\otimes H^0(L) \to (F+L)|_{C'} \to 0.$$
Taking cohomology, we get the map $\bar \mu_{C',F}:
H^0(F\vert_{C'})\otimes H^0(L) \to H^0((F+L)\vert_{C'})$ where $\hbox{ker}(\bar \mu _{C',F})=H^0({{{\mathcal O}}}_{C'}(t-a)\oplus
{{{\mathcal O}}}_{C'}(t-b))$.
Assuming $H^1(F-C')=0$ and $L\cdot (F-C')\geq-1$, which imply $H^1(F-C'+L)=0$, we have (as in [@refGHI2]) the following commutative diagram:
$$\label{diagram}
\begin{matrix} {} & {} & 0 & {} & 0 & {} & 0 & {} & {} \cr
{} & {} & \downarrow & {} & \downarrow & {} & \downarrow & {} & {}
\cr 0 & \to & H^0((F-C')\otimes p^*\Omega (1)) & \to & H^0(F\otimes
p^*\Omega (1)) & \to & \hbox{ker}(\bar \mu _{C',F}) &
\xrightarrow{\tau} & \cr {} & {} & \downarrow & {} & \downarrow & {} &
\downarrow & {} & {} \cr 0 & \to & H^0(F-C')\otimes H^0(L) & \to &
H^0(F)\otimes H^0(L) & \to & H^0(F\vert_{C'})\otimes H^0(L) & \to &
0 \cr {} & {} & \downarrow \raise3pt\hbox to0in{$\scriptstyle\mu_{F-
C'}$\hss} & {} & \downarrow\raise3pt\hbox
to0in{$\scriptstyle\mu_{F}$\hss} & {} & \downarrow\raise3pt\hbox
to0in{$\scriptstyle\bar \mu _{C',F}$\hss} & {} & {} \cr 0 & \to &
H^0(F-C'+L) & \to & H^0(F+L) & \to & H^0((F+L)\vert_{C'})& \to & 0
\cr {} & {} & \downarrow & {} & \downarrow & {} & \downarrow & {} &
{} \cr {} & \xrightarrow{\tau} & \hbox{cok}\mu_{F-{C'}} &
\to & \hbox{cok}\mu_{F} & \to & \hbox{cok}(\bar \mu _{C',F}) & \to &
0 \cr {} & {} & \downarrow & {} & \downarrow & {} & \downarrow & {}
& {} \cr {} & {} & 0 & {} & 0 & {} & 0 & {} & {} \cr
\end{matrix}$$
If $C'$ also satisfies $t=F\cdot C' \geq -1$, then $H^1(F\vert_{ C'})\otimes H^0(L) =0$ so the last vertical column of gives cok$(\bar \mu _{C',F})=H^1({{{\mathcal O}}}_{
C'}(t-a)\oplus {{{\mathcal O}}}_{C'}(t-b))$. In this case, $\mu_{F}$ cannot have maximal rank if cok$(\bar \mu _{C',F})$ is “too big" (when $\mu_{F}$ is expected to be surjective, too big means simply that cok$(\bar \mu _{C',F})$ is nonzero). We will now see how this all works with two examples which use rational curves $C\subset {{{\bf P}^{2}}}$ with unbalanced splitting.
\[ex4111\] Let $Z= 4p_1+p_2+\cdots+p_9$. It is well known that $Z$ has good postulation; we have $l(Z)=18$, $\dim
(I_Z)_{4}=0$, $\dim (I_Z)_{5}=3$ so $\alpha(Z)
=5$, and $\dim (I_Z)_{6}=10$, hence one expects that $\mu_{5}$ is injective and that $\dim
{\rm coker}\mu_{5}=1$. We will see that this does not happen. Consider a quartic curve $C\subset {{{\bf P}^{2}}}$ passing through the $p_i$’s and with a singularity of multiplicity 3 at $p_1$. Its strict transform is a divisor $C'=4L-3E_1-E_2-\dots -E_9$ on $X$; $C'$ is Ascenzi with unbalanced splitting $(a_{C'},b_{C'})=(1,3)$. If we consider the diagram (\[diagram\]) where $F=F_{5}$ and $t=F\cdot C'=20-20=0$, we get $\dim {\rm
cok}(\bar \mu _{C',F})=h^1({{{\mathcal O}}}_{C'}(-1)\oplus {{{\mathcal O}}}_{C'}(-3))=2$. This forces $\dim {\rm coker}\mu_{F}\geq 2$, and we actually have $\dim {\rm coker}\mu_{F}= 2$, since $F-C'=L-E_1$, so the column on the left column of the diagram corresponds to the linear syzygies on the pencil of lines through the point $p_1$, but in that case we know cok$( \mu_{F-C'})=0$.
\[ex44411\] Let $Z= 4p_1+\cdots+4p_7+p_8+p_9$; we know that $Z$ has good postulation and $(I_Z)_{11}$ is fixed component free (e.g. see [@refH]). Namely, we have $l(Z)=72$, $\dim (I_Z)_{10}=0$, $\dim
(I_Z)_{11}=6$, $\dim (I_Z)_{12}=19$, $\alpha(Z) =11$, hence $\mu_{11}$ is expected to be injective, with $\dim {\rm
cok}(\mu_{11})=1$, but we will see that this does not happen (see also [@refFHH]). This is due to the existence of a curve $C\subset {{{\bf P}^{2}}}$ of degree 8 where $m(C)_{p_i}=3$ for $1\leq i \leq
7$, and where $p_8$, $p_9$ are simple points of $C$, which by Example \[AEpairs\] gives $C'=8L-3E_1-\dots -3E_7-E_8-E_9$ on $X$ having unbalanced splitting $(a_{C'},b_{C'})=(3,5)$. Now from diagram (\[diagram\]), with $F=F_{11}$ and $t=F\cdot
C'=88-86=2$, we get $\dim {\rm cok}(\bar \mu _{C',F})=h^1({{{\mathcal O}}}_{
C'}(-1)\oplus {{{\mathcal O}}}_{C'}(-3))=2$. We have $F-C'=-K_X$, so the column on the left of the diagram corresponds to the liner syzygies among forms of degree 3 in the resolution of the ideal of seven points in ${{{\bf P}^{2}}}$ for which we know cok$( \mu_{F-C'})=0$. This implies that we actually have $\dim {\rm coker}\mu_{F}= 2$.
Examples \[ex4111\] and \[ex44411\] give particular instances of infinitely many fat point subschemes $Z\subset{{{\bf P}^{2}}}$ with “bad resolution”, which we can obtain using the results of §3:
\[9fatpts\] Consider the blow up $X$ of ${{{\bf P}^{2}}}$ at 9 generic points $p_1,\dots,p_9$. Let $C'$ be an exceptional divisor on $X$ of type $(d,m_1,\dots ,m_9)=(2d',2m_1'+1,\dots ,2m_9'+1)$ with $d'\geq2$ and consider the fat point subscheme $Z=(3m_1'+1)p_1+\dots +(3m_9'+1)p_9\subset {{{\bf P}^{2}}}$. Then
1. $Z$ has maximal Hilbert function and $\alpha(Z)=3d'-1$;
2. $\mu_\alpha$ is expected to be injective with $\dim {\rm
coker}(\mu_\alpha)=1$; but in fact
3. $ \dim {\rm coker}(\mu_\alpha)\geq 2$.
Hence $Z$ does not have generic resolution.
If $A$ is a divisor of type $(d'-1,m_1',\dots ,m_9')$, then $[2A]=[C'+K_X+L]$, so by Lemma \[usefullemma2\] (and its proof) $h^0(A)>0$ and $C'$ has unbalanced splitting; in particular, $\gamma_{C'}\geq 2$ and the splitting type of $C'$ is $(a_{C'},b_{C'})$ with $a_{C'}\leq d'-1$. Note that $F=C'+A$ has type $(3d'-1, 3m_1'+1,\dots , 3m_9'+1)$. Since $F$ is the sum of two effective divisors, $\alpha(Z)=3d'+1$ follows if we check that $h^0(F-L)=0$. Consider the exact sequence: $$0\to {{\mathcal O}}_X(A-L) \to {{\mathcal O}}_X(F-L) \to {{\mathcal O}}_X(F-L)|_{C'} \to 0.$$ Since $-K_X$ is nef and $-K_X\cdot(2A-2L)=-K_X\cdot(C'+K_X-L)<0$, we see that $h^0({{\mathcal O}}_X(2A-2L))=0$ and hence also $h^0({{\mathcal O}}_X(A-L))=0$. Moreover, $(F-L)\cdot C'=-d'-2$, so $h^0({{\mathcal O}}_X(F-L)|_{C'})=0$, hence $h^0(F-L)=0$ and so $\alpha(Z)=3d'+1$.
In order to prove that $Z$ has maximal Hilbert function we only have to show that $h_Z(3d'+1)$ is maximal, i.e. that $h^0(F)$ has the expected dimension (equivalently, that $h^1(F)=0)$. But $-K_X\cdot F=3$, so by [@refH], $h^1(F)=0$ if we show that $F$ is nef. But as noted in the proof of Lemma \[usefullemma2\], the class of every effective divisor is a non-negative sum of exceptional classes and non-negative multiples of $-K_X$. Thus $F$ is nef if $F\cdot E\geq0$ for every exceptional curve $E$, but $F=(3C'+K_X+L)/2$, so $F\cdot C'=d'-2\geq0$, while $F\cdot E\geq \lceil(-1+E\cdot L)/2\rceil\geq 0$ if $E\neq C'$. Since $F$ is nef, it follows that $h^1(L, F+L)=0$, and since also $h^1(F)=0$, it follows and that $h^1(F+L)=0$. A straightforward (but tedious) computation now shows that $h^0(F+L)-3h^0(F)=1$, hence $\mu_F$ is expected to be injective with $\dim {coker}(\mu_F)=1$, as claimed.
Arguing as we did for $F$, we also see that $A$ is nef, and since $-K_X\cdot A>0$, we have $h^1(F-C')=h^1(A)=0$, so we can apply diagram (\[diagram\]) for our $F$ and $C'$. We have that $t=F\cdot C'=d'-2\geq a_{C'}-1$, so we get that $\dim {\rm coker}(\bar \mu _{C',F})= h^1({{\mathcal O}}_C(d'-2-a_{C'})\oplus {{\mathcal O}}_C(d'-2-2d'+a_{C'}))$, and $a_{C'}-d'-2\leq -3$, so $\dim {\rm coker}(\bar \mu _{C',F})\geq 2$.
Not all examples of fat point subschemes with good postulation and “bad resolution" follow the pattern illustrated above. In fact, a more complicated geometry is possible; for example, the curve $C'$ may have many irreducible rational components and need not even be reduced (see Examples 4.7, 6.3 in [@refGHI2]). Other examples can be found in [@refGHI1] or in [@refGHI2], where there are also two conjectures which describe completely what the situation could be.
Resolutions for subschemes $Z$ not possessing a maximal hilbert function are also of interest. Things are more complicated in this situation, but the “unbalanced splitting" idea can still be useful. Actually, when $r=9$ and the points $p_i$ are generic, then using [@refGHI1 Theorem 3.3(b)] and assuming Conjecture \[9ptconj\] if need be, we can in every degree $k$, except possibly degree $\alpha(Z)+1$, find the minimal number of generators of $(I_Z)_k$, as we demonstrate in the next example.
\[exbignumbers\] Let $Z=230p_1+225p_2+\cdots+225p_8+95p_9$, for generic points $p_i \in {{{\bf P}^{2}}}$. The Hilbert function of the ideal $I_Z$ can be found by computing $h^0(X, F_k)$, where $F_k=kL-230E_1-225E_2-\cdots-225E_8-95E_9$. We have $h^0(X, F_k)=0$ for $k<645$, $h^0(X, F_{645})=71$, $h^0(X, F_{646})=528$, $h^0(X,
F_{647})=1176$, $h^0(X, F_k)=\binom{k+2}{2}-\deg
Z=\binom{k+2}{2}-209100$. We will compute the rank of each map $\mu_k$, except for $k=645$.
To find the minimal number $\nu_{k+1}$ of generators in each degree $k+1$ we must find the dimension of the cokernel of the usual maps $\mu_{F_k}:H^0(F_k)\otimes H^0(L)\to
H^0(F_{k+1})$. Clearly $\nu_{645}=h^0(X, F_{645})=71$. The same algorithm that we use to compute $h^0(X, F_k)$ can be used to give a Zariski decomposition of $F_k$. This is useful since if $F_k=H+N$ where $H$ is effective and $N$ is effective and fixed in $|F_k|$, then $\nu_{k+1}=\dim {\rm coker}(\mu_H)+(h^0(X,
F_{k+1})-h^0(X,H+L))$, and we know $h^0(X, F_{k+1})$ and $h^0(X,H+L)$. It is known that the dimension $\delta_H$ of the kernel of $\mu_H$ has bounds $h^0(X,H-(L-E_1))\leq \delta_H\leq
h^0(X,H-(L-E_1))+h^0(X,H-E_1)$. Bounds on $\delta_H$ of course give bounds on $\dim {\rm coker}(\mu_H)$. We find $N=20E$, where $E=20L-7E_1-\cdots-7E_8-3E_9$ is an exceptional curve which by Conjecture \[9ptconj\] has splitting gap 2, and $H=245L-90E_1-85E_2\cdots-85E_8-35E_9$ is nef and effective. We find $0=h^0(X,H-(L-E_1))\leq \delta_k\leq
h^0(X,F_k-(L-E_1))+h^0(X,F_k-E_1)=1$, $h^0(X, F_{k+1})=528$, $h^0(X,
H+L)=318$ and $h^0(X,H)=h^0(X,F_k)=71$ for $k=645$, and hence $315\leq \nu_{646}\leq 316$.
For $t=646$ we have $N=0$ and $H=F_k$. Doing the same calculation with this new Zariski decomposition gives $0\leq \nu_{647}\leq 99$. But in fact, using the splitting gap of 2 from above and [@refGHI1 Theorem 3.3(b)] we have $\dim{\rm
coker}(\mu_{F_{646}})=\dim{\rm coker}(\mu_{L+20E})=
\binom{11}{2}+\binom{9}{2}=91$. From the Hilbert function we see that the regularity of $I_Z$ is 647, so $\nu_k=0$ for $t>647$. Given the Hilbert function and numbers of generators of $I_Z$ we compute all but one of the remaining graded Betti numbers: there are 286 syzygies in degree 647 and 190 in degree 648, but since we do not know the number of minimal generators in degree 646 we also do not know the number of syzygies. This example and others like it can be run at: <http://www.math.unl.edu/~bharbourne1/GHM/ResForFatPts.html>.
Notice that if $\dim (I_Z)_\alpha\le2$, then we can find the minimal number of generators of $I_Z$ also in degree $\alpha(Z)+1$. If $\dim (I_Z)_\alpha=1$, then $(I_Z)_\alpha\otimes R_1\to
(I_Z)_{\alpha+1}$ is injective so the number of generators in degree $\alpha(Z)+1$ is just $\dim (I_Z)_{\alpha+1}-3$, while if $\dim
(I_Z)_\alpha=2$ we can determine the dimension of the kernel of $(I_Z)_\alpha\otimes R_1\to (I_Z)_{\alpha+1}$ since $(I_Z)_\alpha$ is a pencil; indeed, assuming $Z=\sum_im_ip_i$ with $m_1\geq \cdots\geq
m_r$, the dimension of the kernel, which is either 0 or 1, is $\dim
(I_{Z-p_1})_{t-1}$.
[CCMO]{}
M.-G. Ascenzi, [*The restricted tangent bundle of a rational curve in ${{{\bf P}^{2}}}$*]{}, Comm. Algebra 16 (1988), no. 11, 2193-2208.
M.-G. Ascenzi, [*The restricted tangent bundle of a rational curve on a quadric in $P^3$*]{}, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 98 (1986), no. 4, 561–566.
G. Birkhoff, [*A theorem on matrices of analytic functions*]{}, Math. Ann., 74, no. 1, 122–133 (1913).
H. Clemens, [*On rational curves in $n$-space with given normal bundle*]{}, Advances in algebraic geometry motivated by physics (Lowell, MA, 2000), 137–144, Contemp. Math., 276, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2001.
D. Cox, T. W. Sederburg and F. Chen, [*The moving line ideal basis of planar rational curves*]{}, Computer Aided Geometric Design 15 (1998) 803–827.
T. de Fernex, [*Negative curves on very general blow-ups of ${{{\bf P}^{2}}}$*]{}, 199–207, In: Projective Varieties with Unexpected Properties, M. Beltrametti et al. eds., A Volume in Memory of Giuseppe Veronese, de Gruyter, Berlin, 2005.
T. de Fernex, [*On the Mori cone of blow-ups of the plane*]{}, preprint (arXiv:1001.5243).
D. Eisenbud and A. Van de Ven, [*On the normal bundles of smooth rational space curves*]{}, Math. Ann. 256 (1981), no. 4, 453–463.
D. Eisenbud and A. Van de Ven, [*On the variety of smooth rational space curves with given degree and normal bundle*]{}, Invent. Math. 67 (1982), 89–100.
S. Fitchett, [*On Bounding the Number of Generators for Fat Point Ideals on the Projective Plane*]{}, J. Algebra, 236 (2001), 502-521.
S. Fitchett, [*Corrigendum to: “On bounding the number of generators for fat point ideals on the projective plane" \[J. Algebra 236 (2001), no. 2, 502–521\]*]{}, J. Algebra 276 (2004), no. 1, 417–419.
S. Fitchett, B. Harbourne and S. Holay, [*Resolutions of Fat Point Ideals Involving Eight General Points of ${{{\bf P}^{2}}}$*]{}, J. Algebra 244 (2001), 684–705.
F. Ghione and G. Sacchiero, [*Normal bundles of rational curves in ${{{\bf P}^{3}}}$*]{}, Manuscripta Math. 33 (1980/81), no. 2, 111–128.
A. Gimigliano, [*On linear systems of plane curves*]{}, Thesis, Queen’s University, Kingston (1987).
A. Gimigliano, B. Harbourne, and M. Idà, [*Betti numbers for fat point ideals in the plane: a geometric approach*]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 361 (2009), 1103–1127.
A. Gimigliano, B. Harbourne, and M. Idà, [*The role of the cotangent bundle in resolving ideals of fat points in the plane*]{}, Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra 213 (2009), 203–214.
A. Gimigliano, B. Harbourne, and M. Idà, [*Stable Postulation and Stable Ideal Generation: Conjectures for Fat Points in the Plane*]{}, Bull. Belg. Math . Soc. Simon Stevin Volume 16, Number 5 (2009), 853–860.
A. Grothendieck, [*Sur la classification des fibrés holomorphes sur la sphère de Riemann*]{}, Amer. J. Math. 79 (1957), 121–138.
L.Gruson, R.Lazarsfeld, Ch.Peskine, [*On a theorem of Castelnuovo and the Equations defining Space Curves*]{}, Invent. Math. 72 (1983), 491-506.
B. Harbourne, [*Complete linear systems on rational surfaces*]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 289, 213–226 (1985).
B. Harbourne, [*An Algorithm for Fat Points on ${{{\bf P}^{2}}}$*]{}, Can. J. Math. 52 (2000), 123–140.
B. Harbourne, [*Global aspects of the geometry of surfaces*]{}, Ann. Univ. Paed. Cracov. Stud. Math. 9 (2010), 5–41.
B. Harbourne, [*Blowings-up of ${{{\bf P}^{2}}}$ and their blowings-down*]{}, Duke Math. J. 52, 129–148 (1985).
B. Harbourne, [*Very ample divisors on rational surfaces*]{}, Math. Ann. 272, 139–153 (1985).
A. Hirschowitz, [*Une conjecture pour la cohomologie des diviseurs sur les surfaces rationelles génériques*]{}, Journ. Reine Angew. Math. 397 (1989), 208–213.
K. Hulek, [*The Normal Bundle of a Curve on a Quadric*]{}, Math. Ann. 258 (1981), 201-206.
G. Ilardi, P. Supino and J. Valles, [*Geometry of syzygies via Poncelet varieties*]{}, Boll. UMI, serie IX, vol. II (2009).
V. Kac, Infinite dimensional Lie algebras, New York: Cambridge University Press, (1994).
M. Lahyane and B. Harbourne, [*Irreducibility of ($-1$)-classes of anticanonical rational surfaces*]{}, Pac. J. Math., 218 No. 1 (2005), 101–114.
Y. I. Manin, Cubic Forms. North-Holland Mathematical Library 4, 1986.
M. Nagata, [*On rational surfaces, II*]{}, Mem.Coll. Sci. Univ. Kyoto, Ser. A Math. 33 (1960), 271–293.
Z. Ran, [*Normal bundles of rational curves in projective spaces*]{}, Asian J. Math. 11 (2007), no. 4, 567–608.
L. Ramella, [*La stratification du schéma de Hilbert des courbes rationelles de ${{{\bf P}^{n}}}$ par le fibré tangent restreint*]{}, Comptes Rendus Acad. Sci. Paris S’er. I, 311 (1990), pp. 181–184.
T. Sederburg, R. Goldman and H. Du, [*Implicitizing rational curves by the method of moving algebraic curves*]{}, Journal of Symbolic Computation (1997) 23 153–175.
T. Sederberg, T. Saito, D. Qi, K. Klimaszewski, [*Curve implicitization using moving lines*]{}, Computer Aided Geometric Design 11 (1994), 687-706.
B. Segre. [*Alcune questioni su insiemi finiti di punti in Geometria Algebrica*]{}, Atti del Convegno Internaz. di Geom. Alg., Torino (1961).
[^1]: Acknowledgments: We thank GNSAGA, and the University of Bologna, which supported visits to Bologna by the second author, who also thanks the NSA for supporting his research.
|
---
abstract: 'We report the discovery of a relatively faint ($V=15.5$) early-type WN star in the SMC. The line strength and width of He II $\lambda 4686$ emission is similar to that of the other SMC WNs, and the presense of N V $\lambda 4603,19$ emission (coupled with the lack of N III) suggests this star is of spectral type WN3-4.5, and thus is similar in type to the other SMC WRs. Also like the other SMC WN stars, an early-type absorption spectrum is weakly present. The absolute magnitude is comparable to that of other (single) Galactic early-type WNs. The star is located in the Hodge 53 OB association, which is also the home of two other SMC WNs. This star, which we designate SMC-WR12, was actually detected at a high significance level in an earlier interference-filter survey, but the wrong star was observed as part of a spectroscopic followup, and this case of mistaken identity resulted in its Wolf-Rayet nature not being recognized until now.'
author:
- Philip Massey
- 'K. A. G. Olsen'
- 'J. Wm. Parker'
title: |
The Discovery of a Twelfth Wolf-Rayet Star\
in the Small Magellanic Cloud
---
Introduction
============
Wolf-Rayet stars (WRs) are the evolved, He-burning descendents of the most massive stars, and their strong emission lines allow them to serve as an important tracer of the massive star content of nearby galaxies (see Massey 2003 for a recent review). Massey & Duffy (2001) recently completed a survey for Wolf-Rayet stars in the SMC, discovering two previously unknown ones, bringing the total to 11 known. Their study confirmed that there is not a significant population of WR stars still to be found in the SMC, although they expected that a few remained to be discovered. As they note, the number of WRs is thus a factor of 3-4 lower in the SMC than in the LMC (normalized per unit luminosity) despite the fact that the SMC and LMC have a comparable star-formation rate for massive stars. This is in accord with the suggestion that at the lower metallicity of the SMC only the highest mass massive stars possess sufficient stellar winds to evolve to the Wolf-Rayet phase. Studies of coeval regions in the SMC, LMC, and Milky Way seem to confirm this, as the turn-off masses in clusters containing WRs suggest that only stars with masses greater than $65\cal M_\odot$ may become WRs in the SMC, while the lowest progenitor mass for a WR in the LMC may be 30 $\cal M_\odot$ and $20\cal M_\odot$ in the Milky Way (Massey, Waterhouse, & DeGioia-Eastwood 2000; Massey, DeGioia-Eastwood, & Waterhouse 2001).
The authors and several additional collaborators are engaged in a spectroscopic survey of hot, massive stars in the Magellanic Clouds using the CTIO 4-m. During a recent run, we chanced across another previously unknown WR in the SMC. Here we describe this interesting object.
Observations and Reductions
===========================
The data were taken on the CTIO 4-m Blanco telescope during a four night observing run 18-21 December 2002 using the Hydra multi-object fiber position (Barden & Ingerson 1998). The instrument consists of 138 fibers (300$\mu$m, which equals 2.0-arcsec in diameter) which can be positioned within a 40 arcmin diameter field of view. The fibers “feed" a bench-mounted spectrograph, where we used grating KPGLD in second-order and a BG-39 blocking filter and a 400-mm focal length camera, behind which was a SITe 2096$\times$4096 (15$\mu$m pixels) CCD. The chip was binned by 2 in the dispersion direction, resulting in a dispersion of 0.45Å pixel$^{-1}$ and a spectral resolution of 3.5 pixels (1.6Å). Our wavelength coverage extended from 3900Å to 4950Å. The fiber-to-fiber sensitivity was removed by a combination of exposures of the illuminated “great white spot" each afternoon/morning along with projector flat exposures taken at each telescope position and fiber configuration. The pixel-to-pixel variations of the CCD were removed by means of a “milk flat", an exposure through a diffuser screen of the illuminated fiber ends. Wavelength calibration was by means of a long He-Ne-Ar lamp exposure taken each afternoon, supplemented by shorter exposures taken at each field.
The data for the WR star was obtained on the second night of the run (19 Dec 2002). A sequence of four exposures, each of 1200 s, was taken of this field. The data were combined after extraction and processing. The seeing conditions were described in the observing log as “rotten". At the time the Tololo seeing monitor was reporting the seeing as 2.4 arcsec, eventually improving to 1.2 arcsec near the end of the exposures.
Discussion: SMC-WR12
====================
The spectrum of one of the targets in this field showed the characteristic broad, strong emission features of a Wolf-Rayet star of the WN sequence (Fig. \[fig:spect\]). He II $\lambda 4686$ is visible with an equivalent width (EW) of $-22$Å and a full-width at half-maximum of 21Å. The strength of He II $\lambda4686$ argues that this star must be a WN-type Wolf-Rayet rather than an Of-type star, as even the most extreme Of-type stars known have EWs $>-10$Å (Conti & Leep 1974), although some SMC WNs stars do have EWs that overlap with Of stars (see Conti, Garmany, & Massey 1989 and Conti & Massey 1989). The weak presence of N V $\lambda 4603, 19$ emission also precludes the possibility that the star is an Of supergiant. The lack of N III $\lambda 4634, 42$ emission then makes the spectral class of type WN3-4.5. Unfortunately our spectrum is too noisy in the far blue to tell if NIV$\lambda 4058$ is present or not, leading to the uncertainity in the subtype (Smith 1968, van der Hucht et al. 1981). In any event the spectral type of this WN is “early", similar to most of the other SMC WNs. Absorption is clearly visible at He II $\lambda 4542$, although there is no sign of He I $\lambda 4471$ in our somewhat noisy spectrum. We would thus describe the absorption spectrum as O3-O4. Although in general WRs do not show any absorption features, nearly all of the SMC WNs do, and the absorption features are mostly of the same O3-4 class (i.e., He II). Massey & Duffy (2001) argue that the presence of absorption spectra in the SMC WRs is still not well-understood: either it is due to the fact that the stellar winds are weak (and hence one sees photospheric absorption) or it suggests that most of the SMC WRs are binaries. Recent radial velocity studies by Foellmi, Moffat, & Guerrero (2003) suggest that the binary fraction of WRs is normal in the SMC.
We compare the spectral characteristics and photometry to that of the other SMC WRs in Table 1. The values for this newly found WR star (which we are designating SMC-WR12 for consistency; see Massey & Duffy 2001) are in fact in keeping with those of the other SMC stars. The most notable thing about this WR star is how similar it is to the others in terms of all of its properties, although it is on the faint end of the luminosity distribution of WRs in the SMC. However, the absolute visual magnitude (inferred by adopting $(B-V)_o=-0.32$, following Pyper 1966 and assuming a true distance modulus to the SMC of 18.9, following van den Bergh 2000) is quite normal for a (single) early-type WN in the Milky Way (Conti & Vacca 1990).
SMC-WR12 was previously cataloged in the [*UBVR*]{} photometry of Massey (2002) as SMC-054730. A finding chart is given in Fig. \[fig:fc\]. The star is located in the Hodge 53 OB association (Hodge 1985), which is also home to two of the other SMC WRs. Thus one-quarter of the known SMC WRs are found in this one rich association. An investigation of the [*unevolved*]{} stars in Hodge 53 was carried out by Massey et al. (2000), who found that the most massive H-burning stars had (initial) masses in the range of 50-80$\cal M_\odot$. This would suggest that the progenitors of the Hodge 53 Wolf-Rayet stars had masses of comparable or slightly higher values, although the coevality of the region was considered “questionable" as there were also evolved stars of 10-20$\cal M_\odot$ present.
We were naturally curious as to why this star was not detected on earlier surveys. The star is rather faint ($V=15.5$) to have been detected by the objective prism search of Azzopardi & Breysacher (1979), who cataloged the first eight WRs in Table 1. (Some had been known previous to their survey.) In addition, the star’s location in a relatively crowded region would create confusion for objective prism studies. Inspection of the working notes for the Massey & Duffy (2001) interference-filter imaging survey reveals that SMC-WR12 [*was*]{} detected at a very high significance level ($7\sigma$), with a magnitude difference (0.36 mag) consistent with real WRs. The star was observed spectroscopically as part of that program, but the spectrum was that of a (foreground) G-type dwarf, and the first author incorrectly concluded that there had been something wrong with the interference-filter photometry: our notes say “2 stars", indicated we thought that crowding had compromised the photometry. In retrospect, the wrong star must have been observed spectroscopically. A careful comparison of the telescope coordinates for the old (October 2000) observations with that expected suggests that a star about 5-10 arcsec south was observed instead, likely the star 7 arcsec to the SW shown on the finding chart. This is unfortunate, but consistent with Massey & Duffy’s caution that they “cannot preclude a WR star or two \[from\] having been overlooked in our survey, particularly in crowded regions."
We are grateful for the generous allocation of observing time at CTIO, and the (as usual) excellent support received from the mountain staff. PM’s role in this project was supported by the National Science Foundation through grant AST0093060. JWP’s work was supported under NASA grant NAG5-9248. PM also thank Alaine Duffy, whose excellent note-taking during the October 2000 observing run made it easy to trace the case of the mistaken identity of the star actually observed.
Azzopardi, M, & Breysacher, J. 1979, A&A, 75, 120
Barden, S. C., & Ingerson, T. E. 1998, in Fiber Optics in Astronomy III, ed. S. Arribas, E. Mediavilla, & F. Watson (San Francisco: ASP), 60
Conti, P. S., & Massey, P. 1989, 337, 251
Conti, P. S., Massey, P., & Garmany, C. D. 1989, ApJ, 341, 113
Conti, P. S., & Vacca, W. D. 1990, AJ, 100, 431
Foellmi, C., Moffat, A. F. J., & Guerrero, M. A. 2003, MNRAS, 338, 360
Hodge, P. 1985, PASP, 97, 530
Hodge, P. W., & Wright, F. W. 1977, The Small Magellanic cloud (Seattle: University of Washington Press)
Massey, P. 2002, ApJS, 141, 81.
Massey, P. 2003, ARA&A, 41, 15
Massey, P., DeGioia-Eastwood, K., & Waterhouse, E. 2001, AJ, 121, 1050
Massey, P., & Duffy, A. S. 2001, ApJ, 550, 713
Massey, P., Waterhouse, E., & DeGioia-Eastwood, K. 2000, AJ, 119, 2214
Pyper, D. M. 1966, ApJ, 144, 13
Smith, L. F. 1968, MNRAS, 138, 109
van den Bergh, S. 2000, The Galaxies of the Local Group (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press)
van der Hucht, K. A., Conti, P. S., Lundstrom, I., & Stenhom 1981, Space Sci. Rev., 28, 227
[l l c c c c c c c c c c l]{}
SMC-WR1 & AV 2a & 00 43 42.23 & $-$73 28 54.9 & no & WN3+abs &O3-4 & 15.14 & $
-0.04$ &$-4.6$ & $-$28 & 21 & Weak abs.\
SMC-WR2 & AV 39a& 00 48 30.81 & $-$73 15 45.1 & near h15 &WN4.5+abs&O5: & 14.23 & $-$0.15 &$-5.2$ & $-$15 & 12\
SMC-WR3 & AV 60a& 00 49 59.33 & $-$73 22 13.6 & near h17 &WN3+abs &&14.48 & $-$0.10 &$-5.1$ & $-$53 & 26 & Very weak abs.\
SMC-WR4 & AV 81, Sk 41& 00 50 43.41 & $-$73 27 05.1 &h21& WN6p&&13.35& $-$0.16&$-6.2$ & $-$45 & 15 & N V abs?\
SMC-WR5 & HD 5980 & 00 59 26.60 & $-$72 09 53.5&NGC 346=h45 & WN5&&11.08 & +0.03 & $-$8.9 & $-$85 & 18\
SMC-WR6 & AV 332, Sk 108 & 01 03 25.20 & $-$72 06 43.6 &NGC 371(e76)=h53 & WN3+abs &O7& 12.30 &$-$0.15 & $-7.1$& $-$8 & 28\
SMC-WR7 & AV 336a & 01 03 35.94 & $-$72 03 21.5 & NGC 371(e76)=h53& WN2+abs & O6&12.93&$-$ 0.05 &$-6.8$ & $-$16 & 27\
SMC-WR8 & Sk 188 & 01 31 04.22 & $-$73 25 03.9 & NGC 602c=h69 & WO4+abs &O4 V& 12.81 &$-$0.14 &$-6.6$ & $-$76 & 71\
SMC-WR9 & Morgan et al. & 00 54 32.17 & $-$72 44 35.6 & no & WN3+abs &O3-4&15.23 &$-$0.13&$-4.3$ &$-22$ & 24\
SMC-WR10 & & 00 45 28.78 & $-$73 04 45.2 & NGC 249(e12)&WN3+abs & O3-4&15.76:& $-$0.08: &$-3.6$ & $-$24 & 23 & Strong neb.\
SMC-WR11 & & 00 52 07.36 & $-$72 35 37.4 & no & WN3+abs & O3-4&14.97&+0.18&$-5
.5$ & $-$14 & 25 &\
SMC-WR12 & SMC-054730 & 01 02 52.07 & $-$72 06 52.6 & NGC 371(e76)=h53 & WN3-4.5+abs & O3-4 & 15.46 & $-$0.15 & $-4.0$ & $-$22 & 21 &\
|
---
abstract: 'Here we report on a transparent method to characterize individual layers in a double-layer electron system which forms in a wide quantum well and to determine their electron densities. The technique relies on the simultaneous measurement of the capacitances between the electron system and gates located on either side of the well. Modifications to the electron wave function due to the population of the second subband and appearance of an additional electron layer can be detected. The magnetic field dependence of these capacitances is dominated by quantum corrections caused by the occupation of Landau levels in the nearest electron layer. The technique should be equally applicable to other implementations of a double layer electron system.'
author:
- 'S.I. Dorozhkin'
- 'A.A. Kapustin'
- 'I.B. Fedorov'
- 'V. Umansky'
- 'K. von Klitzing'
- 'J.H. Smet'
title: Characterization of individual layers in a bilayer electron system produced in a wide quantum well
---
INTRODUCTION
============
Double-layer electron systems (DLESs) composed of a pair of coupled two-dimensional electron systems (2DESs) have attracted considerable attention due to the rich variety of collective phenomena they host [@Ref1]. Of particular interest has been the equilibrium superfluid exciton condensate which emerges when the total number of electrons in the double layer system equals the degeneracy of a single spin split Landau level (see review article [@Eisen2] and Refs. therein). While nearly all previous experiments were performed on GaAs/AlGaAs heterostructures, this activity has recently received renewed impulse from both theoretical [@MacDon; @Perali] and experimental [@Tutuc; @Kim] studies on graphene-based devices.
In GaAs/AlGaAs heterostructures the double layer system is formed either in a double quantum well device [@Boebinger] or in a wide quantum well (QW) exhibiting a confinement potential with two minima located near the left and right barrier [@Suen]. In the wide quantum well implementation, the electron layers can not be contacted separately, since annealed ohmic contacts short-circuit the two layers. In double quantum well structures suitable methods and sample designs have been developed [@EisenMes] (see also recent paper [@Ritchie] and Refs. therein) to separately contact the individual layers. This has enabled a far wider variety of experiments including interlayer tunneling and electron drag studies which have led to the discovery of a Bose-Einstein exciton condensate in this double layer system.
Because the fabrication of separately contacted double layer systems remains challenging, many studies continue to be carried out using simultaneously contacted 2DESs. In such cases, an essential task is the determination of the electron densities in the individual layers or subbands. This is usually attempted by analyzing the Shubnikov-de Haas oscillations (SdHO), which are periodic in the inverse of the magnetic field, using Fourier transform techniques. In a single 2DES the minima of SdHO correspond to filling of integer numbers $i$ of spin split Landau levels and their magnetic field positions $B_{\rm i}$ satisfy the condition $n_{\rm s}=iLeB_{\rm i}/h$, where $n_{\rm s}$ is the electron areal density, $eB/h$ represents the degeneracy of a single spin split Landau level, and $L=1$ or 2 depending on whether spin splitting is resolved or not. The SdHO frequency $F$ in the inverse magnetic field is equal to $F=hn_{\rm s}/eL$. Therefore, in a single 2DES the fundamental frequency ($L=2$) is observed at low magnetic fields when spin splitting is not resolved, whereas at higher field strength the harmonic with $L=1$ may appear. In DLESs the number of Fourier harmonics increases and the frequencies determined by the electron densities of the individual layers are complemented by their sum and difference. Namely, the frequency $F_{\rm diff}\propto |n_{\rm s1}-n_{\rm
s2}|$ (here $n_{\rm s1}$ and $n_{\rm s2}$ are electron densities in two individual layers) originates from magnetointersubband oscillations [@Polyan; @Coleridge; @PRB46; @Gusev; @Raikh] brought about by elastic intersubband scattering of electrons. The frequency $F_{\rm sum}\propto n_{\rm s1}+n_{\rm s2}$ has been associated with so-called single-layer behavior [@Ritchie1996] involving the redistribution of electrons among the layers [@Ritchie1996; @Dorozh2016]. The relative strength of different frequencies strongly depends on temperature [@PRB46; @Gusev] since the magnetointersubband oscillations in contrast to SdHO are not sensitive to the temperature broadening of the Fermi distribution function [@Polyan; @Raikh]. For a more detailed discussion of the Fourier analysis of magnetoresistance oscillations we refer the reader to the supplementary material [@Supp] in Ref. [@Ensslin].
SAMPLES AND EXPERIMENTAL TECHNIQUE
==================================
Capacitance measurements have been widely used for the characterization of the distribution of electric charges in semiconductors. In field-effect transistors containing a 2DES they also allow studying the compressibility of the electronic system [@Stiles; @Krav1; @EisenPRL; @Krav2; @DorozhPRB2] as well as the energy gaps of incompressible integer [@Stiles; @KhrpaiPRLI] and fractional quantum Hall ground states that may form [@DorozhCap1993; @Eisen1994; @DorozhPRB1995; @KhrpaiPRL]. The capacitance technique was also previously used in experiments on DLESs [@EisenPRL; @Ensslin2; @Dolgopolov1; @Dolgopolov2], however the compressibility of only one of the layers was measured. Here we extend the capacitance method to get access to the compressibility of the two individual layers in a wide quantum well. We show that it is possible to detect the integer filling of the Landau levels in each layer and, hence, to determine their individual electron densities.
This study has been performed on a Hall bar sample processed from a GaAs/AlGaAs heterostructure (see the experimental layout in Fig.1) where the electron system resides in a 60 nm wide GaAs quantum well (QW) located 140 nm below the sample surface. A homogeneously doped in-situ grown GaAs layer 850 nm below the QW served as a back gate. The QW was filled with electrons via modulation doping of the top AlGaAs layer at a distance of 65 nm from the QW. A Schottky front gate was created by evaporating a thin gold film on the sample surface. By changing the dc voltages between the electron system and the gates (front gate, $V_{\rm
FG}^{\rm dc}$, and back gate, $V_{\rm BG}^{\rm dc}$) the total electron density $n_{\rm tot}$ was varied in the range $1.5\times
10^{11}\ {\rm cm}^{-2}\,-\,2.5\times 10^{11}\,{\rm cm}^{-2}$. Increasing $V_{\rm BG}^{\rm dc}$ resulted in the population of the second subband of the wide QW and gave rise to the formation of the second layer closer to the back gate as schematically illustrated in Fig.1. This will be confirmed experimentally below. The ohmic contacts to the electronic system shaped into a Hall bar enabled the acquisition of both the longitudinal and Hall resistances (For the sake of simplicity, only one contact is shown in Fig.1). The measurements were carried out with the sample immersed in liquid $^3{\rm He}$ in the presence of a tunable magnetic field perpendicular to the QW-plane.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
======================
The capacitances between the electronic system and both gates were measured simultaneously using two dual-phase lock-in amplifiers (LI1 and LI2). To measure capacitances, the gate voltages were modulated with ac voltages $V_{\rm BG}^{\rm ac}=5\,{\rm mV}$ and $V_{\rm FG}^{\rm ac}=1\,{\rm mV}$ with different frequencies between 10 and 300 Hz produced by the internal oscillators of the lock-in amplifiers. The induced ac currents were added and converted to an ac voltage, $V_{\rm S}^{\rm ac}$, with a transimpedance amplifier. The two frequency components were detected separately with the two lock-in amplifiers. The out-of-phase and in-phase signals from both amplifiers were measured simultaneously. To minimize the stray capacitance, the gates were connected to coaxial cables. However, some stray capacitance remained in particular for the back gate which couples not only to the electronic system but also to the ohmic contact areas. This stray capacitance has been directly measured under conditions where the integer quantum Hall effect is well-developed. In this regime, the dissipative conductivity of the 2DES tends to zero and the bulk of the electronic system is not charged at the modulation frequencies used in the experiment [@DorozhJETPL1986]. For a highly conducting 2DES, the out-of-phase signal is proportional to the capacitance. It includes the quantum correction brought about by the finite compressibility of the 2DES [@Stiles] (for zero magnetic field see also Ref. [@Luryi]). For a field-effect transistor composed of a 2DES in a narrow quantum well and a single gate the equation for the capacitance $C$ reads as [@Stiles], $$\frac{S}{C}=\frac{S}{C_{\rm
g}}+\frac{1}{e^2}\frac{\partial\zeta}{\partial n_{\rm s}},
\label{cap}$$ where $S$ is the gated area of the sample, $\zeta$ the chemical potential of the 2DES and $C_{\rm g}=\epsilon_{\rm i} S/ d_0$ the geometric capacitance with $d_0$ the thickness of the insulating layer with dielectric permittivity $\epsilon_{\rm i}$ separating the gate and the center of weight of the electron wave function in the quantum well. The second term is inversely proportional to the electronic compressibility $\kappa=(\partial n_{\rm s}/\partial
\zeta)/n^2_{\rm s}$. This term gives rise to capacitance minima when the electronic system turns less compressible at magnetic fields where the chemical potential is located in between Landau levels, i.e. near integer fillings of the Landau levels.
The formation of a second layer or occupation of the second subband is demonstrated in Fig. 2. Shown are variations of the front and back gate capacitances with back gate voltage. Near $V^{\rm dc}_{\rm BG}\approx 0.12$ V both capacitances display an abrupt increase. The back (front) gate capacitance rises by about 1.8 pF (0.4 pF) or 4% (0.14%). In terms of a classical planar capacitor this would correspond to a decrease of the distance between the capacitor plates of approximately 34 nm (0.2 nm) for the given distance of 850 nm (140 nm) between the QW and the back (front) gate. These results imply that electrons start to occupy the second subband and a new layer (back layer, BL) is formed, located about 34 nm closer to the back gate than the ground subband layer, i.e. front layer (FL) [@Comment1]. At $B=0$, the center of weight of the wave function in the ground subband is hardly affected by the occupation of the second subband. It practically does not change also when raising $V_{\rm BG}^{\rm
dc}>0.2$ V, i.e. with increasing electron density in the second subband.
Typical magnetocapacitance data are presented in Fig. 3(a). Each curve shows one set of minima whose positions are periodic in the inverse magnetic field. The periods are distinct for the $C_{\rm
BG}$ and $C_{\rm FG}$ curves. Based on the previous magnetocapacitance studies of 2DES, we ascribe these magnetocapacitance minima to the integer filling of the Landau levels in the layer adjacent to a particular gate. From these oscillations, we determine the areal electron densities in both layers and mark the positions of the corresponding integer filling factors using numbered triangles (see Fig.3(a)).
It is instructive to compare the magnetocapacitance data with the magnetoresistance oscillations shown in Fig.3(b). Note the complicated behavior of these oscillations at $B>0.6$ T. Some of the magnetoresistance minima can be assigned to integer filling ($\nu=7,8,10,11,14$) of a 2DES with an electron density $n_{\rm
tot}=21.7\times 10^{10}\,{\rm cm}^{-2}=n_{\rm FL}+n_{\rm BL}$. The same density $n_{\rm tot}$ is extracted from the Hall resistance. However, there are no minima at $\nu=9,12,13$ and hence the sequence of oscillations is not periodic in the inverse of the magnetic field. For $B>0.6$ T the magnetoresistance minima in general do not coincide with any of the magnetocapacitance features. However, when the filling factor of both layers takes on an integer value ($\nu_{\rm FL}=5$, $\nu_{\rm BL}=2$ and $\nu_{\rm
FL}=10$, $\nu_{\rm BL}=4$), the magnetoresistance shows deep minima ($\nu=7$ and 14), which are accompanied by quantum Hall plateaus. For $B<0.6$ T the oscillation pattern exhibits two different frequencies. Two of the low frequency minima nearly coincide with $\nu_{\rm BL}=6$ and $\nu_{\rm BL}=8$ as indicated by the solid triangles in panel (b).
It is also informative to compare the electron densities obtained from the magnetocapacitance data with those determined from the Fourier spectrum analysis of the magnetoresistance oscillations displayed in the inset to Fig. 3(b). Four maxima can be identified in the spectrum. Two of them correspond to the oscillations from the individual layers as they are located rather close to the frequencies determined from the magnetocapacitance data (marked as BL and FL). Two other maxima lie at the sum (S) and difference (D) of these frequencies. Hence, in general, the determination of the electron densities from a Fourier spectrum requires careful analysis. Our comparison of the two methods illustrates that the magnetocapacitance data enable a straightforward interpretation and ensure a markedly improved accuracy.
The electron densities determined from the magnetocapacitance data are shown in Fig.4 for different front- and back-gate voltages. The electron density in a layer increases linearly with the voltage applied to the nearest gate and is only slightly affected by the voltage on the gate separated by the other layer. In the latter case the electron density dependence may even possess a negative slope (see the $n_{\rm FL}(V_{\rm BG}^{\rm dc})$ dependence in Fig.4(a)). This is common in bilayer systems and has been attributed [@Millard; @Smet] to exchange correlation induced negative compressibility [@EisenPRL] of 2D electron systems at low density.
At first sight, the capacitance data look like those for two independent 2DES. However, the effect of coupling between the layers can be seen in Fig.3(a) as maxima on the $C_{\rm BG}$ curve at the positions of some ($\nu_{\rm FL}=6,8,12$) minima of the $C_{\rm FG}(B)$ dependence. These features are highlighted by double-sided arrows.
CONCLUSION
==========
In summary, we have shown that, compared to the magnetoresistance measurements, our capacitance technique reveals effects of Landau quantization in individual layers of a double-layer electron system produced in a wide quantum well. In particular, this method enables accurate determination of electron densities in each layer despite the absence of separate contacts to each layer.
The experiment and data evaluation of this work were supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (Grant 17-02-00769). JHS and VU acknowledge support from the GIF.
see experimental chapter by J. P. Eisenstein and theoretical chapter by S. M. Girvin and A. H. MacDonald, in Das Sarma S. and Pinczuk A. (ed) 1997 Perspectives on Quantum Hall Effects (New York: Wiley)
J. P. Eisenstein, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 5, 159 (2014). Exciton Condensation in Bilayer Quantum Hall Systems.
H. Min, R. Bistritzer, J-J. Su, and A. H. MacDonald, Phys. Rev. B [**78**]{}, 121401 (2008). Room-temperature superfluidity in graphene bilayers.
A. Perali, D. Neilson, and A. R. Hamilton, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**110**]{}, 146803 (2013). High-Temperature Superfluidity in Double-Bilayer Graphene.
K. Lee, B. Fallahazad,J. Xue, D.C. Dillen, K. Kim, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, E. Tutuc, Science [**345**]{}, 58 (2014). Chemical potential and quantum Hall ferromagnetism in bilayer graphene.
X. Liu, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, B. I. Halperin, and P. Kim, Nat. Phys. [**13**]{}, 746 (2017). Quantum Hall drag of exciton condensate in graphene.
G. S. Boebinger, H. W. Jiang, L. N. Pfeiffer, and K. W. West, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**64**]{}, 1793 (1990).
Y. W. Suen, J. Jo, M. B. Santos, L. W. Engel, S. W. Hwang, and M. Shayegan, Phys. Rev. B [**44**]{}, 5947 (1991).
J. P. Eisenstein, L. N. Pfeiffer, and K. W. West, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**57**]{}, 2324 (1990). Independently contacted two-dimensional electron systems in double quantum wells.
U. S. de Cumis, J. Waldie, A. F. Croxall, D. Taneja, J. Llandro, I. Farrer, H. E. Beere, and D. A. Ritchie, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**110**]{}, 072105 (2017). A complete laboratory for transport studies of electron-hole interactions in GaAs/ AlGaAs ambipolar bilayers.
D. R. Leadley, R. Fletcher, R. J. Nicholas, F. Tao, C. T. Foxon, and J. J. Harris, Phys. Rev. B [**46**]{}, 12439 (1992). Intersubband resonant scattering in ${\rm GaAs-Ga_{\rm
1-x}Al_{\rm x}As}$ heterojunctions.
N. C. Mamani, G. M. Gusev, T. E. Lamas, and A. K. Bakarov, Phys. Rev. B [**77**]{}, 205327 (2008). Resonance oscillations of magnetoresistance in double quantum wells.
V. M. Polyanovskii, Fiz. Tekh. Poluprovodn. [**22**]{}, 2230 (1988) \[Sov. Phys. Semicond. [**22**]{}, 1408 (1988)\].
P. T. Coleridge, Semicond. Sci. Technol. [**5**]{}, 961 (1990). Inter-subband scattering in a 2D electron gas.
M. E. Raikh and T. V. Shahbazyan, Phys. Rev. B [**49**]{}, 5531 (1994). Magnetointersubband oscillations of conductivity in a two-dimensional electronic system.
A. G. Davies, C. H. W. Barnes, K. R. Zolleis, J. T. Nicholls, M. Y. Simmons, and D. A. Ritchie, Phys. Rev. B [**54**]{}, R 17331 (1996). Hybridization of single- and double-layer behavior in a double-quantum-well structure.
S. I. Dorozhkin, JETP Letters [**103**]{}, 513 (2016) \[Pis’ma v ZhETF [**103**]{}, 578 (2016)\]. Quantum Hall Effect in a System with an Electron Reservoir.
Supplementary Material at http://link.aps.org/ supplemental/10.1103/PhysRevB.89.081306.
F. Nichele, A. N. Pal, R. Winkler, C. Gerl, W. Wegscheider, T. Ihn, and K. Ensslin, Phys. Rev. B [**89**]{}, 081306(R) (2014). Spin-orbit splitting and effective masses in p-type GaAs two-dimensional hole gases.
T. P. Smith, B. B. Goldberg, P. J. Stiles, and M. Heiblum, Phys. Rev. B [**32**]{}, 2696(R) (1985). Direct measurement of the density of states of a two-dimensional electron gas.
S.V. Kravchenko, V.M. Pudalov, S.G. Semenchinsky, Phys. Lett. A [**141**]{}, 71 (1989). Negative density of states of 2D electrons in a strong magnetic field.
J. P. Eisenstein, L. N. Pfeiffer, and K. W. West, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**68**]{}, 674 (1992). Negative Compressibility of Interacting Two-Dimensional Electron and Quasiparticle Gases.
S. V. Kravchenko, M. Caulfield, J. Singleton, H. Nielsen, and V. M. Pudalov, Phys. Rev. B [**47**]{}, 12961 (1993). Electron-electron interactions in the two-dimensional electron gas in silicon.
S.I. Dorozhkin, J.H. Smet, K. von Klitzing, V. Umansky, R.J. Haug, and K. Ploog. Phys. Rev. B [**63**]{}, 121301 (2001). Comparison between the compressibilities of the zero field and composite-fermion metallic states of the two-dimensional electron system.
S. I. Dorozhkin, G. V. Kravchenko, R. J. Haug, K. von Klitzing, and K. Ploog, JETP Lett. [**58**]{}, 834 (1993) \[Pis’ma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. [**58**]{}, 893 (1993)\]. Capacitance spectroscopy of the fractional quantum Hall effect: Temperature dependence of the energy gap.
J. P. Eisenstein, L. N. Pfeiffer, and K. W. West, Phys. Rev. B [**50**]{}, 1760 (1994). Compressibility of the two-dimensional electron gas: Measurements of the zero-field exchange energy and fractional quantum Hall gap.
S. I. Dorozhkin, R. J. Haug, K. von Klitzing, and K. Ploog, Phys. Rev. B [**51**]{}, 14729 (1995). Experimental determination of the quasiparticle charge and the energy gap in the fractional quantum Hall effect.
V. S. Khrapai, A. A. Shashkin, M. G. Trokina, V. T. Dolgopolov, V. Pellegrini, F. Beltram, G. Biasiol and L. Sorba, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**99**]{}, 086802 (2007). Direct Measurements of Fractional Quantum Hall Effect Gaps.
V. S. Khrapai, A. A. Shashkin, and V. T. Dolgopolov, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**91**]{}, 126404 (2003). Direct Measurements of the Spin and the Cyclotron Gaps in a 2D Electron System in Silicon.
K. Ensslin, D. Heitmann, R. R. Gerhardts, and K. Ploog, Phys. Rev. B [**39**]{}, 12993 (1989). Population process of the upper subband in ${\rm Al_{\rm x}Ga_{\rm l-x}As-GaAs}$ quantum wells.
V. T. Dolgopolov, G. E. Tsydynzhapov, A. A. Shashkin, E. V. Deviatov, F. Hastreiter, M. Hartung, A. Wixforth, K. L. Campman, and A. C. Gossard, Pis’ma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. [**67**]{}, 563 (1998) \[JETP Lett. [**67**]{}, 595 (1998)\]. Magnetic-field-induced hybridization of electron subbands in a coupled double quantum well.
V. T. Dolgopolov, A. A. Shashkin, E. V. Deviatov, F. Hastreiter, M. Hartung, A. Wixforth, K. L. Campman, and A. C. Gossard, Phys. Rev. B [**59**]{}, 13235 (1999). Electron subbands in a double quantum well in a quantizing magnetic field.
S. I. Dorozhkin, A. A. Shashkin, N. B. Zhitenev, and V. T. Dolgopolov, JETP Lett. [**44**]{}, 241 (1986) \[Pis’ma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. [**44**]{}, 189 (1986)\]. “Skin effect” and observation of nonuniform states of a 2D electron gas in a metal-insulator-semiconductor structure.
S. Luryi, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**52**]{}, 501 (1988). Quantum capacitance devices.
We note that this estimate assumes infinite electron compressibility in the layers, which affects its accuracy.
I. S. Millard, N. K. Patel, M. Y. Simmons, E. H. Linfield, D. A. Ritchie, G. A. C. Jones, and M. Pepper, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**68**]{}, 3323 (1996). Compressibility studies of double electron and double hole gas systems.
D. Zhang, S. Schmult, V. Venkatachalam, W. Dietsche, A. Yacoby, K. von Klitzing, and J. Smet, Phys. Rev. B [**87**]{}, 205304 (2013). Local compressibility measurement of the $\nu_{\rm tot}=1$ quantum Hall state in a bilayer electron system.
|
---
abstract: 'We study the heat transfer between elastic solids with randomly rough surfaces. We include both the heat transfer from the area of real contact, and the heat transfer between the surfaces in the non-contact regions. We apply a recently developed contact mechanics theory, which accounts for the hierarchical nature of the contact between solids with roughness on many different length scales. For elastic contact, at the highest (atomic) resolution the area of real contact typically consists of atomic (nanometer) sized regions, and we discuss the implications of this for the heat transfer. For solids with very smooth surfaces, as is typical in many modern engineering applications, the interfacial separation in the non-contact regions will be very small, and for this case we show the importance of the radiative heat transfer associated with the evanescent electromagnetic waves which exist outside of all bodies.'
author:
- 'B.N.J. Persson$^1$, B. Lorenz$^1$ and A.I. Volokitin$^{1,2}$'
title: Heat transfer between elastic solids with randomly rough surfaces
---
**1. Introduction**
The heat transfer between solids is a topic of great importance. Classical applications include topics such as cooling of microelectronic devices, spacecraft structures, satellite bolted joints, nuclear engineering, ball bearings, tires and heat exchangers. Other potential applications involve microelectromechanical systems (MEMS). Heat transfer is also of crucial importance in friction and wear processes, e.g., rubber friction on hard and rough substrates depends crucially on the temperature increase in the rubber-countersurface asperity contact regions[@Flash].
A large number of papers have been published on the heat transfer between randomly rough surfaces[@review]. However, most of these studies are based on asperity contact models such as the model of Greenwood and Williamson (GW)[@GW]. Recent studies have shown that the GW-model (and other asperity contact models[@Bush]) are very inaccurate[@inacc1; @inacc2], mainly because of the neglect of the long-range elastic coupling[@elast]. That is, if an asperity is pushed downwards somewhere, the elastic deformation field extends a long distance away from the asperity, which will influence the contact involving other asperities further away[@Bucher]. This effect is neglected in the GW theory, but it is included in the contact mechanics model of Persson[@JCPpers; @PerssonPRL; @JCPpers1; @PSSR; @Chunyan1], which we use in the present study. In addition, in the GW model the asperity contact regions are assumed to be circular (or elliptical) while the actual contact regions (at high enough resolution) have fractal-like boundary lines[@Borri; @Pei; @Chunyan1], see Fig. \[contact\]. Thus, because of their complex nature, one should try to avoid to directly involve the nature of the contact regions when studying contact mechanics problems, such as the heat or electric contact resistance. The approach we use in this paper does not directly involve the nature of the contact regions. Finally, we note that for elastically hard solids the area of real (atomic) contact $A$ may be a very small fraction of the nominal or apparent contact area $A_0$, even at high nominal squeezing pressures[@P3; @BookP].
![ The black area is the contact between two elastic solids with randomly rough surfaces as obtained using molecular dynamics. For surfaces which have fractal-like roughness the whole way down to the atomic length scale, the contact at the highest magnification (atomic resolution) typically consists of nanometer-sized atomic clusters. Adapted from Ref. [@Chunyan1].[]{data-label="contact"}](Fig.1.ps){width="45.00000%"}
Another important discovery in recent contact mechanics studies is that for elastic contact, the contact regions observed at atomic resolution may be just a few atoms wide, i.e., the diameter of the contact regions may be of the order of $\sim 1 \ {\rm
nm}$[@Chunyan; @Hyun; @Nature1]. The heat transfer via such small junctions may be very different from the heat transfer through macroscopic sized contact regions, where the heat transfer usually is assumed to be proportional to the linear size of the contact regions (this is also the prediction of the macroscopic heat diffusion equation), rather than the contact area. In particular, if the typical phonon wavelength involved in the heat transfer becomes larger than the linear size of the contact regions (which will always happen at low enough temperature) the effective heat transfer may be strongly reduced. Similarly, if the phonons mean free path is longer than the linear size of the contact regions, ballistic (phonon) energy transfer may occur which cannot be described by the macroscopic heat diffusion equation. These effects are likely to be of crucial importance in many modern applications involving micro (or nano) sized objects, such as MEMS, where just a few atomic-sized contact regions may occur. However, for macroscopic solids the thermal (and electrical) contact resistance is usually very insensitive to the nature of the contact regions observed at the highest magnification, corresponding to atomistic (or nanoscale) length scales. In fact, the heat transfer is determined mainly by the nature of the contact regions observed at lower magnification where the contact regions appear larger (see Sec. 5 and [@GreenW; @Barber]), see Fig. \[HeatArea\]. For example, in Sec. 2.2.1 we show that for self-affine fractal surfaces the contact resistance depends on the range of surface roughness included in the analysis as $\sim r (H)-(q_0/q_1)^H$, where $q_0$ and $q_1$ are the smallest and the largest wavevector of the surface roughness included in the analysis, respectively, and $H$ is the Hurst exponent related to the fractal dimension via $D_{\rm f} = 3-H$. The number $r(H)$ depends on $H$ but is of the order of unity. In a typical case $H\approx 0.8$, and including surface roughness over one wavevector decade $q_0 < q < q_1 = 10 q_0$ results in a heat resistance which typically is only $\sim 10\%$ smaller than obtained when including infinitely many decades of length scales (i.e., with $q_1 = \infty\times q_0$). At the same time the area of real contact approaches zero as $q_0/q_1 \rightarrow 0$. Thus, there is in general no relation between the area of real contact (which is observed at the highest magnification, and which determines, e.g., the friction force in most cases), and the heat (or electrical) contact resistance between the solids. One aspect of this in the context of electric conduction was pointed out a long time ago[@Archard]: if an insulating film covers the solids in the area of real contact, and if electrical contact occurs by a large number of small breaks in the film, the resistance may be almost as low as with no film. Similarly, the thermal contact resistance of macroscopic solids usually does not depend on whether the heat transfer occur by diffusive or ballistic phonon propagation, but rather the contact resistance is usually determined mainly by the nature of the contact regions observed at relative low magnification.
Note that as $H$ decreases towards zero (or the fractal dimension $D_{\rm f} \rightarrow 3$) one needs to include more and more decades in the length scales in order to obtain the correct (or converged) contact resistance, and for $H=0$ (or $D_{\rm f} = 3$) it is necessary to include the roughness on the whole way down to the atomic length scale (assuming that the surfaces remain fractal-like with $H=0$ the whole way down to the atomic length scale). Most natural surfaces and surfaces of engineering interest have (if self-affine fractal) $H > 0.5$ (or $D_{\rm f} < 2.5$), e.g., surfaces prepared by crack propagation or sand blasting typically have $H\approx 0.8$, and in these cases the contact resistance can be calculated accurately from the (apparent) contact observed at relatively low magnification. However, some surfaces may have smaller Hurst exponents. One interesting case is surfaces (of glassy solids) with frozen capillary waves[@PSSR; @Pires] (which are of great engineering importance[@Pires]), which have $H=0$. The heat transfer between such surfaces may be understood only by studying the system at the highest magnification corresponding to atomic resolution.
![ The contact region (black area) between two elastic solids observed at low (left) and high (right) magnification. The contact resistance depends mainly on the long-wavelength roughness, and can usually be calculated accurately from the nature of the contact observed at low magnification (left).[]{data-label="HeatArea"}](Fig.2.ps){width="45.00000%"}
In this paper we will consider the heat transfer between (macroscopic-sized) solids in the light of recent advances in contact mechanics. We will study the contribution to the heat transfer not just from the area of real contact (observed at atomic resolution), but also the heat transfer across the area of non-contact, in particular the contribution from the fluctuating electromagnetic field, which surrounds all solid objects[@rev1; @rev2]. For high-resistivity materials and for hard and very flat surfaces, such as those involved in many modern applications, e.g., MEMS applications, this non-contact radiative heat transfer may in fact dominate in the total heat transfer (at least under vacuum condition). We note that for flat surfaces (in vacuum) separated by a distance $d$ larger than the thermal length $d_{\rm T}= c\hbar /k_{\rm B}T$, the non-contact heat transfer is given by the classical Stefan-Boltzman law, and is independent of $d$. However, for very short distances the contribution from the evanescent electromagnetic waves to the heat transfer will be many orders of magnitude larger than the contribution from propagating electromagnetic waves (as given by the Stefan-Boltzman law)[@rev1].
In most applications (but not in spacecraft applications) one is interested in the heat transfer between solid objects located in the normal atmosphere and sometimes in a fluid. Most solid objects in the normal atmosphere have organic and water contamination layers, which may influence the heat transfer for at least two reasons: (a) Thin (nanometer) contamination layers may occur at the interface in the asperity contact regions, which will effect the acoustic impedance of the contact junctions, and hence the propagation of phonon’s between the solids (which usually is the origin of the heat transfer, at least for most non-metallic systems). (b) In addition, capillary bridges may form in the asperity contact regions and effectively increase the size of the contact regions and increase the heat transfer. In the normal atmosphere heat can also be transferred between the non-contact regions via heat diffusion or (at short separation) ballistic processes in the surrounding gas. For larger separations convective processes may also be important.
In the discussion above we have assumed that the solids deform elastically and we have neglected the adhesional interaction between the solids. The contact mechanics theory of Persson can also be applied to cases where adhesion and plastic flow are important, and we will briefly study how this may affect the heat transfer. Most solids have modified surface properties, e.g., metals are usually covered by thin oxide layers with very different conductivities than the underlying bulk materials. However, as mentioned above, this may not have any major influence on the contact resistance.
Recently, intense research has focused on heat transfer through atomic or molecular-sized junctions[@junction1; @junction2]. In light of the discussion presented above, this topic may also be important for the heat transfer between solids, because of the nanometer-sized nature of the contact regions between solids with random roughness.
This paper is organized as follows: In Sec. 2 we describe the theory for heat transfer between two solids with randomly rough surfaces. We consider both the heat flow in the area of real contact, and between the surfaces in the non-contact area. Sec. 3 presents a short review of the contact mechanics theory which is used to obtain the quantities (related to the surface roughness) which determine the heat transfer coefficient. In Sec. 4 we present numerical results. In Sec. 5 we discuss the influence of plastic flow and adhesion on the heat transfer. Sec. 6 presents an application to the heat transfer between tires and the air and road surface. In Sec. 7 we discuss a new experiment. In Sec. 8 we present experimental results. In Sec. 9 we point out that the developed theory can also be applied to the electric contact resistance. Sec. 10 contains the summary and conclusion. Appendix A-E present details related to the theory development and some other general information relevant to the present study.
![ Two elastic solids with nominally flat surfaces squeezed together with the nominal pressure $p_0$. The heat current $J_{\rm z}({\bf x})$ at the contacting interface varies strongly with the coordinate ${\bf x} = (x,y)$ in the $xy$-plane. The average heat current is denoted by $J_0= \langle J_{\rm z}({\bf x})\rangle$.[]{data-label="contactblock"}](Fig.3.ps){width="40.00000%"}
0.3cm **2. Theory**
0.1cm **2.1 Heat transfer coefficient**
Consider two elastic solids (rectangular blocks) with randomly rough surfaces squeezed in contact as illustrated in Fig. \[contactblock\]. Assume that the temperature at the outer surfaces $z=-d_0$ and $z=d_1$ is kept fixed at $T_0$ and $T_1$, respectively, with $T_0 > T_1$. Close to the interface the heat current will vary rapidly in space, ${\bf J} = {\bf J} ({\bf x},z)$, where ${\bf x}=(x,y)$ denote the lateral coordinate in the $xy$-plane. Far from the interface we will assume that the heat current is constant and in the $z$-direction, i.e., ${\bf J}= J_0\hat z$. We denote the average distance between the macro asperity contact regions by $\lambda$ (see Ref. [@PSSR]). We assume that $\lambda << L$, where $L$ is the linear size of the apparent contact between the elastic blocks. The temperature a distance $\sim \lambda$ from the contacting interface will be approximately independent of the lateral coordinate ${\bf x} = (x,y)$ and we denote this temperature by $T_0'$ and $T_1'$ for $z= -\lambda$ and $z=\lambda$, respectively. The heat current for $|z| >> \lambda$ is independent of ${\bf x}$ and can be written as (to zero order in $\lambda /d_0$ and $\lambda /d_1$): $$J_0=-\kappa_0 {T_0'-T_0\over d_0} = -\kappa_1 {T_1-T_1'\over d_1},\eqno(1)$$ where $\kappa_0$ and $\kappa_1$ are the heat conductivities of the two solid blocks. We assume that the heat transfer across the interface is proportional to $T_0'-T_1'$ and we define the heat transfer coefficient $\alpha$ so that $$J_0=\alpha (T_0'-T_1')\eqno(2)$$ Combining (1) and (2) gives $$J_0={T_0-T_1\over d_0 \kappa_0^{-1} +d_1 \kappa_1^{-1}+\alpha^{-1}}\eqno(3)$$ This equation is valid as long as $\lambda << L$ and $\lambda << d_0, \ d_1$. Note that $\alpha$ depends on the macroscopic (or nominal) pressure which act at the interface. Thus if the macroscopic pressure is non-uniform, as is the case in many practical applications, e.g., when a ball is squeezed against a flat, one need to include the dependence of $\alpha$ on ${\bf x}$. Thus in general $$J({\bf x}) = \alpha ({\bf x}) \left [ T_0'({\bf x})-T_1'({\bf x})\right ]\eqno(4)$$
One expect the contribution to $\alpha$ from the area of real contact to be proportional to the heat conductivity $\kappa$ (for simplicity we assume here two solids of the same material). Assuming only elastic deformation, contact mechanics theories show that for low enough squeezing pressure $p_0$, the area of real contact is proportional to $p_0$, and the size distribution of contact regions (and the interfacial stress probability distribution) are independent of $p_0$. Thus one expect that $\alpha$ is proportional to $p_0$. For randomly rough surfaces the contact mechanics depends only on the (effective) elastic modulus $E^*$ and on the surface roughness power spectrum $C(q)$. Thus the only way to construct a quantity which is proportional to $p_0 \kappa$ and with the same dimension as $J_0/\Delta T$, using the quantities which characterize the problem, is $$\alpha \approx {p_0 \kappa \over E^* u_0}$$ where $u_0$ is a length parameter which is determined from the surface roughness power spectrum $C(q)$. For self-affine fractal surfaces, $C(q)$ depends only on the root-mean-square roughness $h_{\rm rms}$, the fractal dimension $D_{\rm f}$ which is dimension less, and on the low and high cut-off wavevectors $q_0$ and $q_1$. Thus in this case $u_0 = h_{\rm rms} f(D_{\rm f}, q_0/q_1, q_0h_{\rm rms})$. This result is consistent with the analysis presented in Sec. 2.2.1. Using the GW-theory result in an expression for $\alpha$ of the form given above, but with a different function $f$ which now (even for low squeezing pressures) also depends on $p_0/E^*$ (see, e.g., Ref. [@Popov]).
0.1cm **2.2 Calculation of $\alpha$**
The heat current ${\bf J}$ and the heat energy density $Q$ are assumed to be given by $${\bf J} = -\kappa \nabla T, \ \ \ \ \ \ \ Q=\rho C_{\rm V} T$$ where $\kappa$ is the heat conductivity, $\rho$ the mass density and $C_V$ the heat capacitivity. We consider a steady state condition where $Q$ is time independent. Thus the heat energy continuity equation $$\nabla \cdot {\bf J} + {\partial Q \over \partial t} =0$$ reduces to $$\nabla^2 T = 0$$ We assume that the surface roughness at the interface is so small that when solving the heat flow equation we can consider the surfaces as flat. However the heat flow across the interface will be highly non-uniform and given by the heat current $J_z({\bf x})$ (we assume $|\nabla h| << 1$, where $h({\bf x})$ is the surface height profile). Let us first study the heat flow in the upper solid. We can take into account the heat flow from the lower solid by introducing a heat source at the interface $z=0$ i.e. $$\nabla^2 T= -2 J_z ({\bf x})\delta (z)/\kappa_1\eqno(5)$$ Similarly, when studying the temperature in the lower solid we introduce a heat sink on the surface $z=0$ so that $$\nabla^2 T= 2 J_z({\bf x})\delta (z)/\kappa_0\eqno(6)$$ Let us first study the temperature for $z > 0$. We write $$J_z({\bf x}) = \int d^2q \ J_z({\bf q}) e^{i {\bf q}\cdot {\bf x}}\eqno(7)$$ $$J_z({\bf q}) = {1\over (2 \pi )^{2}} \int d^2x \ J_z ({\bf x}) e^{-i {\bf q}\cdot {\bf x}}\eqno(8)$$ From (5) we get $$T({\bf x}, z) = T_1 - {1\over \kappa_1} J_0 (z-d_1)$$ $$-{1 \over \pi \kappa_1} \int d^2q dk {\Delta J_z({\bf q})\over -q^2-k^2} e^{i({\bf q}\cdot {\bf x}+kz)}\eqno(9)$$ where $J_0 = \langle J_z({\bf x}) \rangle$ is the average heat current and $$\Delta J_z({\bf x}) = J_z({\bf x})-J_0\eqno(10)$$ Performing the $k$-integral in (9) gives $$T({\bf x}, z) = T_1 - {1\over \kappa_1} J_0 (z-d_1)$$ $$+{1\over \kappa_1} \int d^2q \ {1\over q} \Delta J_z ({\bf q}) e^{i{\bf q}\cdot {\bf x}-qz}\eqno(11)$$ Similarly, one obtain for the temperature field for $z<0$: $$T({\bf x}, z) = T_0 - {1\over \kappa_0} J_0 (z+d_0)$$ $$- {1\over \kappa_0} \int d^2q \ {1\over q} \Delta J_z({\bf q}) e^{i{\bf q}\cdot {\bf x}+qz}\eqno(12)$$ Let us define $$\psi({\bf x}) = T({\bf x},-0)-T({\bf x},+0)$$ Using (11) and (12) we get $$\psi ({\bf x}) = T_0-T_1-\left ({d_0\over \kappa_0}+{d_1\over \kappa_1}\right ) J_0$$ $$- {1\over \kappa } \int d^2q \ {1\over q} \Delta J_z({\bf q}) e^{i {\bf q}\cdot {\bf x}}\eqno(13)$$ where $${1\over \kappa} = {1\over \kappa_0}+{1\over \kappa_1}\eqno(14)$$ From (13) we get $$\psi({\bf q}) = M \delta ({\bf q}) - {1\over \kappa q} \Delta J_z({\bf q})\eqno(15)$$ where $$M= T_0-T_1-\left ({d_0\over \kappa_0}+{d_1\over \kappa_1}\right ) J_0\eqno(16)$$
We will now consider two different cases:
0.15cm [**2.2.1 Heat flow through the area of real contact**]{}
Let us consider the area of real contact. In the contact region $J_z({\bf x})$ will be non-zero but $\psi({\bf x}) = T({\bf x},+0)-T({\bf x},-0)$ will vanish. On the other surface area $J_z({\bf x})$ will vanish. Thus we must have $$J_z({\bf x})\psi ({\bf x}) = 0$$ everywhere. This implies $$\int d^2q' \ J_z({\bf q}-{\bf q'}) \psi ({\bf q'}) = 0\eqno(17)$$ for all ${\bf q}$. Combining (15) and (17) gives $$M J_z({\bf q}) - {1\over \kappa} \int d^2 q' {1\over q'} J_z({\bf q}-{\bf q'}) \Delta J_z({\bf q'})=0$$ The ensemble average of this equation gives $$M \langle J_z({\bf q})\rangle - {1\over \kappa} \int d^2 q' {1\over q'}
\langle J_z({\bf q}-{\bf q'}) \Delta J_z({\bf q'})\rangle = 0\eqno(18)$$ From (8) we get $$\langle J_z({\bf q}=0) \rangle = (2\pi )^{-2} A_0 J_0.$$ Thus the ${\bf q = 0}$ component of (18) gives $$M A_0 J_0 - {(2\pi )^2 \over \kappa} \int d^2 q {1\over q} \langle |\Delta J_z({\bf q})|^2 \rangle=0\eqno(19)$$ where $A_0$ is the nominal contact area. Combining (16) and (19) and solving for $J_0$ gives an equation of the form (3) with $${1\over \alpha} =
{(2\pi )^2 \over \kappa} {1\over A_0 J_0^2}\int d^2 q {1\over q} \langle |\Delta J_z({\bf q})|^2 \rangle \eqno(20)$$
We now assume that the heat current at the interface is proportional to the normal stress: $$J_z({\bf x}) \approx \mu \sigma_z ({\bf x}). \eqno(21)$$ We can also write (21) as $$J_z({\bf x})/J_0 \approx \sigma_z ({\bf x})/p_0,\eqno(22)$$ where $p_0$ is the average pressure. We note that (22) implies that the current density $J_z({\bf x})$ will be non-vanishing exactly where the normal stress $\sigma_z ({\bf x})$ is non-vanishing, which must be obeyed in the present case, where all the heat current flow through the area of real contact. We note that the heat transfer coefficient depends mainly on the spatial [*distribution*]{} of the contact area and this is exactly the same for the pressure distribution $\sigma ({\bf x})$ as for the current distribution $J_z({\bf x})$. Thus the fact that in a particular asperity contact region the pressure $\sigma ({\bf x})$ is not proportional to $J_z({\bf x})$ is not very important in the present context (see Appendix A and below).
Substituting (22) in (20) gives $${1\over \alpha} \approx
{(2\pi )^2 \over \kappa} {1\over A_0 p_0^2}\int d^2 q {1\over q} \langle |\Delta \sigma_z({\bf q})|^2 \rangle \eqno(23)$$ We can write $$\alpha \approx {p_0^2 \kappa \over E^* U_{\rm el}}\eqno(24)$$ where $$U_{\rm el} =
{(2\pi)^2 \over A_0 E^*} \int d^2q {1 \over q} \langle |\Delta \sigma ({\bf q})|^2 \rangle\eqno(25)$$ is the stored elastic energy per unit (nominal) surface area[@Chunyan1]. In (25) $E^*$ is the effective elastic modulus $${1\over E^*} = {1-\nu_0^2\over E_0}+{1-\nu_1^2\over E_1},$$ where $E_0$ and $\nu_0$ are the Young’s elastic modulus and the Poisson ratio, respectively, for solid ${\bf 0}$ and similar for solid ${\bf 1}$. We have shown elsewhere that for small enough load[@PerssonPRL] $U_{\rm el} \approx u_0 p_0$ where $u_0$ is a length of order the root-mean-square surface roughness amplitude. Thus $$\alpha \approx {p_0 \kappa \over E^* u_0}.\eqno(26a)$$ Note that for small load the squeezing pressure $p_0$ depends on the (average) interfacial separation $\bar u$ via the exponential law $p_0 \sim {\rm exp}(-\bar u/u_0)$. Thus the vertical stiffness $dp_0 /d\bar u = - p_0/u_0$ so we can also write $$\alpha \approx - {\kappa \over E^*} {dp_0 \over d\bar u }.\eqno(26b)$$ This equation is, in fact, exact (see Appendix B and Ref. [@Barber]), which shows that the heat transfer is mainly determined by the geometrical distribution of the contact area (given by the region where $\sigma_z({\bf x})$ is non-vanishing), and by the thermal interaction between the heat flow through the various contact spots (see Appendix A).
The length parameter $u_0$ in (26a) can be calculated (approximately) from the surface roughness power spectrum $C(q)$ using[@JCPpers1] $$u_0 = \surd \pi \int_{q_0}^{q_1} dq \ q^2 C(q) w(q)$$ where $$w(q) = \left (\pi \int_{q_0}^q dq' q'^3 C(q') \right )^{-1/2}$$ where $q_0$ is the long-distance cut-off (or roll-off) wavevector and $q_1$ the wavevector of the shortest wavelength roughness included in the analysis. Assume that the combined surface roughness is self affine fractal for $q_0 < q < q_1$. In this case $$C(q) = {H\over \pi} \left ( {h_{\rm rms} \over q_0}\right )^2 \left ({q_0\over q}\right )^{2(H+1)}$$ where $H$ is the Hurst exponent related to the fractal dimension via $D_{\rm f} = 3-H$. Substituting this $C(q)$ into the equations above gives $$u_0 \approx \left ({2(1-H)\over \pi H}\right )^{1/2} h_{\rm rms} \left [ r (H)-\left ({q_0\over q_1}\right )^H\right ].$$ where $$r(H) = {H\over 2(1-H)}\int_1^\infty dx \ \left (x-1\right )^{-1/2} x^{-1/[2(1-H)]}$$ Note that $ r(H)$ is of order unity (see Ref. [@PerssonPRL]). As discussed in the introduction this implies that the contact resistance in general is determined accurately by one or two decades of the longest-wavelength roughness components, and that there is no relation between the area of real contact (which is observed at the highest magnification, and which determines, e.g., the friction force in most cases), and the contact resistance between the solids.
Note that from (3) it follows that one can neglect the heat contact resistance if $$\kappa /d << \alpha$$ where $\kappa /d $ is the smallest of $\kappa_0 /d_0$ and $\kappa_1 /d_1$. Using (25) this gives $$d >> u_0 (E^*/p_0)$$ We note that in modern high-tech applications the linear size (or thickness) $d$ of the physical system may be very small, and in these cases the contact heat resistance may be particular important.
If roughness occurs only on one length scale, say with wavelength $\lambda$ and height $h$, then the pressure necessary for complete contact will be of order $$p_0 \approx E^* h/\lambda$$ Substituting this in (26a) gives $$\alpha \approx \kappa / \lambda\eqno(27)$$ where we have used that $u_0 \approx h$. Thus, $\alpha^{-1} \approx \lambda \kappa^{-1}$ which is the expected result because the denominator in (3) is only accurate to zero order in $\lambda \kappa^{-1}$. \[Alternatively, substituting (27) in (3) gives a term of the type $(d+\lambda) \kappa^{-1}$ which is the correct result since $d$ in (3) should really be $d-\lambda$.\]
As an example[@Bahr], consider two nominal flat steel plates (in vacuum) with the thickness $d_0=d_1= 0.5 \ {\rm cm}$ and with the root-mean-square roughness $\sim 1 \ {\rm \mu m}$. The plates are squeezed together with the nominal pressure $p_0 = 0.1 \ {\rm MPa}$. The ratio between the measured surface and bulk thermal contact resistance is about $150$. Using (3) we get $$\Delta T /J_0 = 2d_0 \kappa_0^{-1}+\alpha^{-1}.$$ Thus, the (theoretical) ratio between the surface and the bulk contributions to the thermal resistance is: $${\kappa_0 \over 2 \alpha d_0},$$ where $\kappa_0$ is the heat conductivity of the bulk steel. Using (25) with $\kappa = \kappa_0/2$ this gives $${\kappa_0 \over 2 \alpha d_0} = {u_0 \over d_0} {E^*\over p_0}\eqno(28)$$ With (from theory) $u_0 \approx 1 \ {\rm \mu m}$, and $E^* \approx 110 \ {\rm GPa}$, $p_0 = 0.1 \ {\rm MPa}$ and $2d_0= 1 \ {\rm cm}$, from (28) the ratio between the thermal surface and bulk resistance is $\approx 200$, in good agreement with the experimental data.
The discussion above assumes purely elastic deformations. However, plastic flow is likely to occur in the present application at short enough length-scales, observed at high magnification. Since the heat flow is determined mainly by the long-wavelength roughness components, i.e., by the roughness observed at relative low magnification, when calculating the heat transfer one may often assume that the surfaces deform purely elastically, even if plastic deformation is observed at high magnification, see Sec. 5.
0.15cm [**2.2.2 Heat flow through the non-contact area**]{}
Let us now assume that $$J_z({\bf x}) = \beta ({\bf x}) \left [ T({\bf x},-0)-T({\bf x},+0)\right ]=\beta({\bf x})\psi({\bf x})$$ From (15) we get $$\psi ({\bf q}) = M \delta ({\bf q})$$ $$- {1\over \kappa q} \int
d^2q' \ \beta({\bf q}-{\bf q'})\left [ 1 - {(2\pi )^2 \over A_0} \delta({\bf q}) \right ] \psi ({\bf q'})\eqno(29)$$ Next, note that $$J_0={1 \over A_0}\int d^2x \ J_z({\bf x}) = {1\over A_0}\int d^2x \ \beta({\bf x}) \psi ({\bf x})$$ $$={(2\pi )^2 \over A_0 } \int d^2q \ \beta (-{\bf q}) \psi ({\bf q})\eqno(30)$$
Eq. (29) can be solved by iteration. The zero-order solution $$\psi ({\bf q}) = M \delta ({\bf q})$$ Substituting this in (30) gives $$J_0=M {(2\pi )^2 \over A_0} \beta ({\bf q=0})= M\bar \beta\eqno(31)$$ where $$\bar \beta = \langle \beta({\bf x}) \rangle = {1\over A_0} \int d^2x \ \beta({\bf x})$$ is the average of $\beta({\bf x})$ over the whole interfacial area $A_0$. Substituting (16) in (31) and solving for $J_0$ gives an equation of the form (3) with $\alpha = \bar \beta$.
The first-order solution to (29) is $$\psi ({\bf q}) = M \delta ({\bf q})-{M\over \kappa q}
\beta({\bf q})\left [ 1 - {(2 \pi)^2 \over A_0} \delta ({\bf q}) \right ]\eqno(32)$$ Substituting (32) in (30) gives again an equation of the form (3) with $$\alpha = \bar \beta - {(2\pi)^2 \over \kappa A_0 }\int d^2q {1\over q}
\langle | \beta({\bf q})|^2 \rangle \left [1-{(2 \pi)^2 \over A_0}\delta ({\bf q})\right ], \eqno(33)$$ where we have added $\langle .. \rangle$ which denotes ensemble average, and where we used that $$\langle\beta({\bf q})\beta(-{\bf q})\rangle = \langle |\beta({\bf q})|^2\rangle$$ We can rewrite (33) as follows. Let us define the correlation function $$C_\beta ({\bf q})= {1\over (2\pi)^2}
\int d^2x \ \langle \beta ({\bf x}) \beta ({\bf 0})\rangle e^{i{\bf q}\cdot {\bf x}}\eqno(34)$$ Note that $$C_\beta ({\bf q}) = {(2\pi )^2 \over A_0} \langle |\beta ({\bf q})|^2\rangle\eqno(35)$$ This equation follows from the fact that the statistical properties are assumed to be translational invariant in the ${\bf x}$-plane, and is proved as follows: $$C_\beta ({\bf q})= {1\over (2\pi)^2} \int d^2x \ \langle \beta({\bf x})\beta ({\bf 0}) \rangle e^{i {\bf q}\cdot {\bf x}}$$ $$= {1\over (2\pi)^2} \int d^2x \ \langle \beta({\bf x}+{\bf x'})\beta ({\bf x'}) \rangle e^{i {\bf q}\cdot {\bf x}}$$ $$= {1\over (2\pi)^2} \int d^2x'' \ \langle \beta({\bf x''})\beta ({\bf x'}) \rangle e^{i {\bf q}\cdot ({\bf x''}-{\bf x'})}$$ This equation must be independent of ${\bf x'}$ and we can therefore integrate over the ${\bf x'}$-plane and divide by the area $A_0$ giving $$C_\beta ({\bf q}) =
{1\over (2\pi)^2 A_0}\int d^2x' d^2x'' \ \langle \beta({\bf x''})\beta ({\bf x'})
\rangle e^{i {\bf q}\cdot ({\bf x''}-{\bf x'})}$$ $$= {(2\pi)^2 \over A_0} \langle |\beta ({\bf q})|^2\rangle$$ Let us define $$\Delta \beta ({\bf x}) = \beta({\bf x}) - \bar \beta\eqno(36)$$ We get $$\Delta \beta ({\bf q}) = \beta({\bf q})- \bar \beta \delta ({\bf q})$$ and thus $$\langle | \Delta \beta ({\bf q})|^2 \rangle = \langle | \beta({\bf q}) |^2 \rangle
\left [1-{(2 \pi)^2 \over A_0}\delta ({\bf q})\right ]\eqno(37)$$ where we have used that $$\bar \beta \delta({\bf q}) = {(2\pi )^2\over A_0} \beta({\bf q}) \delta ({\bf q})$$ and that $$\delta ({\bf q}) \delta ({\bf -q}) = \delta ({\bf q}) {1\over (2\pi )^2} \int d^2x \ e^{-i{\bf q}\cdot {\bf x}} = \delta ({\bf q}) { A_0 \over (2\pi )^2}$$ Using (33) and (37) gives $$\alpha = \bar \beta - {1\over \kappa}\int d^2q q^{-1} C_{\Delta \beta}({\bf q})\eqno(38)$$
Let us write $$\langle \Delta \beta ({\bf x}) \Delta \beta ({\bf 0})\rangle =
\langle (\Delta \beta)^2\rangle f({\bf x})\eqno(39)$$ where $f({\bf 0})=1$. We write $$f({\bf x}) = \int d^2q \ f({\bf q}) e^{i{\bf q}\cdot {\bf x}}$$ so that $f({\bf x}={\bf 0}) =1$ gives $$\int d^2q \ f({\bf q}) =1\eqno(40)$$ Using (39) and (40), Eq. (38) takes the form $$\alpha = \bar \beta - \langle (\Delta \beta )^2 \rangle \kappa^{-1} l \eqno(41)$$ where the [*correlation length*]{} $$l= {\int d^2 q \ q^{-1} f({\bf q)} \over \int d^2 q \ f({\bf q})}$$ For randomly rough surfaces with isotropic statistical properties $f({\bf q})$ depends only on $q=|{\bf q}|$ so that $$l= {\int_0^\infty dq \ f(q) \over \int_0^\infty dq \ q f(q)}$$ Most surfaces of engineering interest are fractal-like, with the surface roughness power spectrum having a (long-distance) roll-off wavevector $q_0$. In this case one can show from that $l \approx q_0^{-1}$. For the surface used in the numerical study presented below in Sec. 4 one have $q_0 \approx 10^7 \ {\rm m}^{-1}$ (see Fig. \[PowerSpectrumSiO2\]). Furthermore, in this case (for amorphous silicon dioxide solids) $\kappa \approx 1 \ {\rm W/mK}$ and if we assume that $\langle (\Delta \beta)^2\rangle $ is of order $ \bar \beta^2$ we get the ratio between the second and the first term in (41) to be of order $\bar \beta/(q_0 \kappa) \approx 0.01$, where we have used that typically (see Fig. \[HeatAlphaSiO2\]) $\bar \beta \approx 0.1 \ {\rm MW /m^2K}$. Thus, in the application presented in Sec. 4 the second term in the expansion (41) is negligible.
Eq. (41) represent the first two terms in an infinite series which would result if (29) is iterated to infinite order. The result (41) is only useful if the first term $\bar \beta$ is much larger that the second term. If this is not the case one would need to include also higher order terms (in principle, to infinite order) which becomes very hard to calculate using the iterative procedure. By comparing the magnitude between the two terms in (41) one can determine if it is legitimate to include only the lowest order term $\bar \beta$.
We now consider two applications of (41), namely the contribution to the heat transfer from (a) the electromagnetic field (in vacuum) and (b) from heat transfer via a gas (e.g., the normal atmosphere) which we assume is surrounding the two solids.
![ Solid line: The calculated \[using (42)\] heat current per unit area, $J_0$, between two (amorphous) silicon dioxide bodies, as a function of the temperature difference $\Delta T$. The solids have flat surfaces separated by $d=1 \ {\rm nm}$. One solid is at the temperature $T=296 \ {\rm K}$ and the other at $T+\Delta T$. Dashed line: linear function with the slope given by the initial slope (at $\Delta T = 0$) of the solid line. []{data-label="DeltaT.J"}](Fig.4.ps){width="45.00000%"}
0.1cm **(a) Radiative contribution to $\alpha$ (in vacuum)**
The heat flux per unit area between two black-bodies separated by $d>> d_T= c\hbar /k_BT$ is given by the Stefan-Boltzmann law $$J_0 = {\pi^2 k_{\rm B}^4 \over 60 \hbar^3 c^2} \left (T_0^4-T_1^4\right )$$ where $T_0$ and $T_1$ are the temperatures of solids ${\bf 1}$ and ${\bf 2}$, respectively, and $c$ the light velocity. In this limiting case the heat transfer between the bodies is determined by the propagating electromagnetic waves radiated by the bodies and does not depend on the separation $d$ between the bodies. Electromagnetic waves (or photons) always exist outside any body due to thermal or quantum fluctuations of the current density inside the body. The electromagnetic field created by the fluctuating current density exists also in the form of evanescent waves, which are damped exponentially with the distance away from the surface of the body. For an isolated body, the evanescent waves do not give a contribution to the energy radiation. However, for two solids separated by $d < d_{T}$, the heat transfer may increase by many orders of magnitude due to the evanescent electromagnetic waves–this is often referred to as photon tunneling.
For short separation between two solids with flat surfaces ($d << d_{T}$), the heat current due to the evanescent electromagnetic waves is given by[@rev1] $$J_0 = {4\over (2\pi)^3} \int_0^\infty d\omega \ \left (\Pi_0(\omega)-\Pi_1(\omega)\right )$$ $$\times \int d^2q \ e^{-2qd} {{\rm Im} R_0(\omega) {\rm Im} R_1(\omega) \over
|1-e^{-2qd} R_0(\omega)R_1(\omega) |^2}\eqno(42)$$ where $$\Pi (\omega) = \hbar \omega \left (e^{\hbar \omega /k_{\rm B}T}-1\right )^{-1}$$ and $$R(\omega) = {\epsilon (\omega) -1 \over \epsilon (\omega) + 1}$$ where $\epsilon (\omega)$ is the dielectric function. From (42) it follows that the heat current scale as $1/d^2$ with the separation between the solid surfaces. The heat current is especially large in the case of resonant photon tunneling between surface modes localized on the two different surfaces. The resonant condition corresponds to the case when the denominator in the integrand of (42) is small. Close to the resonance we can use the approximation $$R \approx \frac{\omega_1}{\omega -\omega _0-i\gamma },$$ where $\omega_1$ is a constant and $\omega_0$ is determined by the equation ${\rm Re} [ \epsilon (\omega_0) + 1] =0$. In this case the heat current is determined by[@rev1] $$J_0 \approx \mu {\gamma \over d^2}\left[\Pi_0(\omega_0)-\Pi_1(\omega_0)\right],$$ where $\mu \approx [{\rm log} (2\omega _a/\gamma )]^2/(8\pi)$. If we write $T_1=T_0-\Delta T$ and assume $\Delta T/T_0 << 1$ we get $J_0=\alpha \Delta T$ with $$\alpha \approx \mu {k_{\rm B} \gamma \over d^2} {\eta^2 {\rm exp} (\eta) \over [{\rm exp} (\eta) -1 ]^2}\eqno(43)$$ where $\eta=\hbar \omega_0 /k_{\rm B}T_0$.
Resonant photon tunneling enhancement of the heat transfer is possible for two semiconductor or insulator surfaces which can support low-frequency surface phonon-polariton modes in the mid-infrared frequency region. As an example, consider two clean surfaces of (amorphous) silicon dioxide (SiO$_2$). The optical properties of this material can be described using an oscillator model[@optical] $$\epsilon (\omega) = \epsilon_\infty + {a\over \omega_a^2 -\omega^2 -i\omega \gamma_a}+{b\over \omega_b^2 -\omega^2 -i\omega \gamma_b}$$ The frequency dependent term in this expression is due to optical phonon’s. The values for the parameters $\epsilon_\infty$, $(a,\omega_a,\gamma_a)$ and $(b,\omega_b,\gamma_b)$ are given in Ref. [@optical]. In Fig. \[DeltaT.J\] we show the calculated heat current per unit area, $J_0$, as a function of the temperature difference $\Delta T$. The solids have flat surfaces separated by $d=1 \ {\rm nm}$. One solid is at the temperature $T=296 \ {\rm K}$ and the other at $T+\Delta T$. When $\Delta T << T$, the heat transfer depends (nearly) linearly on the temperature difference $\Delta T$ (see Fig. \[DeltaT.J\]), and we can define the heat transfer coefficient $\alpha = J_0/\Delta T$. In the present case (for $d=d_0 =1 \ {\rm nm}$) $\alpha = \alpha_0 \approx 2\times 10^6 \ {\rm W/m^2 K}$. If the surfaces are not smooth but if roughness occur so that the separation $d$ varies with the coordinate ${\bf x}=(x,y)$ we have to first order in the expansion (41): $$\alpha = \bar \beta = \alpha_0 \langle \left (d_0/d \right )^2 \rangle\eqno(44)$$ where $\langle .. \rangle$ stands for ensemble average, or average over the whole surface area, and where $\alpha_0$ is the heat transfer between flat surfaces separated by $d=d_0$.
In the preset case the heat transfer is associated with thermally excited optical (surface) phonon’s. That is, the electric field of a thermally excited optical phonon in one solid excites an optical phonon in the other solid, leading to energy transfer. The excitation transfer occur in both directions but if one solid is hotter than the other, there will be a net transfer of energy from the hotter to the colder solid. For metals, low-energy excited electron-hole pairs will also contribute to the energy transfer, but for good metals the screening of the fluctuating electric field by the conduction electrons leads to very ineffective heat transfer. However, if the metals are covered with metal oxide layers, and if the separation between the solids is smaller than the oxide layer thickness, the energy transfer may again be due mainly to the optical phonon’s of the oxide, and the magnitude of the heat current will be similar to what we calculated above for (amorphous) silicon dioxide.
Let us consider a high-tech application. Consider a MEMS device involving very smooth (amorphous) silicon dioxide slabs. Consider, for example, a very thin silicon dioxide slab rotating on a silicon dioxide substrate. During operation a large amount of frictional energy may be generated at the interface. Assume that the disk is pressed against the substrate with the nominal stress or pressure $p_0$. This does not need to be an external applied force but may be due to the long-ranged van der Waals attraction between the solids, or due to capillary bridges formed in the vicinity of the (asperity) contact regions between the solids. The heat transfer due to the area of real contact (assuming purely elastic deformation) can be calculated from (25). Let us make a very rough estimate: Surfaces used in MEMS application have typically a roughness of order a few nanometers. Thus, $u_0 \sim 1 \ {\rm nm}$ and for (amorphous) silicon dioxide the heat conductivity $\kappa \approx 1 \ {\rm W/Km}$. Thus from (32): $$\alpha \approx (p_0/E) \times 10^9 \ {\rm W/m^2 K}\eqno(45)$$ In a typical case the nominal pressure $p_0$ may be (due to the van der Waals interaction and capillary bridges) between $10^6-10^7 \ {\rm Pa}$ and with $E\approx 10^{11} \ {\rm Pa}$ we get from (45) $\alpha \approx 10^4 - 10^5 \ {\rm W/Km^2}$. If the root-mean-square roughness is of order $\sim 1 \ {\rm nm}$ we expect the average separation between the surfaces to be of order a few nanometer so that $\langle (d_0/d)^2 \rangle \approx 0.1$ giving the non-contact contribution to $\alpha$ from the electromagnetic field of order \[from (44)\] $10^5 \ {\rm W/Km^2}$, i.e., larger than or of similar magnitude as the contribution from the area of real contact.
0.1cm **(b) Contribution to $\alpha$ from heat transfer via the surrounding gas or liquid**
Consider two solids with flat surfaces separated by a distance $d$. Assume that the solids are surrounded by a gas. Let $\Lambda$ be the gas mean free path. If $d >> \Lambda$ the heat transfer between the solids occurs via heat diffusion in the gas. If $d << \Lambda$ the heat transfer occurs by ballistic propagation of gas molecules from one surface to the other. In this case gas molecules reflected from the hotter surface will have (on the average) higher kinetic energy that the gas molecules reflected from the colder surface. This will result in heat transfer from the hotter to the colder surface. The heat current is approximately given by[@Bahrami1] $$J_0 \approx {\kappa_{\rm gas} \Delta T \over d + a \Lambda}$$ where $a$ is a number of order unity and which depend on the interaction between the gas molecules and the solid walls[@review]. For air (and most other gases) at the normal atmospheric pressure and at room temperature $\Lambda \approx 65 \ {\rm nm}$ and $\kappa_{\rm gas} \approx 0.02 \ {\rm W/mK}$. For contacting surfaces with surface roughness we get to first order in the expansion in (41): $$\alpha \approx \kappa_{\rm gas} \langle (d+\Lambda )^{-1} \rangle \eqno(46)$$ where $\langle .. \rangle$ stand for ensemble average or averaging over the surface area. Eq. (46) also holds if the surfaces are surrounded by a liquid rather than a gas. In this case $\kappa_{\rm gas}$ must be replaced with the liquid heat conductivity $\kappa_{\rm liq}$ and in most cases one can put $\Lambda$ equal to zero.
If we again consider a MEMS application where the average surface separation is of order nm we can neglect the $d$-dependence in (46) and get $\alpha \approx \kappa_{\rm gas}/\Lambda \approx 3\times 10^5 \ {\rm W/m^2 K}$ which is similar to the contribution from the electromagnetic coupling.
0.1cm **(c) Contribution to $\alpha$ from heat transfer via capillary bridges**
If the solid walls are wet by water, in a humid atmosphere capillary bridges will form spontaneous at the interface in the vicinity of the asperity contact regions. For very smooth surfaces, such as in MEMS applications, the fluid (in this case water) may occupy a large region between the surfaces and will then dominate the heat transfer between the solids. Similarly, contamination layers (mainly organic molecules) which cover most natural surfaces may form capillary bridges between the contacting solids, and contribute in an important way to the heat transfer coefficient. The fraction of the interfacial surface area occupied by fluid bridges, and the separation between the solids in the fluid covered region, can be calculated using the theory developed in Ref. [@PerssonCapillary]. From this one can calculate the contribution to the heat transfer using (46): $$\alpha \approx \kappa_{\rm liq} \langle d^{-1} \rangle \approx \kappa_{\rm liq} \int_a^{d_{\rm K}} du A_0 P(u) u^{-1}\eqno(47)$$ where $P(u)$ is the distribution of interfacial separation $u$, and $A_0$ the nominal contact area. The lower cut-off $a$ in the integral is a distance of order a molecular length and $d_{\rm K}$ is the maximum height of the liquid bridge which, for a system in thermal equilibrium and for a wetting liquid, is of order the Kelvin length. Note that $P(u)$ is normalized and that $$\int_a^{d_{\rm K}} du A_0 P(u) = \Delta A\eqno(48)$$ is the surface area (projected on the $xy$-plane) where the surface separation is between $a < u < d_{\rm K}$.
0.3cm **3. Contact mechanics: short review and basic equations**
The theory of heat transfer presented above depends on quantities which can be calculated using contact mechanics theories. Thus, the heat flux through the non-contact area (Sec. 2.2.2) depends on the average of some function $f[d({\bf x})]$ of the interfacial separation $d({\bf x})$. If $P(u)$ denote the probability distribution of interfacial separation $u$ then $$\langle f(d) \rangle = \int_a^\infty du \ f(u) P(u)\eqno(49)$$ where $a$ is a short-distance cut-off (typically of molecular dimension). The contribution from the area of real contact depends on the elastic energy $U_{\rm el}$ stored in the asperity contact regions \[see Eq. (23)\]. In the limit of small contact pressure $U_{\rm el}=p_0 u_0$, where $u_0$ is a length which is of order the root-mean-square roughness of the combined roughness profile. All the quantities $P(u)$, $U_{\rm el}$ and $u_0$ can be calculated with good accuracy using the contact mechanics model of Persson. Here we will briefly review this theory and give the basic equations relevant for heat transfer.
![\[1x\] An rubber block (dotted area) in adhesive contact with a hard rough substrate (dashed area). The substrate has roughness on many different length scales and the rubber makes partial contact with the substrate on all length scales. When a contact area is studied at low magnification it appears as if complete contact occur, but when the magnification is increased it is observed that in reality only partial contact occur. ](Fig.5.ps){width="45.00000%"}
Consider the frictionless contact between two elastic solids with the Young’s elastic modulus $E_0$ and $E_1$ and the Poisson ratios $\nu_0$ and $\nu_1$. Assume that the solid surfaces have the height profiles $h_0 ({\bf x})$ and $h_1({\bf x})$, respectively. The elastic contact mechanics for the solids is equivalent to those of a rigid substrate with the height profile $h({\bf x}) = h_0({\bf x})+
h_1({\bf x})$ and a second elastic solid with a flat surface and with the Young’s modulus $E$ and the Poisson ratio $\nu$ chosen so that[@Johnson2] $${1-\nu^2\over E} = {1-\nu_0^2\over E_0}+{1-\nu_1^2\over E_1}.\eqno(50)$$
The contact mechanics formalism developed elsewhere[@PSSR; @JCPpers; @PerssonPRL; @JCPpers1] is based on the studying the interface between two contacting solids at different magnification $\zeta$. When the system is studied at the magnification $\zeta$ it appears as if the contact area (projected on the $xy$-plane) equals $A(\zeta)$, but when the magnification increases it is observed that the contact is incomplete, and the surfaces in the apparent contact area $A(\zeta)$ are in fact separated by the average distance $\bar u(\zeta)$, see Fig. \[asperity.mag\]. The (apparent) relative contact area $A(\zeta)/A_0$ at the magnification $\zeta$ is given by[@JCPpers; @JCPpers1] $${A(\zeta)\over A_0} = {1\over (\pi G )^{1/2}}\int_0^{p_0} d\sigma \ {\rm e}^{-\sigma^2/4G}
= {\rm erf} \left ( p_0 \over 2 G^{1/2} \right )\eqno(51)$$ where $$G(\zeta) = {\pi \over 4}\left ({E\over 1-\nu^2}\right )^2 \int_{q_0}^{\zeta q_0} dq q^3 C(q)\eqno(52)$$ where the surface roughness power spectrum $$C(q) = {1\over (2\pi)^2} \int d^2x \ \langle h({\bf x})h({\bf 0})\rangle {\rm e}^{-i{\bf q}\cdot {\bf x}}\eqno(53)$$ where $\langle ... \rangle$ stands for ensemble average. The height profile $h({\bf x})$ of the rough surface can be measured routinely today on all relevant length scales using optical and stylus experiments.
![\[asperity.mag\] An asperity contact region observed at the magnification $\zeta$. It appears that complete contact occur in the asperity contact region, but when the magnification is increasing to the highest (atomic scale) magnification $\zeta_1$, it is observed that the solids are actually separated by the average distance $\bar{u}(\zeta)$. ](Fig.6.ps){width="35.00000%"}
We define $u_1(\zeta)$ to be the (average) height separating the surfaces which appear to come into contact when the magnification decreases from $\zeta$ to $\zeta-\Delta \zeta$, where $\Delta \zeta$ is a small (infinitesimal) change in the magnification. $u_1(\zeta)$ is a monotonically decreasing function of $\zeta$, and can be calculated from the average interfacial separation $\bar u(\zeta)$ and $A(\zeta)$ using (see Ref. [@JCPpers1]) $$u_1(\zeta)=\bar u(\zeta)+\bar u'(\zeta) A(\zeta)/A'(\zeta),\eqno(54)$$ where[@JCPpers1] $$\bar{u}(\zeta ) = \surd \pi \int_{\zeta q_0}^{q_1} dq \ q^2C(q) w(q)$$ $$\times \int_{p(\zeta)}^\infty dp'
\ {1 \over p'} e^{-[w(q,\zeta) p'/E^*]^2},\eqno(55)$$ where $E^*=E/(1-\nu^2)$, and where $p(\zeta)=p_0A_0/A(\zeta)$ and $$w(q,\zeta)=\left (\pi \int_{\zeta q_0}^q dq' \ q'^3 C(q') \right )^{-1/2}.$$
The distribution of interfacial separations $$P(u) = \langle \delta [u-u({\bf x})]\rangle$$ where $u({\bf x}) = d({\bf x})$ is the separation between the surfaces at point ${\bf x}$. As shown in Ref. [@JCPpers1] we have (approximately) $$P(u)= \int_1^\infty d\zeta \ [-A'(\zeta )] \delta [u-u_1(\zeta)]$$ Thus we can write (49) as $$\langle f(d) \rangle = \int_1^{\zeta_1} d\zeta \ [-A'(\zeta )] f[u_1(\zeta)]\eqno(56)$$ where $\zeta_1$ is defined by $u_1({\zeta_1})=a$.
![\[block\] An elastic block squeezed against a rigid rough substrate. The separation between the average plane of the substrate and the average plane of the lower surface of the block is denoted by $u$. Elastic energy is stored in the block in the vicinity of the asperity contact regions. ](Fig.7.ps){width="45.00000%"}
Finally, the elastic energy $U_{\rm el}$ and the length parameter $u_0$ can be calculated as follows. The elastic energy $U_{\rm el}$ has been studied in Ref. [@elast]: $$U_{\rm el} = A_0 E^* {\pi \over 2} \int_{q_0}^{q_1} dq \ q^2 W(q,p)C(q).\eqno(57)$$ In the simplest case one take $W(q,p)=P(q,p)=A(\zeta) /A_0$ is the relative contact area when the interface is studied at the magnification $\zeta = q/q_0$, which depends on the applied pressure $p=p_0$. A more accurate expression is $$W(q,p) = P(q,p) \left [\gamma +(1-\gamma) P^2(q,p)\right ].\eqno(58)$$ However, in this case one also need to modify (55) appropriately (see Ref. [@JCPpers1]). The parameter $\gamma$ in (58) seams to depend on the surface roughness. For self-affine fractal surfaces with the fractal dimension $D_{\rm f} \approx 2.2$ we have found that $\gamma \approx 0.5$ gives good agreement between the theory and numerical studies[@Chunyan1]. As $D_{\rm f} \rightarrow 2$ analysis of numerical data indicate that $\gamma \rightarrow 1$.
For small pressures one can show that[@JCPpers1]: $$p=\beta E^* e^{- \bar u/u_0},\eqno(59)$$ where $$u_0 = \surd \pi \gamma \int_{q_0}^{q_1} dq \ q^2 C(q) w(q),\eqno(60)$$ where $w(q)=w(q,1)$, and where $$\beta = \epsilon \
{\rm exp}\left [ {\int_{q_0}^{q_1} dq \ q^2C(q) w(q) {\rm log} w(q)\over
\int_{q_0}^{q_1} dq \ q^2C(q) w(q)}\right ],\eqno(61)$$ where (for $\gamma = 1$) $\epsilon=0.7493$.
![\[PowerSpectrumSiO2\] Surface roughness power spectrum $C(q)$ as a function of the wavevector $q$ on a log-log scale (with 10 as basis). For a typical surface used in MEMS applications with the root mean square roughness $2.5 \ {\rm nm}$ when measured over an area $10 \ {\rm \mu m} \times 10 \ {\rm \mu m}$. ](Fig.8.ps){width="45.00000%"}
![\[HeatAlphaSiO2\] The contribution to the heat transfer coefficient $\alpha$ from the direct contact area, and the non-contact contribution due to the fluctuating electromagnetic (EM) field and due to heat transfer via the surrounding gas. For a randomly rough surface with the (combined) surface roughness power spectrum shown in Fig. \[PowerSpectrumSiO2\]. ](Fig.9.ps){width="45.00000%"}
![\[relativeHumidity.logAlpha.contact.fluid\] The logarithm (with 10 as basis) of the contribution to the heat transfer coefficient $\alpha$ from the real contact areas, and from the water in the capillary bridges, as a function of the relative (water) humidity. For a randomly rough surface with the (combined) surface roughness power spectrum shown in Fig. \[PowerSpectrumSiO2\]. The squeezing pressure $p_0 = 4 \ {\rm MPa}$ and the effective solid elastic modulus $E^* = 86 \ {\rm GPa}$. The heat conductivity of water $\kappa_{\rm fluid} = 0.58 \ {\rm W/mK}$. ](Fig.10.ps){width="45.00000%"}
0.3cm **4. Numerical results**
In this section we present numerical results to illustrate the theory. We focus on a MEMS-like application. In Fig. \[PowerSpectrumSiO2\] we show the surface roughness power spectrum $C(q)$ as a function of the wavevector $q$ on a log-log scale (with 10 as basis) for a typical surface used in MEMS applications, with the root mean square roughness $2.5 \ {\rm nm}$ when measured over an area $10 \ {\rm \mu m} \times 10 \ {\rm \mu m}$. In Fig. \[HeatAlphaSiO2\] we show for this case the contribution to the heat transfer coefficient $\alpha$ from the direct contact area, and the non-contact contribution due to the fluctuating electromagnetic (EM) field and due to heat transfer via the surrounding gas. In the calculation of the EM-contribution we have used (44) with $\alpha_0
= 2.0 \ {\rm MW/m^2K}$ (and $d_0 = 1 \ {\rm nm}$). For the contribution from the surrounding gas we have used (46) with $\kappa_{\rm gas} = 0.024 \ {\rm W/mK}$ and $\Lambda = 65 \ {\rm
nm}$ (and $a=1$). For the contact contribution we used (25) with $\kappa = 1 \ {\rm W/mK}$. In all calculations we have assumed $E^*
= 86 \ {\rm GPa}$ and that the contact is elastic (no plastic yielding).
We have also studied the contribution to the heat transfer from capillary bridges which on hydrophilic surfaces form spontaneous in a humid atmosphere. The capillary bridges gives an attractive force (to be added to the external squeezing force), which pulls the solids closer together. We have used the theory presented in Ref. [@PerssonCapillary] to include the influence of capillary bridges on the contact mechanics, and to determine the fraction of the interface area filled with fluid at any given relative humidity. In Fig. \[relativeHumidity.logAlpha.contact.fluid\] we show the logarithm (with 10 as basis) of the contribution to the heat transfer coefficient $\alpha$ from the real contact areas, and from the water in the capillary bridges, as a function of the relative (water) humidity. For relative humidity below $\sim 0.4$ the contribution to the heat transfer from capillary bridges decreases roughly linearly with decreasing humidity (and vanish at zero humidity), and for relative humidity below $\sim 0.015$ the heat transfer via the area of real contact will be more important than the contribution from the capillary bridges. However the contribution from heat transfer via the air or vapor phase (not shown) is about $\sim 0.3 \ {\rm MW/m^2 K}$ (see Fig. \[HeatAlphaSiO2\]), and will hence give the dominant contribution to the heat transfer for relative humidity below $0.3$. The small increase in the contribution from the area of real contact for relative humidity around $\sim 0.94$ is due to the increase in the contact area due to the force from the capillary bridges. For soft elastic solids (such as rubber) this effect is much more important: see Ref. [@PerssonCapillary] for a detailed discussion of this effect, which will also affect (increase) the heat transfer in a drastic way.
We note that heat transfer via capillary bridges has recently been observed in nanoscale point contact experiments[@capillary1]. In this study the authors investigated the heat transfer mechanisms at a $\sim 100 \ {\rm nm}$ diameter point contact between a sample and a probe tip of a scanning thermal microscope. They observed heat transfer both due to the surrounding (atmospheric) air, and via capillary bridges.
![\[log.magnification.u0.logAelast.logAplast\] The elastic $A_{\rm el}$ and plastic $A_{\rm pl}$ contact area as a function of magnification on a log-log scale (with 10 as basis). The penetration hardness $\sigma_{\rm Y} = 4 \ {\rm GPa}$ and the applied pressure $p_0= 4 \ {\rm MPa}$. Also shown is the asperity-induced elastic energy $U_{\rm el}(\zeta)$ in units of the full elastic energy $U_{\rm el} (\zeta_1)$ obtained when all the roughness (with wavevectors below $q_1 = \zeta_1 q_0$) is included. The vertical dashed line indicate the magnification where $A_{\rm el} = A_{\rm pl}$. ](Fig.11.ps){width="45.00000%"}
0.3cm **5. Role of adhesion and plastic deformation**
In the theory above we have assumed that the solids deform purely elastically. However, in many practical situations the solids will deform plastically at short enough length scale. Similarly, in many practical situations, in particular for elastically soft solids, the area of real contact may depend strongly on the adhesive interaction across the contacting interface. Here we will briefly discuss under which circumstances this will affect the heat transfer between the solids.
The contribution to the heat transfer from the area of real contact between two solids depends on the elastic energy $U_{\rm el}$ stored in the asperity contact regions, or, at small enough applied loads, on the length parameter $u_0$. For most randomly rough surfaces these quantities are determined mainly by the long-wavelength, large amplitude surface roughness components. Similarly, the interfacial separation, which determines the non-contact contribution to the heat transfer, depends mainly on the long-wavelength, large amplitude surface roughness components. On the other hand, plastic deformation and adhesion often manifest themself only at short length scales, corresponding to high magnification. For this reason, in many cases one may assume purely elastic deformation when calculating the heat transfer, even if, at short enough length scale, all asperities have yielded plastically, or the adhesion has strongly increased the (apparent) contact area. Let us illustrate this with the amorphous silicon dioxide system studied in Sec. 4.
In Fig. \[log.magnification.u0.logAelast.logAplast\] we show the elastic and plastic contact area as a function of magnification on a log-log scale (with 10 as basis). Also shown is the asperity-induced elastic energy $U_{\rm el}(\zeta)$ in units of the full elastic energy $U_{\rm el}(\zeta_1)$ obtained when all the roughness (with wavevectors below $q_1 = \zeta_1 q_0$) is included. Note that about $90 \%$ of the full elastic energy is already obtained at the magnification where the elastic and plastic contact areas are equal, and about $60 \%$ of the full elastic energy is obtained when $A_{\rm pl} /A_{\rm el} \approx 0.01$. Thus, in the present case, to a good approximation, we can neglect the plastic deformation when studying the heat transfer. In the calculation we have assumed the penetration hardness $\sigma_{\rm Y} = 4 \ {\rm GPa}$ and the squeezing pressure $p_0 = 4 \ {\rm MPa}$. Thus, at high magnification, where all the contact regions are plastically deformed, the relative contact area $A/A_0 = p_0/\sigma_{\rm Y} = 0.001$ in good agreement with the numerical data in Fig. \[log.magnification.u0.logAelast.logAplast\].
If necessary, it is easy to include adhesion and plastic deformation when calculating the heat transfer coefficient $\alpha$. Thus (26b) is also valid when adhesion is included, at least as long as adhesion is treated as a contact interaction. However, in this case the interfacial stiffness $dp_0/d\bar u$ must be calculated including the adhesion (see Ref. [@CYang]). Plastic deformation can be included in an approximate way as follows. If two solids are squeezed together at the pressure $p_0$ they will deform elastically and, at short enough length scale, plastically. If the contact is now removed the surfaces will be locally plastically deformed. Assume now that the surfaces are moved into contact again at exactly the same position as the original contact, and with the same squeezing pressure $p_0$ applied. In this case the solids will deform purely elastically and the theory outlined in this paper can be (approximately) applied assuming that the surface roughness power spectrum $\bar C(q)$ of the (plastically) deformed surface is known. In Ref. [@PSSR] we have described an approximately way of how to obtain $\bar C(q)$ from $C(q)$ by defining (with $q=\zeta q_0$) $$\bar C(q) = \left (1- {A_{\rm pl}(\zeta)\over A_{\rm pl}^0}\right )C(q)$$ where $A_{\rm pl}^0 = F_{\rm N}/\sigma_{\rm Y}$. The basic picture behind this definition is that surface roughness at short length scales get smoothed out by plastic deformation, resulting in an effective cut-off of the power spectrum for large wavevectors (corresponding to short distances).
![\[hest2\] Temperature distribution of rubber tread (thickness $d$) in contact with the air. The air temperature (for $z > d$) and the temperature at the outer ($z=d$) and inner ($z=0$) rubber surfaces are denoted by $T_{\rm air}$, $T_1$ and $T_0$, respectively. ](Fig.12.ps){width="45.00000%"}
0.3cm **6. Application to tires**
Here we will briefly discuss heat transfer in the context of tires. The rolling resistance $\mu_{\rm R}$ of a tire determines the heat production in a tire during driving on a strait planar road at a constant velocity $v$. In a stationary state the energy produced per unit time, $W=\mu_{\rm R} F_{\rm N} v$, must equal the transfer of energy per unit time, from the tire to the surrounding atmosphere and to the road surface. Here we will briefly discuss the relative importance of these two different contributions to the heat transfer.
Assume for simplicity that the frictional heat is produced uniformly in the tread rubber, and assume a tire without tread pattern. Let $z$ be a coordinate axis perpendicular to the rubber surface. In this case at stationary condition the temperature in the tread rubber satisfies $T''(z)=-\dot q/\kappa$ where $\dot q$ is the frictional heat produced per unit volume and unit time. We assume that the heat current vanish at the inner rubber surface ($z=0$, see Fig. \[hest2\]), so that $T'(0)=0$. Thus we get $T(z) = T_0-\dot q z^2 /2\kappa$. The heat current at the outer rubber surface $$J_0 =-\kappa T'(d) = \dot q d.\eqno(62)$$ The temperature of the outer surface of the tread rubber $$T_1 = T(d) = T_0 -\dot q d^2 /2\kappa\eqno(63)$$ Let us now assume that the heat transfer to the surrounding $$J_0 =\alpha (T_1-T_{\rm air})\eqno(64)$$ Combining (62)-(64) gives $$T_1 = T_0-{T_0-T_{\rm air} \over 1+2\kappa/d\alpha}\eqno(65)$$ For rubber $\kappa \approx 0.2 \ {\rm W/mK}$ and with $d= 1 \ {\rm cm}$ and $\alpha \approx 100 \ {\rm W/m^2 K}$, as is typical for (forced) convective heat transfer between a tire and (dry) air (see Appendix E and Ref. [@Oh]), we get $$T_1 \approx 0.3 T_0 + 0.7 T_{\rm air}.$$ The temperature profile is shown (schematically) in Fig. \[hest2\]. In reality, the heat production, even during pure rolling, will be somewhat larger close to the outer surface of the tread and the resulting temperature profile in the tread rubber will therefore be more uniform than indicated by the analysis above.
Let us now discuss the relative importance of the contributions to the heat transfer to the air and to the road. We assume that the heat transfer to the atmosphere and to the road are proportional to the temperature difference $T_1-T_{\rm air}$ and $T_1 - T_{\rm road}$, respectively. We get $$\mu_{\rm R} F_{\rm N} v = \alpha_{\rm air} A_{\rm surf} (T_1-T_{\rm air})
+ \alpha_{\rm road} A_0 (T_1 - T_{\rm road})\eqno(66)$$ where $A_{\rm surf}$ is the outer surface area of the tread, and $A_0$ the nominal tire-road footprint area. For rubber in contact with a road surface $\kappa$ in Eq. (22) is $ \approx 0.2 \ {\rm W/mK}$ and with $p_0/E^* \approx 0.04$ and $u_0 \approx 10^{-3} \ {\rm m}$ (as calculated for a typical case) we get $\alpha_{\rm road} \approx 10 \ {\rm W/m^2 K}$ which is smaller than the contribution from the forced convection. Since the nominal contact area between the tire and the road is much smaller than the total rubber tread area, we conclude that the contribution from the area of real contact between the road and the tire is rather unimportant. During fast acceleration wear process may occur, involving the transfer of hot rubber particles to the road surface, but such processes will not considered here. In addition, at the inlet of the tire-road footprint area, air may be be compressed and then rapidly squeezed out from the tire-road contact area resulting in strong forced convective cooling of the rubber surface in the contact area. A similar process involving the inflow of air occur at the exit of the tire-road footprint area. A detailed study of this complex process is necessary in order to accurately determine the heat transfer from a tire to the surrounding atmosphere and the road surface.
For a passenger car tire during driving on a strait planar road at a constant velocity $v$, the tire temperature which follows from (66) is in reasonably agreement with experiment. Thus, using (66) we get $$\Delta T =T_1-T_{\rm air} \approx {\mu_{\rm R} F_{\rm N} v \over \alpha_{\rm air} A_{\rm surf}}\eqno(67)$$ and with $\alpha_{\rm air} = 100 \ {\rm W/m^2 K}$, $A_{\rm surf} \approx 0.5 \ {\rm m^2}$ and $\mu_{\rm R} \approx 0.02$, $F_{\rm N} = 3500 \ {\rm N}$ and $v=30 \ {\rm m/s}$ we get $\Delta T \approx 40 \ ^\circ {\rm C}$.
The discussion above has focused on the stationary state where the heat energy produced in the tire per unit time is equal to the energy given off to the surrounding per unit time. However, for a rolling tire it may take a very long time to arrive at this stationary state. In the simplest picture, assuming a uniform temperature in the tire rubber, we get from energy conservation $$\rho C_{\rm v} {dT\over dt} = \dot q -{\alpha \over d} (T-T_{\rm air})$$ or, if $T(0)=T_{\rm air}$, $$T(t) = T_{\rm air} +{\dot q d \over \alpha} \left (1-e^{-t/\tau}\right ),$$ where the relaxation time $\tau = \rho C_{\rm V} d /\alpha \approx 200 \ {\rm sec}$. In reality, the temperature in the tire is not uniform, and this will introduce another relaxation time $\tau'$, defined as the time it takes for heat to diffuse a distance $d$, which is of order $\tau' = \rho C_{\rm V} d^2/\kappa$. The ratio $\tau' / \tau = \alpha d /\kappa$. For rubber $\kappa \approx 0.2 \ {\rm W/mK}$ and assuming $d= 1 \ {\rm cm}$ and $\alpha = 100 \ {\rm W/m^2 K}$ gives $\tau' / \tau \approx 5$ or $\tau' \approx 10^3 \ {\rm sec}$. Experiment have shown that it typically takes $\sim 30 \ {\rm minutes}$ to fully build up the tire temperature during rolling[@Oh].
Rubber friction depends sensitively on the temperature of the rubber, in particular the temperature close to the rubber surface in contact with the road. The temperature in the surface region of a tire varies rapidly in space and time, which must be considered when calculating the rubber friction[@Flash]. The shortest time and length scales are related to the contact between the road asperities and the rubber surface in the tire-road footprint contact area. During slip this generate intense heating which varies over length scales from a few micrometer to several mm, and over time scales shorter than the time a rubber patch stays in the footprint, which typically may be of order a few milliseconds. During this short time very little heat is transferred to the surrounding, and very little heat conduction has occurs inside the rubber, i.e., the heat energy mainly stays where it is produced by the internal friction in the rubber. This result in a [*flash temperature*]{} effect, which has a crucial influence on rubber friction[@Flash]. However, rubber friction also depends on the [*background temperature*]{} (usually denoted by $T_0$), which varies relatively slowly in space and time, e.g., on time scales from the time $\sim 0.1 \ {\rm s}$ it takes for the tire to perform a few rotations, up to the time $\sim 30 \ {\rm minutes}$ necessary to build up the full tire temperature after any change in the driving condition (e.g., from the start of driving). Note that the time variation of the background temperature $T_0$ depends on the surrounding (e.g., the air and road temperatures, humidity, rain, ...) and on the driving history, while the flash temperature effect mainly depends on the slip history of a tread block (or rubber surface patch) in the footprint contact area, but not on the outside air or road temperature, or atmospheric condition.
![\[experiment\] Experiment to test the theory predictions for the heat transfer across interfaces. The increase in the temperature $T_1(t)$ of the water in the lower container, with increasing time $t$, determines the heat transfer between the upper and lower water container. ](Fig.13.ps){width="40.00000%"}
0.3cm **7. A new experiment**
We have performed a very simple experiment to test the theoretical predictions for the heat transfer. The setup consists of two containers, both filled with distilled water, standing on top of each other with a thin silicon rubber film in between. The upper container is made from copper (inner diameter $5 \ {\rm cm}$), and the water is heated to the boiling temperature (i.e., $T_0=100 ^\circ\mathrm{C}$). The lower container is made from PMMA with a cylindrical copper block at the top. To study the effect of surface roughness on the heat transfer, the copper block can be replaced by another copper block with different surface roughness. In the experiments presented below we used 3 copper blocks with different surface roughness.
The temperature $T_1(t)$ of the water in the lower container will increase with time $t$ due to the heat current $J_0$ flowing from the upper container to the lower container: $$J_0 = \rho C_{\rm V} \dot T_1 d \eqno(68)$$ where $d$ is the height of the water column in the lower container (in our experiment $d=3.5\ {\rm cm}$), and where $\rho$ and $C_{\rm V}$ are the water mass density and heat capacity respectively. We measure the temperature of the water in the lower container as a function of time, starting at $25^\circ\mathrm{C}$. To obtain a uniform temperature of the water in the lower container we mix it using a (magnetic-driven) rotating metal bar.
We have investigated the heat transfer using copper blocks with different surface roughness. To prepare the rough surfaces, we have pressed annealed (plastically soft) copper blocks with smooth surface against sandpaper, using a hydraulic press. We repeated this procedure several times to obtain randomly rough surfaces. The roughness of the copper surfaces can be changed by using sandpaper of different grade (consisting of particles with different (average) diameter). Due to the surface roughness, the contact between the top surface of the lower container and the thin silicon rubber sheet (thickness $d_0=2.5 \ {\rm mm}$) attached to the upper container, is only partial. The bottom surface of the upper container has been highly polished and we can neglect the heat resistance at this rubber-copper interface. Thus, most of the resistance to the heat flow arises from the heat diffusion through the rubber sheet, and from the resistance to the heat flow at the interface between the rubber and the rough copper block.
The rubber sheet (elastic modulus $E = 2.5 \ {\rm MPa}$, Poisson ration $\nu = 0.5$) was made from a silicone elastomer (PDMS). We have used Polydimethylsiloxane because of its almost purely elastic behavior on the time scales involved in our experiments. The PDMS sample was prepared using a two-component kit (Sylgard 184) purchased from Dow Corning (Midland, MI). This kit consists of a base (vinyl-terminated polydimethylsiloxane) and a curing agent (methylhydrosiloxane-dimethylsiloxane copolymer) with a suitable catalyst. From these two components we prepared a mixture of 10:1 (base/cross linker) in weight. The mixture was degassed to remove the trapped air induced by stirring from the mixing process and then poured into cylindrical casts (diameter $5 \ \mathrm{cm}$ and height $d_0 = 2.5 \ \mathrm{%
mm}$). The bottom of these casts were made from glass to obtain smooth surfaces (negligible roughness). The samples were cured in an oven at $80 \ ^\circ\mathrm{C}$ for over 12 hours.
Using (3) we can write $$J_0 \approx {T_0-T_1(t)\over d_0 \kappa_0^{-1}+\alpha^{-1}}\eqno(69)$$ where $\kappa_0$ the heat conductivity of the rubber. Here we have neglected the influence of the copper blocks on the heat transfer resistance, which is a good approximation because of the high thermal conductivity of copper. Combining (68) and (69) gives $$\tau \dot T_1 = T_0-T_1(t)$$ where the relaxation time $$\tau_0 = \rho C_{\rm V} d \left ({d_0 \over \kappa_0}+{1\over \alpha} \right ).$$ If we assume that $\tau_0$ is time independent, we get $$T_1(t) = T_0+\left [ T_1(0)-T_0 \right ] e^{-t/\tau_0}.\eqno(70a)$$
In the study above we have assumed that there is no heat transfer from the lower container to the surrounding. However, if necessary one can easily take into account such a heat transfer: If we assume that the heat transfer depends linearly on the temperature difference between the water and the surrounding we can write $$J_1 = \alpha_1 \left (T_1 - T_{\rm surr}\right)$$ In this case it is easy to show that (70a) is replaced with $$T_1(t) = T_a+\left [ T_1(0)-T_a \right ] e^{-t/\tau}.\eqno(70b)$$ where $T_a$ is the temperature in the water after a long time (stationary state where $J_0=J_1$), and where the relaxation time $\tau$ now is given by $$\tau = \rho C_{\rm V} d {T_a-T_{\rm surr} \over T_0 - T_{\rm surr}}
\left ({d_0 \over \kappa_0}+{1\over \alpha} \right ).$$
The heat transfer across the rubber–copper interface can occur via the area of real contact, or via the non-contact area via heat diffusion in the thin air film or via radiative heat transfer. Since all these heat transfer processes act in parallel we have $$\alpha \approx \alpha_{\rm gas} + \alpha_{\rm con} + \alpha_{\rm rad}.$$ Let us estimate the relative importance of these different contributions to $\alpha$. Using the (diffusive) heat conductivity of air $\kappa_{\rm gas} \approx 0.02 \ {\rm W/mK}$ and assuming $\langle d^{-1} \rangle = (20 \ {\rm \mu m})^{-1}$ gives $$\alpha_{\rm gas} = \kappa_{\rm gas} \langle (d+\Lambda )^{-1}\rangle
\approx \kappa_{\rm gas} \langle d^{-1}\rangle \approx 1000 \ {\rm W/m^2K}.$$ Let us assume that $p_0 \approx 0.01 \ {\rm MPa}$, $E^* \approx 2 \ {\rm MPa}$, $u_0 \approx 10 \ {\rm \mu m}$ and (for rubber) $\kappa_0 = 0.2 \ {\rm W/mK}$. Thus $$\alpha_{\rm con} = {p_0 \kappa_0 \over E^* u_0} \approx 100 \ {\rm W/m^2K}.$$ Here we have used that $\kappa \approx \kappa_0$ (since the heat conductivity $\kappa_1$ of copper is much higher than for the rubber). Finally, assuming the radiative heat transfer is well approximated by the Stefan-Boltzmann law and assuming that $(T_0-T_1)/T_1 << 1$, we get with $T_0 = 373 \ {\rm K}$ $$\alpha_{\rm rad} \approx {\pi^2 k_{\rm B}^4 \over 60 \hbar^3 c^2} 4 T_0^3 \approx 10 \ {\rm W/m^2 K}$$
Note that $\alpha_{\rm rad}$ is independent of the squeezing pressure $p_0$, while $\alpha_{\rm con} \sim p_0$. The pressure dependence of $\alpha_{\rm gas}$ will be discussed below.
In the experiment reported on below the silicon rubber film has the thickness $d_0 = 2.5 \ {\rm mm}$ so that $d_0^{-1} \kappa_0 \approx 100 \ {\rm W/m^2K}$. Thus $${1\over d_0^{-1} \kappa_0}+{1\over \alpha} \approx \left ( {1\over 100} + {1\over 1000+100+10}\right ) ({\rm W/m^2K})^{-1}$$ and it is clear from this equation that in the present case the thin rubber film will give the dominant contribution to the heat resistance. This is in accordance with our experimental data presented below.
![\[all3\] The surface roughness power spectrum of the three copper surfaces used in the experiment. The surfaces [**1**]{}, [**2**]{} and [**3**]{} have the root-mean-square roughness $42$, $88$ and $114 \ {\rm \mu m}$, respectively. ](Fig.14.ps){width="45.00000%"}
![\[pressure.alphafluid.all3\] The variation of the of the heat transfer coefficient from the contact area ($\alpha_{\rm con}$) and from the air-gap ($\alpha_{\rm gas}$) with the squeezing pressure. The surfaces [**1**]{}, [**2**]{} and [**3**]{} have the power spectra’s shown in Fig. \[all3\]. ](Fig.15.ps){width="45.00000%"}
![\[Surface1.and.3.cumulative.probability\] The variation of the cumulative probability with the height (or gap-separation) $u$. The surfaces [**1**]{} and [**3**]{} (top) and [**2**]{} (bottom) have the power spectra’s shown in Fig. \[all3\]. For each surface the curves are for the nominal squeezing pressures (from left to right): $11.8$, $23.7$, $35.5$, $47.3$, $59.2$ and $71.0 \ {\rm kPa}$. ](Fig.16.ps){width="45.00000%"}
0.3cm **8. Experimental results and discussion**
To test the theory we have performed the experiment described in Sec. 7. We have performed experiments on four different (copper) substrate surfaces, namely one highly polished surface (surface [**0**]{}) with the root-mean-square (rms) roughness $64 \ {\rm nm}$, and for three rough surfaces with the rms roughness $42$, $88$ and $114 \ {\rm \mu m}$. In Fig. \[all3\] we show the surface roughness power spectrum of the three latter surfaces. Including only the roughness with wavelength above $\sim 30 \ {\rm \mu m}$, the rms slope of all three surfaces are of order unity, and the normalized surface area $A/A_0 \approx 1.5$ in all cases.
In Fig. \[pressure.alphafluid.all3\] we show for the surfaces [**1**]{}, [**2**]{} and [**3**]{}, the pressure dependence of heat transfer coefficient from the contact area ($\alpha_{\rm con}$) and from the air-gap ($\alpha_{\rm gas}$). Note that both $\alpha_{\rm con}$ and $\alpha_{\rm gas}$ varies (nearly) linearly with $p_0$. The latter may at first appear remarkable because we know that at the low (nominal) squeezing pressures used in the present calculation (where the area of real contact varies linearly with $p_0$), the average surface separation $\bar u = \langle u \rangle$ depends logarithmically on $p_0$. However, the heat transfer via heat diffusion in the air gap depends on $\langle (u+\Lambda )^{-1} \rangle$ which depends on $p_0$ almost linearly as long as $\bar u >> \Lambda$, which is obeyed in our case. This can be understood as follows: $\langle u \rangle$ is determined mainly by the surface regions where the surface separation is close to its largest value. On the other hand $\langle (u+\Lambda) ^{-1} \rangle$ is determined mainly by the surface regions where $u$ is very small, i.e., narrow strips (which we will refer to as boundary strips) of surface area close to the area of real contact. Now, for small $p_0$ the area of real contact increases linearly with $p_0$ while the distribution of sizes of the contact regions is independent of $p_0$. It follows that the total area of the boundary strips will also increase linearly with $p_0$. Thus, since $\langle (u+\Lambda )^{-1} \rangle$ is determined mainly by this surface area, it follows that $\langle (u+ \Lambda )^{-1} \rangle$ will be nearly proportional to $p_0$. We note that in Fig. \[HeatAlphaSiO2\] $\alpha_{\rm gas}$ is nearly pressure independent, but this is due to the fact that the (combined) surface in this case is extremely smooth (root-mean-square roughness $2.5 \ {\rm nm}$) so that the $u$-term in $\langle (u+\Lambda)^{-1}\rangle$ can be neglected compared to the gas mean free path $\Lambda$, giving a nearly pressure independent gas heat transfer coefficient. However, in the system studied above $\bar u$ is much larger than $\Lambda$ and the result is nearly independent of $\Lambda$.
Note that in the present case (see Fig. \[pressure.alphafluid.all3\]) $\alpha_{\rm gas} >> \alpha_{\rm con}$ so that the present experiment mainly test the theory for the heat flow in the air gap.
In Fig. \[Surface1.and.3.cumulative.probability\] we show the variation of the cumulative probability with the height (or gap-separation) $u$ for the surfaces [**1**]{} and [**3**]{} (top) and [**3**]{} (bottom).
In Fig. \[time.temp.surfaces.1.2.3.Boris\] we show the measured (dots) and calculated \[using (70b)\] (solid lines) temperature in the lower container as a function of time. Results are for all four surfaces and for the nominal squeezing pressure $p_0 = 0.012 \ {\rm MPa}$. In Fig. \[time.temp.surfaces.2.low.high.Boris\] we show the measured (dots) and calculated (solid lines) temperature in the lower container as a function of time. Results are for surface [**2**]{} for the nominal squeezing pressure $p_0 = 0.012$ (lower curve) and $0.071 \ {\rm MPa}$ (upper curve). Note that there is no fitting parameter in the theory calculations, and the agreement between theory and experiment is relative good.
The heat resistance of the system studied above is dominated by the thin rubber film. The reason for this is the low heat conductivity of rubber (roughly 100 times lower than for metals). For direct metal-metal contact the contact resistance will be much more important. However, for very rough surfaces it is likely that plastic flow is observed already at such low magnification (corresponding to large length scales) that it will affect the contact resistance. Nevertheless, it is interesting to compare the theory predictions for elastic contact with experimental data for metal-metal contacts.
In Fig. \[Fe.Cu.Al.new\] we show the measured heat transfer coefficient for metal-metal contacts with steel, copper and aluminum[@data1]. The surfaces have the effective (or combined) rms surface roughness $h_{\rm rms}=7.2 \ {\rm \mu m}$ (steel), $2.2 \ {\rm \mu m}$ (Cu) and $5.0 \ {\rm \mu m}$ (Al). Assume that the variation of $\alpha$ with $p_0$ is mainly due to the area of real contact, i.e., we neglect the heat transfer via the thin air film between the surfaces. Fitting the data points in Fig. \[Fe.Cu.Al.new\] with strait lines gives the slope ${d\alpha / dp_0} ({\rm exp})$ (in units of ${\rm {m/sK}}$): $$2\times 10^{-4} \ ({\rm steel}), \ \ \ \ \ 7 \times 10^{-3} \ ({\rm Cu}), \ \ \ \ \ 1.2 \times 10^{-3} \ ({\rm Al})$$ Using (26a) with $u_0 \approx 0.4 h_{\rm rms}$ (here we have assumed $\gamma = 0.4$) gives ${d\alpha / dp_0} ({\rm theory})= \kappa/E^*u_0$: $$1\times 10^{-4} \ ({\rm steel}), \ \ \ \ \ 4 \times 10^{-3} \ ({\rm Cu}), \ \ \ \ \ 1.3 \times 10^{-3} \ ({\rm Al})$$ The agreement between theory and experiment is very good taking into account that plastic deformation may have some influence on the result, and that an accurate analysis requires the full surface roughness power spectrum $C(q)$ (in order to calculate $u_0$ accurately, and in order to include plastic deformation if necessary (see Sec. 5)), which was not reported on in Ref. [@data1]. We note that experimental results such as those presented in Fig. \[Fe.Cu.Al.new\] are usually analyzed with a phenomenological model which assumes plastic flow and neglect elastic deformation. In this theory the heat transfer coefficient[@Yovanovich] $$\alpha \approx {\kappa s p_0\over h_{\rm rms}\sigma_{\rm Y}}\eqno(71)$$ is proportional to the rms [*surface slope*]{} $s$, but it is well known that this quantity is dominated by the very shortest wavelength roughness which in fact makes the theory ill-defined. In Ref. [@data1] the data presented in Fig. \[Fe.Cu.Al.new\] was analyzed using (71) with $s=0.035$, $0.006$ and $0.03$ for the steel, Cu and Au surfaces, respectively. However, analysis of polished surfaces with similar rms roughness as used in the experiments usually gives slopes of order unity when all roughness down to the nanometer is included in the analysis[@unpublished]. Using $s\approx 1$ in (71) gives heat transfer coefficients roughly $\sim 100$ times larger than observed in the experiments. (In our theory \[Eq. (26a)\] $s/\sigma_{\rm Y}$ in (71) is replaced by $1/E^*$, and since typically $E^*/\sigma_Y \approx 100$, our theory is consistent with experimental observations.)[@argued] We conclude that the theory behind (71) is incorrect or incomplete. A theory which includes both elastic and plastic deformation was described in Sec. 5.
![\[time.temp.surfaces.1.2.3.Boris\] The measured (dots) and calculated (solid lines) temperature in the lower container as a function of time. Results are for all four surfaces and for the nominal squeezing pressure $p_0 = 0.012 \ {\rm MPa}$. ](Fig.17.ps){width="45.00000%"}
![\[time.temp.surfaces.2.low.high.Boris\] The measured (dots) and calculated (solid lines) temperature in the lower container as a function of time. Results are for surface [**2**]{} for the nominal squeezing pressure $p_0 = 0.012$ (lower curve) and $0.071 \ {\rm MPa}$ (upper curve). ](Fig.18.ps){width="45.00000%"}
![\[Fe.Cu.Al.new\] Variation of the heat transfer coefficient $\alpha$ with the squeezing pressure $p_0$ for metal-metal contact with steel, copper and aluminum. The surfaces have the effective (or combined) root-mean-square surface roughness values $h_{\rm rms}=7.2 \ {\rm \mu m}$ (steel), $2.2 \ {\rm \mu m}$ (copper) and $5.0 \ {\rm \mu m}$ (aluminum). The heat conductivity of the metals are $\kappa = 54 \ {\rm W/mK}$ (steel), $381 \ {\rm W/mK}$ (copper) and $174 \ {\rm W/mK}$ (aluminum). Based on experimental data from Ref. [@data1]. ](Fig.19.ps){width="45.00000%"}
0.3cm **9. Electric contact resistance**
It is easy to show that the problem of the electrical contact resistance is mathematically equivalent to the problem of the thermal contact resistance. Thus, the electric current (per unit nominal contact area) $J_0$ through an interface between solids with randomly rough surfaces can be related to the electric potential drop $\Delta \phi$ at the interface via $J_0 =\alpha' \Delta \phi$ where, in analogy with (25), $$\alpha' = {p_0 \kappa' \over E^* u_0}\eqno(72)$$ where $\kappa'$ is the electrical conductivity. However, from a practical point of view the problem of the electrical contact resistance is more complex than for the heat contact resistance because of the great sensitivity of the electric conductivity on the type of material (see Appendix D). Thus, in a metal-metal contact the contact resistance will depend sensitively on if the thin insulating oxide layers, which covers most metals, are fractured, so that direct metal-metal contact can occur. On the other hand, in most cases there will be a negligible contribution to the electric conductivity from the non-contact regions.
0.3cm **10. Summary and conclusion**
We have studied the heat transfer between elastic solids with randomly rough but nominally flat surfaces squeezed in contact with the pressure $p_0$. Our approach is based on studying the heat flow and contact mechanics in wavevector space rather than real space which has the advantage that we do not need to consider the very complex fractal-like shape of the contact regions in real space. We have included both the heat flow in the area of real contact as well as the heat flow across the non-contact surface region. For the latter contribution we have included the heat transfer both from the fluctuating electromagnetic field (which surrounds all material objects), and the heat flow via the surrounding gas or liquid. We have also studied the contribution to the heat transfer from capillary bridges, which form spontaneously in a humid atmosphere (e.g., as a result of organic and water contamination films which occur on most solid surfaces in the normal atmosphere). We have presented an illustrative application relevant for MEMS applications involving very smooth amorphous silicon dioxide surfaces. In this case we find that all the mentioned heat transfer processes may be roughly of equal importance.
We have briefly discussed the role of plastic deformation and adhesion on the contact heat resistance. We have pointed out that even if plastic deformation and adhesion are important at short length scale (or high magnification) they may have a negligible influence on the heat transfer since the elastic energy stored in the asperity contact regions, which mainly determines both the interfacial separation and the contact heat transfer coefficient, is usually mainly determined by the long-wavelength surface roughness components, at least for fractal-like surfaces with fractal dimension $D_{\rm f} < 2.5$ (which is typically obeyed for natural surfaces and surfaces of engineering interest).
0.5cm [**Acknowledgments**]{}
We thank Christian Schulze (ISAC, RWTH Aachen University) for help with the measurement of the surface topography of the copper surfaces. A.I.V. acknowledges financial support from the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (Grant N 08-02-00141-a) and from DFG. This work, as part of the European Science Foundation EUROCORES Program FANAS, was supported from funds by the DFG and the EC Sixth Framework Program, under contract N ERAS-CT-2003-980409.
[**Appendix A**]{}
In Sec. 2.2.1 we have assumed that $${1\over J_0^2}\int d^2 q {1\over q} \langle |\Delta J_z({\bf q})|^2 \rangle \approx
{1\over p_0^2}\int d^2 q {1\over q} \langle |\Delta \sigma_z({\bf q})|^2 \rangle \eqno(A1)$$ This equation is a consequence of the fact that for elastic solids with randomly rough surfaces the heat transfer coefficient depends mainly on the geometrical distribution of the contact area. This can be understood as follows. Let ${\rm x}_n$ denote the center of the contact spot $n$ and let $I_n$ be the heat current through the same contact spot. We now approximate $$J_z({\bf x}) \approx \sum_n I_n \delta ({\bf x}-{\bf x}_n).$$ Thus $$A_0 J_0 = \sum_n I_n$$ and $$J_z({\bf q}) = {1\over (2\pi )^2} \sum_n I_n e^{-i{\bf q}\cdot {\bf x}_n}$$ Thus the left hand side (LHS) of (A1) becomes $${\rm LHS}\approx \left ({A_0\over (2\pi )^2}\right )^2 \left (\sum_n I_n \right )^{-2}$$ $$\times \sum^\prime_{mn} I_n I_m \int d^2q \
{1\over q} e^{i{\bf q}\cdot ({\bf x}_m-{\bf x}_n)}\eqno(A2)$$ where the prime on the summation indicate that the term $m=n$ is excluded from the sum. Next note that $$\int d^2q \ {1\over q} e^{i{\bf q}\cdot ({\bf x}_m-{\bf x}_n)}= {4 \pi
\over |{\bf x}_m-{\bf x}_n |} \eqno(A3)$$ Substituting (A3) in (A2) gives $${\rm LHS} \approx {A_0^2\over 4 \pi^3} \left (\sum_n I_n \right )^{-2}
\sum^\prime_{mn} {I_m I_n \over |{\bf x}_m-{\bf x}_n|} \eqno(A4)$$ If one assume that there is no correlation between the magnitude of $I_n$ (determined by the size of the contact) and its position, we can replace the individual current $I_n$ in the double summation in (A2) by their mean and get $${\rm LHS}
%={1\over J_0^2}\int d^2 q {1\over q} \langle |\Delta J_z({\bf q})|^2 \rangle
\approx {1\over 4 n^2 \pi^3}
\sum^\prime_{mn} {1 \over |{\bf x}_m-{\bf x}_n |}\eqno(A5)$$ where $n=N/A_0$ is the concentration of contact spots and $N$ the total number of contact spots. In the same way as above one can simplify the expression involving the normal stress (right hand side (RHS) of (A1)). We write $$\sigma({\bf x}) = \sum_n f_n \delta ({\bf x}-{\bf x}_n)$$ where $f_n$ is the normal force acting in the contact $n$. Using this equation the RHS of (A1) becomes $${\rm RHS} \approx {A_0^2\over 4 \pi^3} \left (\sum_n f_n \right )^{-2}
\sum^\prime_{mn} {f_m f_n \over |{\bf x}_m-{\bf x}_n|}\eqno(A6)$$ If one assume that there is no correlation between the magnitude of $f_n$ and its position, we can replace the individual current $f_n$ in the double summation in (A6) by their mean and get $${\rm RHS} \approx {1\over 4 n^2 \pi^3}
\sum^\prime_{mn} {1 \over |{\bf x}_m-{\bf x}_n |}\eqno(A7)$$ Thus, ${\rm LHS} \approx {\rm RHS}$ and we have proved the (approximate) equality (A1).
Substituting (A5) in (20) gives $${1\over \alpha} \approx {1 \over \pi \kappa n} {1\over N} \sum^\prime_{mn}
{1 \over |{\bf x}_m-{\bf x}_n|}\eqno(A8)$$ which agree with the derivation of Greenwood[@GreenW]. We refer to the article of Greenwood for an interesting discussion about the contact resistance based on the (approximate) expression (A8) for the contact resistance.
0.5cm
[**Appendix B**]{}
The normal (interfacial) stress $\sigma_z({\bf x})$ and the difference in the surface displacement $u_{0z}({\bf x})-u_{1z}({\bf x})$ at the interface can be considered to depend on the average interfacial separation $\bar u$. The derivatives of these quantities with respect to $\bar u$ are denoted by $\sigma'_z$ and $\phi$. In Appendix C we show that $$\phi({\bf q}) = \delta ({\bf q}) - {2\over E^* q} \Delta \sigma'_z({\bf q}).\eqno(B1)$$ Note that (15) and (B1) are very similar. Thus, if we multiply both sides of (B1) with $M$ and define $M\phi = \psi$ then (B1) takes the form $$\psi ({\bf q}) = M \delta ({\bf q})-{\mu \over \kappa q} \Delta \sigma'_z({\bf q})\eqno(B2)$$ where $$\mu = {2 M \kappa \over E^*}\eqno(B3)$$ Eq. (B2) is identical to (15) if we write $$J_z({\bf q}) = \mu \sigma'_z({\bf q}),\eqno(B4)$$ or, equivalently, $$J_z({\bf x})/J_0 =\sigma'_z ({\bf x})/p'_0$$ where $p'_0$ is the normal stiffness. We note that (B4) implies that the current density $J_z({\bf x})$ will be non-vanishing exactly where the normal stress $\sigma_z ({\bf x})$ is non-vanishing, which must be obeyed in the present case, where all the heat current flow through the area of real contact. However, in order for $J_z({\bf x})$ to be proportional to $\sigma'_z({\bf x})$ it is not enough that these functions obey similar (in the sense discussed above) differential equations, but both problems must also involve similar boundary conditions. Now in the area of non-contact both $J_z$ and $\sigma_z$ and hence $\sigma'_z$ must vanish. In the area of real contact the temperature field $T$ is continuous so that $\psi = T({\bf x},-0)-T({\bf x},+0) = 0$, while the displacement field satisfies $\Phi = u_{0z}-u_{1z} = h({\bf x})$ so that (since $h({\bf x})$ is independent of $\bar u$), $\phi = 0$ in the area of real contact. Thus, both problems involves the same boundary conditions and $J_z$ and $\sigma'_z$ must therefore be proportional to each other.
Note that (B4) gives $J_0 = \mu p'_0$. Substituting (B3) in this equation and using the definition (16) gives an equation of the form (3) with $$\alpha = - {\kappa \over E^*} {dp_0 \over d\bar u }.$$ This [*exact*]{} relation between the heat transfer coefficient and the normal stiffness per unit area has already been derived by Barber[@Barber] using a someone different approach.
0.5cm [**Appendix C**]{}
In Ref. [@JCPpers] it was shown that the normal displacement $u_{0z}$ is related to the normal stress $\sigma_z$ via $$u_{0z}({\bf q})= -{2\over E_0^* q}\sigma_z({\bf q}),\eqno(C1)$$ where $E_0^* = E_0/(1-\nu_0^2)$. In a similar way $$u_{1z}({\bf q}) = {2\over E_1^* q} \sigma_z({\bf q}).\eqno(C2)$$ Let $\Phi = u_{0z}-u_{1z}$ be the difference between the (interfacial) surface displacement fields. Using (C1) and (C2) gives $$\Phi({\bf q}) = -{2\over E^* q} \sigma_z({\bf q})\eqno(C3)$$ where $${1\over E^*} = {1\over E_0^*}+{1\over E_1^*}$$ Note that the average of $\Phi({\bf x})$ is the average separation between the surfaces which we denote by $\bar u$. Thus if $$\sigma_z({\bf x}) = p_0 + \Delta \sigma_z({\bf x})$$ we get $$\Phi({\bf q}) = \bar u \delta({\bf q})-{2\over E^* q} \Delta \sigma_z({\bf q})\eqno(C4)$$ As the squeezing pressure $p_0$ increases, the average separation $\bar u$ will decrease and we can consider $p_0$ as a function of $\bar u$. The quantity $p'_0(\bar u)$ is referred to as the normal stiffness per unit nominal contact area. Taking the derivative of (C4) with respect to $\bar u$ gives $$\phi({\bf q}) = \delta({\bf q})-{2\over E^* q} \Delta \sigma'_z({\bf q})\eqno(C5)$$ where $\sigma'_z$ is the derivative of $\sigma_z$ with respect to $\bar u$ and where $\phi = \Phi'$ is the derivative of $\Phi$ with respect to $\bar u$.
0.5cm [**Appendix D**]{}
Heat conduction result from the collisions between atoms as in fluids, or by free electron diffusion as predominant in metals, or phonon diffusion as predominant in insulators. In liquids and gases, the molecules are usually further apart than in solids, giving a lower chance of molecules colliding and passing on thermal energy. Metals are usually the best conductors of thermal energy. This is due to the free-moving electrons which are able to transfer thermal energy rapidly through the metal. However, the difference in the thermal conductivity of metals and non-metals are usually not more than a factor $\sim 100$. Typical values for the heat conductivity are $\kappa \approx 100 \ {\rm W/mK}$ for metals, $\approx 1 \ {\rm W/mK}$ for insulators (e.g., metal oxides or polymers), $\approx 0.1 \ {\rm W/mK}$ for fluids (but for water $\kappa \approx 0.6 \ {\rm W/mK}$) and $\approx 0.02 \ {\rm W/mK}$ for gases at normal atmospheric pressure and room temperature.
In contrast to thermal heat transfer, electric conduction always involves the motion of charged particles (electrons or ions). For this reason the electric contact resistance is much more sensitive to oxide or contamination layers at the contacting interface then for the heat transfer. For the electric conduction the variation of the conductivity between good conductors (most metals), with the typical electric conductivity $\kappa' \approx 10^7 \ {\rm (\Omega m)^{-1}}$, and bad conductors such as silicon dioxide glass or (natural) rubber where $\kappa' \approx 10^{-14} \ {\rm (\Omega m)^{-1}}$, is huge. This makes the electrical contact resistance of metals sensitive to (nanometer) thin oxide or contamination layers. However, as pointed out in the Introduction, if there is a large number of small breaks in the film, the resistance may be almost as low as with no film.
0.5cm [**Appendix E**]{}
Here we briefly summarize some results related to forced convective heat transfer[@Landau]. When a fluid (e.g., air) flow around a solid object the tangential (and the normal) component of the fluid velocity usually vanish on the surface of the solid. This result in the formation of a thin boundary layer (thickness $\delta$) at the surface of the solid where the fluid velocity rapidly increases from zero to some value which is of order the main stream velocity outside of the solid. If the temperature $T_1$ at the solid surface is different from the fluid temperature $T_{\rm fluid}$, the fluid temperature in the boundary layer will also change rapidly from $T_1$ to $T_{\rm fluid}$. Depending on the fluid flow velocity, the fluid viscosity and the dimension of the solid object the flow will be laminar or turbulent, and the heat transfer process is fundamentally different in these two limiting cases. In a typical case (for air) the thickness $\delta \approx 1 \ {\rm mm}$ and the heat transfer coefficient $\alpha \approx \kappa / \delta \approx 10 \ {\rm W/m^2K}$.
Let us consider heat transfer from a rotating disk as a model for the heat transfer from a tire[@Allen]. In this case it has been shown[@Popiel] that fully turbulent flow occur if the Reynolds number ${\rm Re} > 2.5\times 10^5$ where $${\rm Re}= {\omega R^2\over \nu} = {v_{\rm R} R \over \nu}$$ where $R$ is the radius of the disk (or rather the distance from the center of the disk to some surface patch on the disk), $\omega$ the angular velocity and $\nu$ the kinematic viscosity of air. In typical tire applications ${\rm Re} > 2.5\times 10^5$ so turbulent flow will prevail in most tire applications. In this case the heat transfer coefficient is given approximately by[@Popiel]: $$\alpha_{\rm air} \approx 0.019 {\kappa_{\rm air} \over R} \left ( {v_{\rm R} R \over \nu} \right )^{0.8}.$$ As an example, at $T=300 \ {\rm K}$ for air $\nu = 15.7 \times 10^{-6} \ {\rm m^2/s}$ and $\kappa_{\rm air} = 0.025 \ {\rm W/mK}$ and assuming $R=0.3 \ {\rm m}$ and $v_{\rm R} = 30 \ {\rm m/s}$ we get $\alpha_{\rm air} \approx 63 \ {\rm W/m^2K}$.
[99]{}
B.N.J. Persson, J. Phys.: Condensed Matter [**18**]{}, 7789 (2006).
For a review of thermal joint resistance models for rough surfaces, see, e.g., M. Bahrami, J.R. Culham, M.M. Yanavovich and G.E. Schneider, Applied Mechanics Reviews [**59**]{}, 1 (2006).
J.A. Greenwood and J.B.P. Williamson, Proc. Roy. Soc. London A**295**, 300 (1966).
A.W. Bush, R.D. Gibson and T.R. Thomas, Wear **35**, 87 (1975).
C. Campana, M.H. Müser and M.O. Robbins, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter [**20**]{}, 354013 (2008)
G. Carbone and F. Bottiglione, J. Mech. Phys. Solids [**56**]{}, 2555 (2008). See also Appendix A in B.N.J. Persson et al., J. Phys.: Condens. Matter [**20**]{}, 395006 (2008).
B.N.J. Persson, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter [**20**]{}, 312001 (2008).
B.N.J. Persson, F. Bucher and B. Chiaia, Phys. Rev. B**65**, 184106 (2002).
B.N.J. Persson, J. Chem. Phys. **115**, 3840 (2001); B.N.J. Persson, Eur. Phys. J. E**8**, 385 (2002)
B.N.J. Persson, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**99**]{}, 125502 (2007).
C. Yang and B.N.J. Persson, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter, **20**, 215214 (2008)
B.N.J. Persson, Surf. Science Reports **61**, 201 (2006).
B.N.J. Persson and C. Yang, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter [**20**]{}, 315011 (2008).
M. Borri-Brunetto, B. Chiaia and M. Ciavarella, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. [**190**]{}, 6053 (2001).
L. Pei, S. Hyun, J.F. Molinari and M.O. Robbins, J. Mech. Phys. Solids [**53**]{}, 2385 (2005).
See, e.g., B.N.J. Persson, O. Albohr, U. Tartaglino, A.I. Volokitin and E. Tosatti, J. Phys. Condens. Matter **17**, R1 (2005).
B.N.J. Persson, [*Sliding Friction: Physical Principles and Applications*]{} 2nd edn (Springer, Heidelberg, 2000).
C. Yang, U. Tartaglino and B.N.J. Persson, Eur. Phys. J E**19**, 47 (2006).
S. Hyun, L. Pei, J.F. Molinarie and M.O. Robbins, Phys. Rev. E[**70**]{}, 026117 (2004).
Y.F. Mo, K.T. Turner and I. Szlufarska, Nature [**457**]{}, 1116 (2009).
J.A. Greenwood, Brit. J. Appl. Phys. [**17**]{}, 1621 (1966).
J.R. Barber, Proc. R. Soc. London A[**459**]{}, 53 (2003).
J.F. Archard, Wear [**2**]{}, 438 (1959).
D. Pires, B. Gotsmann, F. Porro, D. Wiesmann, U. Duerig and A. Knoll, Langmuir [**25**]{}, 5141 (2009).
A.I. Volokitin and B.N.J. Persson, Reviews of Modern Physics [**79**]{}, 1291 (2007).
K. Joulain, J.P. Mulet, F. Marquier, R. Carminati and J.J. Greffet, Surf. Sci. Rep. [**57**]{}, 59 (2005).
D. Segal and A. Nitzan, Chem. Phys. [**268**]{} 315 (2001); Chem. Phys. [**281**]{} 235 (2002).
Y. Selzer, M.A. Cabassi, T.S. Mayer and D.L. Allara, Nanotechnology [**15**]{}, S483 (2004).
V. Popov, [*Kontaktmechanik und Reibung*]{}, Springer, Heidelberg (2009).
M. Bahrami, J.R. Culham and M.M. Yanavovich, Proceedings of IMECE 2003, Washington, USA.
D.Z.A. Chen, R. Hamam, M. Soljacic, J.D. Joannopoulos and G. Chen, Apllied Physics Letters [**90**]{}, 181921 (2007).
M. Bahrami, M.M. Yanavovich and J.R. Culham, Journal of Thermophysics and heat transfer [**18**]{}, 326 (2004).
B.N.J. Persson, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter [**20**]{}, 315007 (2008).
K.L. Johnson, [*Contact Mechanics*]{}, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1985.
L. Shi and A. Majumdar, J. Heat Transfer [**124**]{}, 329 (2002).
C. Yang, B.N.J. Persson, J. Israelachvili and K. Rosenberg, Eur. Phys. Lett. [**84**]{}, 46004 (2008).
B.S. Oh, Y.N. Kim, N.J. Kim, H.Y. Moon and H.W. Park, Tire Science and Technology [**23**]{}, 11 (1995).
H. Yüncü, Heat Mass Transfer [**43**]{}, 1 (2006).
M.M. Yavanovich, AIAA-86-1164, presented at 16th thermo physics conference (1981), Polo Alto, CA, USA.
As an example, using AFM we have measured the height profile of a polished steel surface over a $10 {\rm \mu m}\times 10 {\rm \mu m}$ surface area with the resolution $a=20 \ {\rm nm}$. From the numerical data we calculated the root-mean-square (rms) roughness $h_{\rm rms} \approx 0.1 \ {\rm \mu m}$ and the rms slope $s \approx 0.6$. Increasing the lateral resolution would increase the slope further since the slope is mainly determined by the short wavelength roughness.
It may be argued that, due to plastic deformation, the slope in (71) should be calculated including only the roughness with wavelength above some cut-off length. However, no discussion of this point was presented in Ref. [@Yovanovich].
L.D. Landau and E.M. Lifshitz, Fluid Mechanics, Pergamon Press, Oxford (1959).
J. Mc Allen, A.M. Cuitino and V. Sernas, Finite Elements in Analysis and Design [**23**]{}, 265 (1996).
C.O. Popiel and L. Boguslawski, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer [**18**]{}, 170 (1975).
|
---
abstract: 'In 1972, K. Kenmotsu studied a class of almost contact Riemannian manifolds. Later, such a manifold was called a Kenmotsu manifold. This paper, we studied Kenmotsu manifolds with $(2n+s)$-dimensional $s-$contact metric manifold and this manifold, we have called generalized Kenmotsu manifolds. Necessary and sufficient condition is given for an almost $s-$contact metric manifold to be a generalized Kenmotsu manifold.We show that a generalized Kenmotsu manifold is a locally warped product space. In addition, we study some curvature properties of generalized Kenmotsu manifolds. Moreover, we show that the $\varphi $-sectional curvature of any semi-symmetric and projective semi-symmetric $(2n+s)$-dimensional generalized Kenmotsu manifold is $-s$.'
author:
- |
[ ]{}\
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Aysel TURGUT VANLI and Ramazan SARI</span>
---
[^1] [^2] [^3]
Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
============
In *[@Y],* K.Yano introduced the notion of a $f-$structure on a differentiable manifold $M$, i.e., a tensor fields $f$ of type $(1,1)$ and $rank$ $2n$ satisfying $f^{3}+f=0$ as a generalization of both (almost) contact (for $s=1$) and (almost) complex structures (for $s=0$). $TM$ splits into two complementary subbundles $\mathcal{L=}$ $Im\varphi $ and $\mathcal{M=}$ $ker\varphi $. The existence of which is equivalent to a reduction of the structural group of the tangent bundle to $\mathit{U(n)\times O(s)}$ *[@BL]*. H. Nakagawa in *[@Nak]* and *[@Nak2]* introduced the notion of globally framed f-manifolds (*called f-manifolds*), later developed and studied by Goldberg and Yano *[@G],* *[@GY],* *[@GY2]*. A wide class of globally frame $f$-manifolds was introduced in *[@BL],* by Blair according to the following definition. A metric $f$-structure is said to be a $K$-structure if the fundamental 2-form $\Phi $, defined usually as $\Phi (X,Y)=g(X,\varphi Y)$, for any vector fields $X$ and $Y$ on $M$, is closed and the normality condition holds, that is; $[\varphi ,\varphi ]+2\sum_{i=1}^{s}d\eta ^{i}\otimes \xi _{i}=0$ where $[\varphi ,\varphi ]$ denotes the Nijenhuis torsion of $\varphi $. Some authors studeid $f$-structure *[@BL2],* *[@CFF],* *[@YK]*. The Riemannian connection $\nabla $ of a metric $f-$manifold satisfies the following formula *[@Bkitap],* $$\begin{aligned}
2g((\nabla _{X}\varphi )Y,Z) &=&3d\Phi (X,\varphi Y,\varphi Z) -3d\Phi(X,Y,Z)+g(N^{1}(Y,Z),\varphi X) \notag \\
&&+\overset{s}{\underset{i=1}{\sum }}\{N^{2}(Y,Z)\eta ^{i}(X)+2d\eta
^{i}(\varphi Y,X)\eta ^{i}(Z)-2d\eta ^{i}(\varphi Z,X)\eta ^{i}(Y)\},\end{aligned}$$ where the tensor fields $N^{1}$ and $N^{2}$ are defined by $N^{1}=[\varphi
,\varphi ]+2\sum_{i=1}^{s}d\eta ^{i}\otimes \xi _{i},$ $N^{2}(X,Y)=(L_{_{\varphi X}}\eta ^{i})(Y)-(L_{_{\varphi Y}}\eta ^{i})(X)$ respectively, which is by a simple computation can be rewritten as: $N^{2}(X,Y)=2d\eta
^{i}(\varphi X,Y)-2d\eta ^{i}(\varphi Y,X).$
Let $M$ be a $(2n+1)$ dimensional differentiable manifold. $M$ is called an *almost contact metric manifold* if $\varphi $ is $(1,1)$ type tensor field, $\xi $ is vector field, $\eta $ is $1-$ form and $g$ is a compatible Riemannian metric such that $$\varphi ^{2}=-I+\eta \otimes \xi ,\begin{array}{cc}
&
\end{array}\eta (\xi )=1$$$$g(\varphi X,\varphi Y)=g(X,Y)-\eta (X)\eta (Y)$$for all $X,Y\in \Gamma (TM).$
In addition, we have$$\eta (X)=g(X,\xi ),\begin{array}{cc}
&
\end{array}\varphi (\xi )=0,\begin{array}{cc}
&
\end{array}\eta (\varphi )=0$$for all $X,Y\in \Gamma (TM)$ [@Bkitap].
To study manifolds with negative curvature, Bishop and O’Neill introduced the notion of warped product as a generalization of Riemannian product *[@Bis]*. In 1960’s and 1970’s, when almost contact manifolds were studied as an odd dimensional counterpart of almost complex manifolds, the warped product was used to make examples of almost contact manifolds *[@Tan]*. In addition, S. Tanno classified the connected $(2n+1)$ dimensional almost contact manifold $M$ whose automorphism group has maximum dimension $(n+1)^{2}$ in *[@Tan]*$. $ For such a manifold, the sectional curvature of plane sections containing $\xi $ is a constant, say $c$. Then there are three classes.
$i)$ $c>0$, M is homogeneous Sasakian manifold of constant holomorphic sectional curvature.
$ii)$ $c=0$, M is the global Riemannian product of a line or a circle with a K$\ddot{a}$hler manifold of constant holomorphic sectional curvature.
$iii)$ $c<0$, M is warped product space $\mathbb{R}
\times _{f}\mathbb{C}
^{n}.$ Kenmotsu obtained some tensorial equations to characterize manifolds of the third case.
In 1972 , Kenmotsu abstracted the differential geometric properties of the third case. In *[@K],* Kenmotsu studied a class of almost contact Riemannian manifold which satisfy the following two condition,$$\begin{aligned}
(\nabla _{X}\varphi )Y &=&-\eta (Y)\varphi X-g(X,\varphi Y)\xi \\
\nabla _{X}\xi &=&X-\eta (X)\xi \notag\end{aligned}$$
He showed normal an almost contact Riemannian manifold with $(5)$ but not quasi Sasakian hence not Sasakian. He was to characterize warped product space $L\times _{f}\mathbb{C}
E^{n}$ by an almost contact Riemannian manifold with $(5)$. Moreover, he show that every point of an almost contact Riemannian manifold with $(5)$ has a neighborhood which is a warped $(-\epsilon ,\epsilon )\times _{f}V$ where $f(t)=ce^{t}$ and $V$ is Kähler.
In 1981 *[@Jan],* Janssens and Vanhecke, an almost contact metric manifold satisfiying this $(5)$ is called a Kenmotsu manifold. After this definition, some authors studied Kenmotsu manifold *[@DP], [@JDP], [@P], [@Pr].*
The paper is organized as follows: after a preliminary basic notions of $s-$contact metric manifolds theory, in Section 2, we introduced generalized almost Kenmotsu manifolds and generalized Kenmotsu manifolds. Necessary and sufficient condition is given for a $s-$contact metric manifold to be a generalized Kenmotsu manifold. The warped product $L^{s}\times _{f}V^{2n}$ provides an example. In section 3, some curvature properties are given. In section 4, we studied Ricci curvature tensor. In section 5, we studied semi-symmetric properties of generalized Kenmotsu manifolds. We show that the $\varphi $-sectional curvature of any semi-symmetric and projective semi-symmetric $(2n+s)$-dimensional generalized Kenmotsu manifold is $-s$.
Preliminaries
=============
In *[@GY],* a $(2n+s)-$dimensional differentiable manifold $M$ is called metric $f-$manifold if there exist an $(1,1)$ type tensor field $\varphi $, $s$ vector fields $\xi _{1},\dots ,\xi _{s}$, $s$ $1$-forms $\eta
^{1},\dots ,\eta ^{s}$ and a Riemannian metric $g$ on $M$ such that$$\varphi ^{2}=-I+\overset{s}{\underset{i=1}{\sum }}\eta ^{i}\otimes \xi _{i},\begin{array}{cc}
\begin{array}{c}
\end{array}
&
\end{array}\eta ^{i}(\xi _{j})=\delta _{ij}$$$$g(\varphi X,\varphi Y)=g(X,Y)-\overset{s}{\underset{i=1}{\sum }}\eta
^{i}(X)\eta ^{i}(Y),$$for any $X,Y\in \Gamma (TM),$ $i,j\in \{1,\dots ,s\}$. In addition, we have$$\eta ^{i}(X)=g(X,\xi _{i}),\begin{array}{cc}
\begin{array}{c}
\end{array}
&
\end{array}g(X,\varphi Y)=-g(\varphi X,Y),\begin{array}{cc}
&
\end{array}\varphi \xi _{i} =0,\begin{array}{cc}
&
\end{array}\eta ^{i}\circ \varphi =0.$$
Then, a $2$-form $\Phi $ is defined by $\Phi (X,Y)=g(X,\varphi Y)$, for any $X,Y\in \Gamma (TM)$, called the *fundamental* $\mathit{2}$*-form*.
In what follows, we denote by $\mathcal{M}$ the distribution spanned by the structure vector fields $\xi _{1},\dots ,\xi _{s}$ and by $\mathcal{L}$ its orthogonal complementary distribution. Then, $TM=\mathcal{L}\oplus \mathcal{M}$. If $X\in \mathcal{M}$ we have $\varphi X=0$ and if $X\in \mathcal{L}$ we have $\eta ^{i}(X)=0$, for any $i\in \{1,\dots ,s\}$; that is, $\varphi
^{2}X=-X$.
In a metric $f$-manifold, special local orthonormal basis of vector fields can be considered. Let $U$ be a coordinate neighborhood and $E_{1}$ a unit vector field on $U$ orthogonal to the structure vector fields. Then, from $(6)-(8)$, $\varphi E_{1}$ is also a unit vector field on $U$ orthogonal to $E_{1}$ and the structure vector fields. Next, if it is possible, let $E_{2}$ be a unit vector field on $U$ orthogonal to $E_{1}$, $\varphi E_{1}$ and the structure vector fields and so on. The local orthonormal basis $$\{E_{1},\dots ,E_{n},\varphi E_{1},\dots ,\varphi E_{n},\xi _{1},\dots ,\xi
_{s}\},$$so obtained is called an $f$*-basis*. Moreover, a metric $f$-manifold is *normal* if $$\lbrack \varphi ,\varphi ]+2\underset{i=1}{\overset{s}{\sum }}d\eta
^{i}\otimes \xi _{i}=0,$$where $[\varphi ,\varphi ]$ is denoting the Nijenhuis tensor field associated to $\varphi $.
In *[@Van],* let $M$ a $(2n+s)-$dimensional metric $f-$manifold. If there exists $2$-form $\Phi $ such that $\eta ^{1}\wedge
...\wedge \eta ^{s}\wedge \Phi ^{n}\neq 0$ on $M$ then $M$ is called an *almost s-contact metric manifold.* A normal almost s-contact metric manifold is called an s-contact metric manifold.
Generalized Kenmotsu Manifolds
==============================
As is known in Kenmotsu manifold $dimker\varphi =1$, since $ker\varphi
=sp\{\xi \}$. It was to be $dimker\varphi >1$ open question. Firstly in 2003, L. Bhatt and K. K. Dube introduced* Kenmotsu* $s$*-structure*; that is, an almost $s-$contact metric manifold $M$ is called a Kenmotsu $s-$manifold if * * $$(\nabla _{X}\varphi )Y=g(\varphi X,Y)\overset{s}{\underset{i=1}{\sum }}\xi
_{i}-\varphi X\overset{s}{\underset{i=1}{\sum }}\eta ^{i}(Y)$$for any $X,Y\in \Gamma (TM)$ *[@Bd]*$.$ We will give their definition as a theorem in this paper.
Afterwards in 2006, M. Falcitelli and A.M. Pastore introduced *Kenmotsu f.pk-manifold*. In *[@FP]*, * *a metric $f.pk$-manifold $M$ of dimension $2n+s$, $s\geq 1$, with $f.pk-$structure which is a metrik $f-$structure with parallelizable kernel. $\left( \varphi ,\xi
_{i},\eta ^{i},g\right) $ is said to be a Kenmotsu $f.pk$-manifold if it is normal, the$1$-forms $\eta ^{i}$ are closed and $d\Phi =2\eta ^{1}\wedge
\Phi $ *.* They assume that $d\Phi =2\eta ^{i}\wedge \Phi $ for all $i=1,2,...,s$ in the definition of Kenmotsu $f.pk-$manifold. So, they remark that, since the $1$-forms $\eta ^{i}$ are linearly independent and $\eta
^{i} $ $\wedge \Phi =\eta ^{j}\wedge \Phi $ implies $\eta ^{i}=\eta ^{j}$, then the condition on $d\Phi $ can be satisfied by a unique $\eta ^{i}$ and they can assume that $d\Phi =2\eta ^{1}\wedge \Phi .$ It is clear that authors were equated 1-forms $\eta ^{1},...,\eta ^{s}$, which dual of $\xi
_{1},...,\xi _{s}.$Thus, they studied unique 1-form $\eta ^{1}.$
In this paper, all $\eta ^{1},...,\eta ^{s}$ $1-$forms are unequaled at the definition of generalized Kenmotsu manifolds.
\[Def\] Let $M$ be an almost $s-$contact metric manifold of dimension $(2n+s)$, $s\geq 1$, with $\left( \varphi ,\xi _{i},\eta ^{i},g\right) $ . $M$ is said to be a generalized almost Kenmotsu manifold if for all $1\leq i\leq s,$ $1-$forms $\eta ^{i}$ are closed and $d\Phi =2\underset{i=1}{\overset{s}{\sum }}\eta
^{i}\wedge \Phi .$ A normal generalized almost Kenmotsu manifold $M$ is called a generalized Kenmotsu manifold.
Now, we construct an example of generalized Kenmotsu manifold.
We consider $(2n+s)-$dimensional manifold $$M=\left\{ (x_{1},...,x_{n},y_{1},...,y_{n},z_{1,}...,z_{s})\in \mathbb{R}^{2n+s}:\sum_{\alpha =1}^{s}{z_{\alpha }}\neq 0\right\}$$We choose the vector fields$$X_{i}=e^{-\sum\limits_{\alpha =1}^{s}z_{\alpha }}\frac{\partial }{\partial
x_{i}},Y_{i}=e^{-\sum\limits_{\alpha =1}^{s}z_{\alpha }}\frac{\partial }{\partial
y_{i}},\xi _{\alpha }=\frac{\partial }{\partial z_{\alpha }},1\leq i\leq n,1\leq \alpha \leq s$$which are linearly indepent at each point of $M.$ Let $g$ be the Riemannian metric defined by$$g=e^{2\sum\limits_{\alpha =1}^{s}z_{\alpha }}\left[ \sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}\left( dx_{i}\otimes dx_{i}+dy_{i}\otimes dy_{i}\right) \right]
+\sum\limits_{\alpha =1}^{s}\eta ^{\alpha }\otimes \eta ^{\alpha }.$$Hence, $\left\{ X_{1},...,X_{n},Y_{1},...,Y_{n},\xi _{1},...,\xi
_{s}\right\} $ is an orthonormal basis. Thus, $\eta ^{\alpha }$ be the $1-$form defined by $\eta ^{\alpha }\left( X\right) =g(X,\xi _{\alpha }),\begin{array}{c}
\end{array}\alpha =1,...,s$ for any vector field $X$ on $TM.$ We defined the $(1,1)$ tensor field $\varphi $ as $$\varphi \left( X_{i}\right) =Y_{i},\varphi \left( Y_{i}\right) =-X_{i},\varphi \left( \xi _{\alpha }\right) =0,1\leq i\leq n,1\leq \alpha \leq s.$$The linearity property of $\varphi $ and $g$ yields that
$$\begin{aligned}
\eta ^{\alpha }\left( \xi _{\beta }\right) &=&\delta _{\alpha \beta },\varphi ^{2}X=-X+\sum\limits_{\alpha =1}^{s}\eta ^{\alpha }\left( X\right)
\xi _{\alpha }, \\
g\left( \varphi X,\varphi Y\right) &=&g\left( X,Y\right)
-\sum\limits_{\alpha =1}^{s}\eta ^{\alpha }\left( X\right) \eta ^{\alpha
}\left( Y\right) ,\end{aligned}$$
for any vector fields $X$, $Y$ on $M.$ Therefore,$(M,\varphi ,\xi _{\alpha
},\eta ^{\alpha },g)$ defines a metric $f-$manifold. We have $\Phi
(X_{i,},Y_{i})=-1$ and others are zero. Therefore, the essential non-zero component of $\Phi $ is$$\Phi (\frac{\partial }{\partial x_{i}},\frac{\partial }{\partial y_{i}})=g(\frac{\partial }{\partial x_{i}},\varphi \frac{\partial }{\partial y_{i}})=-e^{2\sum\limits_{\alpha =1}^{s}z_{\alpha }}$$and hence, we have $$\Phi =-e^{2\sum\limits_{\alpha =1}^{s}z_{\alpha }}\sum_{i=1}^{n}dx_{i}\wedge
dy_{i}$$Therefore, we get $\eta ^{1}\wedge ...\wedge \eta ^{s}\wedge \Phi ^{n}\neq 0$ on $M$. Thus $(M,\varphi ,\xi _{\alpha },\eta ^{\alpha },g)$ is almost $s-$contact manifold. Consequently, the exterior derivative $d\Phi $ is given by $$d\Phi =2\sum\limits_{\alpha =1}^{s}dz_{\alpha }\wedge
(-e^{2\sum\limits_{\alpha =1}^{s}z_{\alpha }})\sum_{i=1}^{n}dx_{i}\wedge
dy_{i}.$$Therefore, $(M,\varphi ,\xi _{\alpha },\eta ^{\alpha },g)$ is a generalized almost Kenmotsu manifold. It can be seen that $\ (M,\varphi ,\xi _{\alpha
},\eta ^{\alpha },g)$ is normal. So, it is a generalized Kenmotsu manifold. Moreover, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\left[ X_{i},\xi _{\alpha }\right] &=&X_{i},\begin{array}{cc}
&
\end{array}\left[ Y_{i},\xi _{\alpha }\right] =Y_{i}, \\
\left[ X_{i},X_{j}\right] &=&0,\begin{array}{cc}
&
\end{array}\left[ X_{i},Y_{i}\right] =0,\begin{array}{cc}
&
\end{array}\left[ X_{i},Y_{j}\right] =0 \\
\left[ Y_{i},Y_{j}\right] &=&0,\begin{array}{cc}
&
\end{array}1\leq i,j\leq n,1\leq {\alpha }\leq s.\end{aligned}$$The Riemannian connection $\nabla $ of the metric $g$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
2g(\nabla _{X}Y,Z) &=&Xg(Y,Z)+Yg(Z,X)-Zg(X,Y) \\
&&+g(\left[ X,Y\right] ,Z)-g(\left[ Y,Z\right] ,X)+g(\left[ Z,X\right] ,Y).\end{aligned}$$Using the Koszul’s formula, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla _{X_{i}}X_{i} &=&\sum_{\alpha =1}^{s}{\xi _{\alpha }},\begin{array}{c}
\end{array}\nabla _{Y_{i}}Y_{i}=\sum_{\alpha =1}^{s}{\xi _{\alpha }}, \\
\nabla _{X_{i}}X_{j} &=&\nabla _{Y_{i}}Y_{j}=\nabla _{X_{i}}Y_{i}=\nabla
_{X_{i}}Y_{j}=0 \\
\nabla _{X_{i}}\xi _{\alpha } &=&X_{i},\begin{array}{c}
\end{array}\nabla _{Y_{i}}\xi _{\alpha }=Y_{i},1\leq i,j\leq n,1\leq {\alpha }\leq s.\end{aligned}$$
We construct an example of generalized Kenmotsu manifold for $7-$dimensional.
Let $n=2$ and $s=3$. The vector fields$$e_{1}=f_{1}(z_{1},z_{2},z_{3})\frac{\partial }{\partial x_{1}}+f_{2}(z_{1},z_{2},z_{3})\frac{\partial }{\partial y_{1}},$$$$e_{2}=-f_{2}(z_{1},z_{2},z_{3})\frac{\partial }{\partial x_{1}}+f_{1}(z_{1},z_{2},z_{3})\frac{\partial }{\partial y_{1}},$$$$e_{3}=f_{1}(z_{1},z_{2},z_{3})\frac{\partial }{\partial x_{2}}+f_{2}(z_{1},z_{2},z_{3})\frac{\partial }{\partial y_{2}},$$$$e_{4}=-f_{2}(z_{1},z_{2},z_{3})\frac{\partial }{\partial x_{2}}+f_{1}(z_{1},z_{2},z_{3})\frac{\partial }{\partial y_{2}},$$$$e_{5}=\frac{\partial }{\partial z_{1}},e_{6}=\frac{\partial }{\partial z_{2}},e_{7}=\frac{\partial }{\partial z_{3}}$$where $f_{1}$ and $f_{2}$ are given by $$\begin{aligned}
f_{1}(z_{1},z_{2},z_{3}) &=&c_{2}e^{-(z_{1}+z_{2}+z_{3})}\cos
(z_{1}+z_{2}+z_{3})-c_{1}e^{-(z_{1}+z_{2}+z_{3})}\sin (z_{1}+z_{2}+z_{3}), \\
f_{2}(z_{1},z_{2},z_{3}) &=&c_{1}e^{-(z_{1}+z_{2}+z_{3})}\cos
(z_{1}+z_{2}+z_{3})+c_{2}e^{-(z_{1}+z_{2}+z_{3})}\sin (z_{1}+z_{2}+z_{3})\end{aligned}$$for nonzero constant $c_{1},c_{2}.$ It is obvious that $\left\{
e_{1},e_{2},e_{3},e_{4},e_{5},e_{6},e_{7}\right\} $ are linearly independent at each point of $M$. Let $g$ be the Riemannian metric given by $$g=\frac{1}{f_{1}^{2}+f_{2}^{2}}\sum_{i=1}^{2}(dx_{i}\otimes
dx_{i}+dy_{i}\otimes dy_{i})+dz_{1}\otimes dz_{1}+dz_{2}\otimes
dz_{2}+dz_{3}\otimes dz_{3},$$where $\left\{ x_{1},y_{1},x_{2},y_{2},z_{1},z_{2},z_{3}\right\} $ are standard coordinates in $\mathbb{R}
^{7}$. Let $\eta ^{1}$, $\eta ^{2}$ and $\eta ^{3}$ be the $1-$form defined by $\eta ^{1}(X)=g(X,e_{5})$, $\eta ^{2}(X)=g(X,e_{6})$ and $\eta
^{3}(X)=g(X,e_{7})$, respectively, for any vector field $X$ on $M$ and $\phi
$ be the $(1,1)$ tensor field defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi (e_{1}) &=&e_{2},\begin{array}{cc}
\begin{array}{c}
\end{array}
&
\end{array}\varphi (e_{2})=-e_{1},\begin{array}{cc}
&
\end{array}\varphi (e_{3})=e_{4},\begin{array}{cc}
\begin{array}{c}
\end{array}
&
\end{array}\varphi (e_{4})=-e_{3}, \\
\varphi (e_{5} &=&\xi _{1})=0,\begin{array}{cc}
\begin{array}{c}
\end{array}
&
\end{array}\varphi (e_{6}=\xi _{2})=0,\begin{array}{cc}
\begin{array}{c}
\end{array}
&
\end{array}\varphi (e_{7}=\xi _{3})=0.\end{aligned}$$Therefore, the essential non-zero component of $\Phi $ is$$\Phi (\frac{\partial }{\partial x_{i}},\frac{\partial }{\partial y_{i}})=-\frac{1}{f_{1}^{2}+f_{2}^{2}}=-\frac{2e^{2(z_{1}+z_{2}+z_{3})}}{c_{1}^{2}+c_{2}^{2}},\begin{array}{cc}
&
\end{array}i=1,2$$and hence $$\Phi =-\frac{2e^{2(z_{1}+z_{2}+z_{3})}}{c_{1}^{2}+c_{2}^{2}}\sum_{i=1}^{2}dx_{i}\wedge dy_{i}.$$Thus, we have $\eta ^{1}\wedge ...\wedge \eta ^{s}\wedge \Phi ^{n}\neq 0$ on $M$. Consequently, the exterior derivative $d\Phi $ is given by $$d\Phi =-\frac{4e^{2(z_{1}+z_{2}+z_{3})}}{c_{1}^{2}+c_{2}^{2}}(dz_{1}+dz_{2}+dz_{3})\wedge \sum_{i=1}^{2}dx_{i}\wedge dy_{i}.$$Since $\eta ^{1}=dz_{1}$, $\eta ^{2}=dz_{2}$ and $\eta ^{3}=dz_{3},$ we find$$d\Phi =2(\eta ^{1}+\eta ^{2}+\eta ^{3})\wedge \Phi .$$In addition, Nijenhuis tersion of $\varphi $ is equal to zero.
Let $\left( M,\varphi ,\xi _{i},\eta ^{i},g\right)$ be an almost $s$-contact metric manifold. $M$ is a generalized Kenmotsu manifold if and only if$$\left( \nabla _{X}\varphi \right) Y=\underset{i=1}{\overset{s}{\sum }}\left\{ g(\varphi X,Y)\xi _{i}-\eta ^{i}(Y)\varphi X\right\}$$for all $X,Y\in \Gamma (TM),$ $i\in \left\{ 1,2,...,s\right\} ,$ where $\nabla $ is Riemannian connection on M.
Let $M$ be a generalized Kenmotsu manifold. From $(1)$, $(6),(7)$ and $(8)$ for all $X,Y\in \Gamma (TM),$ we have$$\begin{aligned}
g\left( \left( \nabla _{X}\varphi \right) Y,Z\right) &=&3\left\{ \underset{i=1}{\overset{s}{\sum }}(\eta ^{i}\wedge \Phi )(X,\varphi Y,\varphi Z)-\underset{i=1}{\overset{s}{\sum }}(\eta ^{i}\wedge \Phi )(X,Y,Z)\right\} \\
&=&\underset{i=1}{\overset{s}{3\sum }}\{\frac{1}{3}(-\eta ^{i}(X)\Phi
(\varphi Y,\varphi Z)+\eta ^{i}(\varphi Y)\Phi (\varphi Z,X)+\eta
^{i}(\varphi Z)\Phi (X,\varphi Y)) \\
&&-\frac{1}{3}(-\eta ^{i}(X)\Phi (Y,Z)+\eta ^{i}(Y)\Phi (Z,X)+\eta
^{i}(Z)\Phi (X,Y))\} \\
&=&\underset{i=1}{\overset{s}{\sum }}\left\{ -\eta ^{i}(X)g(\varphi
Y,\varphi ^{2}Z)+\eta ^{i}(X)g(Y,\varphi Z)-\eta ^{i}(Y)g(Z,\varphi X)-\eta
^{i}(Z)g(X,\varphi Y)\right\} \\
&=&\underset{i=1}{\overset{s}{\sum }}\left\{ -\eta ^{i}(Y)g(Z,\varphi
X)-\eta ^{i}(Z)g(X,\varphi Y)\right\} \\
&=&g(\underset{i=1}{\overset{s}{\sum }}\left\{ g(\varphi X,Y)\xi _{i}-\eta
^{i}(Y)\varphi X\right\} ,Z).\end{aligned}$$
Conversely, firstly, using $(9)$ and $(8)$, we get$$\varphi \nabla _{X}\xi _{j}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{s}{-\sum }}\left\{
g(\varphi X,\xi _{j})\xi _{i}-\eta ^{i}(\xi _{j})\varphi X\right\}$$hence, we get$$\varphi ^{2}\nabla _{X}\xi _{j}=\varphi ^{2}X.$$Therefore, we have$$\nabla _{X}\xi _{j}=-\varphi ^{2}X.$$On the other hand, we get $$d\eta ^{i}(X,Y)=\frac{1}{2}\{g(Y,-\varphi ^{2}X)-g(X,-\varphi ^{2}Y)\}=0$$for all $X,Y\in \Gamma (TM),$ $i\in \left\{ 1,2,...,s\right\} .$ In addition, we know$$\begin{aligned}
3d\Phi (X,Y,Z) &=&Xg(Y,\varphi Z)-Yg(X,\varphi Z)-Zg(X,\varphi
Y)-g([X,Y],\varphi Z)\\&&+g([X,Z],\varphi Y)-g([Y,Z],\varphi X) \\
&=&g(Y,\nabla _{X}\varphi Z-\varphi \nabla _{X}Z)-g(X,\nabla _{Y}\varphi
Z-\varphi \nabla _{Y}Z)+g(X,\nabla _{Z}\varphi Y-\varphi \nabla _{Z}Y).\end{aligned}$$From hypothesis, we have$$\begin{aligned}
3d\Phi (X,Y,Z) &=&\overset{s}{\underset{i=1}{\sum }}\{g(\varphi X,Z)g(Y,\xi
_{i})-\eta ^{i}(Z)g(Y,\varphi X)-g(\varphi Y,Z)g(X,\xi _{i})+\eta
^{i}(Z)g(X,\varphi Y) \\
&&+g(\varphi Z,Y)g(X,\xi _{i})-\eta ^{i}(Y)g(X,\varphi Z)\} \\
&=&2\overset{s}{\underset{i=1}{\sum }}\{\Phi (Z,X)\eta ^{i}(Y)+\Phi
(X,Y)\eta ^{i}(Z)+\Phi (Y,Z)\eta ^{i}(X)\}.\end{aligned}$$Then, we have,$$d\Phi =2\underset{i=1}{\overset{s}{\sum }}\eta ^{i}\wedge \Phi .$$Moreover, the Nijenhuis torsion of $\varphi $ is obtained$$\begin{aligned}
N_{\varphi }(X,Y) &=&\varphi \left( -\overset{s}{\underset{i=1}{\sum }}\{g(\varphi X,Y)\xi _{i}-\eta ^{i}(Y)\varphi X\}+\overset{s}{\underset{i=1}{\sum }}\{g(\varphi Y,X)\xi _{i}-\eta ^{i}(X)\varphi Y\}\right) \\
&&+\overset{s}{\underset{i=1}{\sum }}\{g(\varphi ^{2}X,Y)\xi _{i}-\eta
^{i}(Y)\varphi ^{2}X\}-\overset{s}{\underset{i=1}{\sum }}\{g(\varphi
^{2}Y,X)\xi _{i}-\eta ^{i}(X)\varphi ^{2}Y\} \\
&=&0.\end{aligned}$$Hence, we have$$\lbrack \varphi ,\varphi ]+2\sum_{i=1}^{s}d\eta ^{i}\otimes \xi _{i}=0.$$The proof is completed.
Let $M$ be a $(2n+s)$-dimensional generalized Kenmotsu manifold with structure $\left( \varphi ,\xi _{i},\eta ^{i},g\right) .$ Then we have$$\nabla _{X}\xi _{j}=-\varphi ^{2}X$$for all $X\in \Gamma (TM),i,$ $j\in \left\{ 1,2,...,s\right\} .$
Let $M$ be a $(2n+s)$-dimensional generalized Kenmotsu manifold with structure $\left( \varphi ,\xi _{i},\eta ^{i},g\right) .$ Then we have$$i)\nabla _{\xi _{j}}\varphi =0,\begin{array}{cc}
\begin{array}{c}
\end{array}
&
\end{array}\nabla _{\xi _{j}}\xi _{i}=0$$$$ii)(L_{\xi _{i}}\varphi )X=0,\begin{array}{cc}
\begin{array}{c}
\end{array}
&
\end{array}(L_{\xi _{i}}\eta ^{j})X=0$$$$iii)(L_{\xi _{i}}g)(X,Y)=2\{g(X,Y)-\sum_{i=1}^{s}\eta ^{i}(X)\eta ^{i}(Y)\}$$for all $X\in \Gamma (TM),$ $i,j\in \left\{ 1,2,...,s\right\} .$
Let $M$ be a $(2n+s)$-dimensional generalized Kenmotsu manifold with structure $\left( \varphi ,\xi _{i},\eta ^{i},g\right) .$ Then we have$$(\nabla _{X}\eta ^{i})Y=g(X,Y)-\underset{j=1}{\overset{s}{\sum }}\eta
^{j}(X)\eta ^{j}(Y)$$
for all $X,Y\in \Gamma (TM),i\in \left\{ 1,2,...,s\right\} .$
Using $(8)$ and $(10)$ we get the desired result.
We have below the corollary in case $s=1$.
Let $\left( M^{2n+1},\varphi ,\xi ,\eta
,g\right) $ be an almost contact metric manifold. $M$ is a Kenmotsu manifold if and only if $$\left( \nabla _{X}\varphi \right) Y=g(\varphi X,Y)\xi -\eta (Y)\varphi X$$for all $X,Y\in \Gamma (TM),$ $i\in \left\{ 1,2,...,s\right\} ,$ where $\nabla $ is Riemannian connection on M *[@K]*.
Let $F$ be a Kähler manifold $f(t)=ke^{\overset{s}{\underset{i=1}{\sum
}}t_{i}}$ be a function on $
\mathbb{R}^{s},$ and k be a non-zero constant. Then the warped product space $M=\mathbb{R}^{s}\times _{f}F$ have a generalized Kenmotsu manifold.
Let $(F,J,G)$ be a Kähler manifold and consider $M=\mathbb{R}^{s}\times _{f}F,$ with coordinates $(t_{1},...,t_{s},x_{1},...,x_{2n})$. We define $\varphi $ tensor field, $1$-form $\eta ^{i},$ vector field $\xi _{i}$ and Riemannian metric tensor $g$ on $M$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi (\frac{\partial }{\partial t_{i}},U) &=&(0,JU), \\
\eta ^{j}(\frac{\partial }{\partial t_{i}},U) &=&\delta _{ij},
\begin{array}{cc}
&
\end{array}
\xi _{i}=(\frac{\partial }{\partial t_{i}},0) \\
g_{f} &=&\overset{s}{\underset{i=1}{\sum }}dt^{i}\otimes dt^{i}+f^{2}\pi
^{\ast }(G)\end{aligned}$$where $f(t)=ke^{\overset{s}{\underset{i=1}{\sum }}t_{i}},U\in \Gamma (F)$.
Then $(M,\varphi ,\eta ^{i},\xi _{i},g_{f})$ defines $s-$contact metric manifold. Now let us show that this manifold is a generalized Kenmotsu manifold.
It is clear that $\eta ^{i}$ are closed. Thus, we have$$\Phi (X,Y)=g_{f}(X,\varphi Y)=f^{2}\pi ^{\ast }(G(X,JY))$$
or $$\Phi =f^{2}\pi ^{\ast }(\Psi )$$where is fundamental $2$-form of K$\ddot{a}$hler manifold. Hence, we get
$$d\Phi =2c\overset{s}{\underset{i=1}{\sum }}e^{2\overset{s}{\underset{i=1}{\sum }}t_{i}}dt^{i}\wedge \pi ^{\ast }(\Psi )=2\overset{s}{\underset{i=1}{\sum }}dt^{i}\wedge \Phi .$$
Finally torsion tensor $N_{\varphi }$ of $M$ is vanish, since $\eta ^{i}$ are closed and $N_{J}=0$.
Then $(M=\mathbb{R}
^{s}\times _{f}F,\varphi ,\eta ^{i},\xi _{i},g_{f})$ is a generalized Kenmotsu manifold.
$(\mathbb{R}^{2}\times _{f}V^{4},g_{f}=\overset{2}{\underset{i=1}{\sum }}dt^{i}\otimes
dt^{i}+f^{2}G)$ is warped product with coordinates $(t_{1},t_{2},x_{1},x_{2},x_{3},x_{4})$, where $f^{2}=k^{2}e^{\overset{2}{\underset{i=1}{\sum }}t_{i}}$. Take a orthonormal frame field $\{\overline{E}_{1},\overline{E}_{2},\overline{E}_{3},\overline{E}_{4}\}$ of $V^{4}$ and $\{\overline{e}_{5},\overline{e}_{6}\}$ of $
\mathbb{R}^{2}$ such that $\overline{E}_{2}=J\overline{E}_{1}$, $\overline{E}_{4}=J\overline{E}_{3}.$Then we obtain a local orthonormal field $\{E_{1},E_{2},E_{3},E_{4},E_{5},E_{6}\}$ of $
\mathbb{R}^{2}\times _{f}V^{4}$ by$$\begin{aligned}
E_{1} &=&ke^{-\overset{2}{\underset{i=1}{\sum }}t_{i}}\overline{E}_{1},\begin{array}{cc}
&
\end{array}E_{2}=ke^{-\overset{2}{\underset{i=1}{\sum }}t_{i}}\overline{E}_{2} \\
E_{3} &=&-ke^{-\overset{2}{\underset{i=1}{\sum }}t_{i}}\overline{E}_{3},\begin{array}{cc}
&
\end{array}E_{4}=-ke^{-\overset{2}{\underset{i=1}{\sum }}t_{i}}\overline{E}_{4} \\
E_{5} &=&\xi _{1},\begin{array}{cc}
&
\end{array}E_{6}=\xi _{2}.\end{aligned}$$Then $
\mathbb{R}^{2}\times _{f}V^{4}$ is a generalized Kenmotsu manifold.
Let $(M^{2n+s},\varphi ,\eta ^{i},\xi _{i},g)$ be a generalized Kenmotsu manifold, $V$ and $L$ are Kähler and a flat manifold with locally coordinates $(x_{1},...,x_{2n})$ and $(t_{1},...,t_{s})$ respectively. Then $M$ a locally warped product $L^{s}\times _{f}V^{2n}$ where $f(t)=ke^{\overset{s}{\underset{i=1}{\sum }}t_{i}}$ and $k$ a nonzero positive constant.
We know that $TM=\mathcal{L}\oplus \mathcal{M}$. $ \mathcal{L}\ $ is clearly integrable, since $d\eta ^{i}=0.$ Then $V$ integral manifold of $ \mathcal{L}\ $ is totally umbilical because $\nabla _{X}\xi _{i}=X.$ On the other hand $[\xi _{i},\xi _{j}]=0$ and $\nabla _{\xi _{i}}\xi _{j}=0$, $\mathcal{M}$ is integrable and $L$ integral manifold is totally geodesic.
We select $J=\varphi \mid _{D}$ such that $J^{2}=-I,$ $G=g\mid _{D}.$ Then $(V,J,G)$ is almost Hermitian manifold. Also torsion tensor $N_{J}=N_{\varphi
}=0$ and using $(9),$ we get $(\nabla _{X}J)Y=0.$ Then $(V,J,G)$ is Kähler manifold.
Then $M=L\times _{f}V$ is locally a warped product and metric is $$g_{f}=\overset{s}{\underset{i=1}{\sum }}dt^{i}\otimes dt^{i}+f^{2}G.$$Its follows that $$(L_{\xi _{i}}g_{f})(X,Y)=\frac{2\xi _{i}(f)}{f}G(X,Y)$$and using $(11)$, we get $$\xi _{i}(f)=f,\begin{array}{cc}
&
\end{array}i=1,...,s.$$Thus,we have $$\frac{\partial f(t_{1},...,t_{s})}{\partial t_{i}}=f(t_{1},...,t_{s}),\begin{array}{cc}
&
\end{array}i=1,...,s.$$Therefore, we obtained $f(t_{1},...,t_{s})=ce^{\overset{s}{\underset{i=1}{\sum }}t_{i}}$ where c is nonzero constant.
Let’s go back to the example 2.3. Let $(\mathbb{R}
^{7},\varphi ,\eta ^{i},\xi _{i},g)$ be a generalized Kenmotsu manifold where $i=1,2,3$. Take a orthonormal frame field $$\left\{ \frac{\partial }{\partial z_{1}}=\xi _{1},\begin{array}{c}
\end{array}\frac{\partial }{\partial z_{2}}=\xi _{2},\begin{array}{c}
\end{array}\frac{\partial }{\partial z_{3}}=\xi _{3}\right\}$$of $\mathbb{R}
^{3}$ and $$\left\{ \frac{e^{2\overset{3}{\underset{i=1}{\sum }}z_{i}}}{c_{1}^{2}+c_{2}^{2}}(f_{1}e_{1}-f_{2}e_{2}),\begin{array}{c}
\end{array}\frac{e^{2\overset{3}{\underset{i=1}{\sum }}z_{i}}}{c_{1}^{2}+c_{2}^{2}}(f_{2}e_{1}+f_{1}e_{2}),\begin{array}{c}
\end{array}\frac{e^{2\overset{3}{\underset{i=1}{\sum }}z_{i}}}{c_{1}^{2}+c_{2}^{2}}(f_{1}e_{3}-f_{2}e_{4}),\begin{array}{c}
\end{array}\frac{e^{2\overset{3}{\underset{i=1}{\sum }}z_{i}}}{c_{1}^{2}+c_{2}^{2}}(f_{2}e_{3}+f_{1}e_{4})\right\}$$of $\mathbb{R}
^{4}.$ Then $\mathbb{R}
^{7}=\mathbb{R}
^{3}\times
\mathbb{R}
^{4}$ is product manifold, the structure by tensor $\varphi $ and metric tensor $g.$ $\mathbb{R}
^{4}$ is the standard Kähler structure $(J,G)$. Here the Riemannian metric $g$ is warped product metric $$g_{0}+cf^{2}G$$where $g_{0}$ is the Euclidean metric of $\mathbb{R}
^{3},$ f is the function defined on $\mathbb{R}
^{3}$ by$$f(z_{1},z_{2},z_{3})=e^{2\overset{3}{\underset{i=1}{\sum }}z_{i}}\text{and}\begin{array}{cc}
&
\end{array}c=\frac{1}{c_{1}^{2}+c_{2}^{2}}.$$
Some Curvature Properties
=========================
Let $M$ be a $(2n+s)$-dimensional generalized Kenmotsu manifold with structure $\left( \varphi ,\xi _{i},\eta ^{i},g\right) .$ Then we have$$R(X,Y)\xi _{i}=\underset{j=1}{\overset{s}{\sum }}\{\eta ^{j}(Y)\varphi
^{2}X-\eta ^{j}(X)\varphi ^{2}Y\}$$for all $X,Y\in \Gamma (TM),i\in \left\{ 1,2,...,s\right\} .$
Firstly, using $(10)$ and $(6)$ we get$$\nabla _{X}\nabla _{Y}\xi _{i}=\nabla _{X}Y+\varphi ^{2}X\underset{j=1}{\overset{s}{\sum }}\eta ^{j}(Y)-\underset{j=1}{\overset{s}{\sum }}\{\eta
^{j}(\nabla _{X}Y)\xi _{j}+g(Y,-\varphi ^{2}X)\xi _{j}\}$$and$$\nabla _{\lbrack X,Y]}\xi _{i}=-\varphi ^{2}\nabla _{X}Y+\varphi ^{2}\nabla
_{Y}X.$$Then,$$\begin{aligned}
R(X,Y)\xi _{i} &=&\nabla _{X}Y+\varphi ^{2}X\underset{j=1}{\overset{s}{\sum }}\eta ^{j}(Y)-\underset{j=1}{\overset{s}{\sum }}\{\eta ^{j}(\nabla _{X}Y)\xi
_{j}+g(Y,-\varphi ^{2}X)\xi _{j}\} \\
&&-\nabla _{Y}X-\varphi ^{2}Y\underset{j=1}{\overset{s}{\sum }}\eta ^{j}(X)+\underset{j=1}{\overset{s}{\sum }}\{\eta ^{j}(\nabla _{Y}X)\xi
_{j}+g(X,-\varphi ^{2}Y)\xi _{j}\} \\
&&+\varphi ^{2}\nabla _{X}Y-\varphi ^{2}\nabla _{Y}X.\end{aligned}$$From $(6)$ desired result.
Let $M$ be a $(2n+s)$-dimensional generalized Kenmotsu manifold with structure $\left( \varphi ,\xi _{i},\eta ^{i},g\right) .$ Then we have$$R(X,\xi _{i})Y=\underset{j=1}{\overset{s}{\sum }}\{\eta ^{j}(Y)\varphi
^{2}X-g(X,\varphi ^{2}Y)\xi _{j}\}$$$$R(X,\xi _{j})\xi _{i}=\varphi ^{2}X,\begin{array}{cc}
\begin{array}{c}
\end{array}
&
\end{array}R(\xi _{k},\xi _{j})\xi _{i}=0$$for all $X,Y\in \Gamma (TM),i,j,k\in \left\{ 1,2,...,s\right\} .$
*[@K] Let* $M$ be a $(2n+1)$-dimensional Kenmotsu manifold with structure $\left( \varphi ,\xi ,\eta ,g\right) .$ Then we have$$\begin{aligned}
R(X,Y)\xi &=&\eta (Y)X-\eta (X)Y \\
R(X,\xi )Y &=&g(X,Y)\xi -\eta (Y)X,\begin{array}{cc}
&
\end{array}R(\xi ,\xi )\xi =0\end{aligned}$$for all $X,Y\in \Gamma (TM).$
Let $M$ be a $(2n+s)$-dimensional generalized Kenmotsu manifold with structure $\left( \varphi ,\xi _{i},\eta ^{i},g\right) .$ Then we have$$\begin{aligned}
(\nabla _{Z}R)(X,Y,\xi _{i}) &=&sg(Z,X)Y-sg(Z,Y)X-R(X,Y)Z \\
&&+s\underset{h=1}{\overset{s}{\sum }}\eta ^{h}(Z)\{\eta ^{h}(Y)X-\eta
^{h}(X)Y\}+\underset{l=1}{\overset{s}{\sum }}\eta ^{l}(Z)R(X,Y)\xi _{l}\end{aligned}$$for all $X,Y\in \Gamma (TM),i\in \left\{ 1,2,...,s\right\} .$
Using $(10)$ and $(13)$, we have$$\begin{aligned}
(\nabla _{Z}R)(X,Y,\xi _{i}) &=&\nabla _{Z}\{\underset{j=1}{\overset{s}{\sum
}}\{\eta ^{j}(X)Y-\eta ^{j}(Y)X\}\}-\underset{j=1}{\overset{s}{\sum }}\{\eta
^{j}(\nabla _{Z}X)Y-\eta ^{j}(Y)\nabla _{Z}X\} \\
&&\text{ \ \ }-\underset{j=1}{\overset{s}{\sum }}\{\eta ^{j}(X)\nabla
_{Z}Y-\eta ^{j}(\nabla _{Z}Y)X\}-R(X,Y)\varphi ^{2}Z.\end{aligned}$$From $(6)$, we get$$(\nabla _{Z}R)(X,Y,\xi _{i})=\underset{j=1}{\overset{s}{\sum }}\{g(X,\nabla
_{Z}\xi _{j})Y-g(Y,\nabla _{Z}\xi _{j})X\}-R(X,Y)Z+\underset{k=1}{\overset{s}{\sum }}\eta ^{k}(Y)R(X,Y)\xi _{k}.$$The proof competes from $(6)$ and $(10)$.
Let $M$ be a $(2n+s)$-dimensional generalized Kenmotsu manifold Then we have$$\begin{aligned}
(\nabla _{Z}R)(X,Y,\xi _{i}) &=&sg(Z,X)Y-sg(Z,Y)X-R(X,Y)Z,\begin{array}{cc}
&
\end{array}Z\in \mathcal{L} \\
(\nabla _{\xi _{j}}R)(X,Y,\xi _{i}) &=&0\end{aligned}$$for all $X,Y\in \Gamma (TM),i\in \left\{ 1,2,...,s\right\} .$
*[@K] Let* $M$ be a $(2n+1)$-dimensional Kenmotsu manifold with structure $\left( \varphi ,\xi ,\eta ,g\right) .$ Then we have$$(\nabla _{Z}R)(X,Y,\xi )=g(Z,X)Y-g(Z,Y)X-R(X,Y)Z,\begin{array}{cc}
&
\end{array}Z\in \mathcal{L}\text{ and }(\nabla _{\xi }R)(X,Y,\xi )=0.$$
Let $\left( M,\varphi ,\xi _{i},\eta ^{i},g\right) $ be a $(2n+s)$-dimensional locally-symmetric generalized Kenmotsu manifold. Then we have$$R(X,Y)Z=s\{g(Z,X)Y-g(Z,Y)X\}.$$
*[@K] Let* M be a $(2n+1)$-dimensional Kenmotsu manifold with structure $\left( \varphi ,\xi ,\eta ,g\right) .$ If M is a locally symmetric then we have$$R(X,Y)Z=g(Z,X)Y-g(Z,Y)X.$$
The $\varphi -$sectional curvature of any locally symmetric generalized Kenmotsu manifold $\left( M,\varphi ,\xi _{i},\eta ^{i},g\right) $ is equal to $-s$.
In this case $s=1$, we obtain that the $\varphi -$sectional curvature of any locally symmetric Kenmotsu manifold $\left( M,\varphi ,\xi ,\eta ,g\right) $ is equal to $-1$ *[@K].*
Let $M$ be a $(2n+s)$-dimensional generalized Kenmotsu manifold with structure $\left( \varphi ,\xi _{i},\eta ^{i},g\right) .$ Then we have$$R(X,Y)\varphi Z-\varphi R(X,Y)Z=g(Y,Z)\varphi X-g(X,Z)\varphi Y-g(Y,\varphi
Z)X+g(X,\varphi Z)Y$$$$R(\varphi X,\varphi Y)Z=R(X,Y)Z+g(Y,Z)X-g(X,Z)Y+g(Y,\varphi Z)\varphi
X-g(X,\varphi Z)\varphi Y$$for all $X,Y\in \Gamma (TM),i\in \left\{ 1,2,...,s\right\} .$
Ricci Curvature Tensor
======================
Let $M$ be a $(2n+s)$-dimensional generalized Kenmotsu manifold with structure $\left( \varphi ,\xi _{i},\eta ^{i},g\right) .$ Then we have$$S(X,\xi _{i})=-2n\underset{j=1}{\overset{s}{\sum }}\eta ^{j}(X)$$for all $X,Y\in \Gamma (TM),i\in \left\{ 1,2,...,s\right\} .$
If $\{E_{1},E_{2},...,E_{2n+s}\}$ are local orthonormal vector fields, then $S(X,Y)=\underset{k=1}{\overset{2n+s}{\sum }}g(R(E_{k},X)Y,E_{k})$ defines a global tensor field $S$ of type $(0,2)$. Then, we obtain$$\begin{aligned}
S(X,\xi _{i}) &=&\underset{k=1}{\overset{2n}{\sum }}g(\underset{j=1}{\overset{s}{\sum }}\{\eta ^{j}(X)\varphi ^{2}E_{k}-\eta ^{j}(E_{k})\varphi
^{2}X\},E_{k})+\underset{k=1}{\overset{s}{\sum }}g(-\varphi ^{2}X,\xi _{k})
\\
&=&\underset{j=1}{\overset{s}{\sum }}\eta ^{j}(X)\underset{k=1}{\overset{2n}{\sum }}g(\varphi ^{2}E_{k},E_{k}).\end{aligned}$$
In this case $s=1$ we have $S(X,\xi )=-2n\eta (X)$ in [@K].
Let $M$ be a $(2n+s)$-dimensional generalized Kenmotsu manifold with structure $\left( \varphi ,\xi _{i},\eta ^{i},g\right) .$ Then we have$$S(\xi _{k},\xi _{i})=-2n$$for all $X,Y\in TM,i,k\in \left\{ 1,2,...,s\right\} .$
Let $M$ be a $(2n+s)$ dimensional generalized Kenmotsu manifold with structure $\left( \varphi ,\xi _{i},\eta ^{i},g\right) .$ Then we have$$S(\varphi X,\varphi Y)=S(X,Y)+2n\underset{i=1}{\overset{s}{\sum }}\eta
^{i}(X)\eta ^{i}(Y)$$for all $X,Y\in \Gamma (TM),i\in \left\{ 1,2,...,s\right\} .$
We can put $$X=X_{0}+\underset{i=1}{\overset{s}{\sum }}\eta ^{i}(X)\xi _{i}\text{ and }Y=Y_{0}+\underset{i=1}{\overset{s}{\sum }}\eta ^{i}(Y)\xi _{i}$$ where $X_{0},Y_{0}\in \mathcal{L}$. Then from (16) and (17) we have,$$\begin{aligned}
S(X,Y) &=&S(X_{0},Y_{0})+\underset{i=1}{\overset{s}{\sum }}\eta ^{i}(Y)\eta
^{i}(X_{0})+\underset{i=1}{\overset{s}{\sum }}\eta ^{i}(X)\eta ^{i}(Y_{0})+\underset{i=1}{\overset{s}{\sum }}\eta ^{i}(X)\eta ^{i}(Y)S(\xi _{i},\xi
_{i}) \\
&=&S(X_{0},Y_{0})-2n\underset{i=1}{\overset{s}{\sum }}\eta ^{i}(X)\eta
^{i}(Y).\end{aligned}$$ Since $\varphi X,\varphi Y\in \mathcal{L}$ we get $S(X_{0},Y_{0})=S(\varphi
X,\varphi Y)$ which implies the desired result.
Considering $s=1$ in *[@JDP],* we deduce $$S(\varphi X,\varphi Y)=S(X,Y)+2n\eta (X)\eta (Y).$$
Let $M$ be a $(2n+s)$ dimensional generalized Kenmotsu manifold with structure $\left( \varphi ,\xi _{i},\eta ^{i},g\right) .$ Then we have$$\begin{aligned}
(\nabla _{\varphi X}S)(\varphi Y,\varphi Z) &=&(\nabla _{\varphi X}S)(Y,Z)-\underset{i=1}{\overset{s}{\sum }}\eta ^{i}(Y)\{S(X,\varphi Z)+2ng(X,\varphi
Z)\} \\
&&-\underset{i=1}{\overset{s}{\sum }}\eta ^{i}(Z)\{S(X,\varphi
Y)+2ng(X,\varphi Y)\}\end{aligned}$$for all $X,Y\in \Gamma (TM),i\in \left\{ 1,2,...,s\right\} .$
Using $(9)$, we get$$\begin{aligned}
(\nabla _{\varphi X}S)(\varphi Y,\varphi Z) &=&\nabla _{\varphi X}S(Y,Z)+2n\underset{i=1}{\overset{s}{\sum }}\{\eta ^{i}(Y)\nabla _{\varphi X}\eta
^{i}(Z)+\eta ^{i}(Z)\nabla _{\varphi X}\eta ^{i}(Y)\} \\
&&+\underset{i=1}{\overset{s}{\sum }}\{-S(g(\varphi ^{2}X,Y)\xi _{i}-\eta
^{i}(Y)\varphi ^{2}X,\varphi Z)-S(\nabla _{\varphi X}Y,Z)-2n\eta ^{i}(\nabla
_{\varphi X}Y)\eta ^{i}(Z) \\
&&-S(\varphi Y,g(\varphi ^{2}X,Z)\xi _{i}-\eta ^{i}(Z)\varphi
^{2}X)-S(Y,\nabla _{\varphi X}Z)-2n\eta ^{i}(Y)\eta ^{i}(\nabla _{\varphi
X}Z)\}.\end{aligned}$$From $(6)$, $(16)$ and $(17)$ we have$$\begin{aligned}
(\nabla _{\varphi X}S)(\varphi Y,\varphi Z) &=&(\nabla _{\varphi X}S)(Y,Z)+\underset{i=1}{\overset{s}{\sum }}\{2n\eta ^{i}(Y)(\nabla _{\varphi X}\eta
^{i})Z+2n\eta ^{i}(Z)(\nabla _{\varphi X}\eta ^{i})Y \\
&&-\eta ^{i}(Y)S(X,\varphi Z)-\eta ^{i}(Z)S(\varphi Y,X)\}.\end{aligned}$$
Let $M$ be a $(2n+s)$ dimensional generalized Kenmotsu manifold with structure $\left( \varphi ,\xi _{i},\eta ^{i},g\right) .$ Then we have$$\begin{aligned}
(\nabla _{X}S)(\varphi Y,\varphi Z) &=&(\nabla _{X}S)(Y,Z)+2n\underset{i=1}{\overset{s}{\sum }}\{g(X,Y)\eta ^{i}(Z)+g(X,Z)\eta ^{i}(Y)\} \\
&&+\underset{i=1}{\overset{s}{\sum }}\{\eta ^{i}(Y)S(X,Z)+\eta
^{i}(Z)S(X,Y)\}\end{aligned}$$for all $X,Y\in \Gamma (TM),i\in \left\{ 1,2,...,s\right\} .$
The Ricci tensor $S$ of a $(2n+s)$-dimensional generalized Kenmotsu manifold $M$ is called $\eta -parallel$, if it satisfies$$(\nabla _{X}S)(\varphi Y,\varphi Z)=0$$for all vector fields $X,Y$ and $Z$ on $M$.
Let $\left( M,\varphi ,\xi _{i},\eta ^{i},g\right) $ a $(2n+s)$-dimensional generalized Kenmotsu manifold. $M$ has $\eta -parallel$ if and only if$$\begin{aligned}
(\nabla _{X}S)(Y,Z) &=&-2n\underset{i=1}{\overset{s}{\sum }}\{g(X,Y)\eta
^{i}(Z)+g(X,Z)\eta ^{i}(Y)\} \\
&&-\underset{i=1}{\overset{s}{\sum }}\{\eta ^{i}(Y)S(X,Z)+\eta
^{i}(Z)S(X,Y)\}\end{aligned}$$for all $X,Y,Z\in \Gamma (TM),i\in \left\{ 1,2,...,s\right\} .$
[@K] Let $\left( M,\varphi ,\xi ,\eta ,g\right) $ a $(2n+1)$-dimensional Kenmotsu manifold. $M$ has $\eta -parallel$ if and only if$$\begin{aligned}
(\nabla _{X}S)(Y,Z) &=&-2n\{g(X,Y)\eta (Z)+g(X,Z)\eta (Y)\} \\
&&\text{ \ \ \ }-\eta (Y)S(X,Z)-\eta (Z)S(X,Y)\end{aligned}$$for all $X,Y,Z\in \Gamma (TM).$
Semi-Symmetric Properties of Generalized Kenmotsu Manifolds
===========================================================
With respect to the Riemannian connection $\nabla $ of a generalized Kenmotsu manifold $\left( M,\varphi ,\xi _{i},\eta ^{i},g\right) $, we can prove:
The $\varphi $- sectional curvature of any semi-symmetric $(2n+s)$-dimensional generalized Kenmotsu manifold $\left( M,\varphi ,\xi _{i},\eta
^{i},g\right) $ is equal to $-s$.
Let $X$ be a unit vector field. Since $\left( M,\varphi ,\xi _{i},\eta
^{i},g\right) $ is semi-symmetric, then $$(R.R)(X,\xi _{i},X,\varphi X,\varphi X,\xi _{i})=0,$$for any $i,j\in \left\{ 1,2,...,s\right\} .$ Expanding this formula from $(7)$ and taking into account $(14)$, we get $$R(X,\varphi X,\varphi X,X)=-s,$$which completes the proof.
Observe that, in the case $s=1$, by using the *Theorem 11* we obtain that a semi-symmetric Kenmotsu manifolds is constant curvature equal to $-1$ [@Bin].
Let $\left( M,\varphi ,\xi _{i},\eta ^{i},g\right) $ be a $(2n+s)$ dimensional Ricci semi-symmetric generalized Kenmotsu manifold. Then its Ricci tensor field $S$ respect the Riemannian connection satisfies$$S(X,Y)=-2n\{sg(\varphi X,\varphi Y)+\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{s}{\sum }}\eta
^{i}(X)\eta ^{j}(Y)\}$$for any $X,Y\in \Gamma (TM).$
Since $\left( M,\varphi ,\xi _{i},\eta ^{i},g\right) $ is Ricci semi-symmetric, then $$S(R(X,\xi _{i})\xi _{j},Y)+S(\xi _{j},R(X,\xi _{i})Y)=0,$$for any $X,Y\in \Gamma (TM)$ and $i,j\in \left\{ 1,2,...,s\right\} .$ Now, from $(14),$ $(15)$ and $(16)$ we get the desired result.
In this case $s=1$ we have following the corollary.
Any Ricci semi-symmetric $(2n+1)-$dimensional Kenmotsu manifold is an Einstein manifold.
Considering $s=1$ in $(19)$, we deduce $$S(X,Y)=-2ng(X,Y)$$for any $X,Y\in \Gamma (TM).$
For the Weyl projective curvature tensor field $P$, the weyl projective curvature tensor $P$ of a $(2n+s)$-dimensional generalized Kenmotsu manifold $M$ is given by$$P(X,Y)Z=R(X,Y)Z-\frac{1}{2n+s-1}\{S(Y,Z)X-S(X,Z)Y\}$$where $R$ is curvature tensor and $S$ is the ricci curvature tensor of $M$, we have the following theorem.
The $\varphi $- sectional curvature of any projectively semi-symmetric generalized Kenmotsu manifold $\left( M,\varphi ,\xi _{i},\eta ^{i},g\right)
$ is equal to $-s$.
Let $X$ be a unit vector field. Then, from $(6)$ and taking into account $(14)$ and $(16)$ we have $$(R.P)(X,\xi _{i},X,\varphi X,\varphi X,\xi _{j})=(R.R)(X,\xi _{i},X,\varphi
X,\varphi X,\xi _{j}).$$This completes the proof from the *Theorem 5.1*.
Let $\left( M,\varphi ,\xi ,\eta ,g\right) $ a $(2n+1)$-dimensional Kenmotsu manifold. The $\varphi $- sectional curvature of any projectively semi-symmetric Kenmotsu manifold if and only if $M$ is an Einstein manifold.
[9]{} <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">L. Bhatt and K. K. Dube</span>, Semi-invariant submanifolds of r-Kenmotsu manifolds, Acta Cienc. Indica Math. 29(1), (2003), 167-172. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">T.Q.Binh, L. Tamassy, U.C. De and M. Taraftar</span>, Same remarks on almost Kenmotsu manifolds, Math. Pan. 13(1), (2002), 31-39. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">R.L. Bishop and B. O’Neill</span>, Manifolds of negative curvature, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 145(1969),1-50. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">D.E. Blair</span>, Geometry of manifolds with structural group $
U(n)\times O(s)$, J. Differ. Geom. 4 (1970), 155-167. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">D.E. Blair, G. Ludden and K. Yano</span>, Differential geometric structures on principal toroidal bundles,Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 181 (1973), 175–184. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">D.E. Blair</span>, Riemannian geometry of contact and Symplectic Manifolds,Birkhauser. Boston, Second Edition (2010). <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">J.L. Cabrerizo, L.M. Fernandez and M. Fernandez</span>, The curvature tensor fields on f- manifolds with complemented frames, An. Sctiintc. Univ. Al. I. Cuza Iacsi Sectc. I a Mat. 36 no. 2 (1990), 151-161. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">U.C. De and G. Pathok</span>, On 3-dimensional Kenmotsu manifolds, Indian J. Pure Appl. Math. 35 (2004), 159-165. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">M. Falcitelli and A.M. Pastore</span>, f-structures of Kenmotsu Type, Mediterr, J, Math. 3 No.3-4 (2006), 549-564. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">S.I. Goldberg</span>, On the existence of manifolds with an f-structure, Tensor New Ser. 26 (1972), 323-329. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">S.I. Goldberg and K. Yano</span>, Globally framed f-manifolds, III. J. MAth.15 (1971), 456-474. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">S.I. Goldberg and K. Yano</span>, On normal globally framed f-manifolds, Tohoku Math. Journal 22 (1972), 362-370. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">D. Janssens and L. Vanhecke</span>, Almost contact structures and curvature tensors, Kodai Math. j., 4(1981),1-27. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">J.B Jun,U.C. De and G. Pathak</span>, On Kenmotsu Manifolds, J. KoreanMath. Soc. 42 (2005), No. 3, 435-445. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">K. Kenmotsu</span>, A class of almost contact Riemannian manifolds, TohokuMath. J. II Ser. 24 (1972), 93-103. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">H. Nakagawa</span>, f-structures induced on submanifolds in spaces, almost Hermitian or Kaehlerian, K=odai Math. Sem. Rep. 18 (1966), 161–183. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">H. Nakagawa</span>, On framed f-manifolds, Kodai Math. Sem. Rep. 18 (1966), 293–306. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">G. Pitiş</span>, Geometry of Kenmotsu manifolds, Publishing House of Transilvania University of Braşov, Braşov, (2007). <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">D.G. Prakasha,C.S. Bagewadi and N.S. Basavarajappa</span>, On Lorentzian $\beta $-Kenmotsu manifolds,Int. J. Math. Anal, 17-20, (2008), 919–927. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">S. Tanno</span>, The automorphism groups of almost contact Riemannian manifolds, Tohoku Math. J., 21 (1969), 21-38. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">J. Vanzura</span>, Almost $r-$contact structures, Ann. Scuola Norm. Sup. Pisa Sci. Fis. Mat. 26 (1972), 97–115. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">K. Yano</span>, On a structure defined by a tensor field f of type $(1,1)$ satisfying $f^{3}+f=0$, Tesor NS., 14, (1963) 99-109 . K. Yano and M. Kon, Structure on manifolds, Series in Pure Math.Vol. 3, World Scientific, Singapore, (1984).
[^1]: 2010 *Mathematics Subject Classification*. Primary 53C15 ; Secondary 53C25, 53D10.
[^2]: *Key words and phrases*. Kenmotsu manifolds, metric $f$-manifolds, s-contact metric manifolds, generalized Kenmotsu manifolds, semi-symmetric, ricci semi-symmetric, projective semi-symmetric.
[^3]:
|
---
abstract: |
We compute the pion light-cone wave function and the pion quark distribution amplitude in the Nambu–Jona-Lasinio model. We use the Pauli-Villars regularization method and as a result the distribution amplitude satisfies proper normalization and crossing properties. In the chiral limit we obtain the simple results, namely $\varphi_\pi
(x)=1 $ for the pion distribution amplitude, and $ \int d^2 k_\perp
\Psi_\pi(x,\vec k_\perp ) k_\perp^2 = \langle \vec k_\perp^2
\rangle = -M \langle \bar u u \rangle / f_\pi^2$ for the second moment of the pion light-cone wave function, where $M$ is the constituent quark mass and $f_\pi$ is the pion decay constant. After the QCD Gegenbauer evolution of the pion distribution amplitude good end-point behavior is recovered, and a satisfactory agreement with the analysis of the experimental data from CLEO is achieved. This allows us to determine the momentum scale corresponding to our model calculation, which is close to the value $Q_0=313$ MeV obtained earlier from the analogous analysis of the pion parton distribution function. The value of $\langle \vec k_\perp^2
\rangle$ is, after the QCD evolution, around $(400~{\rm MeV})^2$. In addition, the model predicts a linear integral relation between the pion distribution amplitude and the parton distribution function of the pion, which holds at the leading-order QCD evolution.
author:
- Enrique Ruiz Arriola
- Wojciech Broniowski
date: '12 August 2002, ver. 2'
title: 'Pion light-cone wave function and pion distribution amplitude in the Nambu–Jona-Lasinio model'
---
Introduction
============
The study of high-energy exclusive processes [@BL80] provides a convenient tool of learning about the quark substructure of hadrons. In this limit the total amplitude factorizes into a hard contribution, computable from perturbative QCD, and a soft matrix element which requires a non-perturbative treatment. From the point of view of chiral symmetry breaking a particularly interesting process is provided by the $\gamma^* \to \gamma^* \pi^0 $ transition form factor. For real photons its normalization is fixed by the anomalous breaking of chiral symmetry by the $\pi^0 \to \gamma \gamma $ decay. In addition, in the limit of large photon virtualities, factorization allows us to define the leading-twist pion distribution amplitude as a low energy matrix element whose normalization is fixed by the pion weak-decay constant, a spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking feature of the QCD vacuum. It seems obvious that such a process offers a unique opportunity not only to learn about the interplay between high and low energies, but also to understand the relation between the spontaneous and the anomalous chiral symmetry breaking. Radiative logarithmic corrections to the pion distribution amplitude (PDA) can be easily implemented through the QCD evolution equations [@BL79; @Mu95], which yield for $Q^2 \to \infty$ the asymptotic wave function of the form $\varphi_\pi(x,\infty) = 6 x(1-x)$. Moreover, the pion transition form factor has been measured by the CELLO [@cello] and, recently, the CLEO collaborations [@CLEO98]. A theoretical analysis of PDA based on these data and light-cone sum rules has been undertaken [@SY00], showing that at $Q=2.4$ GeV PDA is neither asymptotic, nor possesses the double-hump structure [@CZ84] proposed in early works [@E791] [^1].
The pion distribution amplitude has been evaluated with QCD sum rules [@MR; @RR; @BJ97; @BM; @BMS1; @BMS2], in standard [@DP00] (only the second $\xi$-moment) and transverse lattice approaches [@Da01; @BS01; @BD02], and in chiral quark models [@ET; @PP97; @PP99; @ADT00; @He00; @He01; @PR01; @ADT01; @ADT01a; @DVY02; @Do02]. In chiral quark models the results are not always compatible to each other, and even their interpretation has not always been the same. While in same cases there are problems with chiral symmetry and proper normalization [@PP97; @PP99; @PR01], in other cases [@ADT00; @He00; @He01; @PR01; @ADT01; @DVY02; @Do02] it is not clear how to associate the scale at which the model is defined, necessary to define the starting point for the QCD evolution. Nevertheless, there is a precise way to identify the low energy scale, $Q_0$, at which the model is defined, namely the one at which the quarks carry $100\%$ of the total momentum [@JG80; @Ja85]. The fact that several calculations [@PP97; @PP99; @He00; @He01; @PR01; @ADT01; @DVY02] produce a PDA strongly resembling the asymptotic form suggests that their working scale is already large, and the subsequent QCD evolution becomes unnecessary, or numerically insignificant. This also tacitly assumes that these models already incorporate the QCD radiative corrections.
In the present paper we compute the pion distribution amplitude and the pion light-cone wave function within the Nambu–Jona-Lasinio (NJL) model [@NJL61; @NJL] in a semibosonized form using the Pauli-Villars (PV) regularization method [@PV49]. This method has been introduced in Refs. [@Ru91; @SR92] in the context of chiral perturbation theory, as well as for chiral solitons. From the point of view of the NJL model the study of exclusive processes becomes interesting in its own right. Although factorization holds beyond doubt in QCD, it is far from obvious that any of the regularization schemes used to make a low-energy model well defined is compatible with factorization. In addition, we want to determine what is the low-energy scale, $Q_0$, the model corresponds to. Here we obtain it with help of the analysis of PDA and compare it to the $Q_0$ obtained in deep inelastic scattering (DIS) from the corresponding parton distribution function of the pion (PDF).
To a large extent our treatment of PDA parallels the calculation of PDF carried out in previous works [@DR95; @WRG99; @DR02]. There, it has been argued that for inclusive processes, such as in deep inelastic scattering, by far the most convenient regularization scheme is the Pauli-Villars (PV) method. Such a regularization allows the extraction of the leading-twist contribution to the forward virtual Compton amplitude which possesses proper support and normalization. The relevance of regularization in chiral quark models should not be underestimated; it is not evident what is the most convenient way to cut-off high energies in such a way that most features of QCD are retained. Those include chiral symmetry, gauge invariance, and scaling properties. The main outcome of the calculation presented in Ref. [@DR95] was that, at the scale $Q_0$ at which the model is defined, the valence PDF is a constant equal to one, $$q(x,Q_0) = \bar q(1-x, Q_0) \equiv V_\pi(x,Q_0)/2=1.
\label{PDF1}$$ After QCD evolution at leading order (LO), impressive agreement with the analysis of Ref. [@SM92] at the reference scale $Q=2 {\rm
GeV}$ has been achieved. At this scale the valence quarks carry $47
\%$ of the total momentum. This implies a rather low scale $Q_0$, as suggested by the evolution ratio $\alpha(2 {\rm GeV})/\alpha(Q_0)=0.15
$ relevant at leading order. For $\alpha (2 {\rm GeV}) = 0.32 $ listed in the PDG [@PDG], and for the evolution with three flavors, this corresponds to [^2] $$Q_0=313 \, {\rm MeV}, \,\,\, \alpha(Q_0)= 2.14
\label{Q0}$$ (see Ref. [@DR95] for details). The low scales are confirmed by the next-to-leading (NLO) analysis of Ref. [@DR02], with the NLO effects small compared to the LO ones [^3]. Motivated by this success, in the present paper we investigate whether the evolution ratio and the values (\[Q0\]) found in deep inelastic scattering are compatible with the values extracted from a similar analysis of PDA at LO in the same model (NJL) with the same (PV) regularization. This is the main objective of this work.
In the NJL model PDA has already been estimated by several authors [@He00; @He01; @DVY02]. The work of Refs. [@He00; @He01] uses the Brodsky-Lepage cut-off regularization as suggested by the light-front quantization formalism. As a consequence, the asymptotic form $\varphi(x,Q_0) = 6 x(1-x)$ is obtained without any additional evolution. On the other hand, the same regularization yields PDF of the form $x V_\pi (x,Q_0) \sim 6 x^2 (1-x)$ [@He01; @BH99] which is far from the asymptotic value $ x V_\pi(x,\infty)= x \delta(x) =0$. This is a rather puzzling result, which may have to do with subtleties of introducing a regularization in the light-cone quantization method (see also Ref. [@BH99]). For that reason we prefer to use a manifestly covariant formalism, where chiral symmetry can be easily implemented in presence of the regularization. In Ref. [@DVY02] PDA has been extracted from the transition form factor by examining the asymptotic behavior for large photon virtualities. This requires introducing a regularization for an abnormal parity process which also modifies the chiral anomaly, and hence, for typical parameter values [@BH88], the $\pi^0 \to
\gamma \gamma $ decay rate is reduced by $40\%$ of the current algebra value. Our approach is free of such problems.
The Nambu–Jona-Lasinio model
============================
For the reader’s convenience we briefly review the NJL model in such a way that our results can be easily stated. The SU(2) NJL Lagrangian in the Minkowski space is given by [@NJL61; @NJL] $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal L}_{\rm NJL} &=&
\bar{q} (i\slashchar\partial - M_0 )q +
{G \over 2} \left( (\bar{q} q)^2
+(\bar{q}\vec \tau i \gamma_5 q)^2 \right) \end{aligned}$$ where $q=(u,d )$ represents a quark spinor with $N_c $ colors, $\vec \tau $ are the Pauli isospin matrices, $ M_0 $ stands for the current quark mass, and $G $ is the coupling constant. In the limiting case of the vanishing $M_0$ the action is invariant under the global $SU(2)_R \otimes SU(2)_L $ transformations. With help of bosonization, the vacuum-to-vacuum transition amplitude in presence of external vector and axial-vector currents,$(v,a)$, can be written as the path integral $$\begin{aligned}
&& \langle 0| {\rm T} {\rm exp} \Bigl\{ i \int d^4 x
\left [ \bar q \left ({\slashchar v}+{\slashchar a} \gamma_5 \right ) q
\right ] \Bigr\} |0 \rangle \\
&& = \int D \Sigma D \vec \Pi \, {\rm exp}\{{\rm i} S \}.\end{aligned}$$ The following Dirac operators $$\begin{aligned}
i {\rm D} \, & = & i\slashchar{ \partial } - M_0 - ( \Sigma + i\gamma_5
\vec \tau \cdot \vec \Pi ) + {\slashchar v}+{\slashchar a} \gamma_5, \\
i {\rm D}_5 & = & -i\slashchar{ \partial } - M_0 - (
\Sigma - i\gamma_5 \vec \tau \cdot \vec \Pi ) + {\slashchar
v}-{\slashchar a} \gamma_5 ,\end{aligned}$$ are introduced. The fields $(\Sigma,\vec \Pi )$ are dynamical, internal bosonic scalar-isoscalar and pseudoscalar-isovector fields, which after suitable renormalization can be interpreted as the physical $\sigma$ and pion fields. The PV-regularized normal parity ($\gamma_5$-even) contribution to the effective action is [@Ru91; @SR92] $$\begin{aligned}
S_{\rm even} = - {i N_c \over 2} \sum_i c_i {\rm tr} \log ( {\rm D} {\rm D}_5 +
\Lambda_i^2 + i\epsilon) \nonumber \\
-{1\over 2G} \int d^4 x
( \Sigma^2 + \vec \Pi^2 ),\end{aligned}$$ with ${\rm tr}$ denoting the trace in the Dirac and isospin space. In general, we assume $n$ PV subtractions, with the conditions $\sum_{i=0}^n c_i \Lambda_i^{2k}=0$ for $k=0, ... , n$ , and with $c_0=1$, $\Lambda_0=0 $. At least two subtractions ($n=2$), which is the case used throughout this paper, are needed to regularize the quadratic divergence. The abnormal parity ($\gamma_5$-odd) contribution to the effective action is $$\begin{aligned}
S_{\rm odd} = - {iN_c \over 2} \left\{ {\rm tr} \log ( {\rm D}^2 ) - {\rm tr} \log
({\rm D}_5^2 ) \right\}
\label{eq:abnor} \end{aligned}$$ Notice that no explicit finite cut-off regularization is introduced in the abnormal parity contribution, as demanded by a proper reproduction of the QCD chiral anomaly. This subtle and important point has been discussed in detail in Ref. [@SR95].
Any mesonic correlation function can be obtained from this gauge-invariantly regularized effective action by a suitable functional differentiation with respect to the relevant external fields. In practice, one usually works in the formal limit large $N_c$, in other words, at the one-quark-loop level. To fix the parameters in the PV-regularized NJL model we proceed as usual (see, [*e.g.*]{}, Ref. [@SR92]). The effective potential leads to dynamical chiral symmetry breaking, thereby yielding a dynamical quark mass, $M$, and condensates given by $$\begin{aligned}
\langle \bar u u \rangle = \langle \bar d d \rangle = -{M - M_0 \over
2 G } = 4 N_c M I_2,\end{aligned}$$ where the quadratically-divergent integral, $I_2$, is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
I_2 &=& {i} \int {d^4 k \over (2\pi)^4 } \sum_i c_i {1\over (-k^2
+ M^2 + \Lambda_i^2 -i \epsilon )} \nonumber \\ &=&\frac1{(4\pi)^2}
\sum_i c_i (\Lambda_i^2+M^2) \log ( \Lambda_i^2+ M^2). \label{I2}\end{aligned}$$ The calculation of the relevant correlation function yields for the pion mass $$\begin{aligned}
m_\pi^2 ={ 2 I_2 \over F ( m_\pi^2 ) }{M_0 \over M -M_0 } .\end{aligned}$$ The pion weak-decay constant, $f_\pi$, and the pion-quark coupling constant, $g_{\pi qq}$, are given by $$\begin{aligned}
f_\pi &=& 4 N_c M F ( m_\pi^2 ) g_{\pi qq}, \label{fpi} \\
{1\over g_{\pi q q}^2} &=& 4N_c {d\over d p^2 }
\Bigl\{ p^2 F ( p^2 ) \Bigr\} \Big|_{p^2 = m_\pi^2},
\label{eq:deffpi} \end{aligned}$$ respectively. We have introduced the following short-hand notation: $$\begin{aligned}
F (p^2) = \int_0^1 dx F (p^2, x),\end{aligned}$$ where, in terms of the PV-regularized one-loop integrals, $$\begin{aligned}
&& F (p^2, x) = -i \int {d^4 k \over (2\pi)^4 } \sum_i \times \\
&& c_i {1\over [-k^2 -x(1-x)p^2 + M^2 + \Lambda_i^2 - i\epsilon]^2} \nonumber \\
&& = -\frac1{(4\pi)^2}\sum_i c_i \log\left[ M^2 + \Lambda_i^2 -x(1-x)p^2 \right].
\nonumber
\label{F}\end{aligned}$$ The function $F$ in an obvious manner satisfies the symmetry relation $F (p^2 , x) = F (p^2, 1-x)$. In the case of two subtractions, and in the limit $\Lambda_1 \to
\Lambda_2 \equiv \Lambda $ used in this paper, we have $\sum_i c_i f(\Lambda_i^2) = f(0)
- f(\Lambda^2 ) + \Lambda^2 f' (\Lambda^2 ) $. In the numerical analysis of this paper we work in the strict chiral limit, with $M_0=0$. The parameters are fixed as usual; we adjust the cut-off, $\Lambda$, in order to reproduce the physical pion weak-decay constant, $f_\pi = 93.3 $ MeV. The coupling constant, $G$, is traded for the constituent quark mass, $M$, which remains the only free parameter of the model. In our study of the pion light-cone wave function we use two sets, which cover the range used in other phenomenological applications of the model: $M = 280$ MeV, $\Lambda=871$ MeV (case of Ref. [@DR95]), and $M = 350$ MeV, $\Lambda=770$ MeV. These give the quark condensate equal to $\langle \bar u u + \bar d d \rangle = - ( 290 {\rm MeV} )^3$ and $- ( 271 {\rm MeV} )^3$, respectively. As we shall see, the results are insensitive to the choice of parameters.
Pion light-cone wave function and pion distribution amplitude
=============================================================
The pion light-cone wave function (the axial-vector component) is defined as the low-energy matrix element [^4] $$\begin{aligned}
&&\Psi_{\pi } (x, \vec k_\perp ) = -\frac{{i} \sqrt{2} }{4\pi
f_\pi} \int d \xi^- d^2 \xi_\perp e^{{i} (2x-1) \xi^- p^+ -
\xi_\perp \cdot k_\perp } \nonumber
\times \\ && \langle \pi^+ (p) | \bar u (\xi^- ,
\xi_\perp) \gamma^+ \gamma_5 d(0) | 0 \rangle .
\label{eq:pda_def}\end{aligned}$$ where $p^\pm = m_\pi $ and $\vec p_\perp= 0$. The pion distribution amplitude is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi_{\pi } (x) = \int d^2 k_\perp \Psi_{\pi } (x, \vec
k_\perp) \end{aligned}$$ Formally, in the momentum space, Eq. (\[eq:pda\_def\]) corresponds to integration over the quark momenta in the loop integral used in the evaluation of $f_\pi$, but with $k^+ = p^+ x = m_\pi x $ and $k_\perp$ fixed. Thus, with the PV method and after working out the Dirac traces, we have to compute $$\begin{aligned}
&& \Psi_{\pi } (x, \vec k_\perp ) = -\frac{ 2 i N_c M g_{\pi qq} }{
f_\pi} \int \frac{dk^+ dk^- }{(2\pi)^4 } \times \nonumber
\\ && \frac{\delta \left(
k^+ - x p^+ \right)}{m_\pi x(1-x) }
\sum_j c_j \times \\&& \frac1{k^- - m_\pi + \frac{ \vec k_\perp^2 + M^2 + \Lambda_j^2 +
i 0^+ }{m_\pi (1-x) } } \, \frac1{k^- - \frac{ \vec k_\perp^2 + M^2 +
\Lambda_j^2 + i 0^+}{m_\pi x } }\nonumber,\end{aligned}$$ where the location of the poles in the $k^-$ variable has been explicitly displayed. Evaluating the $k^-$ integral gives the pion LC wave function in the NJL model with the PV regularization: $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi_{\pi } (x, k_\perp)&=& \frac{4 N_c M g_{\pi qq} }{16\pi^3 f_\pi}
\sum_j c_j \times \nonumber \\
&&\frac1{k_\perp^2 + \Lambda_j^2 + M^2-x(1-x)m_\pi^2 } .\end{aligned}$$ The function is properly normalized, $$\int d^2 k_\perp dx \Psi_{\pi }
(x, k_\perp)=1,$$ and satisfies the crossing relation $$\Psi_{\pi}
(x , \vec k_\perp ) = \Psi_{\pi} (1-x , \vec k_\perp ).$$ For $m_\pi \neq 0 $ it is non-factorizable in the $k_\perp$ and $x$ variables. Integrating with respect to $k_\perp$ yields the pion distribution amplitude, $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi_{\pi} (x)&=& 4 N_c M F ( m_\pi^2 , x ) \frac{g_{\pi
qq}}{f_\pi}.\end{aligned}$$ The crossing property, $\varphi_\pi(x)=\varphi_\pi(1-x)$ follows trivially, and Eq. (\[fpi\]) gives the correct normalization, namely $\int dx \, \varphi_{\pi} (x)=1$.
As a consequence of the PV condition with two subtractions one has, for large $k_\perp$, $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi_{\pi} (x, k_\perp)& \to & \frac{4 N_c M^2}{16\pi^3
f_\pi^2} \frac{ \sum_i c_i \Lambda_i^4 }{k_\perp^6},\end{aligned}$$ which gives a finite normalization and a finite second transverse moment, $$\begin{aligned}
\langle k_\perp^2 \rangle &=& \int d^2 k_\perp \int_0^1 dx \, \Psi_{\pi}
(x, k_\perp) k_\perp^2\end{aligned}$$ In the chiral limit, $m_\pi = 0$, one can use the Goldberger-Treiman relation for the constituent quarks, $ g_{\pi qq} f_\pi = M$. Then $f_\pi^2 = 4N_c M^2 F(0)$, which gives the very simple formulas $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi_{\pi} (x, k_\perp)&=& \frac{4 N_c M^2}{16\pi^3 f_\pi^2} \sum_i
c_i \frac1{k_\perp^2 + \Lambda_i^2 + M^2 } ,
\label{eq:lc0}
\\ \varphi_\pi (x) &=& 1 ,\label{eq:pd0} \\ \langle \vec k_\perp^2
\rangle &=& -\frac{M \langle \bar u u \rangle }{f_\pi^2}.
\label{eq:kp0} \end{aligned}$$ In the chiral limit $\Psi_\pi ( x, \vec k_\perp ) $ becomes trivially factorizable, since it is independent of $x$. A remarkable feature is that the last two relations, Eq. (\[eq:pd0\]) and Eq. (\[eq:kp0\]), are independent of the PV regulators. A similar situation has also been encountered when computing PDF in the chiral limit [@DR95]; it was a constant equal to one, regardless on the details of the PV regulator. We will show below that by putting together Eq. (\[eq:pd0\]) and the results of Ref. [@DR95] an interesting relation follows.
Higher transverse moments diverge if one restricts the number of Pauli-Villars subtractions to two, but Eq. (\[eq:pd0\]) and Eq. (\[eq:kp0\]) remain still valid if more subtractions are considered.
In Fig. (\[fig:lcwf\]) we show the $k_\perp$-dependence of the light-cone pion wave function in the chiral limit (finite pion mass corrections turn out to be tiny, at the level of a few %) for the PV regularization with two subtractions, and with $M=380 {\rm MeV}$ and 350 MeV. For these values we get the transverse moment $ \langle \vec k_\perp^2 \rangle = (625 {\rm
MeV})^2 $, and $(634 {\rm
MeV})^2 $, respectively. This value is about a factor of two larger than the one found in Ref. [@PR01], namely $(430{\rm MeV})^2$, and a factor of four higher than the findings of Ref. [@Zh94], $(316 {\rm
MeV})^2$, at the scale at which $\alpha / \pi \sim 0.1 $, [*i.e.*]{} $Q \sim 1-2 {\rm GeV}$. As we shall see below, a part of the discrepancy can be attributed to the QCD radiative corrections.
![The pion light-cone wave function in the chiral limit, evaluated in the Nambu–Jona-Lasinio with the Pauli-Villars regularization with two subtractions and with the constituent quark mass $M= 280 {\rm MeV}$ (solid line) and 350 MeV (dashed line), plotted as a function of the transverse momentum $k_\perp$. The wave funcion does not depend on $x$. The normalization is such that $ \int d^2 \vec k_\perp \Psi_\pi ( x ,
k_\perp )= \varphi_\pi (x) = 1 $. The second transverse moment is $
\langle \vec k_\perp^2 \rangle = -M \langle \bar u u \rangle
/f_\pi^2 = (625 {\rm MeV})^2$ for $M= 280 {\rm MeV}$ and $(634 {\rm MeV})^2$ for $M=350 {\rm MeV}$ . The scale relevant for the calculation, as inferred from the QCD evolution [@DR95], is $Q_0=313$ MeV. []{data-label="fig:lcwf"}](lcwf.eps){width="8.5cm"}
In non-local versions of the chiral quark model, where a momentum-dependent mass function is introduced as a physically motivated regulator, the trend to produce a constant PDA has also been observed if the constant mass limit is considered [@PP97; @PP99; @PR01]. In those models such a limit effectively corresponds to removing the regulator, against the original spirit of the model. Unfortunately, for the genuine non-local case those calculations violate proper normalization of PDA, because the employed currents do not comply with the necessary Ward identities required by chiral symmetry. The problem has been addressed in Ref. [@ADT01], where it has been found that about a third of the normalized PDA comes from the non-local currents. For a Gaussian mass function there is a clear flattening of $\varphi_\pi (x)$ in the central region of $0.2 \le x \le 0.8 $ [@Do02].
We stress that our result, Eq. (\[eq:pd0\]), holds true without removing the Pauli-Villars regulator and is in harmony with chiral symmetry, since the starting point was the normal parity action, which by construction preserves chiral symmetry. Obviously, the fact that our final answer does not depend on the form of the PV regulators used makes any subsequent manipulation with the regulators fully irrelevant.
Another point is that PDA from Eq. (\[eq:pd0\]) and PDF from Eq. (\[PDF1\]) yield the relation $\varphi_\pi (x)= V_\pi (x)/2 $ valid at a low scale $Q_0$. It is noteworthy that in the framework of QCD sum rules the same identity between PDA and PDF has also been obtained [@BJ97] at some scale, although there the asymptotic form for PDA was assumed without the QCD evolution, while PDF was obtained by QCD evolution. We will show below that if evolution is undertaken for both PDA and PDF at the same low energy scale, an overall consistent picture arises.
QCD evolution
=============
The comparison of the leading-twist PDA to high-energy experimental data requires, like for PDF, the inclusion of radiative logarithmic corrections through the QCD evolution [@BL79; @Mu95]. For the pion distribution amplitude this is done in terms of the Gegenbauer polynomials, by interpreting our low-energy model result as the initial condition. For clarity we work in the chiral limit, hence $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi_{\pi} (x,Q_0) = 1.
\label{start}\end{aligned}$$ Then, the LO-evolved distribution amplitude reads [@BL79; @Mu95] $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi_{\pi} (x,Q) &=& 6x(1-x){\sum_{n=0}^\infty}' C_n^{3/2} ( 2 x -1)
a_n (Q),
\label{eq:evolpda} \end{aligned}$$ where the prime indicates summation over even values of $n$ only. The matrix elements, $a_n(Q)$, are the Gegenbauer moments given by $$\begin{aligned}
a_n (Q)&=& \frac23 \frac{2n+3}{(n+1)(n+2)} \left(
\frac{\alpha(Q_{})}{\alpha(Q_0) } \right)^{\gamma_n^{(0)} / (2
\beta_0)} \times \nonumber \\ &&\int_0^1 dx C_n^{3/2} ( 2x -1)
\varphi_{\pi} (x ,Q_0),
\label{Geg}\end{aligned}$$ with $C_n^{3/2}$ denoting the Gegenbauer polynomials, and $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma_n^{(0)} &=& -2 C_F \left[ 3 + \frac{2}{(n+1)(n+2)}- 4
\sum_{k=1}^{n+1} \frac1k \right], \nonumber \\
\beta_0 &=& \frac{11}3 C_A -
\frac23 N_F,\end{aligned}$$ with $C_A = 3$, $C_F = 4/3$, and $N_F$ being the number of active flavors, which we take equal to three [^5]. With our constant amplitude (\[start\]) we get immediately $$\begin{aligned}
\int_0^1 dx C_n^{3/2} ( 2x -1) \varphi_{\pi} (x ,Q_0) =1.
\label{ourGeg}\end{aligned}$$ Thus, for a given value of $Q$ we may predict PDA. We need, however, to know what the initial scale $Q_0$ is, or, equivalently, to know the evolution ratio $r=\alpha(Q) / \alpha(Q_0 )$. The fitting procedure of Ref. [@SY00] yields $a_2 (2.4 {\rm GeV}) = 0.12 \pm 0.03$ (with the assumption $a_k=0$, $k > 2$). We treat this as experimental input, and then with help of Eqs. (\[Geg\],\[ourGeg\]) we get for the evolution ratio $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha(Q=2.4 {\rm GeV}) / \alpha(Q_0) = 0.15 \pm 0.06 .
\label{ourQ}\end{aligned}$$ which at LO implies $ Q_0 = 322 \pm 45 {\rm MeV}$, a value compatible within errors with (\[Q0\]).
The fit of Ref. [@SY00] with non-zero $a_4$ yields $a_2=0.19 \pm 0.04 \pm 0.09$ and $a_4=-0.14 \pm 0.03 \mp 0.09$. The central value of $a_2$ would imply, according to our prescription, the evolution ratio of $0.31$, and, correspondingly, $Q_0=0.47^{+0.51}_{-0.19}$ GeV, a much larger central value than (\[Q0\]), but with very large errors. For that reason, in the numerical studies below we use the value (\[ourQ\]) for the evolution ratio.
We can now predict the following lowest-order coefficients: $$\begin{aligned}
&& a_4 (2.4 {\rm GeV}) = 0.044 \pm 0.016 \nonumber \\
% && \left( {\rm Ref. [5]: ~~~}
% a_4=-0.14 \pm 0.03 \mp 0.09 \right) \nonumber \\
&& a_6 (2.4 {\rm GeV}) = 0.023 \pm 0.010 \nonumber \\
&& a_8 (2.4 {\rm GeV}) = 0.014 \pm 0.006 \\
&& a_{10} (2.4 {\rm GeV}) = 0.009 \pm 0.005 \nonumber
%\\ \dots \nonumber \end{aligned}$$
![The pion distribution amplitude in the chiral limit evolved to the scale $Q^2 = (2.4 {\rm GeV})^2 $. The two values for the evolution ratio $r=\alpha(Q) / \alpha(Q_0)$ reflect the uncertainties in the values of Ref. [@SY00] based on an analysis of the CLEO data. We also show the unvolved PDA, $\varphi_\pi(x,Q_0)=1$, and the asymptotic PDA, $\varphi_\pi (x,\infty)=6x(1-x)$.[]{data-label="fig:pda"}](pda.ps){width="8.5cm"}
For the sum of the Gegenbauer coefficients we get the estimate $$\begin{aligned}
{\sum_{n=2}^\infty}' a_n (Q=2.4{\rm GeV}) &=& \int_0^1 dx \frac{\varphi_\pi
(x,Q=2.4 {\rm GeV})}{6x(1-x)}-1 \nonumber \\ &=& 0.25 \pm 0.10
\label{eq:sumgeg} \end{aligned}$$ where the uncertainties correspond to the uncertainties in Eq. (\[ourQ\]).
The leading-twist contribution to the pion transition form factor is, at the LO in the QCD evolution [@BL80], equal to $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{Q^2 F_{\gamma^* \to \pi \gamma} (Q) }{2 f_\pi} \Big|_{\rm twist-2} =
\int_0^1 dx \frac{\varphi_\pi (x,Q )}{6x(1-x)}\end{aligned}$$ The experimental value obtained in CLEO [@CLEO98] for the full form factor is $ Q^2 F_{\gamma^* , \pi \gamma} (Q) / (2 f_\pi) = 0.83 \pm
0.12 $ at $Q^2 = {\rm (2.4 GeV)}^2 $. Our value for the integral, $1.25
\pm 0.10 $, overestimates the experimental result, although at the $2 \sigma$-confidence level both numbers are compatible. Taking into account the fact that we have not included neither NLO effects nor an estimate of higher-twist contributions, the result is quite encouraging.
In Fig. \[fig:pda\] we show our PDA evolved to $Q
= 2.4 {\rm GeV} $, for two values of the evolution ratio, which reflect the uncertainties from Eq. (\[ourQ\]). We also show the initial and the asymptotic PDA’s. It is interesting to note that after evolution our results closely resemble those found in transverse lattice approaches [@Da01; @BS01; @BD02]. In particular, we get for the second $\xi$-moment ($\xi = 2x-1$), $$\begin{aligned}
\langle \xi^2 \rangle &=& \int_0^1 dx \, \varphi_\pi (x, Q=2.4 {\rm GeV} ) (2x-1)^2
\nonumber \\ &=&
0.040 \pm 0.005,\end{aligned}$$ to be compared with $ \langle \xi^2 \rangle = 0.06 \pm 0.02 $ obtained in the standard lattice QCD for $Q= 1/a = 2.6 \pm 0.1 {\rm
GeV}$ [@DP00]. From the PDF calculation at LO of Ref. [@DR95] we estimate that if the momentum fraction carried by the valence quarks at $ Q = 2 {\rm GeV} $ is $0.47 \pm 0.02 \% $, then $Q_0$ is such that $\alpha (Q_0)=2.14 $, and the evolution ratio at $Q=2 {\rm
GeV} $ is $r=0.15 $. Then, for $Q=2.4 {\rm GeV}$ we get $r=0.14$ from the analysis of PDF, a value compatible, within uncertainties, with the present calculation, Eq. (\[ourQ\]). This is a crucial finding, showing the consistency of the results obtained in our approach.
One might worry that the starting condition (\[start\]) does not satisfy the end-point vanishing behavior and therefore cannot be expanded in terms of the Gegenbauer polynomials. This is true, provided one insists on uniform pointwise convergence. However, the Gegenbauer polynomials form a complete set in the space of square-summable functions, hence convergence may be understood in a weak sense [^6]. The slow convergence is reflected by the fact that in Fig. \[fig:pda\] at least 30-100 Gegenbauer polynomials are needed for evolution ratios $r=0.9-0.21$ respectively. The convergence at the mid-point, $x=1/2$, is improved, since the series for $\varphi(x,Q)$ is sign-alternating. At the end-points, $ x= 0,1$, the series diverges, since $ C_{2k}^{3/2}(\pm 1) = \frac{1}{2} (2k+1)(2k+2)$, which means that the convergence in Eq. (\[eq:evolpda\]) is not uniform. In order to analyze the behavior close to the end-points in a greater detail we consider the large-$n$ contribution to Eq. (\[eq:evolpda\]). We have $$\begin{aligned}
\left( \frac{\alpha(Q) }{\alpha(Q_0)} \right)^{\gamma_n^{(0)}/(2
\beta_0)} \to n^{- \frac{4 C_F}{ \beta_0} \ln
\frac{\alpha(Q_{})}{\alpha (Q_0)}},\end{aligned}$$ hence, for $Q \to Q_0 $, $ Q > Q_0 $, and with $x \to 0$ (recall that the function is symmetric under $x \to 1-x $), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi_{\pi} (x \to 0,Q ) & \to & 8 x \zeta \left( \frac{4 C_F}{2 \beta_0}
\ln \frac{\alpha(Q_{})}{\alpha (Q_0)} + 1 \right),\end{aligned}$$ where $\zeta(z) = \sum_{n=1}^\infty n^{-z}$ is the Riemann $\zeta$ function, and $\zeta(1) = \sum_{n=1}^\infty n^{-1} = \infty$. Thus the slope of the evolved PDA at the end-points becomes steeper and steeper as $Q \to Q_0 $.
The QCD evolution also influences the value of the transverse moment. According to the work of Ref. [@Zh94], $\langle \vec
k_\perp^2\rangle $ can be expressed as $\langle \vec
k_\perp^2\rangle = 5 m_0^2 / 36 $, where $m_0^2 = \langle \bar q
\sigma^{\mu \nu} F_{\mu \nu} q \rangle / \langle \bar q q \rangle $ is the ratio between the quark-gluon and quark condensates. The quantity $m_0^2$ is scale dependent and has been estimated to be $ m_0^2 (1 {\rm GeV}) = 0.8 \pm 0.2 {\rm
GeV}^2 $ [@BI82]. Using the corresponding anomalous dimensions, $4$ for $ \langle \bar q q \rangle$ and $-2/3$ for $\langle \bar q
\sigma^{\mu \nu} F_{\mu \nu} q \rangle $ [@VZS76], yields $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\langle k_\perp^2 \rangle_{Q_{}} }{\langle k_\perp^2 \rangle_{Q_0} }
&=& \left( \frac{\alpha(Q_{})}{\alpha(Q_0)} \right)^{(4+2/3)/\beta_0}
\nonumber \\ &=& \left( \frac{\alpha(Q_{})}{\alpha(Q_0)} \right)^{14/(33-2N_f)}.
\label{ratk}\end{aligned}$$ For $N_F=3$ this scale dependence can be seen in Fig. (\[fig:evol\]). For the values $Q=1-2 \, {\rm GeV} $ one gets a reduction factor of $
0.37-0.45 $ for the ratio (\[ratk\]), and $ \langle k_\perp^2 \rangle_{Q} = (430
{\rm MeV})^2 - (380 {\rm MeV})^2 $ for the second transverse moment, somewhat higher than the QCD sum rules estimate based on Ref. [@Zh94], $(316 {\rm MeV})^2$, or on Ref. [@BI82], $(333 \pm 40 {\rm MeV})^2$.
![Dependence of the second transverse moment of the pion light-cone wave function, $ \langle k_\perp^2 \rangle_{Q_{}} / \langle k_\perp^2 \rangle_{Q_0} $ (solid line), the second Gegenbauer moment $ a_2 (Q)/a_2(Q_0) $ of the pion distribution amplitude (dashed line), and the evolution ratio $r=\alpha(Q)/\alpha(Q_0)$ (dotted line), plotted as functions of the scale $Q$. The leading-order QCD evolution is applied. All quantities are relative to their values at the low energy scale, $Q_0 = 313 \,{\rm MeV}$, at which the momentum fraction carried the quarks equals unity [@DR95], according to the prescription that in a quark model $Q_0$ is defined by the condition $ {\langle x V_\pi (x,Q_0) \rangle }= 1 $. In our model $\alpha(Q_0)=2.14$, $a_2(Q_0) = 7/18$, and $ \langle k_\perp^2 \rangle_{Q_0} = (625 {\rm MeV})^2$ for $M= 280 {\rm MeV}$ and $(634 {\rm MeV})^2$ for $M=350 {\rm MeV}$ and in the chiral limit.[]{data-label="fig:evol"}](evol.eps){width="8.5cm"}
The relation to deep inelastic scattering
=========================================
As we have already stated in Eq. (\[PDF1\]), the valence PDF for the pion in the chiral limit has also been found to be a constant equal to one [@DR95]. At LO the non-singlet evolution of the PDF moments is quite similar to that of the Gegenbauer moments of PDA, Eq. (\[eq:evolpda\]), namely $$\begin{aligned}
&& \int_0^1 dx \, x^n V_\pi (x,Q) =
\\ && \left( \frac{\alpha(Q_{})}{\alpha(Q_0)} \right)^{\gamma_n^{(0)}
/ (2 \beta_0)} \int_0^1 dx \, x^n V_\pi (x,Q_0)= \nonumber \\
&& \frac2{n+1} \left( \frac{\alpha(Q_{})}{\alpha(Q_0)}
\right)^{\gamma_n^{(0)} / (2 \beta_0)}. \nonumber
\label{eq:evolpdf} \end{aligned}$$ Thus, for $n=2$, one obtains $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{a_2(Q)}{a_2 (Q_0)} = \frac{\langle x^2 V_\pi (x,Q)
\rangle}{\langle x^2 V_\pi (x,Q_0)
\rangle} = \left( \frac{\alpha(Q_{})}{\alpha(Q_0)}
\right)^{\gamma_2^{(0)} / (2 \beta_0)}.\end{aligned}$$ For $N_F=3$ this scale dependence for the ratios can be looked up in Fig. (\[fig:evol\]). Using $ {\langle x^2 V_\pi (x,Q_0) \rangle }= 2/3 $ and $a_2(Q_0)=7/18 $ yields $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{ a_2 (Q) }{\langle x^2 V_\pi (x,Q) \rangle} &=& \frac{7}{12},\end{aligned}$$ hence $a_2 ( 2 {\rm GeV}) = 0.12 \pm 0.01 $ for $\langle x^2 V_\pi
\rangle = 0.20 \pm 0.01 $ [@SM92] and $a_2 ( 2 {\rm GeV} ) = 0.10
\pm 0.01 $ for $\langle x^2 V_\pi \rangle = 0.17 \pm 0.01
$ [@GRV99].
One can combine Eqs. (\[PDF1\],\[eq:pd0\],\[eq:evolpda\],\[eq:evolpdf\]) to obtain the following very interesting LO relation that holds in the considered model: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\varphi_\pi (x,Q)}{6x(1-x)}-1 = \int_0^1 dy K(x,y) V_\pi ( y, Q ) ,
\label{eq:evol}\end{aligned}$$ where the kernel $K$ is independent of $Q^2$, and is given by $$\begin{aligned}
K(x,y) = {\sum_{n=2}^\infty}' \frac{(2n+3)}{3(n+2)} C_n^{3/2}
(2x-1) y^{n}.\end{aligned}$$ In general, the relation (\[eq:evol\]) holds in any model where PDA and PDF are simultaneously equal to unity at some scale $Q_0$, and are subsequently evolved at LO. Physically, Eq. (\[eq:evol\]) simply tells us that the departure of PDA at a given $Q^2$ from the asymptotic form is proportional to a weighted integral of PDF at the same $Q$. Clearly, $\varphi_\pi(x,Q) \to 6 x (1-x) $ if $ V_\pi (x,Q
) \to 2 \delta (x) $ or, equivalently, $ x V_\pi (x,Q) \to 0$, since $K(x,0)=0$. Roughly speaking, in the present model the pion distribution function is as close to the asymptotic value as the non-singlet parton distribution. A remarkable feature of relation (\[eq:evol\]) is that it binds matrix elements related to exclusive (PDA) and to inclusive (PDF) processes.
In order to evaluate the kernel we use the symmetrized generating function of the Gegenbauer polynomials, $$\begin{aligned}
G(x,y) &=& {\sum_{n=2}^\infty}' C_n^{3/2} (2x-1) y^n = \frac12
\left\{ R_+^{-3/2} + R_-^{-3/2} \right\} -1 \nonumber \\ R_\pm &=& 1 \mp
2(2x-1)y + y^2, \end{aligned}$$ whence one can obtain $$\begin{aligned}
K(x,y) = \frac2{3} G(x,y) - \frac1{3y^2} \int_0^y d y' y' G(x,y').\end{aligned}$$ The integrals can be worked out to yield the final result $$\begin{aligned}
&& K(x,y) = \frac{1}{24 R_+^{3/2} y^2 (x-1)x}\times \nonumber \\&&
[8\left( x-1 \right) x y^2 +
R_+\left( \left( 2x-1 \right) y-1
\right) \nonumber \\ && + 2{\sqrt{R_+}}
\left( x-1 \right) x y^2
\left( 1 + \left( 2 - 4x \right) y +
y^2 \right) \nonumber \\ && + R_+^{\frac{3}{2}}
\left( 1 - 8 \left( x-1 \right) x
y^2 \right)] - \quad \left( y \leftrightarrow - y \right)\end{aligned}$$ To test the success of Eq. (\[eq:evol\]) we need some input for $V_\pi(x,Q ) $. However, taking into account the fact that the agreement of the evolved valence PDF, $V_\pi(x,Q ) $ with the parameterization of Ref. [@SM92] at $Q^2 = 4 {\rm GeV}^2 $ is almost perfect [@DR95; @DR02], and that the results are almost insensitive to the evolution ratio, $ \alpha(Q )/ \alpha(Q_0 ) $, Fig. \[fig:pda\] can be regarded as a direct prediction of Eq. (\[eq:evol\]) taking Ref. [@SM92] as input for $ V_\pi
(x,Q)$. A further consequence of Eq. (\[eq:evol\]) may be obtained by integrating with respect to $x$ and performing the sum over $n$. Through the use of Eq. (\[eq:sumgeg\]) we get $$\begin{aligned}
{\sum_{n=2}^\infty}' a_n (Q) = \int_0^1 dy \kappa(y) V_\pi (y,Q) \, \end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\kappa(y)&=& \int_0^1 dx K(x,y) = {\sum_{n=2}^\infty}' \frac{(2n+3)}{3(n+2)} y^{n} \\
&=& \frac{3y^2+1}{6(1-y^2)} +\frac{\log (1 - y) + \log (1 + y) }{6y^2} \nonumber . \end{aligned}$$ Notice that, for $Q \to \infty $ we get $ V_\pi (x,Q) \to 2 \delta (x)
$ and since $\kappa (y) = 7y^2 /12 + {\cal O} (y^4) $ one gets ${\sum_{n=2}^\infty }' a_n (Q) \to 0$, as expected. Finally, using the parameterization of Ref. [@SM92] we get [^7] $${\sum_{n=2}^{\infty}}' a_n (2 {\rm GeV}) = 0.25 \pm 0.03 ,$$ a value perfectly compatible with Eq. (\[eq:sumgeg\]) although with smaller uncertainties [^8]. Again, this verifies the consistency of our approach.
Conclusions
===========
We summarize our points. We have computed the light-cone pion wave function and the pion distribution amplitude in the Nambu–Jona-Lasinio model. To this end, and to comply with previous results regarding the parton distribution functions, we have used the Pauli-Villars regularization method in such a way that chiral symmetry, gauge invariance, and relativistic invariance are preserved. As a result, we find that in the chiral limit the pion distribution amplitude, computed as a low energy matrix element of an appropriate operator, is a constant equal to one, $ \varphi_\pi(x)=1$, and the second transverse moment of the pion light-cone wave function is $\langle \vec k_\perp^2 \rangle = -M \langle \bar u u \rangle
/f_\pi^2 $, with $M$ denoting the constituent quark mass. Both results are independent of the particular form of the Pauli-Villars regulators used. After the QCD evolution of the pion distribution amplitude to the experimentally accessible region we find a result still rather far away from the asymptotic form, $\varphi_\pi (x) = 6 x
(1-x) $, but in a good agreement with the analysis of the experimental data from the CLEO collaboration. We can determine the working momentum scale for the model to be $Q_0=313$ MeV, a rather low value. Moreover, the scale $Q_0$ obtained in this work is compatible, within experimental uncertainties, to the value obtained from the previous analysis of the parton distribution functions, carried out within exactly the same model. At the scale $Q_0$ the quarks carry all the momentum of the pion. Our value obtained for the second transverse moment of the pion light-cone wave function, $\langle \vec k_\perp^2
\rangle $, becomes, after the QCD evolution, not far from the estimates based on the QCD sum rules. Finally, we have also derived a model relation which binds the departure of the pion distribution amplitude from its asymptotic value to an integral involving the pion quark distribution function. The relation, specific to the feature of our model that at the scale $Q_0$ both the PDA and PDF are constant and equal to unity, has been successfully checked against the available data.
0.5cm
We thank Michał Praszałowicz for several stimulating discussions. This work has been partially supported by the DGES under contract PB98-1367 and by the Junta de Andaluc[í]{}a (Spain). Partial support from the Spanish Ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores and the Polish State Committee for Scientific Research, grant number 07/2001-2002, is also gratefully acknowledged.
[99]{}
G. P. Lepage and S. J. Brodsky, Phys. Rev. [**D 22**]{} (1980) 2157.
G. P. Lepage and S. J. Brodsky, Phys. Lett. [**B 87**]{} (1979) 359.
D. Müller, Phys. Rev. [**D 51**]{} (1995) 3855.
CELLO Collaboration (H.-J. Behrend et al.), Z. Phys. [**C 49**]{} (1991) 401.
CLEO Collaboration (J. Gronberg et al.), Phys. Rev. [**D 57**]{} (1998) 33.
A. Schmedding and O. Yakovlev, Phys. Rev. [**D 62**]{} (2000) 116002.
V. L. Chernyak and A. R. Zhitnitsky, Phys. Rept. [**112**]{} (1984) 173.
E791 Collaboration (E. M. Aitala et al.), Phys. Rev. Lett. [**86**]{} (2001), 4768.
S. V. Mikhailov and A. V. Radyushkin, JETP Lett. [**43**]{} (1986) 712; Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. [**49**]{} (1989) 494; Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. [**52**]{} (1990) 697; Phys. Rev. [**D 45**]{} (1992) 1754.
A. V. Radyushkin and R. T. Ruskov, Nucl. Phys. [**B 482**]{} (1996) 625.
V. M. Belyaev and M. B. Johnson, Phys. Rev. [**D 56**]{} (1997) 1481.
A. P. Bakulev and S. V. Mikhailov, Phys. Lett. [**B 436**]{} (1998) 351.
A. P. Bakulev, S.V. Mikhailov, and N. G. Stefanis, Phys. Lett. [**B 508**]{} (2001) 279.
A. P. Bakulev, S. V. Mikhailov, and N. G. Stefanis, talk presented at 36th Rencontres de Moriond on QCD and Hadronic Interactions, Les Arcs, France, 17-24 Mar 2001, e-Print Archive: hep-ph/0104290
L. Del Debbio, M. Di Pierro, A. Dougal and C. Sachrajda, Nucl. Phys. [**B**]{} (Proc. Suppl.) [**83-84** ]{} (2000) 235.
S. Dalley, Phys. Rev. [**D 64**]{} (2001) 036006.
M. Burkardt and S. K. Seal, Phys. Rev. [**D 65**]{} (2002) 034501.
M. Burkardt and S. Dalley, hep-ph/0112007.
S. V. Esaibegyan and S. N. Tamaran, Yad. Fiz. 51 (1990) 485 \[Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 51, 310\]
V. Yu. Petrov and P. V. Pobylitsa, hep-ph/9712203.
V. Yu. Petrov, M. V. Polyakov, R. Ruskov, C. Weiss, and K. Goeke, Phys. Rev. [**D 59**]{} (1999) 114018.
I. V. Anikin, A. E. Dorokhov, and L. Tomio, Phys. Lett. [**B 475**]{} (2000) 361.
T. Heinzl, Nucl. Phys. [**B**]{} (Proc. Suppl.) 90 (2000) 83.
T. Heinzl, Lect. Notes Phys. [**572**]{} (2001) 55, hep-th/0008096.
M. Praszałowicz and A. Rostworowski, Phys. Rev. [**D 64**]{} (2001) 074003.
I. V. Anikin, A. E. Dorokhov, and L. Tomio, Phys. Atom. Nucl. [**64**]{} (2001) 1329.
I. V. Anikin, A. E. Dorokhov, and L. Tomio, Phys. of Part. and Nuclei [**31**]{} (2000) 509 \[Fiz. Elem. Chastits i Atom. Yad. [**31**]{} (2000) 1023\].
A. E. Dorokhov, M. K. Volkov, and V. L. Yudichev, hep-ph/0203136.
A. E. Dorokhov, talk presented at the 37th Rencontres de Moriond on QCD and Hadronic Interactions, Les Arcs, France, 16-23 March 2002, hep-ph/0206088.
R. L. Jaffe and G. G. Ross, Phys. Lett. [**B 93**]{} (1980) 313.
W. Pauli and F. Villars, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**21**]{} (1949) 434.
E. Ruiz Arriola, Phys. Lett. [**B 253**]{} (1991) 430.
C. Schüren, E. Ruiz Arriola, and K. Goeke, Nucl. Phys. [**A 547**]{} (1992) 612.
R. M. Davidson and E. Ruiz Arriola, Phys. Lett. [**B 348**]{} (1995) 163.
H. Weigel, E. Ruiz Arriola, and L. P. Gamberg, Nucl. Phys. [**B 560**]{} (1999) 383.
R. M. Davidson and E. Ruiz Arriola, Act. Phys. Pol. [**B 33**]{} (2002) 1791.
Review of Particle Properties, K. Hagiwara et al., Phys. Rev. [**D 66**]{} (2002) 010001.
W. Bentz, T. Hama, T. Matsuki, and K. Yazaki, Nucl. Phys. [**A 651**]{} (1999) 143.
A. Blin, B. Hiller, and M. Schaden, Zeit. Phys. [**A 331**]{} (1988) 75.
E. Ruiz Arriola and L. L. Salcedo, Nucl. Phys. [**A 590**]{} (1995) 703.
A. R. Zhitnitsky, Phys. Lett. [**B 329**]{} (1994) 493.
V. M. Belyaev and B. L. Ioffe, Sov. Phys. JETP [**56**]{} (1982) 493. For a recent review see, [*e.g.*]{}, P. Colangelo and A. Khodjamirian, in [*Handbook of QCD*]{}, ed. by M. Shifman (World Scientific, Singapore, 2001) vol. [**3**]{} p. 1495.
A. Vainshtein, V. Zakharov, and M. Shifman, JETP Lett. [**23**]{} (1976) 602.
M. Gluck, E. Reya, and I. Schienbein, Eur. Phys. Jour. [**C 10**]{} (1999) 313. This reference does not provide errors, so we assume similar errors as in Ref. [@SM92].
[^1]: A recent direct measurement of PDA via the di-jet production by the E791 collaboration [@E791] shows that at scales $Q \simeq 5-6$ GeV, the possible admixture of the Chernyak-Zhitnitsky wave function is rather small
[^2]: In this paper we use the LO QCD evolution, where $ \alpha(Q)= ( 4 \pi / \beta_0 ) / \log (Q^2 / \Lambda_{\rm QCD}^2
) $ with $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}=226~{\rm MeV} $ for $N_F=3$.
[^3]: Admittedly, one may worry that such a low scale as in Eq. (\[Q0\]) may invalidate the use of perturbation theory. We hope that the correspoding value of $\alpha /(2 \pi )\sim 0.3$, which typically is the expansion parameter, is low enough for the approach to make sense.
[^4]: The light-cone coordinates are defined as $ k^\pm = k^0 \pm k^3 $ and $d^4 k = \frac12 dk^+ dk^-
d^2 \vec k_\perp $
[^5]: The one-loop anomalous dimension $\gamma_n^{(0)} > 0 $, and $\gamma_n^{(0)} \to 8
C_F \log n $ for large $n$, which coincides with the case of the non-singlet parton distribution functions used in Refs. [@DR95; @DR02].
[^6]: The condition for $\varphi_\pi(x)$ to belong to such a space is $ \int_0^1 dx
\frac{\varphi_{\pi}(x)}{x(1-x)} < \infty$. The function $\varphi_\pi(x) =1 $ does not belong to this space, but it belongs to its closure. This resembles the well-known fact that plane waves do not belong to the space of square-summable functions in the interval $-\infty < x < \infty $, but nevertheless may be approximated by square summable-functions.
[^7]: This is $ x
V_\pi (x,Q) = A_V x^\alpha (1-x)^\beta $ with $A_V$ such that $
\langle V_\pi \rangle = 2 $ and $\alpha = 0.64 \pm 0.03 $ and $
\beta=1.08 \pm 0.02 $ (the NA10 set) and $ \beta = 1.15 \pm 0.02 $ (the E615 set). Our estimate of error includes both sets.
[^8]: Of course, this estimate does not include systematic uncertainties in NLO both for PDA and PDF.
|
---
abstract: 'Correspondence selection aiming at seeking correct feature correspondences from raw feature matches is pivotal for a number of feature-matching-based tasks. Various 2D (image) correspondence selection algorithms have been presented with decades of progress. Unfortunately, the lack of an in-depth evaluation makes it difficult for developers to choose a proper algorithm given a specific application. This paper fills this gap by evaluating eight 2D correspondence selection algorithms ranging from classical methods to the most recent ones on four standard datasets. The diversity of experimental datasets brings various nuisances including zoom, rotation, blur, viewpoint change, JPEG compression, light change, different rendering styles and multi-structures for comprehensive test. To further create different distributions of initial matches, a set of combinations of detector and descriptor is also taken into consideration. We measure the quality of a correspondence selection algorithm from four perspectives, i.e., precision, recall, F-measure and efficiency. According to evaluation results, the current advantages and limitations of all considered algorithms are aggregately summarized which could be treated as a “user guide” for the following developers.'
author:
- 'Chen Zhao, Jiaqi Yang, Yang Xiao, and Zhiguo Cao [^1]'
bibliography:
- 'mybibfile.bib'
title: Comparative evaluation of 2D feature correspondence selection algorithms
---
[Shell : Bare Demo of IEEEtran.cls for IEEE Journals]{}
2D feature correspondence, feature matching, correspondence selection, inliers
Introduction {#sec:intr}
============
Feature correspondence selection is a fundamental and critical task in computer vision and robotics. It is the basis for a wide range of applications, such as structure-from-motion [@snavely2008modeling], simultaneous localization and mapping [@benhimane2004real], tracking [@hare2012efficient], image stitching [@brown2007automatic], and object recognition [@lowe1999object], to name just a few.
The main purpose of correspondence selection is retrieving as many as correct correspondences (also known as *inliers*) from the initial feature matches. Usually, this task is under the background of feature matching. The general process of feature matching starts by detecting representative points, namely keypoints, for two images to be matched. Then, local descriptors such as SIFT [@lowe2004distinctive] and ORB [@rublee2011orb] are employed to perform feature description for those keypoints. To build the connection between two images, keypoints with similar feature descriptors are matched, generating a set of raw feature matches. However, the initial feature matches often suffer from severe wrong matches (as shown in Fig. \[fig:inspr\](a)) due to the limited distinctiveness of feature descriptors or/and external interferences such as noise and occlusion. This problem makes correspondence selection a necessity for accurate feature matching. Fig. \[fig:inspr\](b) shows that those matches after correspondence selection are far more consistent than the initial feature matches. This consensus allows massive high-level vision tasks. For instance, homography, affine and essential matrices can be estimated from those consistent correspondences, thus allowing us to compute the transformation between two images and warp them into a unified coordinate system [@brown2007automatic]. Other applications also involve camera parameter estimation [@snavely2008modeling] and object tracking [@hare2012efficient]. Nonetheless, the correspondence selection problem is difficult in real applications due to several factors, e.g., zoom, rotation, blur, viewpoint change, JPEG compression, light change, different rendering styles, multi-structures, and etc. Different scenarios will also lead to different distributions of feature matches which are linearly non-separable.
To address these problems, many approaches that have been presented during the past two decades can be divided into two categories [@Ma2014Robust]: parametric and non-parametric methods. (i) For parametric methods, they seek consistent correspondences grounded on parametric geometric models. Typical methods include the random sample consensus (RANSAC) [@fischler1981random], the progressive sample consensus (PROSAC) [@Chum2005Matching], the universal framework for random sample consensus (USAC) [@Raguram2013USAC], and etc. (ii) For non-parametric methods, they are independent from parametric model assumptions. Some of them search correspondence inliers via either feature similarity constraint or geometric constraint, such as the nearest neighbor similarity ratio (NNSR) [@lowe2004distinctive], spectral technique (ST) [@Leordeanu2005A], game-theoretic matching (GTM) [@albarelli2012imposing], graph-based affine invariant matching (GAIM) [@Collins2014An] and locality preserving matching (LPM) [@Ma2017Locality]. There are also constraint-independent non-parametric methods such as identifying point correspondences by correspondence function (ICF) [@Li2010Rejecting], vector field consensus (VFC) [@Ma2014Robust], grid-based motion statistics (GMS) [@bian2017gms] and coherence based decision boundaries (CODE) [@Lin2017CODE]. With the wealth of existing correspondence selection methods, however, it is on the one hand difficult for developers to choose the most proper method given a specific application and on the other hand confusing for researchers to compare these methods under different conditions. This problem is mainly due to the fact that most methods were tested under a specific application scenario and compared with a limited number of baselines.
Some performance evaluations in the field of image feature matching also exist. For instance, Mikolajczyk et al. [@mikolajczyk2005performance] and Heinly et al. [@Heinly2012Comparative] evaluated the performance of several 2D feature descriptors. Aans et al. [@Aan2012Interesting] investigated the performance of 2D feature detectors. Moreels et al. [@moreels2007evaluation] performed an aggregated evaluation of both 2D detectors and descriptors. In addition to feature detectors and descriptors, Raguram et al. [@Raguram2008A] tested the performance of a set of random sample consensus methods including the popular RANSAC and its variants. However, all these evaluations are either not in line with 2D correspondence selection or not comprehensive enough for an in-depth comparison. First, the critical step in correspondence selection is finding correspondence consensus, while feature detection and description aim at building high-quality initial feature correspondences (such quality is difficult to be guaranteed without correspondence selection [@lowe2004distinctive]). Second, the performance of non-parametric approaches and some recent algorithms remains unclear (only parametric methods were tested in [@Raguram2008A]).
In these regards, we present the first comprehensive evaluation, to the best of our knowledge, for 2D correspondence selection from different perspectives in a uniform experimental framework. The considered methods in our evaluation range from classical algorithms to the most recent ones, typically covering both parametric and non-parametric approaches. To be specific, RANSAC [@fischler1981random] and USAC [@Raguram2013USAC] are selected from the parametric family, as RANSAC is arguably the most popular parametric approach and USAC is a well-known modified version of RANSAC. As for non-parametric methods, we choose NNSR [@lowe2004distinctive] as a representative of those methods based on descriptor similarity constraints. ST [@Leordeanu2005A], GTM [@albarelli2012imposing] and LPM [@Ma2017Locality] are selected as they all rely on the geometric consensus. VFC [@Ma2014Robust] and the recent GMS [@bian2017gms] are taken into consideration since they eliminate outliers from the perspective of statistical measures. In order to compare those methods from different perspectives, we choose four standard datasets, i.e., VGG [@Mikolajczyk2005A], Heinly [@Heinly2012Comparative], Symbench [@Snavely2012Image], AdelaideRMF [@Wong2011Dynamic], as experimental platforms under the motivation to test those correspondence selection methods’ overall performance when faced with a variety of nuisances rather than in their favoring circumstances. For instance, geometric constraints may turn to be vulnerable under rigid/non-rigid transformations such as zoom and rotation; feature similarity constraints are suspicious when the image undergoes blur and light changes; parametric models (the homography matrix) can hardly cope with scenes with parallax (all above conclusions have been verified in Sect. \[sec:exper\]). The considered datasets well cover these concerns. To be specific, VGG is a hybrid dataset containing challenges including zoom, rotation, blur, JPEG compression, light and viewpoint change. Heinly contains pure zoom and rotation. Symbench involves scenes with light changes and varying rendering styles. AdelaideRMF possesses viewpoint change and multi-structures, resulting in parallax. The behavior of each method is quantitatively measured using precision, recall and F-measure [@bian2017gms; @lin2014bilateral; @Ma2017Locality]. In addition, the performance under preselected correspondences (with higher inlier ratios) and different detector-descriptor combinations are also accessed to test their flexibility with respect to the inlier ratio and correspondence distribution changes. Finally, the efficiency with respect to different scales of initial feature matches are examined. According to the experimental outcomes, we make an aggregated summary of the current advantages and limitations of our evaluated methods as well as their suitable applications.
In a nutshell, the contributions of this paper are threefold:
- A review and the core computation steps of eight state-of-the-art 2D correspondence selection algorithms are presented.
- We comprehensively evaluate and compare the performance, the robustness to a variety of perturbations and the efficiency of each algorithm on four standard datasets consisting of hundreds of images with zoom, rotation, blur, viewpoint change, JPEG compression, light change, different rendering styles and multi-structures.
- Instructive summarizations including merits, demerits and suitable applications of the tested methods are given that can be served as a “user guide” for the developers.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Sect. \[sec:rela\] gives a review of 2D correspondence selection algorithms and relevant evaluations. Sect. \[sec:method\] presents the core computation steps of eight state-of-the-art approaches. Sect. \[sec:exper\] describes the experimental setup including datasets, criteria and implementation details of the evaluated methods. Qualitative and quantitative experimental results are shown in Sect. \[sec:res\]. Summary and discussion are presented in Sect. \[sec:sum\]. Conclusions are finally drawn in Sect. \[sec:con\].
Related work {#sec:rela}
============
This section briefly reviews the prior works of 2D correspondence selection including both parametric and non-parametric categories. Relevant evaluations in the field of feature matching are also discussed.
Correspondence selection methods
--------------------------------
For parametric methods, the most well-known algorithm is arguably RANSAC presented by Fischler et al. [@fischler1981random]. RANSAC iteratively explores the space of model parameters by randomly sampling and estimates the most reliable model based on the maximum number of inliers. Then, outliers can be removed using the generated model. Several variants of RANSAC such as MLESAC [@Torr2000MLESAC], LO-RANSAC [@Chum2003Locally], PROSAC [@Chum2005Matching] and USAC [@Raguram2013USAC] were proposed in the following decades. MLESAC employs the maximum likelihood estimation rather than the inlier count to check the solutions. LO-RANSAC inserts an optimization process where the generated model is refined by the subset of inliers. A weighted sampling step is adopted instead of random sampling in PROSAC. This method sorts the raw correspondences by matching quality and generates hypotheses from the most promising correspondences. USAC extends the standard hypothesize-and-verify structure in RANSAC and presents a universal framework that integrates advantages of previous parametric methods. In addition, some other approaches relying on local parametric structures have also been developed, such as agglomerative correspondence clustering (ACC) [@cho2009feature], multi-structures robust fitting (Multi-GS) [@chin2010accelerated], Hough voting and inverted Hough voting (HVIV) [@Chen2013Robust]. ACC uses Hessian-affine detector [@Mikolajczyk2004Hessian], which is invariant to affine transformations, to estimate the local homography matrix as constraints. The initial correspondences are then clustered based on the constraints, and the clusters with inliers are supposed to be larger than the ones constituted by outliers. Multi-GS generates a series of tentative hypotheses by random sampling and considers that two correspondences from the same local structure are inliers if they share a common list of hypotheses. HVIV employs the BPLR detector [@Kim2011Boundary] to cluster correspondences and estimates the homographic transformation for each correspondence as well. The most plausible correspondence in each cluster is then selected using normalized kernel density estimation.
For non-parametric methods, their theoretical foundations are not always the same. A widely-used strategy is exploiting the consistency information of local geometric structures or appearance (feature similarity). Specifically, Lowe et al. [@lowe2004distinctive] proposed a nearest neighbor similarity ratio (NNSR) method that assigns a penalty equaling to the ratio of the closest to the second-closest feature distance to each correspondence and treats those correspondences with low ratios as inliers. Leordeanu et al. [@Leordeanu2005A] presented spectral technique (ST), where an affinity matrix is built using pairwise geometric constraints to remove mismatches in conflict with the most credible correspondences. Albarelli et al. [@albarelli2012imposing] casted the selection of correspondences in a game theoretic framework, known as game-theoretic matching (GTM), where a natural selection process allows corresponding points that satisfy a mutual distance constraint to thrive. Cho et al. [@Cho2010Reweighted] presented reweighted random walk algorithm (RRWM) for graph matching. An associated graph between two sets of candidate correspondences is drawn at first, and reliable nodes indicating the consistent correspondences in this graph are then selected by the reweighted random walk algorithm. Ma et al. [@Ma2017Locality] proposed locality preserving matching (LPM) to improve inlier selection by maintaining the local neighborhood structures of those potential true matches. Some non-parametric approaches that formulate the correspondence selection problem as a statistics problem have also been used, e.g., vector field consensus (VFC) [@Ma2014Robust] and grid-based motion statistics (GMS) [@bian2017gms]. VFC supposes that the noise around inliers and outliers falls in different distributions. This approach estimates the probability of inliers by the maximum likelihood estimation for parameters in the mixture probabilistic model. Additionally, GMS rejects false matches by counting the quantity of matches in small neighborhoods and achieves real-time performance with an efficient grid-based score estimator.
Other evaluations
-----------------
In the feature matching field, some evaluations of 2D/3D local descriptors and detectors have been performed. For instance, Mikolajczyk et al. [@mikolajczyk2005performance] evaluated the performance of 2D feature descriptors under transformations of rotation, zoom, viewpoint change, blur, JPEG compression, light change and keypoint localization errors. Moreels et al. [@moreels2007evaluation] conducted an evaluation of several groups of 2D feature detectors and descriptors on images captured from the same 3D object with different viewpoints and lighting conditions. Heinly et al. [@Heinly2012Comparative] performed an evaluation of several 2D binary descriptors, aiming at testing their descriptiveness under different feature detectors on several scenes with illumination change, viewpoint change, pure camera rotation and pure scale change. Aans et al. [@Aan2012Interesting] investigated the performance of several 2D feature detectors on a particular dataset wherein each scene was depicted from 119 camera positions with a range of light directions. In 3D domain, Tombari et al. [@tombari2013performance] compared two categories (i.e., fixed-scale and adaptive-scale) of 3D feature detectors in terms of distinctiveness, repeatability and efficiency under the nuisances of viewpoint changes, clutter, occlusions and noise. Guo et al. [@guo2016comprehensive] tested the descriptiveness, robustness, compactness and efficiency of ten local geometric descriptors on eight datasets with radius variations, varying mesh resolution, Gaussian noise and etc. More relevant to our work is the evaluation performed by Raguram et al. [@Raguram2008A], where RANSAC and a set of its variants were examined under different ratios of inliers. This paper, compared with [@Raguram2008A], considers both parametric and non-parametric methods as well as a variety of nuisances for more comprehensive evaluation.
Considered methods {#sec:method}
==================
Eight 2D correspondence selection algorithms including two parametric ones, i.e., RANSAC [@fischler1981random] and USAC [@Raguram2013USAC], and six non-parametric ones, i.e., NNSR [@lowe2004distinctive], ST [@Leordeanu2005A], GTM [@albarelli2012imposing], VFC [@Ma2014Robust], GMS [@bian2017gms], LPM [@Ma2017Locality], are considered in our evaluation. Before introducing their theories, we give some general notations for better readability.
Given two images $(I,I^{'})$ to be matched, keypoints and local feature descriptors are computed for them as $(\mathcal{K}, \mathcal{K}^{'})$ and $(\mathcal{F}, \mathcal{F}^{'})$, respectively. This procedure can be accomplished using off-the-shelf detectors and descriptors, e.g., SIFT [@lowe2004distinctive]. To generate initial feature matches $\cal C$, keypoints are matched with each other based on feature similarity, i.e., a correspondence (match) in $\cal C$ is defined as $c=\{\mathbf{x},\mathbf{x}^{'},\arg \mathop {\max }\limits_{{\bf f}^{'}} \; {s_{\mathcal{F}(\mathbf{f},\mathbf{f}^{'})}} \}$ with $\mathbf{x}\in{\mathcal{K}}$, $\mathbf{x}^{'}\in{\mathcal{K}^{'}}$, $\mathbf{f}\in{\mathcal{F}}$, $\mathbf{f}^{'}\in{\mathcal{F}^{'}}$ and $s_{\mathcal{F}}$ being the feature similarity score. The objective of correspondence selection is digging out the maximum consensus (inlier) subset ${\mathcal{C}_{inlier}}\subseteq \mathcal{C}$. Core principles and computation steps of evaluated algorithms are given as follows.
**Nearest Neighbor Similarity Ratio [@lowe2004distinctive].** NNSR directly utilizes descriptor similarities to remove less distinctive matches. Specifically, the term equaling to the ratio of the closest to the second-closest feature distance to each correspondence is used as a penalty. Therefore, a correspondence is judged as inlier if $$\label{eq:LRF1}
{\frac{\parallel \mathbf{f}-{\mathbf{f}_{1}^{'}}{{\parallel }_{2}}}{\parallel \mathbf{f}-{\mathbf{f}_{2}^{'}}{{\parallel }_{2}}}\leq t_{nnsr}},$$ where $t_{nnsr}\in [0,1]$, ${{\| {\cdot} \|}_{2}}$ hereinafter denotes the $L_2$ norm (this distance metric is suggested in [@lowe2004distinctive]), $\mathbf{f}_{1}^{'}$ and $\mathbf{f}_{2}^{'}$ represent the most and the second most similar feature descriptors of $\mathbf{f}$, respectively. Values of threshold $t_{nnsr}$ and other mentioned thresholds in the following are presented in Table \[tab:para\].
**Random Sample Consensus [@fischler1981random].** RANSAC follows a hypothesize-and-verify framework by repeating procedures of random sampling and checking to maximize the object function. For 2D correspondence selection, the desired parametric model is usually a plane homography matrix or a fundamental matrix. Taking the homography matrix as an example, it first randomly samples several correspondences (at least 4) from $\mathcal{C}$ and generates the model hypothesis ${\mathbf{H}}_i$ for those samples at the $i$th iteration. Then, the hypothesis ${\mathbf{H}}_i$ is verified via the following object function $$\label{eq:LRF2}
{O_i=\sum\limits_{ {c} \in \cal C }{h_i({c})}},$$ where $h(\cdot)$ is a binary function defined as $$\label{eq:LRF3}
h_i({c})=\left\{ \begin{array}{*{35}{l}}1,\text{ if }{{{\| {\mathbf{x}^{'}}-{\rho} \left({\mathbf{H}_i}\left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}{\bf x}\\1\end{array}} \right]\right)\|_2}}}\le {{t}_{ransac}} \\
0,\text{ otherwise} \\
\end{array}\right.,$$ with $\rho([a_1\;a_2\;a_3]^{T})=[a_1/a_3\;a_2/a_3]^{T}$ and $t_{ransac}$ being a threshold that determines the accuracy of a judged inlier. Above steps are repeated $n_{ransac}$ times and the model with the maximum object function is selected as the final model ${\mathbf{H}}^{\star}$. Correspondences agreeing with ${\mathbf{H}}^{\star}$ (producing 1 values using Eq. \[eq:LRF3\]) are identified as inliers.
**Spectral Technique [@Leordeanu2005A].** ST locates the most reliable element by matrix decomposition. It assumes that the connection among correct matches is much tighter than the one among mismatches. Based on this assumption, ST first builds an adjacency matrix $\mathbf{A}$ as $$\label{eq:LRF5}
{{{a}_{ij}}=\min \left( \frac{{{\| {\mathbf{x}_{i}}-{\mathbf{x}_{j}} \|}_{2}}}{{{\| \mathbf{x}_{i}^{'}-\mathbf{x}_{j}^{'} \|}_{2}}},\text{ }\frac{{{\| \mathbf{x}_{i}^{'}-\mathbf{x}_{j}^{'} \|}_{2}}}{{{\| {\mathbf{x}_{i}}-{\mathbf{x}_{j}} \|}_{2}}} \right)},$$ where $a_{ij}\in{\mathbf{A}}$ is the affinity between $c_i$ and $c_j$. Second, the principle eigenvector $\mathbf{v}_{st}$ of $\mathbf{A}$ is computed using the singular value decomposition algorithm. Third, the maximum element in $\mathbf{v}_{st}$ is selected as ${v}_{i}$ indicating ${c}_{i}$ being the most reliable correspondence. Fourth, set $v_i$ to zero and remove other components of $\mathcal{C}$ that are in conflict with ${c}_{i}$, i.e., $$\label{eq:LRF6}
{{{a}_{ij}}\le t_{st}},$$ where $t_{st}$ is a predefined threshold. By repeating the third and fourth steps until $\mathcal{C}$ is empty or ${v}_{i}=0$, the correspondences related to all elements selected from $\mathbf{v}_{st}$ are determined as inliers.
**Game Theory Matching [@albarelli2012imposing].** GTM concentrates on extracting correspondences being consistent to the majority of $\mathcal{C}$. Specifically, this strategy interprets the filtering process as a game-theoretic framework where players attempt to obtain high payoffs. At the beginning of this game, every two players extracted from a large population choose a pair of correspondences (served as strategies in this context) from $\mathcal{C}$. Then they will receive a payoff linearly correlated to the coherence between these correspondences. The player who gets high payoffs will receive higher supports. In general, as the game going on, players will prefer to select more reliable correspondences to pursue higher pay-offs.
Given a pair of correspondences $(c_i,c_j)$, the payoff function is defined as $$\label{eq:LRF7}
{{\Pi }_{ij}}={{e}^{-{{\lambda }_{gtm}}\max (\left| {{T}_{i}}({\mathbf{x}_{i}})-{{T}_{j}}({\mathbf{x}_{i}}) \right|,\left| {{T}_{i}}({\mathbf{x}_{j}})-{{T}_{j}}({\mathbf{x}_{j}}) \right|)}},$$ where ${\lambda }_{gtm}$ is a selectivity parameter, $\left|{\cdot}\right|$ represents the $L_1$ norm and $T_{i}(\mathbf{x})$ is the similarity transformation estimated by (similarly for $T_{j}(\mathbf{x})$) $$\label{eq:LRFt}
{{T}_{i}}(\mathbf{x})=\rho \left( {\mathbf{H}_{c_i}}\left[ \begin{matrix}
\mathbf{x} \\
1 \\
\end{matrix} \right] \right),$$ where $\mathbf{H}_{c_i}$ is the homographic transformation of $c_i$. Note that this algorithm particularly requires the local affine transformation cue to compute the pay-off function. Next, the payoff matrix $\mathbf{P}_{gtm}$ with the element in the $i$th row and $j$th column that is defined as $$\label{eq:LRF8}
{{{p}_{ij}}=\left\{ \begin{array}{*{35}{l}}{{\Pi}_{ij}},\text{ if }i\ne j \\
0,\text{ otherwise} \\
\end{array}\right.},$$ can be generated. The population vector $\mathbf{q}$ is updated by the evolutionary stable states algorithm (ESS’s) [@weibull1997evolutionary] as $$\label{eq:LRF9}
{{{q}_{i}}(k+1)={{q}_{i}}(k)\frac{{{(\mathbf{P}_{gtm}\mathbf{q}(k)})_{i}}}{\mathbf{q}{{(k)^{T}}}\mathbf{P}_{gtm}\mathbf{q}(k)}},$$ where $q_{i}$ represents the element in the $i$th row of $\mathbf{q}$ and $k$ is the iteration number. After $n_{gtm}$ iterations, a correspondence $c_i$ is identified as inlier if its corresponding $q_{i}$ is higher than a threshold $t_{gtm}$.
**Universal RANSAC [@Raguram2013USAC].** USAC integrates a universal framework for RANSAC, where each original step is optimized by referring to the advantages of previous parametric approaches such as PROSAC [@Chum2005Matching], SPRT test [@matas2005randomized] and LO-RANSAC [@Chum2003Locally]. Further, this algorithm inserts degeneracy and local optimization processes after generating the minimal-sample model.
During the sampling step, USAC uses a weighted sampling algorithm named PROSAC [@Chum2005Matching], where the initial correspondences are reordered at first based on the descending sort order of brute-force matching scores and correspondences with higher scores are preserved. At the checking stage of the model (homography matrix or fundamental matrix), a correspondence is judged as inlier by Eq. \[eq:LRF3\] with the threshold $t_{\mathbf{H}}$ or by the equation $$\label{eq:LRF3'}
{\frac{{{\left( {\mathbf{y}^{'T}}{\mathbf{F}_{i}}\mathbf{y} \right)}^{2}}}{\left( {\mathbf{F}_{i}}\mathbf{y} \right)_{1}^{2}+\left( {\mathbf{F}_{i}}\mathbf{y} \right)_{2}^{2}+\left( \mathbf{F}_{i}^{T}{\mathbf{y}^{'}} \right)_{1}^{2}+\left( \mathbf{F}_{i}^{T}{\mathbf{y}^{'}} \right)_{2}^{2}}}\le {{t}_\mathbf{F}},$$ where $\mathbf{F}_{i}$ is the $i$th hypothetic fundamental matrix, $t_\mathbf{F}$ is the threshold and ${\bf y} = {[\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}
{\bf x}&1
\end{array}]^T}$ (similarly for $\mathbf{y}^{'}$). After generating the minimal-sample model, USAC verifies whether the model is interesting by the SPRT test [@matas2005randomized]. The likelihood ratio can be computed after evaluating $n$ correspondences as $$\label{eq:LRF10}
{{{\xi }_{n}}=\prod\limits_{i=1}^{n}{\frac{p({{r}_{i}}|{\mathbf{H}_{b}})}{p({{r}_{i}}|{\mathbf{H}_{g}})}}},$$ where $\mathbf{H}_{g}$ and $\mathbf{H}_{b}$ respectively represent a “good” model and a “bad” model, $r_{i}$ is equal to 1 if $c_i$ is consistent with the generated model and 0 otherwise, $p(1|\mathbf{H}_g)$ is approximated by the inlier ratio and $p(r_i|\mathbf{H}_b)$ follows a Bernoulli distribution. If the $\xi_n$ is higher than an adaptive threshold, the model will be discarded. When fitting the fundamental matrix by epipolar geometry constraint, USAC utilizes DEGENSAC [@Chum2005Two] for degeneracy. It assumes that the generated model is often incorrect in the context of images containing a dominant scene plane. Accordingly, DEGENSAC employs a homographic transformation to reject the generated fundamental model if there are five or more sampled correspondences lying on the same plane. Eventually, USAC adds a local optimization (LO-RANSAC [@Chum2003Locally]) to refine the minimal-sample model. It re-samples correspondences only from the set of selected inliers and refines the previous model by the sampling subset. This whole process is repeated until achieving confidence in solution or iterations reach the upper bound $n_{usac}$.
**Vector Field Consensus [@Ma2014Robust].** VFC interpolates a vector field where the posteriori probability of a correct correspondence is estimated by the Bayes rule.
For a correspondence $c_i$, the transformation to a motion field is expressed as $(\mathbf{x}_{i},\text{ }\mathbf{x}_{i}^{'})\to(\mathbf{u}_{i},\text{ }\mathbf{v}_{i})$, where $\mathbf{u}_{i}=\mathbf{x}_{i}$ and $\text{ }\mathbf{v}_{i}=\mathbf{x}_{i}^{'}-\mathbf{x}_{i}$. In this motion field, VFC holds the assumption that the noise around inliers indicated by $z_{i}=1$ follows the Gaussian distribution and the noise around outliers indicated by $z_{i}=0$ follows the uniform distribution. Thus, the probability is a mixture model given by $$\label{eq:LRF11}
{p(\mathcal{U}|\mathcal{V},\mathbf{\theta} )=\prod\limits_{i=1}^{N}{(\frac{\gamma}{{{(2\pi {{\sigma }^{2}})}^{D/2}}}{{e}^{-\frac{{{\| {\mathbf{v}_{i}}-\mathbf{f}_{vfc}({\mathbf{u}_{i}}) \|}_{2}}}{2{{\sigma }^{2}}}}}+\frac{1-\gamma }{a})}},$$ where $\mathcal{\theta}=\left\{{\mathbf{f}_{vfc},\sigma^{2},\gamma}\right\}$ is a set of unknown parameters, $\mathbf{f}_{vfc}$ is the vector field expected to be recovered, $\gamma$ is the mixing coefficient of the mixture probability model, i.e, $p(z_{i}=1)=\gamma$, $\mathcal{U}$ and $\mathcal{V}$ respectively are sets of $\mathbf{u}$ and $\mathbf{v}$, $\sigma$ is the uniform standard deviation of Gaussian distribution, $\frac{1}{a}$ is the probability density of the uniform distribution and $D$ is the dimension of the output space. VFC employs the EM [@Dempster1977Maximum] algorithm to deal with the maximum likelihood estimation with latent variables. At E-step, the diagonal element of a diagonal matrix $\mathbf{P}$, i.e., $p_{i}=p(z_{i}=1|\mathbf{u}_{i},\mathbf{v}_{i},\theta)$, can be computed by the Bayes rule $$\label{eq:LRF12}
{{p_i} = \frac{{\gamma {e^{ - \frac{{{{\| {\mathbf{v}_{i} - \mathbf{f}_{vfc}(\mathbf{u}_{i})} \|}_2}}}{{2{\sigma ^2}}}}}}}{{\gamma {e^{ - \frac{{{{\| {\mathbf{v}_{i} - \mathbf{f}_{vfc}(\mathbf{u}_{i})} \|}_2}}}{{2{\sigma ^2}}}}} + (1 - \gamma )\frac{{{{(2\pi {\sigma ^2})}^{D/2}}}}{a}}}}.$$ At M-step, a coefficient matrix $\mathbf{C}$ is created first by $$\label{eq:LRF13}
{(\mathbf{K}_{Gauss}+\lambda_{vfc}{\sigma^{2}}\mathbf{P}^{-1})\mathbf{C}=\mathcal{V}},$$ where $\mathbf{K}_{Gauss}$ is a matrix consisting of the Gaussian kernel $k(\mathbf{u}_{i},\mathbf{u}_{j}) = {e^{ - \beta {{\| {\mathbf{u}_{i} - \mathbf{u}_{j}} \|}_2}}}$ and $\lambda_{vfc}$ is a regularization constant. Second, the vector field $\mathbf{f}_{vfc}$ is estimated by $$\label{eq:LRF14}
{\mathbf{f}_{vfc}(\mathbf{u}) = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^{N} {k}(\mathbf{u},\mathbf{u}_{i})\mathbf{c}_{i}},$$ where $\mathbf{c}_i\in{\mathbf{C}}$. Third, values of $\sigma^{2}$ and $\gamma$ are updated by $$\label{eq:LRF15}
{{\sigma ^2} = \frac{{{{(\mathcal{V} - \mathcal{F}_{vfc})}^T}\mathbf{P}(\mathcal{V} - \mathcal{F}_{vfc})}}{{D \cdot \text{tr}(\mathbf{P})}}},$$ and $$\label{eq:LRF16}
{\gamma = \text{tr}(\mathbf{P})/N},$$ where $\mathcal{F}_{vfc}={({\mathbf{f}_{vfc}(\mathbf{u}_{1})}^T,...{\mathbf{f}_{vfc}(\mathbf{u}_{N})}^T)}^T$. The E-step and M-step are repeated until parameters are converged. Finally, the inlier set is generated as $$\label{eq:LRF17}
{\mathcal{C}_{inlier}=\left\{{c}_i:p_i>t_{vfc}\right\}},$$ where $t_{vfc}$ is a predefined threshold.
**Grid-based Motion Statistics [@bian2017gms].** GMS proves that besides feature descriptiveness, feature number also contributes to the quality of correspondences. It supposes that the quantity of correspondences in a small neighborhood around a true match is larger than that around a false match under the smooth motion. In over-large neighborhoods, regions are divided into multiple small region pairs where distributions of correspondence number are approximated by Binomial distributions. Given a correspondence $c_i$, the joint statistical distribution is modeled as $$\label{eq:LRF18}
{{{S}_{i}}\sim{\ }\left\{ \begin{array}{*{35}{l}}
B(Kn,{{p}_{t}}),\text{ if }{{{c}}_{i}}\text{ is inlier} \\
B(Kn,{{p}_{f}}),\text{ otherwise} \\
\end{array} \right.},$$ where $S_{i}$ is the total number of correspondences in a region pair ($a$, $b$) around ${c}_i$, $K$ is the quantity of small region pairs, $p_t$ is the probability that the nearest neighbor of each keypoint in $a$ is located in $b$ under the condition that $a$ and $b$ view the same location, and $p_f$ is the probability provided that $a$ and $b$ view the different locations. $p_t$ and $p_f$ can be estimated by $$\label{eq:LRF19}
{p_t=\delta+(1-\delta)\zeta{m}/M},$$ and $$\label{eq:LRF20}
{p_f=\zeta(1-\delta)(m/M)},$$ where $\delta$ is the probability of a correspondence being correct, $m$ is the amount of keypoints in region $b$, $M$ is the size of $\mathcal{K}^{'}$ in $I^{'}$, and $\zeta$ is a factor added to balance deviations caused by repeated structures. A quantitative score is next designed to evaluate the distinction between two distributions as $$\label{eq:LRF21}
{{P}=\frac{{{m}_{t}}-{{m}_{f}}}{{{s}_{t}}+{{s}_{f}}}},$$ where $m$ is the mean value and $s$ is the standard deviation. This equation can be simplified as $$\label{eq:LRF22}
{{P}\propto \sqrt{Kn}},$$ where the distinction is positive correlated to the number of correspondences.
In addition, to incorporate this approach into a real-time system, a fast gird-based score estimator is developed as follows. First, $I$ and $I^{'}$ are divided into $20\times20$ non-overlapping cells. Second, for each cell in $I$, the cell containing the maximum amount of correspondences is grouped in $I^{'}$. Third, in cell-pair $(i,j)$ as well as its small neighborhoods (eight cell-pairs), $S_{ij}$ is estimated as $$\label{eq:LRF23}
{{{S}_{ij}}=\sum\limits_{k=1}^{K=9}{\left| {{\chi }_{{{i}^{k}}{{j}^{k}}}} \right|}},$$ where $\left|{\chi}\right|$ is the amount of correspondences in the cell-pair $(i^{k},j^{k})$. All correspondences in $(i,j)$ are judged as inliers if $S_{ij}>t_{gms}$, where $t_{gms}$ is a threshold approximated by $\alpha \sqrt{n_i}$ with $\alpha$ being a given parameter and $n_i$ being the average (of the nine cell-pairs) amount of correspondences.
**Locality Preserving Matching [@Ma2017Locality].** This algorithm removes mismatches by digging out the local geometric structure consensus. With the hypothesis that the local structure around a correspondence may not change freely, a cost function is defined as $$\label{eq:LRF24}
\begin{aligned}
L({\mathcal{K}_{inlier}},\lambda_{lpm} )=\sum\limits_{i\in {\mathcal{K}_{inlier}}}{\left( \sum\limits_{j|{\mathbf{x}_{j}}\in {\mathcal{K}_{{\mathbf{x}_{i}}}}}{{{\left( d\left( {\mathbf{x}_{i}},{\mathbf{x}_{j}} \right)-d\left( \mathbf{x}_{i}^{'},\mathbf{x}_{j}^{'} \right) \right)}^{2}}} \right.}\\
+\left. \sum\limits_{j|{\mathbf{x}_{j}}^{'}\in {\mathcal{K}^{'}_{\mathbf{x}_{i}^{'}}}}{{{\left( d\left( {\mathbf{x}_{i}},{\mathbf{x}_{j}} \right)-d\left( \mathbf{x}_{i}^{'},\mathbf{x}_{j}^{'} \right) \right)}^{2}}} \right)+\lambda_{lpm} \left(N-\left| {\mathcal{K}_{inlier}} \right| \right),
\end{aligned}$$ where $\lambda_{lpm}$ is a regularization parameter, $d$ is the Euclidean distance between two keypoints, $\mathcal{K}_{\mathbf{x}_i}$ and $\mathcal{K}_{\mathbf{x}_{i}^{'}}^{'}$ respectively are sets of the $k$ nearest neighbors of $\mathbf{x}_i$ and $\mathbf{x}_{i}^{'}$, $N$ is the size of $\mathcal{K}$, and $\mathcal{K}_{inlier}$ is an inlier subset of $\mathcal{K}$. Under non-rigid transformations such as deformation, the absolute distance in Eq. \[eq:LRF24\] may not be preserved well. To address this issue, LPM converts the cost function to $$\label{eq:LRF25}
\begin{aligned}
L(\mathcal{W},\lambda_{lpm})=\sum\limits_{i=1}^{N}{{{w}_{i}}\left(\sum\limits_{j|{\mathbf{x}_{j}}\in {\mathcal{K}_{{\mathbf{x}_{i}}}}}{d\left( \mathbf{x}_{i}^{'},\mathbf{x}_{j}^{'} \right)} \right.}\\
+\left.\sum\limits_{j|\mathbf{x}_{j}^{'}\in {\mathcal{K}^{'}_{\mathbf{x}_{i}^{'}}}}{d\left( {\mathbf{x}_{i}},{\mathbf{x}_{j}} \right)} \right)+\lambda_{lpm} \left( N-\sum\limits_{i=1}^{N}{{{w}_{i}}} \right),
\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathcal{W}$ is a set of indicators where $w_i=1$ indicates the inlier and $w_i=0$ otherwise. This equation can be further reorganized by merging the related items of $w_i$ as $$\label{eq:LRF26}
L(\mathcal{W},\lambda_{lpm} )=\sum\limits_{i=1}^{N}{{{w}_{i}}\left( {{l}_{i}}-\lambda_{lpm} \right)}+\lambda_{lpm} N,$$ where $$\label{eq:LRF27}
l_i=\sum\limits_{j|{\mathbf{x}_{j}}\in {\mathcal{K}_{{\mathbf{x}_{i}}}}}{d\left( \mathbf{x}_{i}^{'},\mathbf{x}_{j}^{'} \right)}+\sum\limits_{j|\mathbf{x}_{j}^{'}\in {\mathcal{K}^{'}_{\mathbf{x}_{i}^{'}}}}{d\left( {\mathbf{x}_{i}},{\mathbf{x}_{j}} \right)}$$ is a constraint item measuring the local geometric structure changes. With the objective of minimizing the cost function, a correspondence with the cost, i.e., ${l_i}>\lambda_{lpm}$, is negative. For this purpose, the correct correspondence set is determined by $$\label{eq:LRF28}
{{w}_{i}}=\left\{ \begin{array}{*{35}{l}}
1,\text{ if }{{l}_{i}}\le \lambda_{lpm} \\
0,\text{ otherwise} \\
\end{array}\right.,i=1,\text{ }...\text{ },N.$$
Experimental setup {#sec:exper}
==================
The experimental setup is introduced detailedly in this section. First, we list implementations and parameter settings of the evaluated methods. Second, characteristics of four datasets, the experimental criteria and the deployment are formulated.
Implementations
---------------
In our experiments, Hessian-affine detector [@Mikolajczyk2004Hessian] and SIFT descriptor [@lowe2004distinctive] (a popular detector-descriptor combination [@moreels2007evaluation]) are employed in default for image keypoint detection and description. Notice that another reason for using the Hessian-affine detector is that the evaluated GTM method requires local affine information, while we also consider different detector-descriptor combinations in Sect. \[sub:sub3\]. The initial correspondence set $\mathcal{C}$ is generated by brute-force matching, i.e., greedy comparison of two feature sets. Parameters and implementations for each algorithm are listed in Table \[tab:para\].
[lccccc]{} No. & Algorithm & Implementation & Parameters & Setting\
1 & NNSR [@lowe2004distinctive] & OPENCV & $t_{nnsr}$ & Adaptive [@otsu1979threshold]\
2 & RANSAC [@fischler1981random] & OPENCV & $t_{ransac}$ & 10*pix*\
& & & $n_{ransac}$ & 2000\
3 & ST [@Leordeanu2005A] & MATLAB & $t_{st}$ & 0.3\
4 & GTM [@albarelli2012imposing] & OPENCV & $t_{gtm}$ & Adaptive [@otsu1979threshold]\
& & & $n_{gtm}$ & 100\
& & & $\lambda{gtm}$ & 0.0001\
5 & USAC [@Raguram2013USAC] & OPENCV & $n_{usac}$ & 850000\
& & & $t_{\mathbf{H}}$ & 10*pix*\
& & & $t_{\mathbf{F}}$ & 1.5*pix*\
6 & VFC [@Ma2014Robust] & OPENCV & $\beta $ & 0.1\
& & & $\lambda_{vfc} $ & 3\
& & & $t_{vfc} $ & 0.75\
& & & $\gamma $ & 0.9\
7 & GMS [@bian2017gms] & OPENCV & $\alpha $ & 4\
8 & LPM [@Ma2017Locality] & MATLAB & $\lambda_{lpm}$ & 6\
& & & $k$ & 4\
Notably, for NNSR and GTM we set $t_{nnsr}$ and $t_{gtm}$ adaptively using the OTSU [@otsu1979threshold] algorithm to reduce thresholding errors as proper thresholds may vary in different scenarios even in different images.
All those methods are implemented in OPENCV or MATLAB with a PC equipped with a 3.2GHz processor and 8GB memory.
Datasets
--------
We perform our experiments on four datasets, i.e., VGG [@Mikolajczyk2005A], Symbench [@Snavely2012Image], Heinly [@Heinly2012Comparative], and AdelaideRMF [@Wong2011Dynamic]. Exemplar images from these datasets and a brief summarization of their inherited nuisances are shown in Fig. \[fig:dataset\] and Table \[tab:dataset\], respectively.
[lccc]{} Dataset & Challenges & Matching pairs\
VGG [@Mikolajczyk2005A] & Zoom, rotation, blur, viewpoint change, & 40\
& light change and JPEG compression &\
Symbench [@Snavely2012Image] & Light change, & 46\
& different rendering styles &\
Heinly [@Heinly2012Comparative] & Zoom and rotation & 29\
AdelaideRMF [@Wong2011Dynamic] & Multi-structures, & 38\
& viewpoint change &\
**The VGG dataset [@Mikolajczyk2005A].** VGG is a hybrid dataset involving eight scenes. Each scene consists of six images with the first image being the reference one with respect to the others. Challenges including blur, viewpoint change, zoom, rotation, light change, and JPEG compression exist in this dataset. The ground-truth is the homography matrix $\mathbf{H}$, indicating that the transformation between two images on each scene satisfies the plane homographic constraint.
**The Symbench dataset [@Snavely2012Image].** The Symbench dataset is composed of 46 image pairs. Each pair includes the same object with light change or different rendering styles. The homographic transformation $\mathbf{H}$ of each image pair is given as the ground-truth.
**The Heinly dataset [@Heinly2012Comparative].** The Heinly dataset comprises images with dense or sparse viewpoint change, illumination, pure large-scale zoom or rotation. Considering that nuisances of viewpoint change and illumination have been covered in the other three datasets, we choose a subset of Heinly containing 29 pairs of image shot on 4 scenes with the specific challenges, i.e., pure zoom or rotation, to perform a more targeted test. The ground-truth is provided as the homographic transformation.
**The AdelaideRMF dataset [@Wong2011Dynamic].** AdelaideRMF includes 38 pairs of image with viewpoint change and multi-structures. The keypoint coordinates of initial correspondences are provided and the ground-truth correspondences are manually labeled in this dataset.
Motivations of employing these datasets can be summarized as: (i) The eight scenes in the VGG dataset cover a peculiar wide range of interferences such as the rigid/non-rigid transformation and image quality variation. Both the generality to diverse conditions and the robustness to a specific nuisance can be assessed on this dataset. (ii) The focus of Symbench is the image quality variation caused by light change and different rendering styles that give rise to potential errors of feature detection and description. The performance in the context of image quality variation can be specifically evaluated. (iii) The subset of Heinly is selected with the aim of testing the performance under the condition of a geometrical structure deformation (pure zoom or rotation). (iv) AdelaideRMF aims at evaluating the performance of those correspondence selection algorithms where plane homographic constraint fails and multiple consistent correspondence sets are involved due to multi-structures. All above peculiarities make the evaluation benchmarks complementary to each other and allow us to find prominent algorithms under a specific nuisance.
Criteria
--------
The performance of evaluated algorithms is measured via precision, recall and F-measure as in [@lin2014bilateral; @bian2017gms; @Ma2017Locality]. First, we denote the selected correspondence set, the ground-truth correspondence set and the correct subset in the selected correspondence set as $\mathcal{C}_{inlier}$, $\mathcal{C}_{inlier}^{GT}$ and $\mathcal{C}_{inlier}^{correct}$, respectively. Then, the precision, recall and F-measure are respectively defined as $$\label{eq:LRF30}
\text{Precision}=\frac{\left| \mathcal{C}_{inlier}^{correct}\right|}{\left| {\mathcal{C}_{inlier}} \right|},$$ $$\label{eq:LRF31}
\text{Recall}=\frac{\left| \mathcal{C}_{inlier}^{correct} \right|}{\left| {\mathcal{C}_{inlier}^{GT}} \right|},$$ and $$\label{eq:LRF32}
\text{F-measure}=\frac{2\text{Precision}\times\text{Recall}}{\text{Precision}+\text{Recall}},$$ where $\left|{\cdot}\right|$ denotes the cardinality of a set. A correspondence $c=\{\mathbf{x},\mathbf{x}^{'}\}$ belongs to $\mathcal{C}_{inlier}^{GT}$ if $$\label{eq:LRF29}
{{{\| {\mathbf{x}_i^{'}}-{\rho} \left({\mathbf{H}_{gt}}\left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}{\mathbf {x}_{i}}\\1\end{array}} \right]\right)\|_2}}}\le t_{gt},$$ where $\mathbf{H}_{gt}$ is the ground-truth homography matrix and $t_{gt}$ is a threshold set to $10$*pix* (*pix* being the unit of pixel) that controls the upper bound of the accuracy of a true inlier in our experiments.
Similarly, a correct correspondence in $\mathcal{C}_{inlier}$ is defined as $$\label{eq:LRF33}
{{{\| {\mathbf{x}_i^{'}}-{\rho} \left({\mathbf{H}_{gt}}\left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}{\mathbf {x}_{i}}\\1\end{array}} \right]\right)\|_2}}}\le \tau$$ with $\tau$ being the matching tolerance. We vary $\tau$ from 1*pix* to $t_{gt}$ with an interval of 1*pix*, thus generating a curve [@lin2014bilateral; @bian2017gms].
Experimental deployment {#subsec:exp_deploy}
-----------------------
Our experiments are deployed as follows. In Sect. \[sub:sub1\], the overall performance of the evaluated algorithms in different scenarios, i.e., the four experimental datasets, is tested. In Sect. \[sub:sub2\], the performance with preselected correspondences by NNSR, i.e., commonly employed to improve the inlier ratio of initial matches [@Ma2014Robust; @Raguram2008A; @yang2016fast; @yang2017multi], is tested on the four datasets. In Sect. \[sub:sub3\], different detector-descriptor combinations are considered to examine the performance variation of correspondence selection algorithms. Notice that different combinations of detector and descriptor are desired in different application contexts [@Mikolajczyk2004Hessian; @moreels2007evaluation] and will result in different distributions and inlier ratios. In Sect. \[sub:sub4\], the robustness to different nuisances, i.e., blur, viewpoint change, zoom, rotation, light change, and JPEG compression, is independently examined on the VGG dataset. In Sect. \[sub:sub5\], we address concerns about the efficiency in those algorithms by examining their overall time cost on different datasets paired with the speed comparison under different scales of initial matches. Finally, some representative visual results of the evaluated algorithms are shown in Sect. \[sub:sub6\].
Results {#sec:res}
=======
Following the experimental arrangement in Sect. \[subsec:exp\_deploy\], this section presents the corresponding results together with necessary discussions and explanations.
Performance on the different datasets {#sub:sub1}
-------------------------------------
In the following, we show the precision, recall and F-measure performance of our evaluated algorithms on different datasets, i.e., under different scenarios. In particular, the overall precision, recall and F-measure curves are shown in Fig. \[fig:per1\] for aggregately view and the F-measure scores for each image pair on the four datasets are shown in Fig. \[fig:per2\] to give a more detailed view. We mainly discuss the performance based on Fig. \[fig:per1\].
### Performance on the VGG dataset
Fig. \[fig:per1\](a) shows outcomes on the VGG dataset. It is interesting to see that NNSR achieves the best precision performance, being marginally better than USAC, RANSAC and GMS. This result is due to the fact that the feature distinctiveness cue is rather selective with rich-textured images, e.g., images in the VGG dataset. On the down side, feature distinctiveness is sometimes ambiguous and not a robust constraint as we can see that the recall of NNSR is just mediocre. It indicates that many correct correspondences have been filtered by NNSR. For ST and LPM, they are generally inferior to the others on this dataset in terms of the F-measure. That is because ST may fail to locate the main cluster in the spectral domain if the ourlier ratio is large, resulting in quite poor recall performance. LPM achieves much better recall performance than ST, while its precision performance is surpassed by most compared ones. It arises from the loose constraint employed in LPM. Overall, USAC is the best method on this dataset. Explanation behind is that USAC is a parametric method and the parametric model of each image pair existed in this dataset can be properly fitted.
### Performance on the Symbench dataset
Fig. \[fig:per1\](b) presents results on the Symbench dataset. All methods suffer a clear drop in performance on this dataset when compared with that on the VGG dataset, which is attributed to light change and various rendering styles. More specifically, we observed that the average inlier ratio of initial correspondences on this dataset is lower than $10\%$. As previously explained, the feature distinctiveness constraint strongly relies on the discriminative power of the local feature descriptor. However, the rendering style variation makes it fairly challenging to maintain descriptiveness in this case. As a result, NNSR delivers very poor precision performance. Another significant difference compared to that on the VGG dataset is USAC’s performance. One can see that USAC returns the most and the second most inferior precision and recall performance, respectively. That is because USAC may find empty inlier sets in some cases when its average estimated scores decreases owing to the multiple constraints in this algorithm [@Raguram2013USAC]. In general, GMS and VFC are the two most well-behaved methods after referring their F-measure rankings. A common trait of these two algorithms is that both of them are independent from the descriptor similarity.
### Performance on the Heinly dataset
Fig. \[fig:per1\](c) presents results on the Heinly dataset. Image pairs on this dataset only contain pure zoom or rotation, and we can observe that all methods obtain relatively decent performance on this dataset. In terms of precision, NNSR and RANSAC neatly outperform the others. Regarding recall, LPM and RANSAC are the two best ones. Note that the reason for the high recall of LPM is that most inliers are selected with the loose constraint designed by this algorithm. For NNSR and RANSAC, the former one is attributed to the high distinctiveness of SIFT (we will see its performance variation with less distinctive descriptors in Sect. \[sub:sub3\]), whereas the latter one is owing to the powerful homography fitting ability of RANSAC. GMS, due to its sensitivity to large degrees of rotation [@bian2017gms], shows worse results compared to its performance on the VGG and Symbench datasets.
### Performance on the AdelaideRMF dataset
Fig. \[fig:per1\](d) presents results on the AdelaideRMF dataset. Two explanations should be given on this dataset. First, as only manual labeled ground-truth correspondences are available, we present the exact scores rather than curves with respect to matching tolerance for each method. Second, the keypoints on this dataset are not located by image detectors. Rather, they were labeled manually. Thus, GTM requiring local affine information and NNSR based on auto-detected keypoints are not assessed on this dataset. Since each scene in this dataset contains multiple planes, the fundamental matrix based on the epipolar geometry constraint is employed to approximate the parametric model for RANSAC and USAC. By observing the scores in Fig. \[fig:per1\](d), one can see that GMS, LPM and VFC achieve the best precision, recall and F-measure performance, respectively. All the three methods are non-parametric. This is reasonable since the AdelaideRMF contains multi-structures, and the parametric assumption for methods like RANSAC and USAC will fail in this case.
### Overall performance
By weighing up the results presented in Fig. \[fig:per1\] and Fig. \[fig:per2\], we can draw the following conclusions. First, the performance of all correspondences selection algorithms is affected by the initial inlier ratio. For instance, the performance of all algorithms deteriorates dramatically on the Symbench dataset with less than 10% inliers. Second, NNSR simply relying on feature’s distinctiveness produces pleasurable results if images are well-textured and clean. Third, parametric approaches, i.e., RANSAC and USAC, prefer the context that the transformation between two images can be well fitted by a parametric model. While non-parametric algorithms perform better in situations without large degrees of rigid/non-rigid transformation. Overall, VFC and RANSAC are the two best algorithms under across-dataset experiments.
Performance on selected matches {#sub:sub2}
-------------------------------
Many existing works [@Ma2014Robust; @Raguram2008A; @yang2016fast; @yang2017multi] first prune false correspondences via NNSR and then use parametric or non-parametric methods to for further selection. This experiment then checks this scenario. Remarkably, since NNSR fails to work on the AdelaideRMF dataset, this dataset is not considered in this test. Fig. \[fig:per3\] shows the difference between correspondences before and after applying NNSR, and results using NNSR-selected correspondences for selection are shown in Fig. \[fig:per4\].
On the VGG dataset shown in Fig. \[fig:per4\](a), one can see that the performance of all methods has been improved using NNSR-selected matches compared to brute-force matches in Fig. \[fig:per1\](a). Particularly, USAC manages to be the best method regarding precision, recall and F-measure. Also, gaps between most curves excluding that of ST are relatively small. On the Symbench and Heinly datasets, GMS and LPM respectively achieve the best overall performance, where LPM even produces an extremely high F-measure score, i.e., 97.27%, on the Heinly dataset. We can infer that LPM adapts well to initial correspondence sets with high inlier ratio.
Performance under different detectors and descriptors {#sub:sub3}
-----------------------------------------------------
[p[0.9cm]{}<|p[0.8cm]{}<p[0.6cm]{}<p[0.6cm]{}<p[0.5cm]{}<p[0.5cm]{}<p[0.4cm]{}<p[0.4cm]{}<p[0.4cm]{}<]{} & & NNSR & RANSAC & ST & USAC & VFC & GMS & LPM\
SIFT + & Symbench & 9.34 & 3.02 & 1.22 & 3.27 & 11.56 & **11.64** & 9.36\
SIFT & Heinly & 94.13 & 95.43 & 33.82 & **98.75** & 83.08 & 40.29 & 89.84\
ORB + & Symbench & 4.70 & 5.27 & 2.13 & 3.33 & 3.00 & **11.62** & 6.31\
ORB & Heinly & 57.62 & 58.98 & 17.57 & 56.45 & 56.30 & 50.24 & **60.30**\
ASIFT + & Symbench & 7.00 & 7.15 & 3.29 & 4.54 & 14.42 & **17.48** & 12.54\
ASIFT & Heinly & 69.31 & **92.31** & 27.47 & 78.72 & 78.75 & 44.21 & 88.21\
BLOB + & Symbench & 4.62 & 2.35 & 0.95 & 1.97 & **6.25** & 0.50 & 2.19\
FREAK & Heinly & 68.63 & **76.25** & 20.32 & 74.45 & 68.71 & 4.30 & 66.64\
In addition to Hessian-affine + SIFT, we also consider four other popular detector-descriptor combinations, i.e., SIFT + SIFT [@lowe2004distinctive], ORB + ORB [@rublee2011orb], ASIFT + ASIFT [@Morel2009ASIFT], and BLOB [@lindeberg1998feature] + FREAK [@alahi2012freak]. Fig. \[fig:per5\] shows the initial correspondences with these combinations on a sample image pair. Note that GTM is excluded in this test as it requires local affine information and these detectors do not provide this information. Also, the AdelaideRMF dataset is not considered due to human-labeled keypoints. The results are reported in Fig. \[fig:per6\] and Table \[tab:fea\].
A common characteristic of these results is that the best correspondence selection algorithm generally varies with combinations of detector and descriptor. While we can still find some consistencies, e.g., the VFC method achieves pleasurable performance on the VGG dataset in spite of the descriptor-detector combinations. The performance of some methods fluctuates dramatically. For example, NNSR ranks the first with SIFT + SIFT while performs poorly using ASIFT + ASIFT on the VGG dataset. On the Symbench and Heinly datasets, GMS and RANSAC are two prominent methods under different kinds of detector-descriptor combinations.
Robustness {#sub:sub4}
----------
![Sample image pairs from the 8 sub-categories of the VGG dataset including (a) zoom and rotation, (b) blur, (c) zoom and rotation, (d) viewpoint change, (e) light change, (f) blur, (g) JPEG compression and (h) viewpoint change.[]{data-label="fig:per7"}](figure/total.pdf){width="0.9\linewidth"}
In this section, we independently evaluate the robustness of these algorithms to a specific nuisance, e.g., zoom, rotation, blur, viewpoint change, light change and JPEG compression on the VGG dataset. Some exemplar images with different nuisances are exhibited in Fig. \[fig:per7\]. Results are shown in Table \[tab:rob\].
Under zoom and rotation (case1 and case3), USAC and RANSAC, i.e., two parametric methods, behave the best (F-measure is referred) mainly attributed to that zoom and rotation are faint impact on homography fitting. Under blur (case2 and case6), GMS and NNSR outperform others. GMS is independent from feature similarity constraint, thus making it rational. For NNSR, it is still explicable as SIFT is very robust to blur. Regarding viewpoint change (case4 and case8), USAC and VFC are the best methods. Note that VFC generally delivers good performance under all kinds of nuisances, being benefited from the consensus search in the non-parametric field. USAC also achieves the best performance under light change (case5) and JPEG compression (case7), being the one that is robust to the broadest categories of nuisances.
[p[2.5cm]{}<p[2cm]{}<p[1cm]{}<p[1cm]{}<p[1cm]{}<p[1cm]{}<p[1cm]{}<p[1cm]{}<p[1cm]{}<p[1cm]{}<p[1cm]{}<]{} & & NNSR & RANSAC & ST & GTM & UASC & VFC & GMS & LPM\
Case1 & Precision & **81.16** & 76.11 & 17.98 & 43.22 & 77.38 & 67.19 & 63.61 & 42.50\
(zoom and rotation) & Recall & 77.68 & 92.86 & 4.51 & 79.60 & **99.05** & 86.11 & 11.45 & 83.54\
& F-measure & 77.35 & 82.42 & 6.56 & 53.69 & **84.48** & 74.27 & 18.46 & 54.75\
Case2 & Precision & **74.57** & 36.87 & 44.23 & 67.00 & 49.66 & 29.44 & 41.71 & 27.73\
(blur) & Recall & **79.39** & 41.85 & 8.23 & 56.74 & 60.00 & 51.41 & 50.45 & 54.75\
& F-measure & **71.87** & 38.71 & 13.46 & 61.12 & 54.30 & 35.27 & 45.54 & 35.86\
Case3 & Precision & 61.53 & **70.54** & 15.97 & 44.92 & 67.41 & 49.38 & 58.57 & 44.59\
(zoom and rotation) & Recall & 57.91 & 83.28 & 1.97 & 52.16 & 79.95 & **99.22** & 57.21 & 76.43\
& F-measure & 53.74 & **74.81** & 3.50 & 44.83 & 73.12 & 61.91 & 56.35 & 55.10\
Case4 & Precision & 51.77 & 55.58 & 37.21 & 50.94 & **63.01** & 57.86 & 57.05 & 45.08\
(viewpoint change) & Recall & 61.63 & 66.38 & 3.52 & 68.55 & 79.73 & **97.08** & 75.52 & 83.97\
& F-measure & 51.75 & 58.56 & 6.41 & 55.69 & 70.23 & **71.23** & 64.55 & 56.56\
Case5 & Precision & 76.28 & 81.44 & 61.90 & 68.90 & **83.76** & 71.99 & 64.89 & 57.65\
(light change) & Recall & 63.75 & 86.97 & 6.76 & 80.35 & **100** & **100** & 87.95 & 84.46\
& F-measure & 68.00 & 82.34 & 11.61 & 73.94 & **91.11** & 82.49 & 74.37 & 67.90\
Case6 & Precision & 31.90 & 45.33 & 24.95 & 33.45 & 32.23 & 31.18 & **57.10** & 26.72\
(blur) & Recall & **69.13** & 27.06 & 2.57 & 39.10 & 40.00 & 40.00 & 47.00 & 66.81\
& F-measure & 31.49 & 28.86 & 4.34 & 34.29 & 35.68 & 35.02 & **50.80** & 35.82\
Case7 & Precision & 89.47 & 87.07 & 89.46 & 80.66 & **89.59** & 89.48 & 79.87 & 75.87\
(JPEG compression) & Recall & 61.17 & 97.41 & 28.59 & 94.42 & **100** & **100** & 96.70 & 93.38\
& F-measure & 72.42 & 91.81 & 43.07 & 86.88 & **94.43** & 94.26 & 87.25 & 83.43\
Case8 & Precision & 67.27 & 74.42 & 52.34 & 72.05 & 73.03 & 72.40 & **80.86** & 62.67\
(viewpoint change) & Recall & 61.08 & 79.03 & 4.02 & 80.12 & 80.00 & 79.51 & 73.10 & **81.76**\
& F-measure & 58.39 & 76.23 & 7.36 & 73.42 & **76.33** & 75.74 & 76.08 & 69.64\
Efficiency {#sub:sub5}
----------
To provide an overview of the evaluated methods by taking both selection performance and efficiency into consideration, we present the efficiency *v.s.* F-measure plots on the four experimental datasets in Fig. \[fig:per8\]. Owing to fast execution speed and overall decent performance, GMS strikes a good balance between selection performance and efficiency.
In order to further test an algorithms’s efficiency regarding different numbers of initial correspondences, i.e., the number of initial correspondences may vary in different applications or with different feature detectors, we vary the amount of initial correspondences from $1000$ to $5000$ and record the average speed of the eight methods. This experiment has been repeated for 10 rounds and average statistics are retained. Because codes of these algorithms are implemented either in OpenCV (C++) or MATLAB, we assess methods within the same platform independently. In addition, the VFC method is evaluated on both platforms and can be a reference for comparing across-platform methods. Results are reported in Fig. \[fig:per9\].
For methods implemented in OpenCV, the efficiency of GMS is beyond all others. That is because GMS involves a grid framework for fast scoring. NNSR ranks the second, as only sort operation is needed to rank correspondences. RANSAC is slightly slower than USAC, and the core time consumption of both methods is dedicated to hypothesis generation-verification. GTM, with the computational complexity of $O(n^2)$ ($n$ being the number of input correspondences), is significantly slower than the other five methods. The margin is rather significant as the number of correspondences increases. For methods implemented in MATLAB, LPM is very efficient as it relies on a simple yet efficient strategy by preserving local neighborhood structure. ST is the most inefficient method, being slower than others by tens of magnitude with dense correspondences. It is due to the fact that the time consumption for computing eigenvalues increases exponentially with the size of the affinity matrix.
Visual results {#sub:sub6}
--------------
![Visual results of evaluated algorithms on examplar image pairs respectively taken from the (a) VGG, (b) Symbench, (c) Heinly and (d) AdelaideRMF datasets. For the best view, lines with different colors represent results of different algorithms.[]{data-label="fig:per10"}](figure/visual.pdf){width="1.0\linewidth"}
To obtain a qualitative sense of outputs of evaluated algorithms, we present several visual results of these algorithms on the four experimental datasets in Fig. \[fig:per10\].
Two main observations can be made from the figure. First, distributions of selected correspondences by different algorithms are generally different from each other. For instance, few correspondences are found by GTM on the *bread* in Fig. \[fig:per10\](d). However, NNSR and LPM get plenty of correspondences on it. Second, the quantity of selected correspondences also varies with different methods. In particular, LPM manages to return dense correspondences on most datasets, while ST seeks out much less than others.
Summary and discussion {#sec:sum}
======================
[p[2.5cm]{}<|p[3cm]{}<|p[4cm]{}<|p[3cm]{}<]{} & **Superior methods & **Inferior methods\
& VGG & USAC, RANSAC, VFC & ST\
& Symbench & GMS & ST, USAC\
&Heinly & RANSAC, NNSR, LPM & ST, GTM, GMS\
& AdelaideRMF & VFC, LPM & ST, RANSAC\
&VGG & USAC, RANSAC, LPM & ST\
& Symbench & GMS, VFC & ST\
& Heinly & LPM, RANSAC, VFC & ST, GMS\
& SIFT+SIFT & USAC, NNSR, GMS & ST, RANSAC\
& ORB+ORB &LPM, GMS, USAC & ST, VFC\
& ASIFT+ASIFT & VFC, RANSAC, GMS & ST, USAC, NNSR\
& BLOB+FREAK & VFC, NNSR, RANSAC & ST, GMS, USAC\
& Zoom and rotation & USAC, RANSAC & ST, GTM, GMS\
&Blur & NNSR, GMS & ST, RANSAC\
& Viewpoint change & USAC, VFC & ST, NNSR\
& Light change & USAC, VFC & ST\
& JPEG compression & USAC, VFC & ST, NNSR\
& GMS, NNSR & ST, GTM\
****
To give a quick guidance for developers regarding proper algorithms in a specific case, we list the superior and inferior correspondence selection in Table \[tab:sum\]. Also, peculiarities inherited to each evaluated algorithm are presented as follows:
- [**NNSR**]{} is arguably the most straightforward strategy to select correspondences. Its key strength is that repeatable patterns can be removed reliably in certain circumstances, provided that its employed feature detectors can locate the keypoints accurately and descriptors possess strong discriminative power, e.g., SIFT. Also, the high execution speed makes it suitable for real-time or near real-time systems. However, the limitation of NNSR is obvious because of the simple descriptor similarity constraint. It is vulnerable when image quality is low (e.g., facing with light change, blur, exposure, and style-transfer) and texture information is limited.
- [**RANSAC**]{} and [**USAC**]{}, i.e., two evaluated parametric approaches, can fit the parametric models including the homography and fundamental matrices between two images effectively, with the premise that the image pair has homography or epipolar geometry constraint. Thus, they are prior options in such circumstances. Nevertheless, such assumption also brings drawbacks, e.g., when non-rigid objects are captured in images with large scale of parallax or the pure rotation between two camera positions, resulting in the failure of RANSAC and USAC. Further, the reliable models may not be generated by limited iterations with high outlier ratios, which will give rise to expensive time cost. For RANSAC, the minimal-sample models sometimes fall into the local optimization. USAC optimizes over RANSAC, though, it does not guarantee convergence and may produce an empty inlier set due to strict constraints.
- [**ST**]{} and [**GTM**]{} are methods relying on the affinity matrix computed from initial matches. We can find that these two methods are relatively time-consuming, especially for the ST method. The performance of GTM is much better than ST, mainly because GTM employs local affine information to judge the compatibility of two correspondences. While ST is based on rigid constraint. ST, when inputted with high-quality correspondences, is able to achieve high precision performance (as verified in Sect. \[sub:sub2\]). These two methods are optional for off-line applications desiring high precision and with high-quality input.
- [**LPM**]{} rejects outliers by the local structure consistency. The constraint item in LPM is relatively loose, resulting in high recall yet relatively low precision. LPM prefers scenarios where the geometric structure information is well preserved between the same local pattern in the image pairs, e.g., small degrees of rigid transformations. Similar to NNSR, it relies strongly on the discriminative power of the feature descriptor. In other words, retrieving the local consistency can be problematic if the local region contains too few inliers. We therefore suggest to choose LPM in the context that has well preserved geometric structures and requires dense correspondences.
- [**VFC**]{}, as revealed by our experiment, is the most robust method under all tested scenarios. This is attributed to the fact that VFC is independent from the feature similarity and parametric models. Specifically, it performs inlier selection in a vector field. VFC generalizes well under different application contexts and can cope with various kinds of nuisances, especially for viewpoint change, light change and JPEG compression.
- [**GMS**]{}, similar to VFC, is also independent from the feature similarity and parametric models. However, it assumes that the motion between two images is smooth. Accordingly, it behaves unsatisfactory for image pairs undergoing large degrees of rotation. While if the motion smoothness assumption holds, its performance is superior even for correspondence set with very limited number of inlier, e.g., correspondences generated from the Symbench dataset. Another attractive merit of GMS is the ultra fast execution speed even under several thousands of initial correspondences, making it a prior selection for real-time applications.
Conclusions {#sec:con}
===========
This paper has comprehensively evaluated eight state-of**-th**e-art image correspondence selection algorithms, covering both parametric and non-parametric families. The experiments addressed several critical issues regarding correspondence selection, e.g., different application scenarios (datasets), inputs from different combinations of feature detector and descriptor, robustness under various challenging conditions including zoom, rotation, blur, viewpoint change, JPEG compression, light change, different rendering styles and multi-structures, and efficiency. Advantages and limitations, in light of experimental outcomes, are summarized so as to guide developers to choose a proper algorithm given a specific scenario.
Remarkably, the performance of most existing algorithms changes dramatically in different scenarios and most methods fail to achieve satisfactory results when the inlier ratio of the initial correspondence set is low. We therefore believe the research should towards the development of correspondence selection algorithms with well generality and be robust to a low inlier rate.
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
We are deeply grateful to the authors of the evaluated algorithms and datasets for making their contributions publicly available. This work is supported by the National High Technology Research and Development Program of China (863 Program) under Grant 2015AA015904.
[^1]: C. Zhao, Jiaqi Yang, Y. Xiao, and Zhiguo Cao was with School of Artificial Intelligence and Automation, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430074, China e-mail: (hust\_zhao@hust.edu.cn, jqyang@hust.edu.cn, Yang\_Xiao@hust.edu.cn, zgcao@hust.edu.cn) (Corresponding author: Zhiguo Cao.)
|
---
abstract: 'In this paper we develop constructive invertibility conditions for the twisted convolution. Our approach is based on splitting the twisted convolution with rational parameters into a finite number of weighted convolutions, which can be interpreted as another twisted convolution on a finite cyclic group. In analogy with the twisted convolution of finite discrete signals, we derive an anti-homomorphism between the sequence space and a suitable matrix algebra which preserves the algebraic structure. In this way, the problem reduces to the analysis of finite matrices whose entries are sequences supported on corresponding cosets. The invertibility condition then follows from Cramer’s rule and Wiener’s lemma for this special class of matrices. The problem results from a well known approach of studying the invertibility properties of the Gabor frame operator in the rational case. The presented approach gives further insights into Gabor frames. In particular, it can be applied for both the continuous (on ${{\mathbb{R}}^d}$) and the finite discrete setting. In the latter case, we obtain algorithmic schemes for directly computing the inverse of Gabor frame-type matrices equivalent to those known in the literature.'
author:
- 'Yonina C. Eldar[^1], Ewa Matusiak[^2], Tobias Werther $^\dagger$'
bibliography:
- 'twc.bib'
title: A Constructive Inversion Framework for Twisted Convolution
---
\[section\] \[theorem\][Definition]{} \[theorem\][Lemma]{} \[theorem\][Proposition]{} \[theorem\][Corollary]{} \[theorem\][Example]{} \[theorem\][Remark]{}
[Subject Classification: 44A35, 15A30, 42C15]{}
[Key Words: Twisted convolution, Wiener’s Lemma, Gabor frame, Invertibility of operators]{}
Introduction
============
Twisted convolution arises naturally in the context of time frequency operators, more specifically in the treatment of Gabor frames [@CH03; @Gro01]. The study of inversion schemes of twisted convolution has, therefore, a major impact on the analysis of Gabor frames. Our method is originated by the Janssen representation of Gabor frame operators [@Jan95] and simplifies the approach given in [@WEN05]. A different, however, equivalent method for studying Gabor frame operators is the well known Zibulski-Zeevi representation [@ZZ97] based on a generalized Zak-transform.
In contrast to the standard convolution, the twisted convolution is not commutative. This is opposed to the possibility of applying powerful tools from harmonic analysis, such as Wiener’s Lemma, in order to study twisted convolution operators. Recently, in [@WEN05], the authors described an new approach to classify the invertibility of $\ell^1$-sequences with respect to the twisted convolution for rational parameters.
In this manuscript we extend the idea of [@WEN05] in the sense that we take a different approach which allows far better insights into the problem. Specifically, we only deal with sequences and show explicitly how efficient inversion schemes can be derived by rather simple (though sophisticated) manipulations of the twisted convolution. The essential idea is to split up the twisted convolution into a finite number of sums that can be incorporated into a special matrix algebra. In this matrix algebra we then prove a special type of Wiener Lemma which is the most challenging part from a mathematical perspective.
The paper is organized as follows. The first section briefly outlines the basic definition of the twisted convolution. In this section we further discuss the example of twisted convolution on the finite group $Z_p\times Z_p$. This example serves the purpose to motivate the introduction of the matrix algebra that appears in Section 3 where we prove Wiener’s Lemma for a special subalgebra. Section 4 links the twisted convolution to time-frequency operators. More specifically, it shows how the results shown in Section 3 can be used in the context of Gabor frames. In the last section, we give a short outline of the application of the presented approach for inverting frame-like Gabor operators.
Twisted Convolution
===================
Let $p$ and $q$ be integers and relatively prime. We define the [*twisted convolution*]{} for sequences $a,b\in\ell^1({\mathbb{Z}^{2d}})$ by $$\label{eq:twconv}
({{a}\,{\natural}\,{b}})_{m,n} = \sum_{k,l\in{\mathbb{Z}^d}} a_{k,l}b_{m-k,n-l}{\omega}^{{ (m-k) \, \cdot \, l}}$$ where ${\omega}= e^{2\pi i q/p}$ and $\cdot$ denotes the inner product in ${{\mathbb{R}}^d}$. Although the twisted convolution depends on $p,q$ we do not specify this dependence because $p,q$ will always be given and fixed beforehand. In Section 4 we show how the twisted convolution is related to a class of operators with a special time-frequency representation.
In contrast to the conventional convolution with symbol $\ast$, in which ${\omega}=1$, the twisted convolution is not commutative, and turns $\ell^1({\mathbb{Z}^{2d}})$ into a non-commutative algebra with the delta-sequence $\delta$ as its unit element.
We tackle the problem to study the invertibility of twisted convolution operators. Non-commutativity is the main subtle point in this problem. In fact, the question when the mapping $$C_b:a\in\ell^1 \rightarrow {{a}\,{\natural}\,{b}} \in \ell^1$$ for some $b\in\ell^1$ is invertible and how we can compute the inverse is more difficult than for a commutative setting. In particular, Wiener’s Lemma which deals with the problem that if, for some $b \in \ell^1$, $C_b$ is invertible on $\ell^2$ then the inverse is generated from an element again in $\ell^1$, has to be proven separately. An abstract and more general proof of Wiener’s Lemma for twisted convolution is given in [@GL03]. Herein, we focus on a constructive method for studying the invertibility of the twisted convolution with the rational parameter $q/p$.
In the following subsections we study the twisted convolution in a finite setting and draw analogies for approaching the problem of invertibility of $C_b$ in the general case.
Twisted convolution on $\bf {Z_p}\times {Z_p}$
----------------------------------------------
In what follows we describe the twisted convolution on the finite group $F = {Z_p}\times {Z_p}$. The standard (commutative) convolution of two elements $f,g\in{\mathbb{C}}^{p\times p}$ is defined by $$({{f}\,\ast\,{g}})_{m,n} =\sum_{k,l=0}^{p-1} f_{k,l}g_{m-k,n-l}\,,$$ where operations on indices is performed modulo $p$.
In analogy to the infinite case, we define the twisted convolution ${{f}\,{\natural}\,{g}}$ of two elements $f,g\in{\mathbb{C}}^{p\times p}$ by $$({{f}\,{\natural}\,{g}})_{m,n} = \sum_{k,l = 0}^{p-1} f_{k,l} g_{m-k,n-l}
{\omega}^{(m-k)l}$$ with ${\omega}= e^{2\pi i q/p}$. For a fixed $g$, the twisted convolution can be seen as a linear mapping $C_g:f \rightarrow {{f}\,{\natural}\,{g}}$ whose matrix $G$ is block circulant with $p$ blocks, i.e., $$G = C(G_0,G_{p-1},\dots,G_1)
=\left (
\begin{array}{cccc} G_0 & G_{p-1} & \cdots & G_1 \\
G_1 & G_0 & \cdots & G_2 \\
\vdots & \vdots & & \vdots \\
G_{p-1} & G_{p-2} & \cdots & G_0
\end{array} \right )\,.$$ Each block has entries of the form $$(G_j)_{kl} = {\omega}^{jl}g_{j,k-l}\,.$$ Note that for the regular convolution each block is itself circulant. For the invertibility of block circulant matrices we apply a well known result from Fourier analysis.
[[@Dav94]]{} The matrix $G=C(G_0,G_{p-1},\dots,G_1)$ is invertible if and only if every $\hat{G}_s = \sum_{r=0}^{p-1}e^{-2\pi i sr/p}G_r$, $s=0,\dots,p-1$, is invertible. In this case $$G^{-1} = C(H_0,H_{p-1},\dots,H_1)$$ where $H_r = \frac{1}{p}\sum_{s=0}^{p-1}e^{2\pi i sr/p}(\hat{G}_s)^{-1}\,.$
By analyzing $\hat{G}_s$, we see that all blocks are unitary equivalent, in the sense that $$T_r\hat{G}_sT^*_r = \hat{G}_{s-qr}\,,$$ where $T_r$ denotes the unitary matrix with entries $$(T_r)_{kl} =
\left\{
\begin{array}{cl}
1 & \mbox{if} \quad p-r = l-k, \\
0 & \mbox{else}\,.
\end{array}
\right.$$ Since $p$ and $q$ are relatively prime, we obtain all blocks by such a unitary transformation. This implies that showing that if $\hat{G}_0$ is invertible, then all $\hat{G}_s$ are invertible for $s=1,\dots,p-1$. In other words, the $p\times p$ matrix $\hat{G}_0$ contains all the information about the invertibility of $C_g$. An easy computation shows that the entries of $\hat{G}_0$ are given by $$\label{eq:entries}
(\hat{G}_0)_{n,l} = \sum_{k=0}^{p-1}{\omega}^{nl}g_{k,n-l}\,.$$ We will later see that this observation motivates the matrix algebra that we introduce to study the invertibility of the twisted convolution.
Now, also all $\hat{G}^{-1}_s$ satisfy the same unitary equivalence. It follows that we can read from $\hat{G}^{-1}_0$ the element $g^{-1}$ which inverts the twisted convolution $f\rightarrow
{{f}\,{\natural}\,{g}}$, i.e., ${{g^{-1}}\,{\natural}\,{g}} = {{g}\,{\natural}\,{g^{-1}}} = \delta.$
The twisted convolution on $Z_p\times Z_p$ serves as analogy for modelling the twisted convolution for the continuous and the finite dimensional case.
Main results
============
Our aim is to find a way to describe those sequences that have an inverse in $(\ell^1({\mathbb{Z}^{2d}}),{\natural})$. To this end we divide the twisted convolution into a finite sum of weighted normal convolutions of sequences that have disjoint support. We define such a sequence $a^{r,s}$ by $$\label{eq:coset-seq}
(a^{r,s})_{k,l} = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
a_{k,l} \quad & \mbox{if} \quad (k,l) \equiv_p (r,s)\,, \\ [.2cm]
0 & \mbox{else,}
\end{array}
\right.$$ where $r,s \in {{Z_p}^d}$. Obviously, $a^{r,s}$ is supported on the coset $(r + p{\mathbb{Z}^d}) \times (s + p{\mathbb{Z}^d})$ and $a = \sum_{r,s \in {{Z_p}^d}}
a^{r,s}$. For a sequence $a$ having a coset support only for one index, e.g., on ${\mathbb{Z}^d}\times (s+p{\mathbb{Z}^d})$, we simply write $a^{\cdot,s}$. We write $\equiv_p$ for denoting the equivalence of integers modulo $p$. The idea of slitting a sequence into a sum of sequences supported on cosets has first been introduced by K. Gr[ö]{}chenig and W. Kozek in [@GK97].
\[lem1\] Let $a,b,c$ be in $\ell^1({\mathbb{Z}^{2d}})$.
- For $r,s,u,v \in {{Z_p}^d}$, ${{a^{r,s}}\,\ast\,{b^{u,v}}}$ is a sequence supported on the coset $(u+r+p{\mathbb{Z}^d}) \times (v+s+p{\mathbb{Z}^d})$.
- If $c=c^{\cdot,0}$ is invertible in $(\ell^1,\ast)$, then $c^{-1}$ is also supported on ${\mathbb{Z}^d}\times p{\mathbb{Z}^d}$.
Let $a^{r,s}, b^{u,v}$ be sequences in $\ell^1({\mathbb{Z}^{2d}})$ and $k,l \in {{Z_p}^d}$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
(a^{r,s} \ast b^{u,v})_{k+p{\mathbb{Z}^d},l+p{\mathbb{Z}^d}} &=& \sum_{m,n \in {\mathbb{Z}^d}} (a^{r,s})_{m,n}
(b^{u,v})_{k+p{\mathbb{Z}^d}-m,l+p{\mathbb{Z}^d}-n} \\
&=& \sum_{m,n \in {{Z_p}^d}} \sum_{(t,w) \equiv_p (m,n)} (a^{r,s})_{t,w}
(b^{u,v})_{k+p{\mathbb{Z}^d}-t,l+p{\mathbb{Z}^d}-w}.\end{aligned}$$ Since $a^{r,s}$ is nonzero only for $(t,w) \equiv_p (r,s)$, and $b^{u,v}$ for $(k-t,l-w) \equiv_p (u,v)$, we obtain that $(k,l)$ has to be equivalent to $(u+r,v+s)$ modulo $p$ for $a^{r,s} \ast b^{u,v}$ to be nonzero.
To show (b), let $c=c^{\cdot,0}$ be invertible and $e$ be its inverse. Then $$\delta = c \ast e = c^{\cdot,0} \ast \big( \sum_{s \in {{Z_p}^d}} e^{\cdot,s} \big )
= \sum_{s \in {{Z_p}^d}} c^{\cdot,0} \ast e^{\cdot,s},$$ where, by previous calculations, $c^{\cdot,0} \ast e^{\cdot,s}$ is a sequence supported on ${\mathbb{Z}^d}\times (s+p{\mathbb{Z}^d})$ for each $s \in {{Z_p}^d}$. Since $\delta =
\sum_{s \in {{Z_p}^d}} \delta^{\cdot,s}$, and elements of the sum have disjoint supports, $c^{\cdot,0} \ast e^{\cdot,s} = \delta^{\cdot,s}$. But since $\delta^{\cdot,s} = 0$ for $s \neq 0$ and $\delta^{\cdot,0} =
\delta$, we conclude that $$c^{\cdot,0} \ast e^{\cdot,s} = \left \{
\begin{array}{cc}
\delta & s = 0\\ [.2cm]
0 & s \neq 0
\end{array} \right.$$ and therefore $e = e^{\cdot,0}$.
With Definition (\[eq:coset-seq\]), we obtain for $u,v \in {{Z_p}^d}$ $$\begin{aligned}
({{a}\,{\natural}\,{b}})_{u+p{\mathbb{Z}^d},v+p{\mathbb{Z}^d}} & = &
\sum_{k,l \in {\mathbb{Z}^d}}a_{k,l}b_{u+p{\mathbb{Z}^d}-k,v+p{\mathbb{Z}^d}-l} {\omega}^{{ (u-k) \, \cdot \, l}} \\
& = & \sum_{r,s \in {{Z_p}^d}} \sum_{(k,l)\equiv_p (r,s)} a_{k,l}
b_{u+p{\mathbb{Z}^d}-k,v+p{\mathbb{Z}^d}-l} {\omega}^{{ (u-r) \, \cdot \, s}} \\
& = & \sum_{r,s \in {{Z_p}^d}} \sum_{k,l \in {\mathbb{Z}^d}}
(a^{r,s})_{k,l}(b^{u-r,v-s})_{u+p{\mathbb{Z}^d}-k,v+p{\mathbb{Z}^d}-l} {\omega}^{{ (u-r) \, \cdot \, s}} \\
& = & \sum_{r,s \in {{Z_p}^d}} (a^{r,s}\ast
b^{u-r,v-s})_{u+p{\mathbb{Z}^d},v+p{\mathbb{Z}^d}} {\omega}^{{ (u-r) \, \cdot \, s}}\,.\end{aligned}$$ In a more compact notation we have $$\label{eq:comp}
({{a}\,{\natural}\,{b}})^{u,v} = \sum_{r,s \in {{Z_p}^d}} a^{r,s} \ast b^{u-r,v-s}
{\omega}^{{ (u-r) \, \cdot \, s}}\,.$$ We observe now that the upper indices in (\[eq:comp\]) behave like a twisted convolution in ${{Z_p}^d}\times {{Z_p}^d}$. What changes is that we have sequences as elements and standard convolution instead of multiplication.
Motivated by the block circulant structure of the twisted convolution on ${Z_p}\times{Z_p}$ as described in the previous section, we introduce a new matrix algebra which is isomorphic to $(\ell^1({\mathbb{Z}^{2d}}),{\natural})$.
Before we do so, we fix an ordering of the elements from ${{Z_p}^d}$. Let $N= p^d$ and ${\mathcal{I}}=\{1,\ldots,N \}$. Then, to each $i \in {\mathcal{I}}$ we assign an element $k_i$ from ${{Z_p}^d}$ and set $k_1 = (0,\ldots,0)$. We will often write $0$ instead of $k_1$.
Let $({\mathcal{M}},{\circledast})$ be an algebra of $p^d \times p^d$-matrices whose entries are $\ell^1$-sequences and multiplication of two elements $A,B \in {\mathcal{M}}$ is given by $$({{A}\,{\circledast}\,{B}})_{i,j} = \sum_{l \in {\mathcal{I}}} {{A_{i,l}}\,\ast\,{B_{l,j}}}
\qquad i,j \in{\mathcal{I}}\,.$$ The identity element ${\mbox{Id}}$ is a matrix with $\delta$ sequences on the diagonal.
\[thm1\] Let $${\mathcal{M}}_0 = {\Big\{ \, A \in {\mathcal{M}}\, \Big| \, A_{i,j} = \sum_{m \in {{Z_p}^d}}
{\omega}^{{ m \, \cdot \, k_j}} a^{m,k_i - k_j}, a \in \ell^1 ~\text{and}~ i,j \in {\mathcal{I}}\, \Big\}}.$$ Then ${\mathcal{M}}_0$ is a subalgebra of ${\mathcal{M}}$.
Define a mapping $\phi \colon (\ell^1,{\natural}) \rightarrow ({\mathcal{M}},{\circledast})$ by $$\label{eq:map-phi}
(\phi(a))_{i,j} = \sum_{m \in {{Z_p}^d}} {\omega}^{{ m \, \cdot \, k_j}} a^{m,k_i - k_j}.$$ Then $\phi$ is linear, $(\phi(\delta))_{i,j} = \sum_{m \in {{Z_p}^d}}
{\omega}^{{ m \, \cdot \, k_j}} \delta^{m,k_i-k_j} = \delta$ if $i=j$ and zero otherwise. So $\phi(\delta) = {\mbox{Id}}$. We emphasize that the mapping $\phi$ has been motivated by the matrix $\hat{G}_0$ described in the previous section. For $i,j \in {\mathcal{I}}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\big ( \phi({{a}\,{\natural}\,{b}}) \big )_{i,j}
&=& \sum_{m \in {{Z_p}^d}} {\omega}^{{ m \, \cdot \, k_j}}
({{a}\,{\natural}\,{b}})^{m,k_i - k_j} = \sum_{m \in {{Z_p}^d}} {\omega}^{{ m \, \cdot \, k_j}}
\sum_{l,s \in {{Z_p}^d}}
{\omega}^{(m-l)\cdot s} {{a^{l,s}}\,\ast\,{b^{m-l,k_i- k_j-s}}} \\
&=& \sum_{m,l,s \in {{Z_p}^d}} {\omega}^{{ m \, \cdot \, k_j+s})} {\omega}^{{ -l \, \cdot \, s}}
{{a^{l,s}}\,\ast\,{b^{m-l,k_i- k_j-s}}} \\
&=& \sum_{m,l,s \in {{Z_p}^d}} {\omega}^{{ m \, \cdot \, s}} {\omega}^{-l \cdot (s-k_j)}
{{a^{l,s-k_j}}\,\ast\,{b^{m-l,k_i-s}}}\\
&=& \sum_{m,l,s \in {{Z_p}^d}} {\omega}^{{ l \, \cdot \, k_j}} {\omega}^{{ s \, \cdot \, (m-l)}}
{{a^{l,s-k_j}}\,\ast\,{b^{m-l,k_i-s}}} \\
&=& \sum_{s \in {{Z_p}^d}} {{\big ( \sum_{l \in {{Z_p}^d}}
{\omega}^{{ l \, \cdot \, k_j}}a^{l,s-k_j} \big )}\,\ast\,{\big ( \sum_{m \in {{Z_p}^d}}
{\omega}^{{ s \, \cdot \, (m-l)}} b^{m-l,k_i-s} \big )}} \\
&=& \sum_{n \in {\mathcal{I}}} {{\big ( \sum_{m \in {{Z_p}^d}} {\omega}^{{ k_n \, \cdot \, m}}
b^{m,k_i-k_n}\big)}\,\ast\,{\big ( \sum_{l \in {{Z_p}^d}} {\omega}^{{ l \, \cdot \, k_j}}
a^{l,k_n-k_j} \big )}} \\
&=& \sum_{n \in {\mathcal{I}}} {{\phi(b)_{i,n}}\,\ast\,{\phi(a)_{n,j}}} \;= \;
\big ( {{\phi(b)}\,{\circledast}\,{\phi(a)}} \big )_{i,j}\,.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore $\phi$ is an anti-homomorphism, that is, $$\phi({{a}\,{\natural}\,{b}}) = {{\phi(b)}\,{\circledast}\,{\phi(a)}}.$$ Hence ${\mathcal{M}}_0$ is an algebra, being an image of an anti-homomorphism.
Before stating the main theorem, we explore properties of elements of ${\mathcal{M}}_0$. For $i,j \in {\mathcal{I}}$ and a matrix $A \in {\mathcal{M}}_0$ we define a new matrix $A(j,i)$ obtained from $A$ by substituting the $j$th row of $A$ with a vector of zeros having $\delta$ on the $i$th position, and the $i$th column with a column of zeros having $\delta$ on the $j$th position.
\[lem2\] Let $A \in \mathcal{M}_0$. Then
- $\det (A)$ is a sequence supported on ${\mathbb{Z}^d}\times p{\mathbb{Z}^d}$.
- $\det (A(1,i))$ is a sequence supported on ${\mathbb{Z}^d}\times (k_i + p{\mathbb{Z}^d})$ for $i \in {\mathcal{I}}$.
Let $S_N$ be the group of permutations of the set ${\mathcal{I}}$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\det(A) &=& \sum_{\sigma \in S_N } (-1)^{\sigma} \prod_{i=1}^{N}
A_{\sigma(i),i}= \sum_{\sigma \in S_N} (-1)^{\sigma} \prod_{i=1}^{N}
\Big (\sum_{m_i \in {{Z_p}^d}}{\omega}^{k_i \cdot m_i} a^{m_i,k_{\sigma(i)}-k_i}\Big ) \\
&=& \sum_{\sigma \in S_N} (-1)^{\sigma}
\sum_{m_1,\ldots,m_{N} \in {{Z_p}^d}} {\omega}^{\sum_{i=1}^{N} { m_i \, \cdot \, k_i}}
\underbrace{a^{m_1,k_{\sigma(1)}-k_1} \ast \cdots \ast
a^{m_N,k_{\sigma(N)}-k_N}}_{G_{m_1,\ldots,m_N}}.\end{aligned}$$ Since $\sigma$ is a permutation of ${\mathcal{I}}$, $$(k_{\sigma(1)}-k_1)+(k_{\sigma(2)}-k_2)+\cdots+(k_{\sigma(N)}-k_N)=0.$$ Therefore, by Lemma \[lem1\], $G_{m_1,\ldots,m_N}$ is a sequence supported on the coset $(\sum_{i \in {\mathcal{I}}}m_i+p{\mathbb{Z}^d}) \times p{\mathbb{Z}^d}$. Since $\sum_{i \in{\mathcal{I}}} m_i$ runs over all ${{Z_p}^d}$, we see that $\det(A)$ is supported on the coset ${\mathbb{Z}^d}\times p{\mathbb{Z}^d}$, i.e., $\det(A) = \det(A)^{\cdot,0}$.
In order to compute the support of $\det(A(1,i))$ for $i \in {\mathcal{I}}$, let $S_{N-1}$ denote the group of permutations of $\{2,\ldots,N
\}$. Then for $i=1,\ldots,N$, $$\begin{aligned}
\det(A(1,i))
&=& (-1)^{i+1} \sum_{\sigma \in S_{N-1}}(-1)^{\sigma}
A_{\sigma(2),1} \ast \cdots \ast A_{\sigma(i),i-1}
\ast A_{\sigma(i+1),i+1} \ast \cdots \ast A_{\sigma(N),N}\\
&=& (-1)^{i+1} \sum_{\sigma \in S_{N-1}} (-1)^{\sigma}
\sum_{m_2,\ldots,m_N \in {{Z_p}^d}} {\omega}^{{ m_2 \, \cdot \, k_1} + \cdots +
{ m_i \, \cdot \, k_{i-1}}
+ { m_{i+1} \, \cdot \, k_{i+1}} + \cdots + { m_{N} \, \cdot \, k_N}} \times \\
&\times& \underbrace{a^{m_2,k_{\sigma(2)}-k_1} \ast \cdots
\ast a^{m_i,k_{\sigma(i)}-k_{i-1}}
\ast a^{m_{i+1},k_{\sigma(i+1)}-k_{i+1}} \ast \cdots \ast
a^{m_N,k_{\sigma(N)}-k_N}}_{G_{m_2,\ldots,m_N}}.\end{aligned}$$ Since $\sigma$ is a permutation of $\{2,\ldots,N\}$, $$\begin{aligned}
& (k_{\sigma(2)}-k_1) + \cdots + (k_{\sigma(i)}-k_{i-1}) +
(k_{\sigma(i+1)}-k_{i+1}) + \cdots + (k_{\sigma(N)}-k_N) & \\
&= \; (k_{\sigma(2)} + \cdots + k_{\sigma(N)}) - (k_1+k_2+\cdots+k_N) + k_i &\\
&= \; (k_{\sigma(2)} + \cdots + k_{\sigma(N)}) - (k_2+\cdots+k_N) + k_i \; =
\;k_i\,.&\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, by Lemma \[lem1\], $G_{m_2,\ldots,m_N}$ is supported on $(\sum_{i=2}^{N} m_i + p{\mathbb{Z}^d}) \times (k_i + p{\mathbb{Z}^d})$, and since each $m_i$ runs over all ${{Z_p}^d}$, $\det(A(1,i))$ is supported on ${\mathbb{Z}^d}\times (k_i+p{\mathbb{Z}^d})$. That is, $\det(A(1,i)) = \det(A(1,i))^{\cdot,k_i}$.
Now we are in the position to state and prove the main result
\[th:wiener\][\[Wiener’s Lemma for ${\mathcal{M}}_0$\]]{} Let $A \in{\mathcal{M}}_0$. If $A$ is invertible in ${\mathcal{M}}$, then $B=A^{-1} \in {\mathcal{M}}_0$.
Since $A \in {\mathcal{M}}_0$ is invertible, $\det(A)$ is an invertible sequence in $(\ell^1,\ast)$, and there exists a matrix $\widetilde{B} \in {\mathcal{M}}$ such that ${{A}\,{\circledast}\,{\widetilde{B}}} = {\mbox{Id}}$. By Lemma \[lem2\], $\det(A) = \det(A)^{\cdot,0}$ and by Lemma \[lem1\] its inverse, $e = \det(A)^{-1}$, is also supported on the same coset, hence $e = e^{\cdot,0}$. By Cramer’s rule the inverse of $A$ is given by $$\widetilde{B}_{i,j} = {{\det(A(j,i))}\,\ast\,{e}}.$$ We see that by Lemma \[lem2\] (b), $\widetilde{B}_{i,1}$ is a sequence supported on ${\mathbb{Z}^d}\times (k_i+p{\mathbb{Z}^d})$. Let $b$ be a sequence defined by $$b = \widetilde{B}_{1,1}+\widetilde{B}_{2,1} + \ldots +
\widetilde{B}_{N,1}.$$ Then $\widetilde{B}_{i,1} = \sum_{j \in {\mathcal{I}}} b^{k_j,k_i}$. Define a new matrix, denoted by $B$, as $$B_{i,j} = \sum_{m \in {{Z_p}^d}} {\omega}^{{ m \, \cdot \, k_j}} b^{m,k_i-k_j}.$$ Then $B \in {\mathcal{M}}_0$ and we will show that $B=\widetilde{B}$, that is, $B$ is the inverse of $A$.
Since $\widetilde{B}$ is the inverse of $A$, $$\begin{aligned}
{\mbox{Id}}_{i,1} & = & \big ( {{A}\,{\circledast}\,{\widetilde{B}}} \big )_{i,1}
= \sum_{j \in {\mathcal{I}}} {{A_{i,j}}\,\ast\,{\widetilde{B}_{j,1}}} \\ &=&
\sum_{j \in {\mathcal{I}}} \sum_{m \in {{Z_p}^d}} {\omega}^{{ m \, \cdot \, k_j}}
{{a^{m,k_i-k_j}}\,\ast\,{\widetilde{B}_{j,1}}} \\
&=& \sum_{j \in {\mathcal{I}}} \sum_{m \in {{Z_p}^d}} {\omega}^{{ m \, \cdot \, k_j}} {{a^{m,k_i-k_j}}\,\ast\,{\big ( \sum_{n \in {{Z_p}^d}} b^{n,k_j} \big )}} \\ &=& \sum_{j \in {\mathcal{I}}}
\sum_{m \in {{Z_p}^d}} {\omega}^{{ m \, \cdot \, k_j}} \sum_{n \in {{Z_p}^d}}
{{a^{m,k_i-k_j}}\,\ast\,{b^{n,k_j}}} \\
&=& \sum_{m \in {{Z_p}^d}}\sum_{j \in {\mathcal{I}}} \sum_{n \in {{Z_p}^d}}
{\omega}^{{ (m-n) \, \cdot \, k_j}} {{a^{m-n,k_i-k_j}}\,\ast\,{b^{n,k_j}}} \\ &=&
\sum_{m \in {{Z_p}^d}}G(m,k_i),\end{aligned}$$ where $G(m,k_i) = \sum_{j \in {\mathcal{I}}} \sum_{n \in {{Z_p}^d}} {\omega}^{{ (m-n) \, \cdot \, k_j}}
a^{m-n,k_i-k_j} \ast b^{n,k_j}$ is a sequence supported on $(m+p{\mathbb{Z}}) \times (k_i+p{\mathbb{Z}})$. Therefore, $G(k_1,k_1) = \delta$ and $G(m,k_i) = 0$ for $m \neq k_1$ and $i \neq 1$. Using the above identity we will show that ${{A}\,{\circledast}\,{B}} = {\mbox{Id}}$, and by the uniqueness of the inverse we will conclude that $B=\widetilde{B}$: $$\begin{aligned}
& & \big ( {{A}\,{\circledast}\,{B}} \big )_{i,j} \; = \; \sum_{s \in {\mathcal{I}}} A_{i,s}
\ast B_{s,j} \; = \\ &=& \sum_{s \in {\mathcal{I}}} \Big ( \sum_{m \in {{Z_p}^d}}
{\omega}^{{ m \, \cdot \, k_s}} a^{m,k_i-k_s} \Big) \ast \Big ( \sum_{n \in {{Z_p}^d}}
{\omega}^{{ n \, \cdot \, k_j}} b^{n,k_s-k_j} \Big ) \\
&=& \sum_{m \in {{Z_p}^d}} \sum_{s \in {\mathcal{I}}} \sum_{n \in {{Z_p}^d}} {\omega}^{{ m \, \cdot \, k_s}}
{\omega}^{{ n \, \cdot \, k_j}} a^{m,k_i-k_s} \ast b^{n,k_s-k_j}\\
&=& \sum_{m \in {{Z_p}^d}} \sum_{s \in {\mathcal{I}}} \sum_{n \in {{Z_p}^d}} {\omega}^{{ (k_s+k_j) \, \cdot \, m}}
{\omega}^{{ n \, \cdot \, k_j}} a^{m,k_i-k_j-k_s} \ast b^{n,k_s}\\ &=&
\sum_{m \in {{Z_p}^d}} \sum_{s \in {\mathcal{I}}} \sum_{n \in {{Z_p}^d}} {\omega}^{{ (k_s+k_j) \, \cdot \, (m-n)}}
{\omega}^{{ n \, \cdot \, k_j}} a^{m-n,(k_i-k_j)-k_s} \ast b^{n,k_s} \\
&=& \sum_{m \in {{Z_p}^d}} {\omega}^{{ m \, \cdot \, k_j}} \sum_{s \in {\mathcal{I}}} \sum_{n \in {{Z_p}^d}}
{\omega}^{{ (m-n) \, \cdot \, k_s}} a^{m-n,(k_i-k_j)-k_s} \ast b^{n,k_s} \\
&=& \sum_{m \in {{Z_p}^d}} {\omega}^{{ m \, \cdot \, k_j}} G(m,k_i-k_j) \; = \;
\left \{ \begin{array}{cc}
\delta & k_i - k_j = k_1 ~ \Leftrightarrow ~ i=j;\\ [.2cm]
0 & k_i - k_j \neq k_1 ~ \Leftrightarrow ~ i \neq j;
\end{array} \right.\end{aligned}$$ Hence, ${{A}\,{\circledast}\,{B}} =I$.
Theorem \[th:wiener\] provides the key result to study invertibility of twisted convolution. Indeed, for a given sequence $a$ in $\ell^1$ we look at the corresponding matrix $A = \phi(a)$ as defined in (\[eq:map-phi\]). If $A$ is invertible in $({\mathcal{M}},{\circledast})$, which can be checked showing that the determinant is invertible in $(\ell^1,\ast)$, then its inverse $A^{-1}$ is of the form $\phi(b)$ for another element $b$ in $\ell^1$. This element $b$, in turn, provides the inverse of $a$ in $(\ell^1,{\natural})$.
The approach is constructive in the sense that algebraic methods such as Cramer’s Rule can be applied to find the inverse of $A$. Then, the sequence $b$ can simply be read from the entries of $A^{-1}$ according to the mapping $\phi$. In particular for small $p$ and $d$ this method leads to fast inversion schemes for the twisted convolution operator. In the last section we will show explicitly how this works in the case of $d=1$.
Twisted convolution and Gabor analysis
======================================
Central objects in time frequency analysis are modulation and translation operators. Although most of the upcoming notation can be given in the more general setting of locally compact Abelian groups we restrict ourselves to ${{\mathbb{R}}^d}$ in order to simplify the readability of this article.
For $x,{\omega}\in{{\mathbb{R}}^d}$ we define the translation operator and the modulation operator on $L^2({{\mathbb{R}}^d})$ by $$\begin{aligned}
T_x f(\cdot) &=& f(\cdot - x)\,, \\
M_{\omega}f(\cdot) &=& e^{2\pi i {\omega}\cdot} f(\cdot)\,,\end{aligned}$$ respectively. Many technical details in time-frequency analysis are linked to the commutation law of the translation and modulation operator, namely, $$\label{eq:commlaw}
M_{\omega}T_x\, = \, e^{2\pi i { x \, \cdot \, {\omega}}}T_x M_{\omega}\,.$$ The time-frequency shift for $x,{\omega}\in{{\mathbb{R}}^d}$ is denoted by $$\pi(x,{\omega}) = T_x M_{\omega}.$$ It follows from (\[eq:commlaw\]) that $$\label{eq:commlaw2}
\pi(x_1,{\omega}_1)\pi(x_2,{\omega}_2) \, = \, e^{2\pi i { x_2 \, \cdot \, {\omega}_1}}
\pi(x_1+x_2,{\omega}_1+{\omega}_2)\,.$$ This shows that time-frequency shifts almost allow a group structure. Incorporating the additional phase factor into a more extended group law leads to the so-called Heissenberg group. For more details about this topic, the reader is referred to [@F89].
Gabor analysis deals with the problem of decomposing and reconstructing signals according to a special basis system which consists of regular time-frequency shifts of a single so-called window function [@FS98; @FS03]. Let ${\Lambda}$ be a time-frequency lattice, i.e., a discrete subgroup of the time-frequency plane ${{\mathbb{R}}^{2d}}$, and let $g$ be in $L^2({{\mathbb{R}}^d})$. Then we define a Gabor system ${\mathcal{G}}(g,{\Lambda})$ by $${\mathcal{G}}(g,{\Lambda}) \, = \, {\Big\{ \, \pi({\lambda})g \, \Big| \, {\lambda}\in{\Lambda}\, \Big\}}\,.$$ We associate with this Gabor system the positive operator $$S:f\in L^2 \rightarrow Sf = \sum_{{\lambda}\in{\Lambda}}
{\langle f,\pi({\lambda})g\rangle}\pi({\lambda})g \,.$$ If the operator $S$ is bounded and invertible on $L^2({{\mathbb{R}}^d})$, then ${\mathcal{G}}(g,{\Lambda})$ is called a frame and $S$ the associated frame operator, cf. [@CH03].
Many studies in Gabor analysis are devoted to the frame operator [@Gro01]. In what follows we will describe the so-called Janssen representation of such operators. To this end we need the notion of the adjoint lattice, i.e., $${{\Lambda}^\circ}\, = \, {\Big\{ \, {{\lambda}^\circ}\in{{\mathbb{R}}^{2d}}\, \Big| \, \pi({\lambda})\pi({{\lambda}^\circ})=
\pi({{\lambda}^\circ})\pi({\lambda}),\, {\lambda}\in{\Lambda}\, \Big\}}\,.$$ In [@DLL95; @FK98; @Jan95] it is shown that the frame operator $S$ satisfies Janssen representation, $$\label{eq:jans-repr}
S \, = \, \sum_{{{\lambda}^\circ}\in{{\Lambda}^\circ}} {\langle g,\pi({{\lambda}^\circ})g\rangle}\pi({{\lambda}^\circ})\,.$$ At this point, the question arises if we can deduce the invertibility of the operator $S$ from the Janssen coefficients $({\langle g,\pi({{\lambda}^\circ})g\rangle})$. It is known from frame theory that if $S$ is invertible, then its inverse is of the same type, that is, it also has a Janssen representation.
In order to better understand the main ingredients of this problem we transfer the model to an operator algebra. To this end we restrict our discussion to so-called separable lattices of the form $${\Lambda}\, = \, {\alpha}{\mathbb{Z}^d}\times {\beta}{\mathbb{Z}^d}$$ for some fixed positive numbers ${\alpha}$ and ${\beta}$. An easy computation based on (\[eq:commlaw2\]) shows that $${{\Lambda}^\circ}\, = \, {\beta}^{-1} {\mathbb{Z}^d}\times {\alpha}^{-1} {\mathbb{Z}^d}\,.$$
We define the operator algebra ${\mathcal{A}}$ as in [@GL03] by $${\mathcal{A}}\, = \, {\Big\{ \, S = \sum_{k,l\in{\mathbb{Z}^d}}a_{k,l}
\pi({\beta}^{-1}k,{\alpha}^{-1}l) \, \Big| \, a=(a_{k,l})\in\ell^1({\mathbb{Z}^{2d}}) \, \Big\}}\,.$$ The restriction to $\ell^1$-sequences guarantees absolute convergence of the sum of time-frequency shifts. Let ${\kappa}$ be the mapping $${\kappa}:a\in\ell^1 \rightarrow {\kappa}(a) = \sum_{k,l\in{\mathbb{Z}^d}}a_{k,l}
\pi({\beta}^{-1}k,{\alpha}^{-1}l)\in{\mathcal{A}}\,.$$ Then, as already observed in [@Jan95], we have $${\kappa}(a){\kappa}(b) \, = \, {\kappa}({{a}\,{\natural}\,{b}})$$ and ${\kappa}(\delta) = {\mbox{Id}}$ where $\delta$ and ${\mbox{Id}}$ denote the Dirac sequence and the identity operator, respectively. Both represent the unit element of the corresponding algebra. It follows that ${\kappa}$ is an algebra homomorphism from $(\ell^1({\mathbb{Z}^{2d}}),{\natural})$ to ${\mathcal{A}}$, and invertibility of an element in ${\mathcal{A}}$ can be transferred to the invertibility of the associated $\ell^1$-sequence with respect to the twisted convolution.
It is important to observe, that all the results go through also for weighted $\ell^1$-spaces. These facts are used to design dual Gabor windows of a special type, cf. [@GL03].
In the following section we give an example of how this approach can be explicitly used in Gabor analysis of one-dimensional signals.
[**Remark.**]{} The above results, with the help of metaplectic operators, carry over to the more general class of lattices, called symplectic lattices. A lattice ${\Lambda}_s \subseteq {{\mathbb{R}}^{2d}}$ is called symplectic, if one can write ${\Lambda}_s = {\mathcal{D}}{\Lambda}$ where ${\Lambda}$ is a separable lattice and ${\mathcal{D}}\in GL_{2d}({\mathbb{R}})$. To every ${\mathcal{D}}\in
GL_{2d}({\mathbb{R}})$, there corresponds a unitary operator $\mu({\mathcal{D}})$, called metaplectic, acting on $L^2({{\mathbb{R}}^d})$. One can show that a Gabor system on a symplectic lattice is unitary equivalent to a Gabor system on a separable lattice under $\mu({\mathcal{D}})$, and $$S_{g}^{{\Lambda}_s} = \mu({\mathcal{D}})^{-1} S_{\mu({\mathcal{D}})g}^{{\Lambda}} \mu({\mathcal{D}}).$$ Hence, to analyze the invertibility of a frame operator $S$ associated to the window function $g \in L^2({{\mathbb{R}}^d})$ and symplectic lattice ${\Lambda}_s$, it suffices to analyze a frame operator associated to $\mu({\mathcal{D}})g$ and a separable lattice ${\Lambda}$. For more details see [@Gro01].
Application to one-dimensional signal space
===========================================
In this section, we briefly describe how the presented inversion scheme applies to Gabor frame operators in a one-dimensional setting. A more detailed discussion also for finite dimensional signals is described in [@MWE05].
Assume $d=1$. Let $a$ be in $\ell^1({\mathbb{Z}}^2)$ and ${\alpha}, {\beta}$ be constants such that ${\alpha}{\beta}= p/q$ with $p,q$ relative prime. Set $${\kappa}(a) = \sum_{k,l\in{\mathbb{Z}}}a_{k,l}\pi({\beta}^{-1}k,{\alpha}^{-1}l)\,.$$ In order to verify if ${\kappa}(a)$ is invertible on $L^2({\mathbb{R}})$ we simply look at the coefficient sequence $a$ and check whether $a$ is invertible in $(\ell^1({\mathbb{Z}}^2),{\natural})$. To this end, we apply the above results and switch to the matrix $A$ whose entries are defined by $$A_{i,j} = \sum_{m=0}^{p-1} {\omega}^{mj}a^{m,i-j}\,,$$ with ${\omega}= e^{2\pi i q/p}$. Next, we need to show that the matrix $A$ is invertible in $({\mathcal{M}},{\circledast})$. For example, we can calculate the determinate which is a sequence in $\ell^1$ and show that it is invertible in $(\ell^1,\ast)$.
Assume that the determinant of $A$ is invertible. We denote its inverse by $e$. By Cramer’s Rule, we compute the first column of the inverse matrix $B$ of $A$ as $$B_{k,0} = {{\det A(0,k)}\,\ast\,{e}}\,,$$ for $k=0,\dots,p-1$. Then $$b = \sum_{k=0}^{p-1}B_{k,0}$$ provides the inverse sequence of $a$ which, in turns, gives ${\kappa}(a)^{-1} = {\kappa}(b)$.
Note that for $p=1$, the twisted convolution turn into normal convolution and we can simply apply the standard Fourier inversion scheme of sequences in $(\ell^1({\mathbb{Z}}^2),\ast)$ since in this case the matrix $A$ reduces to the sequence $a$.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
The authors gratefully acknowledge support from the Ollendorff Minerva Center and from the European Union’s Human Potential Programme, under the contract HPRN-CT-2003-00285 (HASSIP). We would also like to thank Karlheinz Gr[ö]{}chenig and Yehoshua Y. Zeevi for many fruitful discussions.
[^1]: Dept. of Electrical Engineering, Technion–Israel Institute of Technology, 32000 Haifa, Israel. Tel.: +972-4-8293256, Fax.: +972-4-8295757, Email: `yonina@ee.technion.ac.il`
[^2]: Faculty of Math., University of Vienna, 1090 Vienna, Austria. Tel.: +43-1-4277-50693, Fax.: +43-1-4277-50690, Email: `ewa.matusiak@univie.ac.at`, `tobias.werther@univie.ac.at`.
|
---
abstract: 'In this paper, we propose a fully discrete mixed finite element method for solving the time-dependent Ginzburg–Landau equations, and prove the convergence of the finite element solutions in general curved polyhedra, possibly nonconvex and multi-connected, without assumptions on the regularity of the solution. Global existence and uniqueness of weak solutions for the PDE problem are also obtained in the meantime. A decoupled time-stepping scheme is introduced, which guarantees that the discrete solution has bounded discrete energy, and the finite element spaces are chosen to be compatible with the nonlinear structure of the equations. Based on the boundedness of the discrete energy, we prove the convergence of the finite element solutions by utilizing a uniform $L^{3+\delta}$ regularity of the discrete harmonic vector fields, establishing a discrete Sobolev embedding inequality for the Nédélec finite element space, and introducing a $\ell^2(W^{1,3+\delta})$ estimate for fully discrete solutions of parabolic equations. The numerical example shows that the constructed mixed finite element solution converges to the true solution of the PDE problem in a nonsmooth and multi-connected domain, while the standard Galerkin finite element solution does not converge.'
author:
- 'Buyang Li [^1]'
title: '**Convergence of a decoupled mixed FEM for the dynamic Ginzburg–Landau equations in nonsmooth domains with incompatible initial data [^2]** '
---
Introduction
============
The time-dependent Ginzburg–Landau equation (TDGL) is a macroscopic phenomenological model for the superconductivity phenomena in both low and high temperatures [@GL; @GE; @Gennes; @Tinkham], and has been widely accepted in the numerical simulation of transition and vortex dynamics of both type-I and type-II superconductors [@FUD91; @LMG91]. In a non-dimensionalization form, the TDGL is given by $$\begin{aligned}
&\eta\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial t} + i\eta\kappa\psi\phi
+ \bigg(\frac{i}{\kappa} \nabla + \mathbf{A}\bigg)^{2} \psi
+ (|\psi|^{2}-1) \psi = 0,
\label{GLLPDEq1}\\[5pt]
&\frac{\partial \mathbf{A}}{\partial t} +\nabla \phi
+ \nabla\times(\nabla\times{\bf A})
+ {\rm Re}\bigg[\overline\psi\bigg(\frac{i}{\kappa} \nabla
+ \mathbf{A}\bigg) \psi\bigg] = \nabla\times {\bf H} ,
\label{GLLPDEq2}\end{aligned}$$ where the order parameter $\psi$ is complex scalar-valued, the electric potential $\phi$ is real scalar-valued and magnetic potential ${\bf A}$ is real vector-valued; $\eta>0$ and $\kappa>0$ are physical parameters, and ${\bf H}$ is a time-independent external magnetic field. In a domain $\Omega\subset\R^3$ occupied by a superconductor, the following physical boundary conditions are often imposed: $$\begin{aligned}
&\Big(\frac{i}{\kappa}\nabla\psi +
\mathbf{A}\psi\Big) \cdot{\bf n} = 0
&\mbox{on}\,\,\,\,\partial\Omega , \\
&{\bf n}\times{\bf B}={\bf n}\times {\bf H}
&\mbox{on}\,\,\,\,\partial\Omega , \\
&{\bf E}\cdot{\bf n}=0 &\mbox{on}\,\,\,\,\partial\Omega ,
\label{OrBDC3}\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathbf{n}$ denotes the unit normal vector on the boundary of the domain, ${\bf B}=\nabla\times{\bf A}$ and ${\bf E}=-\partial_t{\bf A}-\nabla\phi$ denote the induced magnetic and electric fields, respectively.
Besides -, an additional gauge condition is needed for the uniqueness of the solution $(\psi,\phi,{\bf A})$. Under the gauge $\phi=-\nabla\cdot{\bf A}$, the TDGL reduces to $$\begin{aligned}
&\eta\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial t} -i\eta \kappa \psi \nabla\cdot{\bf A}
+ \bigg(\frac{i}{\kappa} \nabla + \mathbf{A}\bigg)^{2} \psi
+ (|\psi|^{2}-1) \psi = 0,
\label{PDE1}\\[5pt]
&\frac{\partial \mathbf{A}}{\partial t}
+ \nabla\times(\nabla\times{\bf A})
-\nabla(\nabla\cdot{\bf A})
+ {\rm Re}\bigg[\overline\psi\bigg(\frac{i}{\kappa} \nabla
+ \mathbf{A}\bigg) \psi\bigg] = \nabla\times {\bf H} ,
\label{PDE2}\end{aligned}$$ and the boundary conditions can be written as [^3] $$\begin{aligned}
&\nabla\psi\cdot{\bf n} = 0
&&\mbox{on}\,\,\,\,\partial\Omega , \label{PDEBC-00}\\
&{\bf n}\times(\nabla\times{\bf A})= {\bf n}\times{\bf H}
&&\mbox{on}\,\,\,\,\partial\Omega , \label{PDEBC-0}\\
&{\bf A}\cdot{\bf n}=0
&&\mbox{on}\,\,\,\,\partial\Omega .
\label{PDEBC}\end{aligned}$$ Given the initial conditions $$\begin{aligned}
\label{PDEini}
\psi(x,0)=\psi_0(x)\quad\mbox{and}\quad
{\bf A}(x,0)={\bf A}_0(x),\quad\mbox{for}\,\, x\in\Omega , \end{aligned}$$ the solution $(\psi,{\bf A})$ can be solved from -. Other gauges can also be used, and the solutions under different gauges are equivalent in the sense that they produce the same quantities of physical intereset [@CHL; @Tinkham], such as the superconducting density $|\psi|^2$ and the magnetic field ${\bf B}$.
In a smooth domain, well-posedness of - has been proved in [@CHL] and convergence of the Galerkin finite element method (FEM) was proved in [@CD01; @GLS] with different time discretizations by assuming that the PDE’s solution is smooth enough, e.g. ${\bf A}\in L^\infty(0,T;{\bf H}^1)\cap L^2(0,T;{\bf H}^2)$. In a nonsmooth domain such as a curved polyhedron, the magnetic potential ${\bf A}$ may be only in $L^\infty(0,T;{\bf H}({\rm curl,div}))\cap
L^2(0,T;{\bf H}^{1/2+\delta})$, where $\delta>0$ can be arbitrarily small (depending on the angle of the edges or corners of the domain), and so the Galerkin finite element solution may not converge to the solution of -. Some mixed FEMs were proposed in [@Chen97; @GS15], and the numerical simulations in [@GS15] show better results in nonsmooth domains, compared with the Galerkin FEM. Some discrete gauge invariant numerical methods [@Du98; @DJ05] are also promising to approximate the solution correctly. Convergence of these numerical methods have been proved in the case that the PDE’s solution is smooth enough. However, whether the numerical solutions converge to the PDE’s solution in nonsmooth domains where the magnetic potential is only in $L^\infty(0,T;{\bf H}({\rm curl,div}))\cap
L^2(0,T;{\bf H}^{1/2+\delta})$ is still unknown. Another problem is that the initial data ${\bf A}_0$ are often incompatible with the boundary condition (see the numerical examples in [@ASPM11; @CD01; @Mu97], where ${\bf n}\times(\nabla\times{\bf A}_0)=0$ but ${\bf n}\times{\bf H}\neq 0$), and this also leads to low regularity of the solution.
Numerical analysis of the TDGL under the zero electric potential gauge $\phi=0$ has also been done in many works [@ASPM11; @GKL02; @GKLLP96; @MH98; @RPCA04; @VMB03; @WA02; @Yang]; also see the review paper [@Du05]. Since $\|\nabla\times{\bf A}\|_{L^2 }$ is not equivalent to $\|\nabla{\bf A}\|_{L^2 }$, both theoretical and numerical analysis are difficult under this gauge without extra assumptions on the regularity of the PDE’s solution. Again, convergence of these numerical methods have been proved in the case that the PDE’s solution is smooth enough.
Under either gauge, convergence of the numerical solutions has not been proved in nonsmooth domains such as general curved polyhedra, possibly nonconvex and multi-connected. Meanwhile, correct numerical approximations of the TDGL in domains with edges and corners are important for physicists and engineers [@ASPM11; @BKP05; @VMB03]. The difficulty of the problem is to control the nonlinear terms in the equations only based on the a priori estimates of the finite element solution. In this paper, we introduce a decoupled mixed FEM for solving - which guarantees that the discrete solution has bounded discrete energy, and prove convergence of the fully discrete finite element solution in general curved polyhedra without assumptions on the regularity of the PDE’s solution. We control the nonlinear terms by proving a uniform $L^{3+\delta}$ regularity for the discrete harmonic vector fields in curved polyhedra, establishing a discrete Sobolev compact embedding inequality ${\bf H}_h({\rm curl,div})\hookrightarrow
\hookrightarrow {\bf L}^{3+\delta}$ for the functions in the Nédélec element space, and introducing a $\ell^2(W^{1,3+\delta})$ estimate for fully discrete finite element solutions of parabolic equations, where $\delta>0$ is some constant which depends on the given domain.
Main results {#MainR}
============
A decoupled mixed FEM with bounded discrete energy
--------------------------------------------------
In this subsection, we introduce our assumptions on the domain and define the fully discrete finite element method to be considered in this paper. Then we introduce a discrete energy function (different from the free energy) and sketch a proof for a basic energy inequality satisfied by the finite element solution.
A [*curved polyhedron (or polygon)*]{} is a bounded Lipschitz domain $\Omega\subset\R^3$ (or $\Omega\subset\R^2$), possibly nonconvex and multi-connected, such that its boundary is locally $C^\infty$-isomorphic to the boundary of a polyhedron [@BS87], and there are $\frak M$ pieces of surfaces $\Sigma_1$, $\cdots$, $\Sigma_{\frak M}$ transversal to $\partial\Omega$ such that $\Sigma_i\cap\Sigma_j=\emptyset$ for $i\neq j$ and the domain $\Omega_0:=\Omega\backslash\Sigma$ is simply connected, where $\Sigma=\cup_{j=1}^{\frak M}\Sigma_j$ (see Figure \[FigD\]) .
The integer $\frak M$ is often referred to as the first Betti number of the domain. The existence of the surfaces $\Sigma_j$, $j=1,\cdots,\frak M$, is only needed in the analysis of the finite element solutions by using the Hodge decomposition [@KY09]. One does not need to know these surfaces in practical computation.
[![Illustration of the domain [(]{}$\Omega$ is the shadow region[)]{}.[]{data-label="FigD"}](Fig1.eps "fig:"){height="1.3in" width="1.5in"}]{} [![Illustration of the domain [(]{}$\Omega$ is the shadow region[)]{}.[]{data-label="FigD"}](Fig2.eps "fig:"){height="1.3in" width="1.5in"}]{}
[**Assumptions 2.1.**]{}$\,\,\,$ We assume that $\Omega\subset\R^3$ is a curved polyhedron which is partitioned into quasi-uniform tetrahedra. For any given integers $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Condrk}
r\geq 1
\quad\mbox{and}\quad
k\geq 2r-1 ,\end{aligned}$$ we denote by ${\mathbb S}_h^{r}$ the complex-valued Lagrange finite element space of degree $\leq r$, denote by ${\mathbb V}_h^{k+1}$ the real-valued Lagrange finite element space of degree $\leq k+1$, and let ${\mathbb N}_h^k$ be either the Nédélec 1st-kind H(curl) element space of order $k$ [@Ned80] or the Nédélec 2nd-kind H(curl) element space of degree $\leq k$ [@Ned86] (also see page 60 of [@AFW]).
Let the time interval $[0,T]$ be partitioned into $0=t_0<t_1<\cdots<t_N$ uniformly, with $\tau=t_{n+1}-t_n$. For any given functions $f_n$, $n=0,1,\cdots,N$, we define its discrete time derivative as $$\begin{aligned}
D_\tau f^{n+1}:=(f^{n+1}-f^n)/\tau ,\quad
n=0,1,\cdots,N-1 .\end{aligned}$$ We introduce a decoupled backward Euler scheme for solving -: $$\begin{aligned}
&\eta D_\tau \psi^{n+1}
-i\eta\kappa\Theta(\psi^{n})\nabla\cdot{\bf A}^n
+ \bigg(\frac{i}{\kappa} \nabla + {\bf A}^{n+1}\bigg)^{2} \psi^{n+1}
+ (|\psi^{n+1}|^{2}-1) \psi^{n+1}= 0,
\label{TD1}\\[5pt]
& D_\tau {\bf A}^{n+1}
-\nabla(\nabla\cdot{\bf A}^{n+1})
+ \nabla\times(\nabla\times{\bf A}^{n+1})
+ {\rm Re}\bigg[\overline\psi^{n}\bigg(\frac{i}{\kappa} \nabla
+{\bf A}^{n}\bigg) \psi^{n}\bigg]
= \nabla\times {\bf H} ,
\label{TD2} \end{aligned}$$ where we have used a cut-off function $$\begin{aligned}
\Theta(z):=z/\max(|z|,1) ,\quad\forall~ z\in\C ,\end{aligned}$$ which satisfies $\Theta(z)=z$ if $|z|\leq 1$. For any given integers $r$ and $k$ which satisfy the condition , we solve by the Galerkin FEM and solve by a mixed FEM. Let $(\psi_{h}^{0}, {\bf A}_h^0):=(\psi_{0},
{\bf A}_0)$ at the initial time step and define $\phi_h^0:=-\nabla\cdot{\bf A}_0$. We look for $\psi_{h}^{n+1} \in {\mathbb S}_{h}^r$ and $(\phi_{h}^{n+1},{\bf A}_h ^{n+1} )
\in {\mathbb V}_{h}^{k+1} \times {\mathbb N}_{h}^{k}$, $n=0,1,\cdots,N-1$, satisfying the equations $$\begin{aligned}
&(\eta D_{\tau}\psi_{h}^{n+1}, \varphi_h)
+ \bigg( \bigg(\frac{i}{\kappa}\nabla+{\bf A}_h^{n+1}\bigg) {\psi}_{h}^{n+1} \,,
\bigg(\frac{i}{\kappa}\nabla+{\bf A}_h^{n+1}\bigg) \varphi_h\bigg) {\nonumber}\\
&\quad
+((|\psi_{h}^{n+1}|^{2}-1)\psi_{h}^{n+1}, \varphi_h)
=- (i\eta \kappa\Theta(\psi_{h}^{n})\phi_{h}^{n} ,\varphi_h) \, ,
&&\forall\, \varphi_h \in {\mathbb S}_{h}^r ,
\label{FEM1} \\[10pt]
& (\phi_h ^{n+1}, \chi_h)
- ({\bf A}_h^{n+1},\nabla \chi_h ) = 0 \, ,
&&\forall\, \chi_h\in {\mathbb V}_{h}^{k+1},
\label{FEM3} \\[10pt]
&(D_{\tau}{\bf A}_{h}^{n+1},{\bf a}_{h})
+(\nabla\phi_{h}^{n+1} \, , {\bf a}_{h} )
+ (\nabla\times{\bf A}_h ^{n+1} \, , \nabla\times {\bf a}_{h}) {\nonumber}\\
&
= ({\bf H} \, , \nabla\times {\bf a}_{h})
-{\rm Re}\bigg(\overline\psi_h^{n}\bigg(\frac{i}{\kappa} \nabla
+{\bf A}_h^{n}\bigg) \psi_h^{n} , {\bf a}_h\bigg) \, ,
&&\forall\, {\bf a}_h\in {\mathbb N}_{h}^{k} .
\label{FEM2} \end{aligned}$$ After solving $\psi_h^{n+1}$, $\phi_h^{n+1}$ and ${\bf A}_h^{n+1}$ from the equations above, the magnetic and electric fields can be computed by ${\bf B}_h^{n+1}=\nabla\times{\bf A}_h^{n+1} $ and ${\bf E}_h^{n+1}=-D_\tau{\bf A}_h^{n+1}
-\nabla\phi_h^{n+1} $.
For simplicity, we have chosen $(\psi_h^0,{\bf A}_h^0)=(\psi_0,{\bf A}_0)$ at the initial step, which are not finite element functions. Due to the nonlinearities and the choice of the initial data, some integrals in and may need to be evaluated numerically in practical computations. In this paper, we focus on the analysis of the discretization errors of the finite element method and assume that all the integrals are evaluated accurately.
Since we have not assumed any extra regularity of the PDE’s solution, we need the condition to be compatible with the nonlinear structure of the equations in order to control a nonlinear term arising from (see for the details). If the PDE’s solution is smooth enough, (e.g. consider the problem in a smooth domain), then the condition can be relaxed.
We define the discrete energy $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal G}_{h}^{n}
&=\int_\Omega
\bigg(\frac{1}{2}\bigg|\frac{i}{\kappa}
\nabla\psi_h^{n} + {\bf A}_h^{n}\psi_h^{n} \bigg|^2
+\frac{1}{4}\big(|\psi_h^{n}|^2-1)^2 \bigg)\d x \\
&\quad +
\int_\Omega
\bigg(\frac{1}{2} |\nabla\times {\bf A}_h^{n}-{\bf H}|^2
+\frac{1}{2} |\phi_h^{n}|^2 \bigg)\d x {\nonumber}\end{aligned}$$ for $n=0,1,\cdots,N$. By substituting $\varphi_h=D_\tau\psi_h^{n+1}$, $\chi_h=\phi_h ^{n+1}$ and ${\bf a}_h=D_\tau{\bf A}_h^{n+1}$ into -, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{FEMEGDecay}
&D_\tau {\cal G}_h^{n+1}
+\int_\Omega
\big((\eta-\tau/2) |D_\tau\psi_h^{n+1}|^2
+|D_\tau{\bf A}_h^{n+1}|^2
\big) \d x {\nonumber}\\
&\quad
+\int_\Omega
\frac{\tau}{2}\bigg( \bigg|D_\tau\bigg(\frac{i}{\kappa}
\nabla\psi_h^{n+1} + {\bf A}_h^{n}\psi_h^{n+1} \bigg)\bigg|^2
+\big|D_\tau\phi_h^{n+1}|^2
+\big|D_\tau\nabla\times {\bf A}_h^{n+1}|^2 \bigg)\d x {\nonumber}\\
&\quad
+\int_\Omega \frac{\tau}{2}\bigg(|\psi_h^{n+1}|^2|D_\tau \psi_h^{n+1}|^2
+\frac{1}{2}|D_\tau |\psi_h^{n+1}|^2|^2 \bigg)\d x {\nonumber}\\
&=
-\int_\Omega
i\eta\kappa\Theta(\psi_h^{n})\phi_h^{n}D_\tau\psi_h^{n+1}\d x
+{\rm Re}\int_\Omega \tau D_\tau\bigg(\frac{i}{\kappa}
\nabla\psi_h^{n+1} + {\bf A}^{n+1}\psi_h^{n+1}\bigg)
\overline\psi_h^{n}D_\tau{\bf A}_h^{n+1} \d x {\nonumber}\\
&\leq \frac{\eta}{2}\int_\Omega|D_\tau\psi_h^{n+1}|^2\d x
+ \frac{\eta\kappa^2}{2}\int_\Omega
|\phi_h^{n}|^2\d x {\nonumber}\\
&\quad
+\int_\Omega \frac{\tau}{2} \bigg|D_\tau\bigg(\frac{i}{\kappa}
\nabla\psi_h^{n+1} + {\bf A}_h^{n}\psi^{n+1}\bigg)\bigg|^2\d x
+\int_\Omega \frac{\tau}{2}|\psi_h^{n}|^2|D_\tau{\bf A}_h^{n+1}|^2 \d x ,
$$ which reduces to $$\label{FEMEGDecay0}
\begin{aligned}
&D_\tau {\cal G}_h^{n+1}
+\int_\Omega
\bigg(\frac{\eta-\tau}{2} |D_\tau\psi_h^{n+1}|^2
+\frac{1}{2}|D_\tau{\bf A}_h^{n+1}|^2
+\frac{1-\tau|\psi_h^n|^2}{2}|D_\tau{\bf A}_h^{n+1}|^2
\bigg) \d x \\
&\leq \eta\kappa^2{\cal G}_h^{n} .
\end{aligned}$$ Unlike the PDE’s solution, it is not obvious whether the finite element solution satisfies $|\psi_h^n|\leq 1$ pointwisely. In Section \[SecUnif\] we shall prove $$\begin{aligned}
\label{BDPsiDecay0}
1-\tau|\psi_h^n|^2\geq 0 \end{aligned}$$ when $\tau<\tau_0$ (for some positive constant $\tau_0$ which is independent of $\tau$ and $h$). Then implies boundedness of the discrete energy via the discrete Gronwall’s inequality. By utilizing the discrete energy, we derive further estimates which are used to prove compactness and convergence of the finite element solution.
Main theorem
------------
Let $W^{s,p}$, $s\geq 0$ and $1\leq p\leq\infty$, be the conventional Sobolev spaces of real-valued functions defined on $\Omega$, and let ${\bf W}^{s,p}=W^{s,p}\times W^{s,p}\times W^{s,p}$ be the corresponding Sobolev space of vector fields. The case of integer $s$ can be found in [@Adams], and the characterization of more general function spaces with fractional $s$ can be found in [@Rychkov]. Let ${\cal W}^{s,p}:=W^{s,p}+i\,W^{s,p}$ denote the complex-valued Sobolev space and define the abbreviations $$\begin{aligned}
&L^p:=W^{0,p},\quad\,
{\cal L}^p:={\cal W}^{0,p},\quad\,
{\bf L}^p:={\bf W}^{0,p} ,
\quad\mbox{for $1\leq p\leq\infty$,}\\
&H^s:=W^{s,2},\quad
{\cal H}^s:={\cal W}^{s,2},\quad
{\bf H}^s:={\bf W}^{s,2},
\quad\mbox{for $s\geq 0$} . \end{aligned}$$ Moreover, we define $$\begin{aligned}
&{\bf H}({\rm curl}):=
\{{\bf u}\in {\bf L}^2:\,
\nabla\times {\bf u}\in {\bf L}^2\} , \\
& {\bf H}({\rm div})\,\,:=
\{{\bf u}\in {\bf L}^2:\,
\nabla\cdot {\bf u}\in L^2 \} ,\\
&{\bf H}({\rm curl,div}):=
\{{\bf u}\in {\bf L}^2:\,
\nabla\times {\bf u}\in {\bf L}^2,
\,\,\,\nabla\cdot {\bf u}\in L^2 \,\,\,\mbox{and}\,\,\,
{\bf u}\cdot{\bf n}=0\,\,\mbox{on}\,\,\partial\Omega\} . \label{Def_Hcd_bd1}
$$
Let $\psi_{h,\tau}^+$, $\psi_{h,\tau}^-$, ${\bf A}_{h,\tau}^+$, ${\bf A}_{h,\tau}^-$, ${\bf B}_{h,\tau}^+$ and ${\bf E}_{h,\tau}^+$ be the piecewise constant functions on $(0,T]$ such that on each subinterval $(t_n,t_{n+1}]$ $$\begin{aligned}
&\psi_{h,\tau}^+(t)=\psi_h^{n+1},
&&\psi_{h,\tau}^-(t)=\psi_h^{n}, \\
&{\bf A}_{h,\tau}^+(t)={\bf A}_h^{n+1},
&&{\bf A}_{h,\tau}^-(t)={\bf A}_h^{n} , \\
&{\bf B}_{h,\tau}^+(t)={\bf B}_h^{n+1}:=
\nabla\times{\bf A}_{h}^{n+1},
&&{\bf E}_{h,\tau}^+(t)={\bf E}_h^{n+1}
:=-D_\tau{\bf A}_h^{n+1}-\nabla\phi_h^{n+1} .
\label{Eht1} \end{aligned}$$
In this paper we prove the following theorem.
\[MainTHM\] [*Under Assumption [2.1]{}, for any given $\psi_0\in {\cal H}^1$ and ${\bf A}_0\in {\bf H}({\rm curl,div})$ such that $|\psi_0|\leq 1$, the system - has a unique finite element solution when $\tau<\eta$ $(\eta$ is the parameter in , which converges to the unique solution of - as $\tau,h\rightarrow 0$ in the following sense: $$\begin{aligned}
&\psi_{h,\tau}^+\rightarrow \psi
&&\mbox{strongly in\, $L^\infty(0,T;{\cal L}^2)$
and weakly$^*$\, in\, $L^\infty(0,T;{\cal H}^1)$ }, \\
&{\bf A}_{h,\tau}^+\rightarrow {\bf A}
&& \mbox{strongly in\, $L^\infty(0,T;{\bf L}^2)$
and weakly$^*$ in\, $L^\infty(0,T;{\bf H}({\rm curl}))$} , \\
&\phi_{h,\tau}^+\rightarrow \phi
&&\mbox{strongly\,\,\, in\, $L^2(0,T;L^2)$
and weakly$^*$ in\, $L^\infty(0,T;L^2)$}, \\
&{\bf B}_{h,\tau}^+\rightarrow {\bf B}
&&\mbox{weakly$^*$\, in\, $L^\infty(0,T;{\bf L}^2)$},\\
&{\bf E}_{h,\tau}^+\rightarrow {\bf E}
&&\mbox{weakly\,\,\, in\, $L^2(0,T;{\bf L}^2)$} . \end{aligned}$$* ]{}
In the meantime of proving Theorem \[MainTHM\], we also obtain global well-posedness of the PDE problem - (see Appendix).
If $\Omega$ is a curved polygon in $\R^2$ and the external magnetic field ${\bf H}$ is perpendicular to the domain, i.e. ${\bf H}=(0,0,H)$, then - hold when ${\bf H}$ is replaced by $H$, with the following two-dimensional notations: $$\begin{aligned}
&\nabla\times {\bf A}
=\frac{\partial A_2}{\partial x_1}-\frac{\partial A_1}{\partial x_2},
\qquad
\nabla\cdot {\bf A}=\frac{\partial A_1}{\partial x_1}
+\frac{\partial A_2}{\partial x_2},\\
&\nabla\times H=\bigg(\frac{\partial H}{\partial x_2},\,
-\frac{\partial H}{\partial x_1}\bigg),\quad
\nabla\psi=\bigg(\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial x_1},\,
\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial x_2}\bigg).\end{aligned}$$ With these notations, - can also be used for solving the two-dimensional problem, and Theorem \[MainTHM\] can also be proved in the similar way.
An overview of the proof {#OverviewP}
------------------------
Our basic idea is to introduce $\psi_{h,\tau}$ and ${\bf A}_{h,\tau}$ ($\psi_{h,\tau}^+$ and ${\bf A}_{h,\tau}^+$) as the piecewise linear (piecewise constant) interpolation of the finite element solutions $\psi_h^{n+1}$ and ${\bf A}_h^{n+1}$ in the time direction, respectively, and denote by $\psi_{h,\tau}^-$ and ${\bf A}_{h,\tau}^-$ the piecewise constant interpolation of $\psi_h^{n}$ and ${\bf A}_h^{n}$, respectively. Rewrite the finite element equations as the following equations defined continuously in time: $$\begin{aligned}
&\int_0^T\bigg[(\eta \partial_t\psi_{h,\tau}, \varphi_{h,\tau})
+\bigg( \bigg(\frac{i}{\kappa}\nabla+{\bf A}_{h,\tau}^+\bigg)\psi_{h,\tau}^+ \,,
\bigg(\frac{i}{\kappa}\nabla+{\bf A}_{h,\tau}^+\bigg)\varphi_{h,\tau}\bigg)
\bigg]\d t {\nonumber}\\
&\quad
+((|\psi_{h,\tau}^+|^{2}-1)\psi_{h,\tau}^+,\varphi_{h,\tau})\bigg]\d t=
\int_0^T(i\eta \kappa
\Theta(\psi_{h,\tau}^-)\phi_{h,\tau}^- ,\varphi_{h,\tau})\d t . {\nonumber}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
&\int_0^T\bigg[ (\phi_{h,\tau}^+, \chi_{h,\tau})
- ({\bf A}_{h,\tau}^+,\nabla \chi_{h,\tau} ) \bigg]\d t= 0 \, , \\[10pt]
&\int_0^T\bigg[ (\partial_t{\bf A}_{h,\tau},{\bf a}_{h,\tau})
+ (\nabla\phi_{h,\tau}^+ \, ,{\bf a}_{h,\tau})
+ (\nabla\times{\bf A}_{h,\tau}^+ \, , \nabla\times {\bf a}_{h,\tau})
\bigg]\d t{\nonumber}\\
&\quad +\int_0^T\bigg[ {\rm Re}\bigg(\overline\psi_{h,\tau}^- \bigg(\frac{i}{\kappa} \nabla
+{\bf A}_{h,\tau}^-\bigg) \psi_{h,\tau}^- , {\bf a}_{h,\tau}\bigg)\bigg]\d t
=\int_0^T\bigg[ (\nabla\times{\bf H} \, ,{\bf a}_{h,\tau})\bigg]\d t \, .
$$ If we can prove compactness and convergence of a subsequence of $\partial_t\psi_{h,\tau}$, $\psi_{h,\tau}^\pm$, $\partial_t{\bf A}_{h,\tau}$, ${\bf A}_{h,\tau}^\pm$, $\phi_{h,\tau}^\pm$, and prove that the limits of any subsequence coincide with the PDE’s solution, then we can conclude that the sequences $\psi_{h,\tau}^+$, and ${\bf A}_{h,\tau}^+$ converge to the PDE’s solution as $h,\tau\rightarrow 0$.
To estimate the finite element solution (in order to prove the compactness), we introduce a discrete energy function ${\cal G}_{h}^{n} $ and a special time-stepping scheme from which one can derive . By proving , we derive boundedness of the discrete energy from (via the discrete Gronwall’s inequality). Based on the boundedness of the discrete energy, some further estimates need to be derived in order to prove convergence of the finite element solution. For example, in order to prove the weak convergence of a subsequence of $${\rm Re}\bigg[\overline\psi_{h,\tau}^- \bigg(\frac{i}{\kappa} \nabla
+{\bf A}_{h,\tau}^-\bigg) \psi_{h,\tau}^-\bigg]$$ in $L^2(0,T;L^2)$, we need to prove the following convergence (for a subsequence): $$\begin{aligned}
&\mbox{$\psi_{h,\tau}^-$ converges
weakly in $L^2(0,T;W^{1,3+\delta})\hookrightarrow L^2(0,T;L^\infty)$
for some $\delta>0$}, \label{psihnL3}\\
&\mbox{$\psi_{h,\tau}^-$\,\, converges strongly in $L^\infty(0,T;L^{6-\epsilon})$ for arbitrarily small $\epsilon>0$}\\
&\mbox{${\bf A}_{h,\tau}^-$\, converges strongly in $L^\infty(0,T;L^{3+\delta})$
for some $\delta>0$} . \label{AAhnL3}\end{aligned}$$ The boundedness of the discrete energy only implies the boundedness of $$\|\psi_{h,\tau}^-\|_{L^\infty(0,T;H^1)} , \quad
\|{\bf A}_{h,\tau}^-\|_{L^\infty(0,T;L^2)}, \quad
\|\nabla\times {\bf A}_{h,\tau}^-\|_{L^\infty(0,T;L^2)}
\quad
\mbox{and}\quad
\|\phi_{h,\tau}^-\|_{L^\infty(0,T;L^2)} ,$$ which are not enough for $\psi_{h,\tau}^-$ and ${\bf A}_{h,\tau}^-$ to be compact and converge in the sense of -.
We shall prove by establishing a discrete Sobolev embedding inequality (Lemma \[SobolevD\]): $$\begin{aligned}
\label{AhL33}
\|{\bf A}_{h}^n\|_{L^{3+\delta}}
\leq C(\|{\bf A}_{h}^n\|_{L^2}
+\|\nabla\times {\bf A}_{h}^n\|_{L^2}+\|\phi_{h}^n\|_{L^2}) ,\end{aligned}$$ and we also need to show that this embedding is compact. Since we allow the domain to be multi-connected, in order to prove , we need to use the discrete Hodge decomposition $$\begin{aligned}
{\bf A}_h^n =
{\bf c}_h + \nabla\theta_h
+ \sum_{j=1}^{\frak M}\alpha_{j,h}{\bf w}_{j,h} \end{aligned}$$ and show that the divergence-free part ${\bf c}_h$, the curl-free part $\nabla\theta_h $ and the discrete harmonic part $ \sum_{j=1}^{\frak M}\alpha_{j,h}{\bf w}_{j,h}$ are all bounded in ${\bf L}^{3+\delta}$. For this purpose, we need to construct the basis functions ${\bf w}_{j,h}$, $j=1,\cdots,\frak M$, of the discrete harmonic vector fields and prove that they are bounded in ${\bf L}^{3+\delta}$ (Lemma \[RegDHarV\]).
In order to prove , we rewrite the finite element equation of $\psi_h^{n+1}$ in the form of $$\begin{aligned}
\eta D_\tau\psi_h^{n+1}
-\frac{1}{\kappa^2}\Delta_h\psi_h^{n+1}
=f_h^{n+1}\end{aligned}$$ and prove the following inequality (Lemma 3.8): $$\begin{aligned}
\label{LemW1qDa}
\sum_{n=0}^{N-1}\tau\|\psi_h^{n+1}\|_{W^{1,q+\delta}}^2\leq
C\sum_{n=0}^{N-1}\tau\|f_h^{n+1}\|_{L^{q/2}}^2
+C\|\psi_h^0\|_{H^1}^2
\quad\mbox{
for some $q>3$ and $\delta>0$. }\end{aligned}$$ Then we prove $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{n=0}^{N-1}\tau\|f_h^{n+1}\|_{L^{q/2}}^2
&\leq C+C\sum_{n=0}^{N-1}\tau\|\psi_h^{n+1}\|_{W^{1,q}}^2 {\nonumber}\\
&\leq C+C_\epsilon\sum_{n=0}^{N-1}\tau\|\psi_h^{n+1}\|_{H^{1}}^2
+\epsilon\sum_{n=0}^{N-1}\tau\|\psi_h^{n+1}\|_{W^{1,q+\delta}}^2 ,
\quad\forall\,\epsilon\in(0,1) .\end{aligned}$$ The last two inequalities imply $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{n=0}^{N-1}\tau\|\psi_h^{n+1}\|_{W^{1,q+\delta}}^2\leq
C+C\sum_{n=0}^{N-1}\tau\|\psi_h^{n+1}\|_{H^{1}}^2
+C\|\psi_h^0\|_{H^1}^2
\leq C. \end{aligned}$$
The compactness and convergence of the finite element solution are proved based on the uniform estimates established. On one hand, in both and we need some constant $\delta>0$ (which depends on the given curved polyhedron) to prove the convergence of the finite element solution. On the other hand, both and are sharp: for any $\delta>0$ there exists a polyhedron such that and do not hold.
Proof of Theorem \[MainTHM\] {#SecProof}
============================
By substituting $\chi_h=\phi_h^{n+1}$ and ${\bf a}_h={\bf A}_h^{n+1}$ into the equations $$\begin{aligned}
& (\phi_h ^{n+1}, \chi_h)
- ({\bf A}_h^{n+1},\nabla \chi_h ) = 0 \, ,
&&\forall\, \chi_h\in {\mathbb V}_{h}^{k+1}, \\[10pt]
&\frac{1}{\tau} ({\bf A}_{h}^{n+1},{\bf a}_{h})
+(\nabla\phi_{h}^{n+1} \, , {\bf a}_{h} )
+ (\nabla\times{\bf A}_h ^{n+1} \, , \nabla\times {\bf a}_{h}) =0 ,
&&\forall\, {\bf a}_h\in {\mathbb N}_{h}^{k} ,\end{aligned}$$ we see that the two equations above have only zero solution. Hence, for any given $(\psi_h^{n},{\bf A}_h^{n})\in {\mathbb S}_{h}^{r} \times {\mathbb N}_{h}^{k}$, the linear system - has a unique solution $(\phi_h^{n+1},{\bf A}_h^{n+1})\in
{\mathbb V}_{h}^{k+1} \times {\mathbb N}_{h}^{k}$.
Under the condition $\tau<\eta$, it is easy to see that for any given ${\bf A}_h^{n+1}\in{\mathbb N}_h^k$ the nonlinear operator ${\mathcal M}: {\mathbb S}_{h}^r
\rightarrow {\mathbb S}_{h}^r$ defined via duality by $$\begin{aligned}
({\mathcal M}{\mathscr S}_h,\varphi_h)
:&= \frac{\eta}{\tau}({\mathscr S}_h, \varphi_h)
+ \bigg( \bigg(\frac{i}{\kappa}\nabla+{\bf A}_h^{n+1}\bigg) {\mathscr S}_h \,,
\bigg(\frac{i}{\kappa}\nabla+{\bf A}_h^{n+1}\bigg) \varphi_h\bigg) {\nonumber}\\
&\quad
+((|{\mathscr S}_h|^{2}-1){\mathscr S}_h, \varphi_h) ,
&&\forall\, \varphi_h \in {\mathbb S}_{h}^r ,\end{aligned}$$ is continuous and monotone, i.e.[^4] $$\begin{aligned}
({\mathcal M}{\mathscr S}_h
-{\mathcal M}\widetilde{\mathscr S}_h,{\mathscr S}_h-\widetilde{\mathscr S}_h)
\ge \bigg(\frac{\eta}{\tau}-1\bigg)\|{\mathscr S}_h-\widetilde{\mathscr S}_h\|_{L^2}^2 \, ,
&&\forall\, {\mathscr S}_h,\widetilde{\mathscr S}_h \in {\mathbb S}_{h}^r .\end{aligned}$$ Hence, [@Showalter Lemma 2.1 and Corollary 2.2 of Chapter 2] implies that for any given $f_h\in {\mathbb S}_{h}^r$ the equation ${\mathcal M}{\mathscr S}_h=f_h$ has a solution ${\mathscr S}_h\in {\mathbb S}_{h}^r$. In other words, equation has a solution $\psi_h^{n+1}\in {\mathbb S}_{h}^r$. The uniqueness of the solution $\psi_h^{n+1}\in {\mathbb S}_{h}^r$ is an obvious consequence of the monotonicity of the operator ${\mathcal M}$.
Overall, for any given $(\psi_h^{n},{\bf A}_h^{n})\in {\mathbb S}_{h}^{r} \times {\mathbb N}_{h}^{k}$, the system - has a unique solution $(\psi_h^{n+1},\phi_h^{n+1},{\bf A}_h^{n+1})\in {\mathbb S}_{h}^r\times {\mathbb V}_{h}^{k+1} \times {\mathbb N}_{h}^{k}$ when $\tau<\eta$. In the rest part of this paper, we prove the convergence of the finite element solution. Some frequently used basic lemmas are listed in Section \[PreLem\].
Preliminary lemmas {#PreLem}
------------------
The following lemma is concerned with the approximation properties of the smoothed projection operators of the finite element spaces [@AFW].
\[SmoothPr\][ *There exist linear projection operators $$\begin{aligned}
&\widetilde\Pi_h^{\mathbb S}: {\cal L}^1\rightarrow {\mathbb S}_h^r,
\qquad\quad
\widetilde\Pi_h^{\mathbb V}: L^1\rightarrow {\mathbb V}_h^{k+1},
\qquad\quad
\widetilde\Pi_h^{\mathbb N}: {\bf L}^1\rightarrow {\mathbb N}_h^k, \end{aligned}$$ which satisfy $$\begin{aligned}
&\nabla (\widetilde\Pi_h^{\mathbb V}\chi)
=\widetilde\Pi_h^{\mathbb N} \nabla \chi,
&&\forall\,\chi\in W^{1,1} ,\\
&\|\varphi-\widetilde\Pi_h^{\mathbb S}\varphi\|_{{\cal L}^p}
\leq Ch^{s+3/p-3/q}\|\varphi\|_{{\cal W}^{s,q}}, &&
\forall\,\varphi\in {\cal W}^{s,q},\,\,\,\,\,\,
0\leq s\leq r+1, \\
&\|\chi-\widetilde\Pi_h^{\mathbb V}\chi\|_{L^p}
\leq Ch^{s+3/p-3/q}\|\chi\|_{W^{s,q}}, &&
\forall\,\chi\in W^{s,q},\,\,\,\,\,\,
0\leq s\leq k+2, \\
&\|{\bf a}-\widetilde\Pi_h^{\mathbb N}{\bf a}\|_{{\bf L}^p}
\leq Ch^{s+3/p-3/q}\|{\bf a}\|_{{\bf W}^{s,q}},
&&\forall\,{\bf a}\in {\bf W}^{s,q},\,\,\,\,\,\,
0\leq s\leq k+1, \end{aligned}$$ for any $$\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
1\leq q\leq p\leq 3/(3/q-s) &\mbox{if}\,\,\,\,\, 0\leq s< 3/q,\\
1\leq q\leq p<\infty &\mbox{if}\,\,\,\,\, s\geq 3/q .
\end{array}
\right.$$* ]{}
The authors of [@AFW] (page 66–70) only proved the $L^2$ boundedness of the smoothed projection operators. But their method can also be used to prove the $L^p$ boundedness without essential change. Then Lemma \[SmoothPr\] is obtained by using the Sobolev embedding $W^{s,q}\hookrightarrow W^{s+3/p-3/q,p}$. Although the analysis of [@AFW] (page 66–70) only considered polyhedra, the extension to curved polyhedra is straightforward (as there are no boundary conditions imposed on these finite element spaces).
It is well known that the solution of the heat equation $$\begin{aligned}
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\partial_tu-\Delta u =f & \mbox{in}\,\,\,\Omega ,\\
\nabla u\cdot{\bf n}=0 & \mbox{on}\,\,\,\partial\Omega ,\\
u(x,0)=0, & \mbox{for}\,\,x\in\Omega ,
\end{array}\right. \end{aligned}$$ possesses the maximal $L^p$-regularity (see Corollary 4.d of [@Weis1]): $$\begin{aligned}
&\|\partial_tu\|_{L^p(0,T;L^q)}
+\|\Delta u\|_{L^p(0,T;L^q)}
\leq C_{p,q}\|f\|_{L^p(0,T;L^q)} ,\qquad
1<p,q<\infty .\end{aligned}$$ In this paper, we need to use the maximal $\ell^p$-regularity for time-discrete parabolic PDEs, which was proved in [@KLL Theorem 3.1].
\[DMPR\][ *The solution of the time-discrete PDEs $$\begin{aligned}
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
D_\tau u^{n+1}-\Delta u^{n+1}=f^{n+1} & \mbox{in}\,\,\,\Omega ,\\
\nabla u^{n+1}\cdot{\bf n}=0 & \mbox{on}\,\,\,\partial\Omega ,\\
u^0=0,
\end{array}\right. \end{aligned}$$ $n=0,1,\cdots$, satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
&\bigg(\sum_{n=0}^m\tau\|D_\tau u^{n+1}\|_{L^q}^p\bigg)^{\frac{1}{p}}
+\bigg(\sum_{n=0}^m\tau\|\Delta u^{n+1}\|_{L^q}^p\bigg)^{\frac{1}{p}}
\leq C_{p,q}\bigg(\sum_{n=0}^m\tau\|f^{n+1}\|_{L^q}^p\bigg)^{\frac{1}{p}}\end{aligned}$$ for any $1<p,q<\infty$ and $m\geq 0$, where the constant $C_{p,q}$ is independent of $\tau$ and $m$.* ]{}
We introduce some lemmas in Section \[DisHodg\] on the discrete Hodge decomposition, with emphasis on the uniform regularity of the discrete harmonic functions in curved polyhedra. A discrete Sobolev embedding inequality for functions in the Nédélec element space is proved in Section \[SobNed\]. With these mathematical tools, we present estimates and prove compactness/convergence of the finite element solution in Section \[CompFES\].
Discrete Hodge decomposition and harmonic vector fields {#DisHodg}
-------------------------------------------------------
It is well known that the following Hodge decompositions holds (for example, see [@AFW decomposition (2.18)]) [^5] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Hodge_D_L2}
&{\bf L}^2={\bf C}(\Omega)^\perp\oplus
{\bf G}(\Omega)\oplus
{\bf X}(\Omega) , \end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
&{\bf C}(\Omega):=\{{\bf u}\in {\bf H}({\rm curl}): \nabla\times{\bf u} =0\}, \\
&{\bf C}(\Omega)^\perp=\{\nabla\times{\bf u}: {\bf u}\in {\bf H}({\rm curl}),\,\,{\bf u}\times{\bf n}=0\} ,\\
&{\bf G}(\Omega):=\{\nabla\omega: \omega\in H^1\} , \\
&{\bf X}(\Omega):=\{{\bf w}\in {\bf H}({\rm curl})\cap{\bf H}({\rm div}):\,
\nabla\times{\bf w}=0, \,\,
\nabla\cdot{\bf w}=0 ,\,\, {\bf w}\cdot{\bf n}=0\,\,\,\mbox{on}
\,\,\,\partial\Omega\} ,\end{aligned}$$ ${\bf C}(\Omega)^\perp$ denotes the orthogonal complement of ${\bf C}(\Omega)$ in ${\bf L}^2$, and ${\bf X}(\Omega)$ is the space of harmonic vector fields.
The second type of space of harmonic vector fields is defined by [^6] $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde {\bf X}(\Omega):=\{{\bf w}\in {\bf H}({\rm curl})\cap{\bf H}({\rm div}): \nabla\times{\bf w}=0,\,\,
\nabla\cdot{\bf w}=0
\,\,\mbox{and}\,\, {\bf w}\times {\bf n}=0
\,\,
\mbox{on}\,\,\partial\Omega\} ,\end{aligned}$$ and we denote $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Def_Space_Y}
\widetilde {\bf Y}(\Omega):=\{{\bf w}\in {\bf H}({\rm curl})\cap{\bf H}({\rm div})\cap
\widetilde {\bf X}(\Omega)^\perp: {\bf w}\times {\bf n}=0\,\,
\mbox{on}\,\,\partial\Omega \} .\end{aligned}$$ As a result of , any vector field ${\bf v}\in {\bf L}^2$ has the Hodge decomposition (also see [@KY09 Appendix]) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{HodgeDM}
{\bf v} =
\nabla\times {\bf u} +\nabla \omega
+\sum_{j=1}^{\frak M}\alpha_j{\bf w}_j ,\end{aligned}$$ where ${\bf u}\in \widetilde {\bf Y}(\Omega)$ is the solution of the problem [^7] [^8] $$\begin{aligned}
&\nabla\times(\nabla\times {\bf u})=
\nabla\times {\bf v} &&\mbox{in}\,\,\,\Omega, \label{PDE_hodge_u1}\\
&\nabla\cdot{\bf u}=0 &&\mbox{in}\,\,\,\Omega,\\
&{\bf u}\times {\bf n}=0
&&\mbox{on}\,\,\,\partial\Omega , \label{PDE_hodge_u3}\end{aligned}$$ $\omega$ is the solution of $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Eqomega}
&\Delta \omega=\nabla\cdot {\bf v}
&&\mbox{in}\,\,\,\Omega, {\nonumber}\\
&\nabla \omega\cdot{\bf n}={\bf v}\cdot{\bf n}
&&\mbox{on}\,\,\, \partial\Omega,\end{aligned}$$ and ${\bf w}_j=\nabla\varphi_j$, $j=1,2,\cdots,\frak M$, form a basis for ${\bf X}(\Omega)$ with $\varphi_j$ being the solution of $$\begin{aligned}
\label{DHarmF}
&\Delta\varphi_j=0 &&\mbox{in}\,\,\,\Omega\backslash\Sigma, {\nonumber}\\
&\nabla \varphi_j\cdot{\bf n}=0
&&\mbox{on}\,\,\, \partial\Omega, \\
&[\nabla \varphi_j\cdot{\bf n}]=0
\quad\mbox{and}\quad [\varphi_j]=\delta_{ij}
&&\mbox{on}\,\,\, \Sigma_i ,\quad i=1,2,\cdots,\frak M, {\nonumber}\end{aligned}$$ ($\delta_{ij}$ denotes the Kronecker symbol). The coefficients $\alpha_j$, $j=1,\cdots,\frak M$, are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{DefAlphaj}
\alpha_j=({\bf v},{\bf w}_j)/\|{\bf w}_j\|_{L^2}^2 . \end{aligned}$$
Although $\varphi_j$ is only defined on $\Omega\backslash\Sigma$, the gradient $\nabla\varphi_j$ has a natural extension to be a vector field in ${\bf H}({\rm curl,div})$ due to the interface conditions.
To study the regularity of ${\bf w}_j$, we cite the following lemma on the regularity of the Poisson equation in a polyhedral domain. This result can be obtained by substituting fractional $k$ in Corollary 3.9 of [@Dauge] (also see page 30 of [@Dauge08] and (23.3) of [@Dauge88]).
\[RegPoiss\] [*For any given curved polyhedron $\Omega$, there exists a positive constant $\delta_*>0$ such that the solution of the Poisson equation $$\begin{aligned}
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
-\Delta \varphi=f
&\mbox{in}\,\,\,\Omega, \\
\nabla\varphi\cdot{\bf n}=0
&\mbox{on}\,\,\,\partial\Omega,
\end{array}\right. \end{aligned}$$ with the normalization condition $\int_\Omega\varphi\d x=0$, satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\|\varphi\|_{H^{3/2+\alpha}(\Omega)}
\leq C\|f\|_{H^{-1/2+\alpha}(\Omega)}
\qquad\mbox{for any $\alpha\in(0,\delta_*]$} .\end{aligned}$$* ]{}
As a consequence of Lemma \[RegPoiss\], we have the following result on the regularity of ${\bf w}_j$, (which is also a consequence of Proposition 3.7 of [@ABDG], but for self-containedness we include a short proof here).
\[RegHarV\] [ *For any given curved polyhedron $\Omega$, there exists a positive constant $\delta_*>0$ such that the harmonic vector fields ${\bf w}_j$, $j=1,2,\cdots,\frak M$, are in ${\bf H}^{1/2+\delta_*}(\Omega)$.* ]{}
[*Proof of Lemma \[RegHarV\]*]{}.$\,\,\,$ Let $\Sigma_{j}'$ be a small perturbation of the surfaces $\Sigma_{j}$ for each $j=1,\cdots,\frak M$, such that $\Sigma_j'\cap\Sigma_k=\emptyset$ and $\Omega\backslash\Sigma'$ is simply connected (where $\Sigma'=\cup_{j=1}^{\frak M}\Sigma_j'$). Let $D_\Sigma$ and $D_\Sigma'$ be small neighborhoods of $\Sigma$ and $\Sigma'$, respectively, such that $\overline D_\Sigma\cap\overline D_\Sigma'=\emptyset$.
By using Lemma \[RegPoiss\] it is easy to show that the solution of satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
&\varphi_j\in H^{3/2+\delta_*}(\Omega\backslash\overline D_\Sigma) ,
\quad j=1,2,\cdots,\frak M ,\end{aligned}$$ which implies that ${\bf w}_j=\nabla\varphi_j$, $j=1,\cdots,\frak M$, are $H^{1/2+\delta_*}$ in the subdomain $\Omega\backslash\overline D_\Sigma$. Similarly, if we define $\varphi_j'$ as the solution of with $\Sigma_i$ replaced by $\Sigma_i'$, then ${\bf w}_j':=\nabla\varphi_j'$, $j=1,\cdots,\frak M$, also form a basis of ${\bf X}(\Omega)$, and they are $H^{1/2+\delta_*}$ in the subdomain $\Omega\backslash\overline D_\Sigma'$. Since ${\bf w}_j$ can be expressed as linear combinations of ${\bf w}_j'$, it follows that ${\bf w}_j$ is $H^{1/2+\delta_*}$ in the subdomain $\Omega\backslash \overline{D_\Sigma'}\supset\overline D_\Sigma$. Therefore, ${\bf w}_j$ is $H^{1/2+\delta_*}$ in the whole domain $\Omega$.
[ *We define the following finite element subspaces of ${\mathbb N}_h^k\subset {\bf H}({\rm curl})$: $$\begin{aligned}
&{\bf C}_h(\Omega):=\{
{\bf v}_h\in {\mathbb N}_h^k:\,
\nabla\times{\bf v}_h=0 \} , \\
&
{\bf G}_h(\Omega):=\{
\nabla\chi_h:\,
\chi_h\in {\mathbb V}_h^{k+1}\} , \\
&{\bf X}_h(\Omega):=\{
{\bf v}_h\in {\mathbb N}_h^k:\,
\nabla\times {\bf v}_h=0,\,\,
({\bf v}_h,\nabla\chi_h)=0,\,\,
\forall\chi_h\in {\mathbb V}_h^{k+1}\}\end{aligned}$$ where ${\bf X}_h(\Omega)$ is often referred to as the space of discrete harmonic vector fields.* ]{}
With the notations above, we have the discrete Hodge decomposition (page 72 of [@AFW]): $$\begin{aligned}
\label{DHodgeD}
{\mathbb N}_h^k={\bf C}_h(\Omega)^\perp
\oplus{\bf G}_h(\Omega)\oplus {\bf X}_h(\Omega) .\end{aligned}$$ The following lemma is concerned with the regularity of the discrete harmonic vector fields.
\[RegDHarV\] [*For any given curved polyhedron $\Omega$, there exists a positive constant $h_0$ such that when $h<h_0$ the space ${\bf X}_h(\Omega)$ has an orthogonal basis $\{{\bf w}_{j,h}$: $j=1,\cdots,\frak M\}$ which satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
&\sum_{j=1}^{\frak M}\|{\bf w}_{j,h}\|_{L^{3+\delta}}\leq C
\qquad\mbox{and}\qquad
\sum_{j=1}^{\frak M}\|{\bf w}_{j,h}-{\bf w}_j\|_{L^{3+\delta}}
\rightarrow 0 \quad\mbox{as}\,\,\, h\rightarrow 0 , \end{aligned}$$ for any $0<\delta<3\delta_*/(1-\delta_*)$, where $\delta_*$ is given by Lemma \[RegHarV\].* ]{}
[*Proof of Lemma \[RegDHarV\]*]{}.$\,\,\,$ If ${\bf v}_h\in {\bf X}_h(\Omega)$, then $\nabla\times {\bf v}_h=0$ and so the Hodge decomposition implies $$\begin{aligned}
{\bf v}_h =
\nabla \omega
+\sum_{j=1}^{\frak M}\alpha_j{\bf w}_j .\end{aligned}$$ Using the commuting property of the smoothed projection operator (Lemma \[SmoothPr\]) we derive $$\begin{aligned}
\label{DPvh}
{\bf v}_h
&= \widetilde\Pi_h^{\mathbb N}\nabla \omega
+\sum_{j=1}^{\frak M}\alpha_j\widetilde\Pi_h^{\mathbb N} {\bf w}_j
= \nabla \widetilde\Pi_h^{\mathbb V}\omega
+\sum_{j=1}^{\frak M}\alpha_j\widetilde\Pi_h^{\mathbb N} {\bf w}_j
=: \nabla \omega_h
+\sum_{j=1}^{\frak M}\alpha_j\widetilde\Pi_h^{\mathbb N} {\bf w}_j ,\end{aligned}$$ where we have defined $\omega_h:=\widetilde\Pi_h^{\mathbb V}\omega$ to simplify the notation. Since any ${\bf v}_h\in {\bf X}_h(\Omega)$ satisfies $({\bf v}_h,\nabla\chi_h)=0$ for all $\chi_h\in {\mathbb V}_h^{k+1}$, it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
(\nabla \omega_h,\nabla\chi_h)
=-\sum_{j=1}^{\frak M}\alpha_j
(\widetilde\Pi_h^{\mathbb N} {\bf w}_j,\nabla\chi_h)
=\sum_{j=1}^{\frak M}\alpha_j
({\bf w}_j-\widetilde\Pi_h^{\mathbb N} {\bf w}_j,\nabla\chi_h),
\quad\forall\, \chi_h\in {\mathbb V}_h^{k+1} .\end{aligned}$$
If we define $\omega_{j,h}\in{\mathbb V}_h^{k+1}$ (with the normalization $\int_\Omega\omega_{j,h}\d x=0$) as the finite element solution of $$\begin{aligned}
\label{omegajh}
(\nabla \omega_{j,h},\nabla\chi_h)
=({\bf w}_j-\widetilde\Pi_h^{\mathbb N} {\bf w}_j,\nabla\chi_h),
\quad\forall\, \chi_h\in {\mathbb V}_h^{k+1} ,\end{aligned}$$ then we have $
\omega_{h}=\sum_{j=1}^{\frak M}
\alpha_j \omega_{j,h}
+{\rm const} .
$ Substituting this into , we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
{\bf v}_h
=\sum_{j=1}^{\frak M}\alpha_j(\nabla \omega_{j,h}
+ \widetilde\Pi_h^{\mathbb N} {\bf w}_j) .\end{aligned}$$ We see that any vector field in ${\bf X}_h(\Omega)$ can be expressed as a linear combination of $$\begin{aligned}
{\bf w}_{j,h}:=\nabla\omega_{j,h}
+\widetilde\Pi_h^{\mathbb N} {\bf w}_j ,\quad
j=1,\cdots,\frak M .\end{aligned}$$ The vector fields ${\bf w}_{j,h}$, $j=1,\cdots,\frak M$, must form a basis for ${\bf X}_h(\Omega)$ if they are linearly independent. Indeed, by substituting $\chi_h=\omega_{j,h}$ into , we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\|\nabla \omega_{j,h}\|_{L^2}\leq
C\|{\bf w}_j-\widetilde\Pi_h^{\mathbb N} {\bf w}_j\|_{L^2}
\leq Ch^{1/2+\delta_*}\|{\bf w}_j\|_{H^{1/2+\delta_*}} .
$$ Using the inverse inequality, we see that for $\delta<3\delta_*/(1-\delta_*)$ there holds $$\begin{aligned}
\|\nabla \omega_{j,h}\|_{L^{3+\delta}}\leq
Ch^{-1/2-\delta/(3+\delta)}
\|\nabla \omega_{j,h}\|_{L^2}
\leq Ch^{\delta_*-\delta/(3+\delta)} \rightarrow 0
\quad\mbox{as}\,\,\, h\rightarrow 0 .\end{aligned}$$ Using Lemma \[SmoothPr\] and Lemma \[RegHarV\], we have $$\begin{aligned}
\|{\bf w}_{j,h}-{\bf w}_j\|_{L^{3+\delta}}
&\leq
\|\nabla \omega_{j,h}\|_{L^{3+\delta}}
+\|\widetilde\Pi_h^{\mathbb N} {\bf w}_j-{\bf w}_j\|_{L^{3+\delta}}\\
&\leq Ch^{\delta_*-\delta/(3+\delta)}\|{\bf w}_j\|_{H^{1/2+\delta_*}}
\rightarrow 0\quad \mbox{as}\,\,\,h\rightarrow 0,
&& j=1,\cdots,\frak M. \end{aligned}$$ Since ${\bf w}_j$, $j=1,\cdots,\frak M$, are linearly independent and ${\bf w}_{j,h}$ converges to ${\bf w}_{j}$, there exists a positive constant $h_0$ such that ${\bf w}_{j,h}$, $j=1,\cdots,\frak M$, are also linearly independent when $h<h_0$.
A Gram–Schmidt orthogonalization process gives an orthogonal basis which still converges to the basis of ${\bf X}(\Omega)$ in ${\bf L}^{3+\delta}$. The proof of Lemma \[RegDHarV\] is complete.
A discrete Sobolev embedding inequality for the Nédélec element space {#SobNed}
---------------------------------------------------------------------
\[DisDiv\][ *For any given ${\bf a}_h\in {\mathbb N}_{h}^{k}$, the unique function $\zeta_h\in {\mathbb V}_h^{k+1}$ satisfying $$(\zeta_h, \chi_h)=-({\bf a}_h,\nabla\chi_h) ,
\quad\forall\, \chi_h\in {\mathbb V}_h^{k+1} ,$$ is called the discrete divergence of ${\bf a}_h$, denoted by $\zeta_h:=\nabla_h^{\mathbb N}\cdot{\bf a}_h$. The discrete analogue of the ${\bf H}({\rm curl,div})$ norm is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\|{\bf a}_h\|_{{\bf H}_h({\rm curl,div})}
:=\|{\bf a}_h\|_{L^2}+\|\nabla\times{\bf a}_h\|_{L^2}
+\|\nabla_h^{\mathbb N}\cdot{\bf a}_h\|_{L^2} .\end{aligned}$$* ]{}
\[SobolevD\] [*For any given curved polyhedron $\Omega$, there exist positive constants $h_0$, $\delta$ and $C$ such that if the set of functions $\{{\bf a}_h\in {\mathbb N}_{h}^{k}:\, h>0\}$ is bounded in the norm $\|\cdot\|_{{\bf H}_h({\rm curl,div})}$, then it is compact in ${\bf L}^{3+\delta}$, and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{aaa1}
\|{\bf a}_h\|_{L^{3+\delta}}
\leq C\|{\bf a}_h\|_{{\bf H}_h({\rm curl,div})}
\quad\mbox{when}\,\,\, h<h_0.\end{aligned}$$* ]{}
[*Proof of Lemma \[SobolevD\]*]{}.$\,\,\,$ The discrete Hodge decomposition implies $$\begin{aligned}
{\bf a}_h =
{\bf c}_h + \nabla\theta_h
+ \sum_{j=1}^{\frak M}\alpha_{j,h}{\bf w}_{j,h} ,\end{aligned}$$ where ${\bf c}_h\in {\bf C}_h(\Omega)^\perp$, $\theta_h\in {\mathbb V}_h^{k+1}$ and ${\bf w}_{j,h}$, $j=1,\cdots,\frak M$, are the basis functions of ${\bf X}_h(\Omega)$ given in Lemma \[RegDHarV\]. We shall prove that the three functions are all compact in ${\bf L}^{3+\delta}(\Omega)$. Firstly, consider the continuous Hodge decomposition of ${\bf a}_h$ (see ) $$\begin{aligned}
{\bf a}_h =
\nabla\times {\bf u}^h +\nabla \omega^h
+\sum_{j=1}^{\frak M}\alpha_j^h{\bf w}_j ,\end{aligned}$$ where ${\bf u}^h\in \widetilde {\bf Y}(\Omega)$ is the solution of the PDE problem [^9] $$\begin{aligned}
&\nabla\times(\nabla\times {\bf u}^h)=\nabla\times{\bf a}_h ,
&&\mbox{in}\,\,\,\Omega, {\nonumber}\\
&\nabla\cdot{\bf u}^h=0 , &&\mbox{in}\,\,\,\Omega, \\
&{\bf u}^h\times{\bf n}=0
&&\mbox{on}\,\,\,\partial\Omega . {\nonumber}\end{aligned}$$ Hence, the vector field ${\bf c}^h:=\nabla\times {\bf u}^h\in {\bf C}(\Omega)^\perp$ is the divergence-free part of ${\bf a}_h$, which satisfies ${\bf c}^h\cdot{\bf n}=0$ [^10] and the basic energy inequality $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ccc1}
\|{\bf c}^h\|_{{\bf H}({\rm curl,div})}
\leq C\|\nabla\times{\bf a}_h\|_{L^2 } .
$$ Since ${\bf H}({\rm curl,div})\hookrightarrow
{\bf H}^{1/2+\delta_*}(\Omega)$ for some $\delta_*>0$ [^11] and ${\bf H}^{1/2+\delta_*}(\Omega)$ is compactly embeddded into ${\bf L}^{3+\delta}(\Omega)$ for $\delta<3\delta_*/(1-\delta_*)$, it follows that the set $\{{\bf c}^h:\, h>0\}$ is compact in ${\bf L}^{3+\delta}(\Omega)$.
Since $$\nabla\times({\bf c}^h-{\bf c}_h)
=\nabla\times {\bf c}^h-\nabla\times {\bf c}_h
=\nabla\times {\bf a}_h
- \nabla\times{\bf a}_h =0 ,$$ it follows from [@AFW Theorem 5.11 on page 74] that [^12] $$\begin{aligned}
\|\widetilde\Pi_h^{\mathbb N}{\bf c}^h-{\bf c}_h\|_{L^2}
\leq C\|{\bf c}^h\|_{H^{1/2+\delta_*}}h^{1/2+\delta_*}
\leq C\|\nabla\times{\bf a}_h\|_{L^2} h^{1/2+\delta_*} ,\end{aligned}$$ and by using the inverse inequality we further derive $$\begin{aligned}
\|\widetilde\Pi_h^{\mathbb N}{\bf c}^h-{\bf c}_h\|_{L^{3+\delta}}
&\leq Ch^{-1/2-\delta/(3+\delta)}\|\widetilde\Pi_h^{\mathbb N}{\bf c}^h
-{\bf c}_h\|_{L^2}
\leq C\|\nabla\times{\bf a}_h\|_{L^2}
h^{\delta_*-\delta/(3+\delta)} .\end{aligned}$$ Since $\delta_*-\delta/(3+\delta)>0$ when $\delta<3\delta_*/(1-\delta_*)$, by using Lemma \[SmoothPr\] we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ccc2}
\|{\bf c}^h-{\bf c}_h\|_{L^{3+\delta} }
&\leq \|\widetilde\Pi_h^{\mathbb N}{\bf c}^h-{\bf c}^h\|_{L^{3+\delta} }
+\|\widetilde\Pi_h^{\mathbb N}{\bf c}^h-{\bf c}_h\|_{L^{3+\delta} }{\nonumber}\\
&\leq
C\|{\bf c}^h\|_{H^{1/2+\delta_*}(\Omega)}h^{\delta_*-\delta/(3+\delta)}
+C\|\nabla\times{\bf a}_h\|_{L^2 }
h^{\delta_*-\delta/(3+\delta)}{\nonumber}\\
&
\leq C\|\nabla\times{\bf a}_h\|_{L^2 }
h^{\delta_*-\delta/(3+\delta)} \rightarrow 0
\qquad\mbox{as}\,\,\, h\rightarrow 0 .\end{aligned}$$ Since $\{{\bf c}^h:\, h>0\}$ is compact in ${\bf L}^{3+\delta}(\Omega)$ and $\|{\bf c}^h-{\bf c}_h\|_{L^{3+\delta} }\rightarrow 0$ as $h\rightarrow 0$, it follows that $\{{\bf c}_h:\, h>0\}$ is also compact in ${\bf L}^{3+\delta}(\Omega)$.
Secondly, we let $\zeta_h=\nabla_h^{\mathbb N}\cdot{\bf a}_h$ in the sense of Definition \[DisDiv\]. Due to the orthogonality of ${\bf c}_h$ and ${\bf w}_{j,h}$ with $\nabla\chi_h$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
(\nabla\theta_h,\nabla\chi_h)
=({\bf a}_h,\nabla \chi_h)
=-(\zeta_h, \chi_h) , \quad\forall\,\chi_h\in {\mathbb V}_h^{k+1} .\end{aligned}$$ Let $\theta^h$ be the solution of the PDE problem $$\begin{aligned}
&\Delta\theta^h=\zeta_h &&\mbox{in}\,\,\,\Omega, {\nonumber}\\
&\nabla\theta^h\cdot{\bf n}=0 &&\mbox{on}\,\,\,\partial \Omega ,\end{aligned}$$ which satisfies (using Lemma \[RegPoiss\]) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ccc3}
\|\theta^h\|_{H^{3/2+\delta_*}(\Omega)}
\leq C\|\zeta_h\|_{L^2 }
\quad\mbox{for some $\delta_*>0$} .\end{aligned}$$ Hence, the set $\{\nabla\theta^h:\, h>0\}$ is bounded in ${\bf H}^{1/2+\delta_*}(\Omega)$, which is compactly embedded into ${\bf L}^{3+\delta}(\Omega)$ for $\delta< 3\delta_*/(1-\delta_*)$. Moreover, according to the definition of $\theta^h$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
(\nabla(\theta^h-\theta_h),\nabla\chi_h)
=0, \quad\forall\,\chi_h\in {\mathbb V}_h^{k+1} .\end{aligned}$$ By substituting $\chi_h=\widetilde\Pi_h^{\mathbb V}\theta^h-\theta_h$ into the last equation, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\|\nabla(\widetilde\Pi_h^{\mathbb V}\theta^h-\theta_h)\|_{L^2 }
\leq C\|\theta^h\|_{H^{3/2+\delta_*}(\Omega)}h^{1/2+\delta_*}
\leq C\|\zeta_h\|_{L^2 }h^{1/2+\delta_*} .\end{aligned}$$ Again, by using the inverse inequality we derive $$\begin{aligned}
\|\nabla(\widetilde\Pi_h^{\mathbb V}\theta^h-\theta_h)\|_{L^{3+\delta} }
&\leq Ch^{-1/2-\delta/(3+\delta)}
\|\nabla(\widetilde\Pi_h^{\mathbb V}\theta^h-\theta_h)
\|_{L^2 }
\leq C\|\zeta_h\|_{L^2 }h^{\delta_*-\delta/(3+\delta)} . \end{aligned}$$ In view of Lemma \[SmoothPr\], we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ccc4}
\|\nabla\theta^h-\nabla\theta_h\|_{L^{3+\delta} }
&\leq \|\nabla(\theta^h-\widetilde\Pi_h^{\mathbb V}\theta^h)\|_{L^{3+\delta} }
+\|\nabla(\widetilde\Pi_h^{\mathbb V}\theta^h-\theta_h)\|_{L^{3+\delta} } {\nonumber}\\
&\leq C\|\theta^h\|_{H^{3/2+\delta_*}(\Omega)}
h^{\delta_*-\delta/(3+\delta)}
+C\|\zeta_h\|_{L^2 }h^{\delta_*-\delta/(3+\delta)}{\nonumber}\\
&
\leq C\|\zeta_h\|_{L^2 }h^{\delta_*-\delta/(3+\delta)}
\rightarrow 0\quad\mbox{as}\,\,\, h\rightarrow 0 .\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, the set of functions $\{\nabla\theta_h:\, h>0\}$ is compact in ${\bf L}^{3+\delta}(\Omega)$.
Finally, we note that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Alphaj2}
|\alpha_{j,h}|=|({\bf a}_h,{\bf w}_{j,h})|/\|{\bf w}_{j,h}\|_{L^2}^2
\leq C\|{\bf a}_h\|_{L^2}
\leq C\|{\bf a}_h\|_{{\bf H}_h({\rm curl,div})} ,
\quad j=1,\cdots,\frak M. \end{aligned}$$ Therefore, the set of numbers $\{\alpha_{j,h}:\, h>0\}$, are compact. Since ${\bf w}_{j,h}$ converges to ${\bf w}_j$ in ${\bf L}^{3+\delta}(\Omega)$ (see Lemma \[RegDHarV\]), it follows that $\big\{\sum_{j=1}^{\frak M}\alpha_{j,h}{\bf w}_{j,h}:\, h>0\big\}$ is compact in ${\bf L}^{3+\delta}(\Omega)$.
Overall, we have proved that ${\bf c}_h$, $\nabla\theta_h$ and $\sum_{j=1}^{\frak M}\alpha_{j,h}{\bf w}_{j,h}$ are all compact in ${\bf L}^{3+\delta}(\Omega)$. The inequalities and - imply . The proof of Lemma \[SobolevD\] is complete.
If the domain $\Omega$ is smooth or convex, then a similar proof yields $$\begin{aligned}
\label{aaa-2}
\|{\bf a}_h\|_{L^{6}}
\leq C\|{\bf a}_h\|_{{\bf H}_h({\rm curl,div})} .\end{aligned}$$
Uniform estimates of the finite element solution {#SecUnif}
------------------------------------------------
In this subsection we prove the following lemma.
\[UniFEst\] [*There exist positive constants $\tau_0\in(0,\eta/2)$, $q>3$ and $C$ such that when $\tau<\tau_0$ the finite element solution satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\label{LUniFEst}
&\max_{0\leq n\leq N-1}
\big(\|\psi^{n+1}_h\|_{H^1}+\|{\bf A}^{n+1}_h\|_{L^q}
+\|\phi_h^{n+1}\|_{L^2}+
\|\nabla\times{\bf A}_h^{n+1}\|_{L^2}\big) {\nonumber}\\
&+\sum_{n=0}^{N-1}\tau \big(\|D_\tau\psi_h^{n+1}\|_{L^2}^2
+\|D_\tau{\bf A}_h^{n+1}\|_{L^2}^2 \big) {\nonumber}\\
&+\sum_{n=0}^{N-1}\tau \big(\|\psi_{h}^{n+1}\|_{W^{1,q}}^2
+\|\phi_{h}^{n+1}\|_{H^1}^2
+\|D_\tau\phi_{h}^{n+1}\|_{(H^1)'}^2 \big)
\leq C . \end{aligned}$$* ]{}
[*Proof of Lemma \[UniFEst\]*]{}.$\quad$ We shall prove the following inequality by mathematical induction: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{MathInd}
\|\psi_h^n\|_{L^\infty}\leq \tau^{-1/2} .\end{aligned}$$ Since $|\psi_h^0|\leq 1$, it follows that holds for $n=0$ when $\tau<1$. In the following, we assume that the inequality holds for $0\leq n\leq m\leq N-1$ and prove that it also holds for $n=m+1$. The generic constant $C$ of this subsection will be independent of $h$, $\tau$ and $m$.
Under the induction assumption above, from we see that $$\begin{aligned}
&\max_{0\leq n\leq m}{\cal G}_h^{n+1}
+\sum_{n=0}^m\tau \int_\Omega
\bigg(\frac{\eta-\tau}{2} |D_\tau\psi_h^{n+1}|^2
+\frac{1}{2}|D_\tau{\bf A}_h^{n+1}|^2 \bigg) \d x
\leq C ,
$$ which implies $$\begin{aligned}
\label{FreeEngUni}
&\max_{0\leq n\leq m}
\bigg(\bigg\|\frac{i}{\kappa}\nabla\psi^{n+1}_h
+ \mathbf{A}^{n+1}_h\psi^{n+1}_h\bigg\|_{L^2}
+\|\psi_h^{n+1}\|_{L^4} \bigg) {\nonumber}\\
&
+\max_{0\leq n\leq m}
\bigg(\|\phi_h^{n+1}\|_{L^2}+
\|\nabla\times{\bf A}_h^{n+1}\|_{L^2}
+\|{\bf A}_h^{n+1}\|_{L^2}\bigg){\nonumber}\\
&+\sum_{n=0}^m\tau \big(\|D_\tau\psi_h^{n+1}\|_{L^2}^2
+\|D_\tau{\bf A}_h^{n+1}\|_{L^2}^2\big)
\leq C .
$$ We assume $0\leq n\leq m$ below if there is no explicit mention of the range of $n$, and let $\ell^p_{m}(W^{l,q})$ denote the space of sequences $(v_n)_{n=0}^m$, with $v_n\in W^{l,q}$, equipped with the following norm: $$\|(v_{n})_{n=0}^m\|_{\ell^p(W^{l,q})}
:=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle\bigg( \sum_{n=0}^m\tau
\|v_{n}\|_{W^{l,q}}^p\bigg)^{\frac{1}{p}}
&\quad\mbox{if}\,\,\, 1\leq p<\infty
\,\,\,\mbox{and}\,\,\, 1\leq q\leq \infty ,\\[15pt]
\displaystyle
\max_{0\leq n\leq m}\|v_{n}\|_{W^{l,q}}
&\quad\mbox{if}\,\,\, p=\infty \,\,\,\mbox{and}\,\,\, 1\leq q\leq \infty .
\end{array}
\right.$$
In view of , Lemma \[SobolevD\] implies the existence of $q>3$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{AhLinftLq}
\max_{0\leq n\leq m}\|{\bf A}^{n+1}_h\|_{L^q}
&\leq C\max_{0\leq n\leq m} (\|\phi_h^{n+1}\|_{L^2}
+\|\nabla\times{\bf A}^{n+1}_h\|_{L^2}
+\|{\bf A}_h^{n+1}\|_{L^2} )
\leq C .\end{aligned}$$ Let $\bar q<6$ be the number satisfying $1/q+1/\bar q=1/2$. By using Hölder’s inequality we derive $$\begin{aligned}
\|{\bf A}^{n+1}_h\psi_h^{n+1}\|_{L^2}
&\leq C \|{\bf A}^{n+1}_h\|_{L^q}\|\psi_h^{n+1}\|_{L^{\bar q}}
\leq C\|\psi_h^{n+1}\|_{L^{\bar q}}
\leq \epsilon\|\nabla\psi_h^{n+1}\|_{L^2}
+C_\epsilon\|\psi_h^{n+1}\|_{L^2} ,\end{aligned}$$ where we have also used the interpolation inequality $$\begin{aligned}
\|\psi_h^{n+1}\|_{L^{\bar q}}
&\leq C\|\psi_h^{n+1}\|_{L^2}^{3/\bar q-1/2}
\|\psi_h^{n+1}\|_{H^1}^{3/2-3/\bar q}
\leq \epsilon\|\nabla\psi_h^{n+1}\|_{L^2}
+C_\epsilon\|\psi_h^{n+1}\|_{L^2} ,
\quad
\forall\, \epsilon\in(0,1) .\end{aligned}$$ As a consequence, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\|\nabla\psi_h^{n+1}\|_{L^2}
&\leq \bigg\|\frac{i}{\kappa}\nabla\psi^{n+1}_h
+ \mathbf{A}^{n+1}_h\psi^{n+1}_h\bigg\|_{L^2}
+\|{\bf A}^{n+1}_h\psi_h^{n+1}\|_{L^2} {\nonumber}\\
&\leq
\bigg\|\frac{i}{\kappa}\nabla\psi^{n+1}_h
+ \mathbf{A}^{n+1}_h\psi^{n+1}_h\bigg\|_{L^2}
+ \epsilon\|\nabla\psi_h^{n+1}\|_{L^2}
+C_\epsilon\|\psi_h^{n+1}\|_{L^2} ,\end{aligned}$$ which further reduces to (by choosing $\epsilon=1/2$) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{psihLinfH1}
\max_{0\leq n\leq m}\|\nabla\psi_h^{n+1}\|_{L^2}
&\leq
C\max_{0\leq n\leq m}\bigg\|\frac{i}{\kappa}\nabla\psi^{n+1}_h
+ \mathbf{A}^{n+1}_h\psi^{n+1}_h\bigg\|_{L^2}
+C\max_{0\leq n\leq m}\|\psi_h^{n+1}\|_{L^2}^2 \leq C .\end{aligned}$$
To estimate $\|\psi_h^{n+1}\|_{L^\infty}$, we need the following lemma.
\[LemmW1qD\] [*There exists a positive constant $q_0\in(3,4]$ such that for $3<q<q_0$ the finite element solution $\psi_h^{n+1}\in {\mathbb S}_h^r$, $n=0,1,\cdots,m$, of the equation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{EQDPSI}
\eta D_\tau\psi_h^{n+1}
-\frac{1}{\kappa^2}\Delta_h\psi_h^{n+1}
=f_h^{n+1}\end{aligned}$$ satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\label{LemW1qD}
\|(\psi_h^{n+1})_{n=0}^m\|_{\ell^2(W^{1,q+\delta_q})}\leq
C\|(f_h^{n+1})_{n=0}^m\|_{\ell^2(L^{q/2})}
+C\|\psi_h^0\|_{H^1}
\quad\mbox{
for some $\delta_q>0$. }\end{aligned}$$* ]{}
[*Proof of Lemma \[LemmW1qD\]*]{}.$\quad$ Let $\theta^{n+1}$ be the solution of the PDE problem $$\begin{aligned}
\label{EQDPSI2}
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle
\eta D_\tau\theta^{n+1}-\frac{1}{\kappa^2}\Delta\theta^{n+1}
=f_h^{n+1} &\mbox{in}\,\,\,\Omega,\\[10pt]
\nabla\theta^{n+1}\cdot{\bf n}=0
&\mbox{on}\,\,\,\partial\Omega ,\\[5pt]
\theta^0=\psi_h^0 .
\end{array}\right. \end{aligned}$$ The function $\theta^{n+1}$ can further be decomposed as $\theta^{n+1}=\widehat\theta^{n+1}
+\widetilde\theta^{n+1}$, which are solutions of $$\begin{aligned}
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle
\eta D_\tau\widehat\theta^{n+1}-\frac{1}{\kappa^2}\Delta\widehat\theta^{n+1}
=f_h^{n+1} &\mbox{in}\,\,\,\Omega,\\[10pt]
\nabla\widehat\theta^{n+1}\cdot{\bf n}=0
&\mbox{on}\,\,\,\partial\Omega ,\\[5pt]
\widehat\theta^0=0 .
\end{array}\right.
\quad\mbox{and}\quad
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle
\eta D_\tau\widetilde\theta^{n+1}-\frac{1}{\kappa^2}\Delta\widetilde\theta^{n+1}
=0 &\mbox{in}\,\,\,\Omega,\\[10pt]
\nabla\widetilde\theta^{n+1}\cdot{\bf n}=0
&\mbox{on}\,\,\,\partial\Omega ,\\[5pt]
\widetilde\theta^0=\psi_h^0 ,
\end{array}\right. \end{aligned}$$ respectively. The solution $\widehat\theta^{n+1}$ satisfies (see Lemma \[DMPR\]) $$\begin{aligned}
\|(D_\tau\widehat\theta^{n+1})_{n=0}^m\|_{\ell^2(L^{q/2})}
+\|(\Delta\widehat\theta^{n+1})_{n=0}^m\|_{\ell^2(L^{q/2})} \leq
C\|(f_h^{n+1})_{n=0}^m\|_{\ell^2(L^{q/2})} ,
\quad \forall\, 2<q<\infty, \end{aligned}$$ and $\widetilde\theta^{n+1}$ satisfies the standard energy estimate $$\begin{aligned}
\|(D_\tau\widetilde\theta^{n+1})_{n=0}^m\|_{\ell^2(L^2)}
+\|(\Delta\widetilde\theta^{n+1})_{n=0}^m\|_{\ell^2(L^2)} \leq
C\|\widetilde\theta^0\|_{H^1} .\end{aligned}$$ In view of the last two inequalities, for any $2<q\leq 4$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{thL2Lq2}
\|(D_\tau\theta^{n+1})_{n=0}^m\|_{\ell^2(L^{q/2})}
+\|(\Delta\theta^{n+1})_{n=0}^m\|_{\ell^2(L^{q/2})} \leq
C\|(f_h^{n+1})_{n=0}^m\|_{\ell^2(L^{q/2})}
+C\|\psi_h^0\|_{H^1} .\end{aligned}$$ If we define $\overline\theta^{n+1}:=
\frac{1}{|\Omega|}\int_\Omega\theta^{n+1}\d x$ as the average of $\theta^{n+1}$ over $\Omega$, then Lemma \[RegPoiss\] implies $$\begin{aligned}
\|(\theta^{n+1}-\overline\theta^{n+1})_{n=0}^m \|_{\ell^2(H^{3/2+\alpha})}
\leq
C\|(\Delta\theta^{n+1})_{n=0}^m\|_{\ell^2(H^{-1/2+\alpha}) } \end{aligned}$$ for any $0<\alpha<\min(\delta_*,\frac{1}{2})$. The last inequality implies $$\begin{aligned}
\label{thL2Lq3}
\|(\theta^{n+1})_{n=0}^m\|_{\ell^2(H^{3/2+\alpha})}
\leq
C\|(\Delta\theta^{n+1})_{n=0}^m\|_{\ell^2(H^{-1/2+\alpha}) }
+C\|(\theta^{n+1})_{n=0}^m\|_{\ell^2(L^1)} .\end{aligned}$$ For any $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Defalpha}
3<q=6/(2-\alpha)<\min(6/(2-\delta_*),4) ,\end{aligned}$$ the Sobolev embedding $L^{q/2}\hookrightarrow H^{-1/2+\alpha}$ and - imply $$\begin{aligned}
\|(\theta^{n+1})_{n=0}^m\|_{\ell^2(H^{3/2+\alpha})}
&\leq C\|(\Delta\theta^{n+1})_{n=0}^m\|_{\ell^2(H^{-1/2+\alpha}) }
+C\|(\theta^{n+1})_{n=0}^m\|_{\ell^2(L^1)} {\nonumber}\\
&\leq
C\|(\Delta\theta^{n+1})_{n=0}^m\|_{\ell^2(L^{q/2})}
+C\|(D_\tau\theta^{n+1})_{n=0}^m\|_{\ell^2(L^1)}
+C\|\theta^0\|_{L^1} {\nonumber}\\
&\leq
C\|(\Delta\theta^{n+1})_{n=0}^m\|_{\ell^2(L^{q/2})}
+C\|(D_\tau\theta^{n+1})_{n=0}^m\|_{\ell^2(L^{q/2})}
+C\|\theta^0\|_{L^2} {\nonumber}\\
&\leq
C\|(f_h^{n+1})_{n=0}^m\|_{\ell^2(L^{q/2})}
+C\|\psi_h^0\|_{H^1} .\end{aligned}$$ Again, the Sobolev embedding theorem implies $$\begin{aligned}
\label{thetaW1qa}
\begin{aligned}
\|(\theta^{n+1})_{n=0}^m\|_{\ell^2(W^{1,3/(1-\alpha)})}
&\leq C\|(\theta^{n+1})_{n=0}^m\|_{\ell^2(H^{3/2+\alpha})} \\
&\leq
C\|(f_h^{n+1})_{n=0}^m\|_{\ell^2(L^{q/2})}
+C\|\psi_h^0\|_{H^1} .
\end{aligned}\end{aligned}$$
Comparing and , we have $$\begin{aligned}
\big(\eta D_\tau(\theta^{n+1}-\psi_h^{n+1}),
\varphi_h\big)
+\frac{1}{\kappa^2}\big(\nabla(\theta^{n+1}-\psi_h^{n+1}),
\nabla\varphi_h\big)
=0 ,\quad\forall\,\varphi_h\in {\mathbb S}_h^r ,\end{aligned}$$ which indicates that $\psi^{n+1}_h$ is the finite element approximation of $\theta^{n+1}$. The standard energy error estimate gives $$\begin{aligned}
&\|(P_h\theta^{n+1}-\psi_h^{n+1})_{n=0}^m\|_{\ell^\infty(L^2)}
+\|(P_h\theta^{n+1}-\psi_h^{n+1})_{n=0}^m\|_{\ell^2(H^1)} \\
&\leq C\|(P_h\theta^{n+1}-\theta^{n+1})_{n=0}^m\|_{\ell^2(H^1)} \\
&
\leq C\|(\theta^{n+1})_{n=0}^m\|_{\ell^2(H^{3/2+\alpha})}h^{1/2+\alpha} \\
&\leq C(\|(f_h^{n+1})_{n=0}^m\|_{\ell^2(L^{q/2})}
+\|\psi_h^0\|_{H^1})h^{1/2+\alpha} ,\end{aligned}$$ and by using the inverse inequality we derive $$\begin{aligned}
\label{thetahW1qa}
\begin{aligned}
\|(P_h\theta^{n+1}-\psi_h^{n+1})_{n=0}^m\|_{\ell^2(W^{1,3/(1-\alpha)})}
&\le Ch^{-1/2-\alpha}\|(P_h\theta^{n+1}-\psi_h^{n+1})_{n=0}^m\|_{\ell^2(H^1)} \\
&\le C(\|(f_h^{n+1})_{n=0}^m\|_{\ell^2(L^{q/2})}
+\|\psi_h^0\|_{H^1}) .
\end{aligned}\end{aligned}$$ From we know that $3/(1-\alpha)=q/(2-q/3)=q+\delta_q$ for some $\delta_q>0$. Since the $L^2$ projection operator $P_h$ is bounded on $W^{1,q+\delta_q}$, the inequalities and imply .
The proof of Lemma \[LemmW1qD\] is complete.
We rewrite as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ReWrEq}
\eta D_\tau\psi_h^{n+1}
-\frac{1}{\kappa^2}\Delta_h\psi^{n+1}_h
+\frac{i}{\kappa}P_h\big(\nabla\psi^{n+1}_h\cdot{\bf A}_h^{n+1}\big)
+\frac{i}{\kappa}\nabla_h\cdot\big(\psi^{n+1}_h {\bf A}_h^{n+1}\big) &
{\nonumber}\\
+P_h\Big( |\mathbf{A}^{n+1}_h|^2\psi^{n+1}_h +
(|\psi^{n+1}_h|^{2}-1) \psi^{n+1}_h
+i\eta\kappa \Theta(\psi_h^{n})\phi_h^n\Big) &= 0 ,\end{aligned}$$ where the discretes operators $$\begin{aligned}
&\Delta_h:{\mathbb S}_h^r\rightarrow {\mathbb S}_h^r, \\
&\nabla_h\cdot:{\cal L}^2\times {\cal L}^2
\times {\cal L}^2\rightarrow {\mathbb S}_h^r,\\
&P_h:{\cal L}^2\rightarrow {\mathbb S}_h^r\end{aligned}$$ are defined via duality by $$\begin{aligned}
&(\Delta_hu_h,v_h)=-(\nabla u_h,\nabla v_h) , &&
\forall\, u_h,v_h\in {\mathbb S}_h^r ,\\
&(\nabla_h\cdot {\bf u},v_h)=-({\bf u}_h,\nabla v_h) , &&
\forall\, {\bf u}\in {\cal L}^2\times {\cal L}^2\times {\cal L}^2,
\,\, v_h\in {\mathbb S}_h^r ,\\
&(P_hu,v_h)=(u,v_h) , &&
\forall\, u\in {\cal L}^2,\,\, v_h\in {\mathbb S}_h^r .\end{aligned}$$ By applying Lemma \[LemmW1qD\] to , using Hölder’s inequality and -, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{psihn1a}
&\big\|\big(\psi^{n+1}_h\big)_{n=0}^m\big\|_{\ell^2(W^{1,q+\delta_q})} {\nonumber}\\
&\leq C\|\psi^{0}_h\|_{H^1}+
C\big\|\big(\nabla\psi^{n+1}_h\cdot{\bf A}_h^{n+1}\big)_{n=0}^m \big\|_{\ell^2(L^{q/2})} {\nonumber}\\
&\quad
+C\big\|\big(\nabla_h\cdot(\psi^{n+1}_h {\bf A}_h^{n+1})\big)_{n=0}^m\big\|_{\ell^2(L^{q/2})} {\nonumber}\\
&\quad
+C\big\|\big(|\mathbf{A}^{n+1}_h|^2\psi^{n+1}_h +
(|\psi^{n+1}_h|^{2}-1) \psi^{n+1}_h
-i\eta\kappa \Theta(\psi_h^{n})\phi^n \big)_{n=0}^m\big\|_{\ell^2(L^{q/2})} {\nonumber}\\
&\leq C+C\big\|\big(\nabla\psi^{n+1}_h\big)_{n=0}^m\big\|_{\ell^2(L^{q})}
\big\|\big({\bf A}_h^{n+1} \big)_{n=0}^m\big\|_{\ell^\infty(L^q)} {\nonumber}\\
&\quad
+C\big\|\big(\nabla_h\cdot(\psi^{n+1}_h {\bf A}_h^{n+1})\big)_{n=0}^m\big\|_{\ell^2(L^{q/2})} {\nonumber}\\
&\quad
+C\big\|\big({\bf A}_h^{n+1}\big)_{n=0}^m \big\|_{\ell^\infty(L^q)}^2
\big\|\big(\psi^{n+1}_h\big)_{n=0}^m\big\|_{\ell^2(L^\infty)} {\nonumber}\\
&\quad
+C\big(\big\|\big(\psi^{n+1}_h\big)_{n=0}^m\big\|_{\ell^{6}(L^{3q/2})}^3
\!+\!\big\|\big(\psi^{n+1}_h\big)_{n=0}^m\big\|_{\ell^2(L^{q/2})}
\!+\!\big\|\big(\phi_h^n\big)_{n=0}^m\big\|_{\ell^2(L^{q/2})} \big) {\nonumber}\\
&\leq C+C\big(\big\|\big(\psi^{n+1}_h\big)_{n=0}^m\big\|_{\ell^2(W^{1,q})}
+\big\|\big(\psi^{n+1}_h\big)_{n=0}^m\big\|_{\ell^2(L^\infty)} \big) {\nonumber}\\
&\quad
+C\big\|\big(\nabla_h\cdot(\psi^{n+1}_h {\bf A}_h^{n+1})\big)_{n=0}^m\big\|_{\ell^2(L^{q/2})} {\nonumber}\\
&\quad
+C\big(\big\|\big(\psi^{n+1}_h\big)_{n=0}^m\big\|_{\ell^6(L^{3q/2})}^3
+\big\|\big(\psi^{n+1}_h\big)_{n=0}^m\big\|_{\ell^2(L^{q/2})} \big){\nonumber}\\
&\leq C+\epsilon\big\|\big(\psi^{n+1}_h\big)_{n=0}^m\big\|_{\ell^2(W^{1,q+\delta_q})}
+C_\epsilon\big\|\big(\psi^{n+1}_h\big)_{n=0}^m\big\|_{\ell^2(H^1)} {\nonumber}\\
&\quad
+C\big\|\big(\nabla_h\cdot(\psi^{n+1}_h {\bf A}_h^{n+1})\big)_{n=0}^m\big\|_{\ell^2(L^{q/2})} {\nonumber}\\
&\quad
+C\big(\big\|\big(\psi^{n+1}_h\big)_{n=0}^m\big\|_{\ell^\infty(H^1)}^3
+\big\|\big(\psi^{n+1}_h\big)_{n=0}^m\big\|_{\ell^\infty(H^1)} \big){\nonumber}\\
&\leq C_\epsilon
+\epsilon\big\|\big(\psi^{n+1}_h\big)_{n=0}^m\big\|_{\ell^2(W^{1,q+\delta_q})}
+C\big\|\big(\nabla_h\cdot(\psi^{n+1}_h {\bf A}_h^{n+1})\big)_{n=0}^m\big\|_{\ell^2(L^{q/2})} \, , \end{aligned}$$ where we have used the following interpolation inequality: $$\begin{aligned}
\|(\psi^{n+1}_h)_{n=0}^m\|_{\ell^2(L^\infty)}
+\|(\psi^{n+1}_h)_{n=0}^m\|_{\ell^2(W^{1,q})}
&\leq \epsilon\|(\psi^{n+1}_h)_{n=0}^m\|_{\ell^2(W^{1,q+\delta_q})}
+C_\epsilon\|(\psi^{n+1}_h)_{n=0}^m\|_{\ell^2(H^1)} .\end{aligned}$$ To estimate $\|\nabla_h\cdot(\psi^{n+1}_h {\bf A}_h^{n+1})\|_{L^{q/2}}$ on the right-hand side of , we let $q^*<6$ be the number satisfying $
1/q^*+1/2=2/q
$ and use a duality argument: for any $\eta_h\in{\mathbb S}_h^r$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{CondrkN}
&(\nabla_h\cdot(\psi^{n+1}_h {\bf A}_h^{n+1}),\eta_h) {\nonumber}\\
&=-(\psi^{n+1}_h {\bf A}_h^{n+1},\nabla\eta_h) {\nonumber}\\
&=({\bf A}_h^{n+1},\eta_h\nabla\psi^{n+1}_h )
-({\bf A}_h^{n+1},\nabla(\psi^{n+1}_h\eta_h) ) {\nonumber}\\
&=({\bf A}_h^{n+1},\eta_h\nabla\psi^{n+1}_h )
-(\phi_h^{n+1}, \psi^{n+1}_h\eta_h )
\qquad\qquad\qquad\,\, \mbox{by using \eqref{FEM3}
and \eqref{Condrk}} {\nonumber}\\
&\leq\|{\bf A}_h^{n+1}\|_{L^q} \|\nabla\psi^{n+1}_h\|_{L^q}
\|\eta_h\|_{L^{(q/2)'}}
+\|\phi_h^{n+1}\|_{L^2}\|\psi^{n+1}_h\|_{L^{q^*}}
\|\eta_h\|_{L^{(q/2)'}} {\nonumber}\\
&\leq C\|\nabla\psi^{n+1}_h\|_{L^q}
\|\eta_h\|_{L^{(q/2)'}}
+C\|\psi^{n+1}_h\|_{L^{q^*}}
\|\eta_h\|_{L^{(q/2)'}} ,
\qquad\qquad\mbox{by using \eqref{psihLinfH1}}\end{aligned}$$ which implies $$\begin{aligned}
\|\nabla_h\cdot(\psi^{n+1}_h {\bf A}_h^{n+1}) \|_{L^{q/2}}
&\leq C(\|\nabla\psi^{n+1}_h\|_{L^q} + \|\psi^{n+1}_h\|_{L^{q^*}})\\
&\leq C(\|\psi^{n+1}_h\|_{W^{1,q}} + \|\psi^{n+1}_h\|_{H^{1}}) ,\end{aligned}$$ and so $$\begin{aligned}
\big\|\big(\nabla_h\cdot(\psi^{n+1}_h {\bf A}_h^{n+1})\big)_{n=0}^m\big\|_{\ell^2(L^{q/2})}
&\leq
C\big\|\big(\psi^{n+1}_h\big)_{n=0}^m\big\|_{\ell^2(W^{1,q})}
+C\big\|\big(\psi^{n+1}_h\big)_{n=0}^m\big\|_{\ell^2(H^1)}
{\nonumber}\\
&\leq \epsilon\big\|\big(\psi^{n+1}_h\big)_{n=0}^m\big\|_{\ell^2(W^{1,q+\delta_q})}
+C_\epsilon\big\|\big(\psi^{n+1}_h\big)_{n=0}^m\big\|_{\ell^2(H^1)} {\nonumber}\\
&\leq \epsilon\big\|\big(\psi^{n+1}_h\big)_{n=0}^m\big\|_{\ell^2(W^{1,q+\delta_q})}
+C_\epsilon \qquad
\mbox{by using \eqref{psihLinfH1}} ,\end{aligned}$$ which together with implies $$\begin{aligned}
\label{DeltaPsi}
\big\|\big(\psi^{n+1}_h\big)_{n=0}^m\big\|_{\ell^2(W^{1,q+\delta_q})}
\leq C .\end{aligned}$$
For any $1\leq p\leq\infty$, the space $\ell^p_{m}(W^{1,q})$ can be viewed as a subspace of $L^p(0,t_{m+1};W^{1,q})$ consisting of piecewise constant functions on each subinterval $(t_n,t_{n+1}]$. Since $$L^2(0,t_{m+1};W^{1,q})\cap L^\infty(0,t_{m+1};H^1)
\hookrightarrow L^{2/(1-\theta)}(0,t_{m+1};W^{1,q_\theta })
\quad\mbox{for any $\theta\in(0,1)$},$$ with $
\frac{1}{q_\theta}=\frac{1-\theta}{q}+\frac{\theta}{2} $ (see [@BL page 106] on the complex interpolation of vector-valued $L^p$ spaces), it follows that $\ell_{m}^2(W^{1,q})\cap \ell_{m}^\infty(H^1)
\hookrightarrow \ell_{m}^{2/(1-\theta)}(W^{1,q_\theta })$. By choosing $\theta$ to be sufficiently small we have $3<q_\theta<q$ and so $$\begin{aligned}
\big\|\big(\psi_h^{n+1}\big)_{n=0}^m\big\|_{\ell^{2/(1-\theta)}(L^{\infty})}
&\leq
C\big\|\big(\psi_h^{n+1}\big)_{n=0}^m\big\|_{\ell^{2/(1-\theta)}(W^{1,q_\theta})} \\
&\leq C\big\|\big(\psi_h^{n+1}\big)_{n=0}^m\big\|_{\ell^2(W^{1,q})}
+C\big\|\big(\psi_h^{n+1}\big)_{n=0}^m\big\|_{\ell^\infty(H^1)} \\
&\leq C .\end{aligned}$$ In other words, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{n=0}^m\tau\|\psi_h^{n+1}\|_{L^{\infty}}^{2/(1-\theta)}
\leq C_0
\quad\implies
\quad
\|\psi_h^{n+1}\|_{L^{\infty}}
\le (C_0^{(1-\theta)/2}\tau^{\theta/2}) \tau^{-1/2}\end{aligned}$$ for some positive constant $C_0$ (which is independent of $m$). When $\tau<\tau_0:=C_0^{-(1-\theta)/\theta}$, we have $C_0^{(1-\theta)/2}\tau^{\theta/2}<1$ and the last inequality implies for $n=m+1$. Hence, the mathematical induction on is completed under the condition $\tau<\tau_0$. As a consequence, - and hold for $m=N-1$.
Substituting ${\bf a}_h=\nabla\phi_h^{n+1}$ in and using , we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{aligned}
(D_{\tau}\phi_{h}^{n+1},\phi_{h}^{n+1})
+\frac{1}{2}\|\nabla\phi_{h}^{n+1}\|_{L^2}^2
&\leq
C\biggl\|{\rm Re}\bigg[\overline\psi_h^{n}\bigg(\frac{i}{\kappa} \nabla
+{\bf A}_h^{n}\bigg) \psi_h^{n}\bigg]\bigg\|_{L^2}^2 \\
&\leq C\|\psi_h^{n}\|_{L^6}^2
(\|\nabla \psi_h^{n}\|_{L^3}^2
+\|{\bf A}_h^{n}\|_{L^3}^2\|\psi_h^{n}\|_{L^\infty}^2) \\
&\leq C\|\psi_h^{n}\|_{H^1}^2
(\|\psi_h^{n}\|_{W^{1,3}}^2
+C\|\psi_h^{n}\|_{W^{1,q}}^2) \\
&\leq C\|\psi_h^{n}\|_{H^1}^2 \|\psi_h^{n}\|_{W^{1,q}}^2 .
\end{aligned}\end{aligned}$$ Summing up the inequality above for $n=0, 1,\dots,N-1$, and using with $m=N-1$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{H1phi}
\|(\nabla\phi_{h}^{n+1})_{n=0}^{N-1}\|_{\ell^2(L^2)}^2
&\leq C\|(\psi_h^{n})_{n=0}^{N-1}\|_{\ell^\infty(H^1)}^2
\|(\psi_h^{n})_{n=0}^{N-1}\|_{\ell^2(W^{1,q})}^2
\leq C .\end{aligned}$$ Then substituting ${\bf a}_h=\nabla\chi_h$ in , we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&(D_{\tau}\phi_{h}^{n+1},\chi_{h})
+(\nabla\phi_{h}^{n+1} \, , \nabla\chi_{h} )
+ {\rm Re}\bigg(\overline\psi_h^{n}\bigg(\frac{i}{\kappa} \nabla
+{\bf A}_h^{n}\bigg) \psi_h^{n} , \nabla\chi_{h}\bigg) =0 \, , \end{aligned}$$ which implies $$\begin{aligned}
\label{H1phi2}
\begin{aligned}
&\big\|\big(D_\tau\phi_{h}^{n+1}\big)_{n=0}^{N-1}\big\|_{\ell^2((H^1)')} \\
&\leq C
\bigg(
\big\|\big(\nabla\phi_h^{n+1}\big)_{n=0}^{N-1}\big\|_{\ell^2(L^2)}
+\biggl\|\bigg({\rm Re}\bigg[\overline\psi_h^{n}\bigg(\frac{i}{\kappa} \nabla
+{\bf A}_h^{n}\bigg) \psi_h^{n}\bigg]\bigg)_{n=0}^{N-1}\bigg\|_{\ell^2(L^2)} \bigg)
\leq C .
\end{aligned} \end{aligned}$$ via duality. The proof of Lemma \[UniFEst\] is complete.
Compactness of the finite element solution {#CompFES}
------------------------------------------
For $t\in[t_n,t_{n+1}]$, $n=0,1,\cdots,N-1$, we define $$\begin{aligned}
&\psi_{h,\tau}(t)
=\frac{1}{\tau}[(t_{n+1}-t)\psi_h^n+(t-t_n)\psi_h^{n+1}] ,\\
&{\bf A}_{h,\tau}(t)=\frac{1}{\tau}[(t_{n+1}-t){\bf A}_h^n
+(t-t_n){\bf A}_h^{n+1}] ,\\\
&\phi_{h,\tau}(t)=\frac{1}{\tau}[(t_{n+1}-t)
\phi_h^n+(t-t_n)\phi_h^{n+1}] .
$$ In other words, $\psi_{h,\tau}$, ${\bf A}_{h,\tau}$ and ${\bf B}_{h,\tau}$ are the piecewise linear interpolation of the functions $\psi_h^n$, ${\bf A}_h^n$ and ${\bf B}_h^n$ on the interval $[0,T]$, respectively. Then implies $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Epsi3}
&\|\psi_{h,\tau}\|_{H^1(0,T;L^2)}
+\|\psi_{h,\tau}\|_{L^\infty(0,T;H^1)}
+ \|\psi_{h,\tau}\|_{L^2(0,T;L^\infty)}
+ \|\psi_{h,\tau}\|_{L^2(0,T;W^{1,q})}
\leq C ,\\
&\|{\bf A}_{h,\tau}\|_{H^1(0,T;L^2)}
+\|{\bf A}_{h,\tau}\|_{L^\infty(0,T;L^q)}
+\|\nabla\times{\bf A}_{h,\tau}\|_{L^\infty(0,T;L^2)} \leq C ,
\label{Epsi3-2} \\
&\|\phi_{h,\tau}\|_{L^\infty(0,T;L^2)}
+\|\phi_{h,\tau}\|_{L^2(0,T;H^1)}
+\|\partial_t\phi_{h,\tau}\|_{L^2(0,T;(H^1)')} \leq C .
\label{Epsi3-3}\end{aligned}$$
We see that $\psi_{h,\tau}$ is bounded in $L^\infty(0,T;{\cal H}^1)\cap H^{1}(0,T;{\cal L}^2)
\hookrightarrow C^{\theta/2}([0,T];{\cal H}^{1-\theta})$ for any $\theta\in(0,1)$. Since for any given $1<p<6$ there is a small $\theta$ such that $C^{\theta/2}([0,T];{\cal H}^{1-\theta})$ is compactly embedded into $C([0,T];{\cal L}^p)$, implies compactness of $\psi_{h,\tau}$ in $C([0,T];{\cal L}^p)$ for any $1<p<6$. Hence, for any sequence $(h_m,\tau_m)\rightarrow (0,0)$, the inequality implies the existence of a subsequence, also denoted by $(h_m,\tau_m)$ for the simplicity of the notations, which satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
&\partial_t\psi_{h_m,\tau_m}\rightarrow \partial_t\Psi
&&\mbox{weakly in $L^2(0,T;{\cal L}^2)$}, \label{Convpsi1}\\
&\psi_{h_m,\tau_m}\rightarrow \Psi
&&\mbox{weakly$^*$ in $L^\infty(0,T;{\cal H}^1)$ }, \label{Convpsi1-2}\\
&\psi_{h_m,\tau_m}\rightarrow \Psi
&&\mbox{weakly in $L^2(0,T;{\cal W}^{1,q})$
for some $q>3$}, \label{Convpsi2} \\
&\psi_{h_m,\tau_m}\rightarrow \Psi
&&\mbox{strongly in $C([0,T];{\cal L}^p)$
for any $1<p<6$} .
\label{Convpsi3}\end{aligned}$$ for some function $\Psi$.
Using the notation of Definition \[DisDiv\], we have $\phi_{h,\tau}=\nabla_h^{\mathbb N}\cdot{\bf A}_{h,\tau}$ and - imply that ${\bf A}_{h,\tau}$ is bounded in the norm of $$L^\infty(0,T;{\bf H}_h({\rm curl,div}))
\cap H^1(0,T;{\bf L}^2)
\hookrightarrow
C^{\theta/2}([0,T];{\bf Y}_{1-\theta}) ,
\quad\forall\,\theta\in(0,1) ,$$ where ${\bf Y}_{1-\theta}:=({\bf H}_h({\rm curl,div}),{\bf L}^2)_{1-\theta}$ is the real interpolation space between ${\bf H}_h({\rm curl,div})$ and ${\bf L}^2$ (see [@BL]). Lemma \[SobolevD\] says that a set of functions which are bounded in the norm of ${\bf H}_h({\rm curl,div})$ is compact in ${\bf L}^2$, which implies that a set of functions which are bounded in the norm of the interpolation space ${\bf Y}_{1-\theta}$ is also compact in ${\bf L}^2$ (see Theorem 3.8.1, page 56 of [@BL]). Hence, $C^{\theta/2}([0,T];{\bf Y}_{1-\theta})$ is compactly embedded into $C([0,T];{\bf L}^2)$, and for any sequence ${\bf A}_{h_m,\tau_m}$ there exists a subsequence which converges to some function ${\bf\Lambda}$ strongly in $C([0,T];{\bf L}^2)$. On the other hand, since ${\bf H}_h({\rm curl,div})\hookrightarrow {\bf L}^{q+\delta}$ for some $q>3$ and $\delta>0$, by choosing $\theta$ small enough we have $C^{\theta/2}([0,T];{\bf Y}_{1-\theta})
\hookrightarrow
C([0,T];{\bf L}^{q+\delta/2})$. The boundedness of ${\bf A}_{h,\tau}$ in $C([0,T];{\bf L}^{q+\delta/2})$ implies the existence of a subsequence of ${\bf A}_{h_m,\tau_m}$ which converges weakly$^*$ to some function in $L^\infty(0,T;{\bf L}^{q+\delta/2})$. This weak limit must also be ${\bf \Lambda}$, and $$\begin{aligned}
\|{\bf A}_{h_m,\tau_m}-{\bf \Lambda}\|_{L^\infty(0,T;{\bf L}^{q})}
&\leq \|{\bf A}_{h_m,\tau_m}-{\bf \Lambda}\|_{L^\infty(0,T;{\bf L}^2)}^{1-\theta}
\|{\bf A}_{h_m,\tau_m}-{\bf \Lambda}\|_{L^\infty(0,T;{\bf L}^{q+\delta/2})}^\theta {\nonumber}\\
&\leq C\|{\bf A}_{h_m,\tau_m}-{\bf \Lambda}\|_{L^\infty(0,T;{\bf L}^2)}^{1-\theta}\end{aligned}$$ for some $\theta>0$. In other words, ${\bf A}_{h_m,\tau_m}\in C([0,T];{\bf L}^{q})$ converges to ${\bf\Lambda}$ strongly in $L^\infty(0,T;{\bf L}^q)$, which implies ${\bf\Lambda}\in C([0,T];{\bf L}^{q})$. To conclude, there exists a subsequence of $(h_m,\tau_m)$, which is also denoted by $(h_m,\tau_m)$ for the simplicity of the notations, such that $$\begin{aligned}
&\partial_t{\bf A}_{h_m,\tau_m}\rightarrow \partial_t{\bf \Lambda}
&&\mbox{weakly in $L^2(0,T;{\bf L}^2)$}, \label{ConvA1}\\
&\nabla\times{\bf A}_{h_m,\tau_m}\rightarrow \nabla\times {\bf\Lambda}
&&\mbox{weakly$^*$ in $L^\infty(0,T;{\bf L}^2)$}, \label{ConvA3}\\
&{\bf A}_{h_m,\tau_m}\rightarrow {\bf \Lambda}
&&\mbox{strongly in $C([0,T];{\bf L}^q)$
for some $q>3$} ,
\label{ConvA4}\end{aligned}$$ for some function ${\bf\Lambda}$.
Similarly, implies the existence of a subsequence such that $$\begin{aligned}
&\phi_{h_m,\tau_m}\rightarrow \Phi
&&\mbox{weakly$^*$ in $L^\infty(0,T;L^2)$}, \label{ConvA2}\\
&\phi_{h_m,\tau_m}\rightarrow \Phi
&&\mbox{weakly in $L^2(0,T;H^1)$}, \label{ConvA2-2}\\
&\phi_{h_m,\tau_m}\rightarrow \Phi
&&\mbox{strongly in $L^2(0,T;L^2)$} . \label{ConvA2-2-2} \end{aligned}$$ for some function $\Phi$.
For any $\chi\in L^2(0,T;H^1)$ and finite element functions $\chi_{h_m,\tau_m}\rightarrow \chi$ in $L^2(0,T;H^1)$, equation implies $$\begin{aligned}
&\int_0^T (\phi_{h_m,\tau_m},\chi) \d t=
\int_0^T\bigg[(\phi_{h_m,\tau_m},\chi-\chi_{h_m,\tau_m})
+({\bf A}_{h_m,\tau_m},\nabla\chi_{h_m,\tau_m})\bigg]\d t\end{aligned}$$ As $h_m,\tau_m\rightarrow 0$, the equation above tends to $$\begin{aligned}
&\int_0^T(\Phi,\chi)\d t=
\int_0^T({\bf \Lambda},\nabla\chi) \d t ,\end{aligned}$$ which implies that $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla\cdot{\bf \Lambda}=-\Phi\in L^\infty(0,T;L^2)\cap
L^2(0,T;H^1) .\end{aligned}$$
Now we consider compactness of $\psi_{h,\tau}^\pm$, ${\bf A}_{h,\tau}^\pm$ and $\phi_{h,\tau}^\pm$ by utilizing the compactness of $\psi_{h,\tau}$, ${\bf A}_{h,\tau}$ and $\phi_{h,\tau}$. Since $\psi_{h,\tau}$ is bounded in $H^1(0,T;L^2)\cap L^\infty(0,T;H^1)\hookrightarrow C^{(1-\theta)/2}([0,T];L^{p_\theta})$ for $$\frac{1}{p_\theta}=\frac{1-\theta}{2}+\frac{\theta}{6},\qquad
\forall\,\theta\in(0,1),$$ it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\|\psi_{h,\tau}(t)-\psi_{h,\tau}^+(t)\|_{L^{p_\theta}}
&=\bigg\|\frac{t_{n+1}-t}{\tau}
(\psi_{h,\tau}(t_n)-\psi_{h,\tau}(t_{n+1}))\bigg\|_{L^{p_\theta}}{\nonumber}\\[5pt]
&\leq C\|\psi_{h,\tau}\|_{C^{(1-\theta)/2}([0,T];L^{p_\theta})} \tau^{(1-\theta)/2} \end{aligned}$$ for $t\in(t_n,t_{n+1})$, and so $$\begin{aligned}
\|\psi_{h,\tau}-\psi_{h,\tau}^+\|_{L^\infty(0,T;L^{p_\theta})}
\leq C\|\psi_{h,\tau}\|_{C^{(1-\theta)/2}([0,T];L^{p_\theta})} \tau^{(1-\theta)/2}
\rightarrow 0\quad\mbox{as}\,\,\, \tau\rightarrow 0 . \end{aligned}$$ Similarly, we also have $$\begin{aligned}
\|\psi_{h,\tau}-\psi_{h,\tau}^-\|_{L^\infty(0,T;L^{p_\theta})}
\leq C\|\psi_{h,\tau}\|_{C^{\alpha_p}([0,T];L^{p_\theta})} \tau^{(1-\theta)/2}
\rightarrow 0\quad\mbox{as}\,\,\, \tau\rightarrow 0 . \end{aligned}$$ Since $\psi_{h_m,\tau_m}$ converges strongly in $L^\infty(0,T;L^{p_\theta})$, it follows that both $\psi_{h_m,\tau_m}^-$ and $\psi_{h_m,\tau_m}^+$ converge to the same function strongly in $L^\infty(0,T;L^{p_\theta})$. Hence, there exists a subsequence which satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
&\psi_{h_m,\tau_m}^{\pm}\rightarrow \Psi
&&\mbox{weakly$^*$ in $L^\infty(0,T;H^1)$ }, \label{Convpsi1-3}\\
&\psi_{h_m,\tau_m}^{\pm}\rightarrow \Psi
&&\mbox{weakly in $L^2(0,T;W^{1,q})$
for some $q>3$} , \label{Convpsi3-3}\\
&\psi_{h_m,\tau_m}^{\pm}\rightarrow \Psi
&&\mbox{strongly in $L^\infty(0,T;L^p)$
for any $1<p<6$} \label{Convpsi2-3} .\end{aligned}$$ In a similar way one can prove $$\begin{aligned}
&{\bf A}_{h_m,\tau_m}^{\pm}\rightarrow {\bf \Lambda}
&&\mbox{strongly in $L^\infty(0,T;L^q)$
for some $q>3$} , \label{ConvA4-3} \\
&\nabla\times{\bf A}_{h_m,\tau_m}^{\pm}\rightarrow
\nabla\times{\bf \Lambda}
&&\mbox{weakly$^*$ in $L^\infty(0,T;L^2)$}, \label{ConvA3-3}\\
&\phi_{h_m,\tau_m}^{\pm}\rightarrow \Phi=-\nabla\cdot{\bf A}
&&\mbox{weakly$^*$ in $L^\infty(0,T;L^2)$}, \label{ConvA2-3}\\
&\phi_{h_m,\tau_m}^{\pm}\rightarrow \Phi
&&\mbox{weakly in $L^2(0,T;H^1)$} . \label{ConvA2-3-3}\\
&\phi_{h_m,\tau_m}^{\pm}\rightarrow \Phi
&&\mbox{strongly in $L^2(0,T;L^2)$} . \label{ConvA2-3-4}\end{aligned}$$ From - and we see that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ConvFhm}
&\psi_{h_m,\tau_m}^+\bigg(\frac{i}{\kappa}\nabla
+ {\bf A}_{h_m,\tau_m}^+\bigg)\psi_{h_m,\tau_m}^+\rightarrow
\overline\Psi\bigg(\frac{i}{\kappa}\nabla + {\bf\Lambda}\bigg)\Psi
&&\mbox{weakly in $L^2(0,T;L^2)$} ,\\
&\bigg(\frac{i}{\kappa}\nabla+{\bf A}_{h_m,\tau_m}^+\bigg)\psi_{h_m,\tau_m}^+ \rightarrow
\bigg(\frac{i}{\kappa}\nabla + {\bf\Lambda}\bigg)\Psi
&&\mbox{weakly in $L^2(0,T;L^3)$},\\
&{\bf A}_{h_m,\tau_m}^+\cdot
\bigg(\frac{i}{\kappa}\nabla+{\bf A}_{h_m,\tau_m}^+\bigg)\psi_{h_m,\tau_m}^+ \rightarrow
{\bf \Lambda}\cdot\bigg(\frac{i}{\kappa}\nabla+ {\bf\Lambda} \bigg)\Psi
&&\mbox{weakly in $L^2(0,T;L^{3/2})$} ,\\
&\Theta(\psi_{h_m,\tau_m}^-)\phi_{h_m,\tau_m}^-
\rightarrow \Theta(\Psi)\Phi
&&\mbox{weakly in $L^2(0,T;L^2)$},\\
&|\psi_{h_m,\tau_m}^+|^3
\rightarrow |\Psi|^3
&&\mbox{weakly in $L^2(0,T;L^2)$} .
\label{WWWA}\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, from and we know that $\Psi(\cdot,0)=\psi_0$ and ${\bf \Lambda}(\cdot,0)={\bf A}_0$.
Convergence to the PDE’s solution {#ConvgS}
---------------------------------
It remains to prove $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi=\psi,\qquad
{\bf\Lambda}={\bf A}\qquad\mbox{and}\qquad
\Phi=\phi ,\end{aligned}$$ so that - imply Theorem \[MainTHM\].
For any given $\varphi\in L^2(0,T;{\cal H}^1)$, we choose finite element functions $\varphi_{h,\tau}\in L^2(0,T;{\mathbb S}_h^r)$ which converge to $\varphi$ strongly in $L^2(0,T;{\cal H}^1)$ as $h\rightarrow 0$. Then implies $$\begin{aligned}
&\int_0^T\bigg[(\eta \partial_t\psi_{h,\tau}, \varphi_{h,\tau})
+ (i\eta \kappa
\Theta(\psi_{h,\tau}^-)\phi_{h,\tau}^- ,\varphi_{h,\tau})\bigg]\d t {\nonumber}\\
&
+\int_0^T\bigg[ \bigg( \bigg(\frac{i}{\kappa}\nabla+{\bf A}_{h,\tau}^+\bigg)\psi_{h,\tau}^+ \,,
\bigg(\frac{i}{\kappa}\nabla+{\bf A}_{h,\tau}^+\bigg)\varphi_{h,\tau}\bigg)
+((|\psi_{h,\tau}^+|^{2}-1)\psi_{h,\tau}^+,\varphi_{h,\tau})\bigg]\d t =0 . {\nonumber}\end{aligned}$$ Let $h=h_m\rightarrow 0$ and $\tau=\tau_m\rightarrow 0$ in the equation above and use and -. We obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{PDEPsiF}
&\int_0^T\bigg[(\eta \partial_t\Psi, \varphi)
+ (i\eta \kappa\Theta(\Psi)\Phi,\varphi)
+ \bigg( \bigg(\frac{i}{\kappa}\nabla+{\bf \Lambda}\bigg)\Psi \,,
\bigg(\frac{i}{\kappa}\nabla+{\bf \Lambda}\bigg)\varphi\bigg)
\bigg]\d t{\nonumber}\\
&
+\int_0^T((|\Psi|^{2}-1)\Psi,\varphi) \d t=0, \end{aligned}$$ for any given $\varphi\in L^2(0,T;{\cal H}^1)$. Now we prove $|\Psi|\leq 1$ by using the following lemma.
\[UnBDPsi\] [*For any given ${\bf \Lambda}\in
L^\infty(0,T;{\bf H}({\rm curl,div}))$ and $\Phi\in L^\infty(0,T;L^2)$, the nonlinear equation has a unique weak solution $\Psi\in L^2(0,T;{\cal H}^1)
\cap H^1(0,T;({\cal H}^1)')$ under the initial condition $\Psi(\cdot,0)=\psi_0$. Moreover, the solution satisfies that $|\Psi|\leq 1$ a.e. in $\Omega\times(0,T)$.* ]{}
[*Proof of Lemma \[UnBDPsi\]*]{}.$\quad$ To prove uniqueness of the solution, let us suppose that there are two solutions $\Psi,\widetilde\Psi\in L^2(0,T;{\cal H}^{1})
\cap H^1(0,T;({\cal H}^1)')$ for the equation with the same initial condition. Then ${\cal E}=\Psi-\widetilde\Psi$ satisfies the equation $$\begin{aligned}
&\int_0^T(\eta \partial_t{\cal E}, \varphi) \d t
+\int_0^T (i\eta \kappa(\Theta(\Psi)-\Theta(\widetilde\Psi))\Phi,\varphi)
\d t{\nonumber}\\
&
+ \int_0^T\bigg( \bigg(\frac{i}{\kappa}\nabla+{\bf \Lambda}\bigg){\cal E} \,,
\bigg(\frac{i}{\kappa}\nabla+{\bf \Lambda}\bigg)\varphi\bigg) \d t
+\int_0^T(|\Psi|^{2}\Psi-|\widetilde\Psi|^{2}\widetilde\Psi,\varphi)
\d t=
\int_0^T({\cal E},\varphi) \d t\end{aligned}$$ for any $\varphi\in L^2(0,T;{\cal H}^1)$. Since $$\begin{aligned}
|\Theta(\Psi)-\Theta(\widetilde\Psi)|\leq |{\cal E}|
\qquad
\mbox{and}\qquad
(|\Psi|^{2}\Psi-|\widetilde\Psi|^{2}\widetilde\Psi,
\Psi-\widetilde\Psi)\geq 0 ,\end{aligned}$$ by substituting $\varphi(x,t)={\cal E}(x,t)1_{[0,s]}(t)$ into the equation above, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{CalE1}
&\frac{\eta}{2} \|{\cal E}(\cdot,s)\|_{L^2}^2
+ \int_0^s\bigg\|\bigg(\frac{i}{\kappa}\nabla+{\bf \Lambda}\bigg){\cal E}\bigg\|_{L^2}^2\d t {\nonumber}\\
&\leq
\int_0^s\|{\cal E}(\cdot,t)\|_{L^2}^2\d t
+C\|\Phi\|_{L^\infty(0,s;L^2)}\||{\cal E}|^2\|_{L^1(0,s;L^2)} {\nonumber}\\
&\leq
\int_0^s\|{\cal E}(\cdot,t)\|_{L^2}^2\d t
+C\|{\cal E}\|_{L^2(0,s;L^4)}^2 {\nonumber}\\
&\leq
C_\epsilon\int_0^s\|{\cal E}(\cdot,t)\|_{L^2}^2\d t
+\epsilon\int_0^s\|\nabla {\cal E}(\cdot,t)\|_{L^2}^2 \d t ,\end{aligned}$$ where $\epsilon\in(0,1)$ is arbitrary.
Note that ${\bf\Lambda}\in L^\infty(0,T;{\bf H}({\rm curl,div}))
\hookrightarrow L^\infty(0,T;{\bf L}^q)$ for some $q>3$. If we let $\bar q<6$ be the number satisfying $1/q+1/\bar q=1/2$ and let $\theta_q\in(0,1)$ be the number satisfying $1/q=(1-\theta_q)/2+\theta_q/6$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\|\nabla{\cal E}\|_{L^2}
&\leq \kappa\bigg\|\frac{i}{\kappa}\nabla{\cal E}
+ {\bf \Lambda}{\cal E}\bigg\|_{L^2}
+\kappa \|{\bf \Lambda}{\cal E}\|_{L^2} \\
&\leq \kappa\bigg\|\frac{i}{\kappa}\nabla{\cal E}
+ {\bf \Lambda}{\cal E}\bigg\|_{L^2}
+\kappa \|{\bf \Lambda}\|_{L^q}\|{\cal E}\|_{L^{\bar q}} \\
&\leq \kappa\bigg\|\frac{i}{\kappa}\nabla{\cal E}
+ {\bf \Lambda}{\cal E}\bigg\|_{L^2}
+C\|{\cal E}\|_{L^2}^{1-\theta_q}\|{\cal E}\|_{L^6}^{\theta_q} \\
&\leq
\kappa\bigg\|\frac{i}{\kappa}\nabla{\cal E}
+ {\bf\Lambda}{\cal E}\bigg\|_{L^2}
+ \epsilon\|\nabla{\cal E}\|_{L^2}
+C_\epsilon\|{\cal E}\|_{L^2} ,\end{aligned}$$ which implies $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{2\kappa}\|\nabla{\cal E}\|_{L^2}
&\leq
\bigg\|\frac{i}{\kappa}\nabla{\cal E}
+ {\bf\Lambda}{\cal E}\bigg\|_{L^2}
+C\|{\cal E}\|_{L^2} .\end{aligned}$$ Substituting the last inequality into , we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&\frac{\eta}{2} \|{\cal E}(\cdot,s)\|_{L^2}^2
+ \frac{1}{2\kappa}\int_0^s\|\nabla{\cal E}(\cdot,t)\|_{L^2}^2\d t
\leq
C_\epsilon\int_0^s\|{\cal E}(\cdot,t)\|_{L^2}^2\d t
+\epsilon\int_0^s\|\nabla {\cal E}(\cdot,t)\|_{L^2}^2 \d t ,\end{aligned}$$ which further reduces to (by choosing sufficiently small $\epsilon$) $$\begin{aligned}
&\frac{\eta}{2} \|{\cal E}(\cdot,s)\|_{L^2}^2
+ \frac{1}{2\kappa}\int_0^s\|\nabla{\cal E}(\cdot,t)\|_{L^2}^2\d t
\leq
C\int_0^s\|{\cal E}(\cdot,t)\|_{L^2}^2\d t .\end{aligned}$$ By applying Gronwall’s inequality we derive $$\begin{aligned}
&\max_{0\leq t\leq T}\|{\cal E}(\cdot,t)\|_{L^2}^2
\leq
C\|{\cal E}(\cdot,0)\|_{L^2}^2=0 ,\end{aligned}$$ which implies the uniqueness of the weak solution of .
Under the regularity of ${\bf \Lambda}$ and $\Phi$, existence of weak solutions of the weak formulated equation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{PDEPsiF333}
&\int_0^T\bigg[(\eta \partial_t\Psi, \varphi)
+ (i\eta \kappa \Psi \Phi,\varphi)
+ \bigg( \bigg(\frac{i}{\kappa}\nabla+{\bf \Lambda}\bigg)\Psi \,,
\bigg(\frac{i}{\kappa}\nabla+{\bf \Lambda}\bigg)\varphi\bigg)
\bigg]\d t{\nonumber}\\
&
+\int_0^T((|\Psi|^{2}-1)\Psi,\varphi) \d t=0,
\qquad\forall\,\varphi\in L^2(0,T;{\cal H}^1), \end{aligned}$$ is obvious if one can prove the a priori estimate $$\begin{aligned}
\label{PWEst111}
\mbox{$|\Psi|\leq 1$\,\, a.e.\, in\,\, $\Omega\times(0,T)$.}\end{aligned}$$ To prove the above inequality, we let $(|\Psi|^2-1)_+$ denote the positive part of $|\Psi|^2-1$ and integrate this equation against $\overline\Psi(|\Psi|^2-1)_+$. By considering the real part of the result, for any $t'\in(0,T)$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
& \int_\Omega
\bigg(\frac{\eta}{4}\big(|\Psi(x,t')|^2-1\big)_+ ^2\bigg)\d x
+ \int_0^{t'}\int_\Omega (|\Psi|^{2}-1)^2_+ |\Psi| ^2\d x\d t\\
&=-\int_0^{t'}{\rm Re}\int_\Omega
\bigg(\frac{i}{\kappa} \nabla \Psi+ {\bf\Lambda} \Psi\bigg)
\bigg(-\frac{i}{\kappa} \nabla
+ {\bf\Lambda}\bigg)[\overline\Psi (|\Psi|^2-1)_+]\d x\d t\\
&=-\int_0^{t'}\int_\Omega \bigg|\frac{i}{\kappa}
\nabla \Psi+ {\bf\Lambda} \Psi\bigg|^2
(|\Psi|^2-1)_+ \d x \d t\\
&\quad + \int_0^{t'}{\rm Re}\int_{\{|\Psi|^2>1\}}
\bigg(\frac{i}{\kappa} \nabla \Psi
+ {\bf\Lambda} \Psi\bigg)\overline\Psi \bigg(\frac{i}{\kappa}
\Psi\nabla\overline\Psi +\frac{i}{\kappa}\overline\Psi \nabla\Psi \bigg)\d x\d t\\
&=-\int_0^{t'}\int_\Omega \bigg|\frac{i}{\kappa}
\nabla \Psi+ {\bf\Lambda} \Psi\bigg|^2
(|\Psi|^2-1)_+ \d x\d t\\
&\quad -\int_0^{t'}{\rm Re}\int_{\{|\Psi|^2>1\}}(|\Psi|^2|\nabla\Psi|^2
+ (\overline\Psi )^2\nabla\Psi\cdot \nabla\Psi)\d x\d t\\
& \leq 0,\end{aligned}$$ which implies that $\int_\Omega(|\Psi(x,t')|^2-1)_+ ^2 \d x
=0$, and this gives . Since $|\Psi|\leq 1$, it follows that $\Theta(\Psi)=\Psi$ and so reduces to . This proves the existence of weak solutions for satisfying $|\Psi|\leq 1$.
The proof of Lemma \[UnBDPsi\] is complete.
Lemma \[UnBDPsi\] implies $$\begin{aligned}
|\Psi|\leq 1 \quad\mbox{a.e. in $\Omega\times(0,T)$, }\end{aligned}$$ which together with implies $$\begin{aligned}
\label{PDEPsiFM}
&\int_0^T\bigg[ (\eta \partial_t\Psi, \varphi)
+ (i\eta \kappa \Psi\Phi,\varphi)
+ \bigg( \bigg(\frac{i}{\kappa}\nabla+{\bf \Lambda}\bigg)\Psi \,,
\bigg(\frac{i}{\kappa}\nabla+{\bf \Lambda}\bigg)\varphi\bigg)\bigg]\d t {\nonumber}\\
&
+\int_0^T ((|\Psi|^{2}-1)\Psi,\varphi) \d t=0,
\qquad\qquad\qquad\forall\, \varphi\in L^2(0,T;{\cal H}^1).\end{aligned}$$
For any given ${\bf a}\in L^2(0,T;{\bf H}({\rm curl},{\rm div}))$ and $\chi\in L^2(0,T;H^1)$, we let ${\bf a}_{h,\tau}\in L^2(0,T;{\mathbb N}_h^k)$ and $\chi_{h,\tau}\in L^2(0,T;{\mathbb V}_h^{k+1})$ be finite element functions such that $$\begin{aligned}
&{\bf a}_{h,\tau}\rightarrow {\bf a}
&&\mbox{strongly
in $L^2(0,T;{\bf H}({\rm curl}))$ as $h\rightarrow 0$} ,\\
&\chi_{h,\tau}\rightarrow \chi
&&\mbox{strongly
in $L^2(0,T;H^1)$ as $h\rightarrow 0$} .\end{aligned}$$ The equations - imply $$\begin{aligned}
&\int_0^T\bigg[ (\phi_{h,\tau}^+, \chi_{h,\tau})
- ({\bf A}_{h,\tau}^+,\nabla \chi_{h,\tau} ) \bigg]\d t= 0 \, , \\[10pt]
&\int_0^T\bigg[(\partial_t{\bf A}_{h,\tau},{\bf a}_{h,\tau})
+ (\nabla\phi_{h,\tau}^+ \, ,{\bf a}_{h,\tau})
+ (\nabla\times{\bf A}_{h,\tau}^+ \, , \nabla\times {\bf a}_{h,\tau})\bigg]\d t{\nonumber}\\
&\quad +\int_0^T\bigg[ {\rm Re}\bigg(\overline\psi_{h,\tau}^- \bigg(\frac{i}{\kappa} \nabla
+{\bf A}_{h,\tau}^-\bigg) \psi_{h,\tau}^- , {\bf a}_{h,\tau}\bigg)\bigg]\d t
=\int_0^T\bigg[ (\nabla\times{\bf H} \, ,{\bf a}_{h,\tau})\bigg]\d t \, .
$$ Let $h=h_m\rightarrow 0$ and $\tau=\tau_m\rightarrow 0$ in the last two equations and use and -. We obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&\int_0^T\Big[ (\Phi, \chi)
- ({\bf \Lambda} ,\nabla \chi) \Big] \d t = 0 \, ,
\label{PDEPhiF}\\[10pt]
&\int_0^T\bigg[(\partial_t{\bf \Lambda},{\bf a})
+ (\nabla\Phi \, , {\bf a})
+ (\nabla\times{\bf \Lambda} \, , \nabla\times {\bf a})
+ {\rm Re}\bigg(\overline\Psi\bigg(\frac{i}{\kappa} \nabla
+{\bf \Lambda}\bigg) \Psi , {\bf a} \bigg)\bigg]\d t{\nonumber}\\
&=\int_0^T (\nabla\times{\bf H} \, ,{\bf a} ) \d t \, ,
\label{PDEAF}\end{aligned}$$ which hold for any given ${\bf a}\in L^2(0,T;{\bf H}({\rm curl},{\rm div}))$ and $\chi\in L^2(0,T;H^1)$. Since implies $\Phi=-\nabla\cdot{\bf\Lambda}$, can be rewritten as $$\begin{aligned}
&\int_0^T\bigg[(\partial_t{\bf \Lambda},{\bf a})
+ (\nabla\cdot {\bf \Lambda}\, , \nabla\cdot{\bf a})
+ (\nabla\times{\bf \Lambda} \, , \nabla\times {\bf a})
+ {\rm Re}\bigg(\overline\Psi\bigg(\frac{i}{\kappa} \nabla
+{\bf \Lambda}\bigg) \Psi , {\bf a} \bigg) \bigg]\d t{\nonumber}\\
& = \int_0^T(\nabla\times{\bf H} \, ,{\bf a} ) \d t \, ,
\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad
\qquad\quad\forall\, {\bf a}\in L^2(0,T;{\bf H}({\rm curl},{\rm div})) .
\label{PDEAF2}\end{aligned}$$ From and we see that $(\Psi,{\bf\Lambda})$ is a weak solution of the PDE problem - with the regularity $$\begin{aligned}
&\Psi\in C([0,T];{\mathcal L}^2)\cap
L^\infty(0,T;{\mathcal H}^1) ,
\quad \partial_t\Psi \in L^2(0,T;{\mathcal L}^2),
\quad |\Psi|\leq 1~~\mbox{a.e.~in~\,}\Omega\times(0,T),\\
& {\bf \Lambda}\in C([0,T];{\bf L}^2)\cap
L^{\infty}(0,T;{\bf H}({\rm curl},{\rm div})) ,
\quad \partial_t{\bf \Lambda}\in L^2(0,T;{\bf L}^2) . \end{aligned}$$ Since the PDE problem - has a unique weak solution with the regularity above (see appendix), it follows that $\Psi=\psi$, ${\bf\Lambda}={\bf A}$ and $\Phi=\phi$.
Overall, we have proved that any sequence $(\psi_{h_m,\tau_m}^+,\phi_{h_m,\tau_m}^+, {\bf A}_{h_m,\tau_m}^+)$ with $h_m,\tau_m\rightarrow 0$ contains a subsequence which converges to the unique solution $(\psi,\phi, {\bf A})$ of the PDE problem - in the sense of -. This implies that $(\psi_{h,\tau}^+,\phi_{h,\tau}^+, {\bf A}_{h,\tau}^+)$ converges to $(\psi,\phi, {\bf A})$ as $h,\tau\rightarrow 0$ in the sense of Theorem \[MainTHM\].
The proof of Theorem \[MainTHM\] is complete.
Numerical example
=================
We consider the equations $$\begin{aligned}
&\eta\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial t} -i\eta \kappa \psi \nabla\cdot{\bf A}
+ \bigg(\frac{i}{\kappa} \nabla
+ \mathbf{A}\bigg)^{2} \psi
+ (|\psi|^{2}-1) \psi = g ,
\label{NTPDE1}\\[5pt]
&\frac{\partial \mathbf{A}}{\partial t}
-\nabla(\nabla\cdot{\bf A})
+ \nabla\times(\nabla\times{\bf A})
+ {\rm Re}\bigg[\overline\psi\bigg(\frac{i}{\kappa} \nabla
+ \mathbf{A}\bigg) \psi\bigg]
= {\bf g}+\nabla\times H ,
\label{NTPDE2}\end{aligned}$$ in a nonsmooth, nonconvex and multi-connected two-dimensional domain $\Omega$, as shown in Figure \[FigD2\], where we use the notations $$\begin{aligned}
&\nabla\times {\bf A}
=\frac{\partial A_2}{\partial x_1}-\frac{\partial A_1}{\partial x_2},
\qquad
\nabla\cdot {\bf A}=\frac{\partial A_1}{\partial x_1}
+\frac{\partial A_2}{\partial x_2},\\
&\nabla\times H=\bigg(\frac{\partial H}{\partial x_2},\,
-\frac{\partial H}{\partial x_1}\bigg),\quad
\nabla\psi=\bigg(\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial x_1},\,
\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial x_2}\bigg).\end{aligned}$$ The artificial right-hand sides $H=\nabla\times{\bf A}\in C([0,T];{\bf H}^2)$, $g\in C([0,T];L^2)$ and ${\bf g}\in C([0,T];{\bf L}^2)$ are chosen corresponding to the exact solution (written in the polar coordinates) $$\begin{aligned}
&\psi=t^2\Phi(r)r^{2/3}\cos(2\theta/3),\\
&{\bf A}=\Big (\big( 4t^2 \Phi(r)r^{-1/3}/3
+t^2\Phi'(r)r^{2/3}\big)\cos(\theta/3),~
\big( 4t^2 \Phi(r)r^{-1/3}/3
+t^2\Phi'(r)r^{2/3}\big)\sin(\theta/3)\Big ) , \end{aligned}$$
[![Illustration of the computational domain and the triangulation.[]{data-label="FigD2"}](Fig3.eps "fig:"){height="1.5in" width="1.7in"}]{} [![Illustration of the computational domain and the triangulation.[]{data-label="FigD2"}](Fig4.eps "fig:"){height="1.4in" width="2.25in"}]{}
$h$ $\| \psi_h^N -\psi^N \|_{L^2}$ $\| |\psi_h^N| -|\psi^N| \|_{L^2}$ $\| {\bf A}_h^N - {\bf A}^N \|_{L^2}$ $\| {\bf B}_h^N - {\bf B}^N \|_{L^2}$
------------------ -------------------------------- ------------------------------------ --------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- --
1/32 3.3872E-03 2.5568E-03 9.2707E-02 2.5726E-01
1/64 2.9051E-03 1.7546E-03 9.1339E-02 1.7235E-01
1/128 2.7352E-03 1.4476E-03 9.0496E-02 1.4259E-01
convergence rate $O(h^{0.09})$ $O(h^{0.29})$ $O(h^{0.01})$ $O(h^{0.27})$
: Errors of the mixed finite element solution with $\tau=2h$.[]{data-label="Tab2"}
$h$ $\| \psi_h^N -\psi^N \|_{L^2}$ $\| |\psi_h^N| -|\psi^N| \|_{L^2}$ $\| {\bf A}_h^N - {\bf A}^N \|_{L^2}$ $\|{\bf B}_h^N - {\bf B}^N \|_{L^2}$
------------------ -------------------------------- ------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- --
1/32 5.0142E-03 2.9762E-03 4.1846E-03 1.7284E-01
1/64 1.8455E-03 1.4828E-03 2.3881E-03 8.7132E-02
1/128 7.5068E-04 5.6680E-04 1.4964E-03 4.3196E-02
convergence rate $O(h^{1.29})$ $O(h^{1.38})$ $O(h^{0.67})$ $O(h^{1.01})$
: Errors of the mixed finite element solution with $\tau=2h$.[]{data-label="Tab2"}
where the cut-off function $\Phi(r)$ is given by $$\Phi(r)=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
0.1 & \mbox{if}~~r<0.1, \\
\Upsilon(r) &\mbox{if}~~ 0.1\leq r\leq 0.4 ,\\
0 & \mbox{if}~~r>0.4,
\end{array}\right.$$ and $\Upsilon(r)$ is the unique $7^{\rm th}$ order polynomial satisfying the conditions $\Upsilon'(0.1)=\Upsilon''(0.1)
=\Upsilon'''(0.1)=\Upsilon(0.4)=\Upsilon'(0.4)
=\Upsilon''(0.4)=\Upsilon'''(0.4)=0$ and $\Upsilon(0.1)=0.1$.
We solve - by the linear Galerkin FEM and our mixed FEM with $r=k=1$, respectively, with the same time-stepping scheme under the same quasi-uniform mesh, and present the errors of the numerical solutions in Table \[Tab1\]–\[Tab2\], where $h$ denotes the distance between the mesh nodes on $\partial\Omega$ and the convergence rate of $\psi_h^N$ is calculated based on the finest mesh size $h$. We see that the numerical solution of the Galerkin FEM does not decrease to zero, while the mixed finite element solution proposed in this paper has an explicit convergence rate $O(h^{0.67})$, which is consistent with the regularity ${\bf A}\in L^\infty(0,T;{\bf H}({\rm curl, div}))
\hookrightarrow L^\infty(0,T;{\bf H}^{2/3-\epsilon})$ (though we have not proved such explicit convergence rate in this paper).
Appendix: Well-posedness of the PDE problem [**(\[PDE1\])-(\[PDEini\])**]{} {#appendix-well-posedness-of-the-pde-problem-pde1-pdeini .unnumbered}
===========================================================================
[ *There exists a unique weak solution of (\[PDE1\])-(\[PDEini\]) with the following regularity: $$\begin{aligned}
&\psi\in C([0,T];{\mathcal L}^2)\cap
L^\infty(0,T;{\mathcal H}^1) ,
\quad \partial_t\psi \in L^2(0,T;{\mathcal L}^2),
\quad |\psi|\leq 1~~\mbox{a.e.~in~\,}\Omega\times(0,T),\\
& {\bf A}\in C([0,T];{\bf L}^2)\cap
L^{\infty}(0,T;{\bf H}({\rm curl},{\rm div})) ,
\quad \partial_t{\bf A}\in L^2(0,T;{\bf L}^2) . \end{aligned}$$* ]{}
[*Proof.*]{}$\,\,\,$ From and we see that there exists a weak solution $(\Psi,{\bf\Lambda})$ of - with the regularity above. It remains to prove the uniqueness of the weak solution.
Suppose that there are two weak solutions $(\psi,{\bf A})$ and $(\Psi,{\bf\Lambda})$ for the system -. Then we define $e=\psi-\Psi$ and ${\bf E}={\bf A}-{\bf\Lambda}$ and consider the difference equations $$\begin{aligned}
&\int_0^T\Big[\big(\eta\partial_t e ,\varphi\big)
+ \frac{1}{\kappa^2}\big(\nabla e, \nabla\varphi\big)
+ \big(|{\bf A}|^2 e, \varphi\big) \Big]\d t{\nonumber}\\
& =\int_0^T\Big[-\frac{i}{\kappa}\big({\bf A}\cdot\nabla e ,\varphi\big)
-\frac{i}{\kappa}\big({\bf E}\cdot\nabla \Psi ,\varphi\big)
+\frac{i}{\kappa}\big(e {\bf A},\nabla\varphi\big)
+\frac{i}{\kappa}\big(\Psi {\bf E},\nabla\varphi\big) {\nonumber}\\
&\quad - \big((|{\bf A}|^2 -|{\bf \Lambda}|^2) \Psi, \varphi\big)
-\big( (|\psi|^{2}-1) \psi-(|\Psi|^{2}-1) \Psi,\varphi\big)\Big]\d t{\nonumber}\\
&\quad -\int_0^T\big(i\eta\kappa\psi\nabla\cdot{\bf E}
+i\eta\kappa e\nabla\cdot{\bf \Lambda},\varphi\big)\d t ,
\label{UErEq1}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
&\int_0^T\Big[\big(\partial_t{\bf E} ,{\bf a}\big)
+ \big(\nabla\times{\bf E},\nabla\times{\bf a}\big)
+\big(\nabla\cdot{\bf E},\nabla\cdot{\bf a}\big) \Big]\d t{\nonumber}\\
& =-\int_0^T{\rm Re} \bigg(
\frac{i}{\kappa}( \overline\psi\nabla \psi- \overline\Psi \nabla \Psi)
+ {\bf A}(|\psi|^2-|\Psi|^2)+|\Psi|^2 {\bf E}\, ,\, {\bf a}\bigg) \d t ,
\label{UErEq2}\end{aligned}$$ which hold for any $\varphi\in L^2(0,T;{\mathcal H}^1)$ and ${\bf a}\in L^2(0,T;{\bf H}({\rm curl},{\rm div}))$. Choosing $\varphi(x,t)=e(x,t)1_{(0,t')}(t)$ in and considering the real part, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
& \frac{\eta}{2} \|e(\cdot,t') \|_{{\cal L}^2}^2
+ \int_0^{t'}\Big(\frac{1}{\kappa^2}\|\nabla e\|_{{\cal L}^2}^2
+ \|{\bf A} e\|_{{\bf L}^2}^2\Big)\d t \\
&\leq
\int_0^{t'}\Big(C\|{\bf A}\|_{{\bf L}^{3+\delta}}\|\nabla e\|_{{\cal L}^2}
\|e\|_{{\cal L}^{6-4\delta/(1+\delta)}}
+C\|{\bf E}\|_{{\bf L}^{3+\delta}}\|\nabla \Psi\|_{{\cal L}^2}
\|e\|_{{\cal L}^{6-4\delta/(1+\delta)}}\\
&\quad
+C\| e\|_{{\cal L}^{6-4\delta/(1+\delta)}} \|{\bf A}\|_{{\bf L}^{3+\delta}}
\|\nabla e\|_{{\cal L}^2} +C\| {\bf E}\|_{{\bf L}^2}\|\nabla e\|_{{\cal L}^2} \\
&\quad
+C(\|{\bf A}\|_{{\bf L}^{3+\delta}}+\|{\bf \Lambda}\|_{{\bf L}^{3+\delta}})
\|{\bf E}\|_{{\bf L}^2} \|e\|_{{\cal L}^{6-4\delta/(1+\delta)}} +C\| e\|_{{\cal L}^2}^2
+C\|\nabla\cdot{\bf E}\|_{L^2}\|e\|_{{\cal L}^2}\Big)\d t \\
&\leq \int_0^{t'}\Big(C\|\nabla e\|_{L^2}
(C_\epsilon \|e\|_{{\cal L}^2}+\epsilon\|\nabla e\|_{{\cal L}^2})
+C\|{\bf E}\|_{{\bf H}({\rm curl},{\rm div})}
(C_\epsilon \|e\|_{{\cal L}^2}+\epsilon\|\nabla e\|_{{\cal L}^2})\\
&\quad
+C\|\nabla e\|_{{\cal L}^2}(C_\epsilon \|e\|_{{\cal L}^2}
+\epsilon\|\nabla e\|_{{\cal L}^2})
+C\| {\bf E}\|_{{\bf L}^2}\|\nabla e\|_{{\cal L}^2} \\
&\quad
+C\|{\bf E}\|_{{\bf L}^2}(C_\epsilon \|e\|_{{\cal L}^2}
+\epsilon\|\nabla e\|_{{\cal L}^2}) +C\| e\|_{{\cal L}^2}^2
+C\|\nabla\cdot {\bf E}\|_{L^2}\| e\|_{{\cal L}^2} \Big)\d t\\
&\leq \int_0^{t'}\Big(\epsilon\|\nabla e\|_{{\cal L}^2}^2+
\epsilon\|\nabla\times{\bf E}\|_{{\bf L}^2}^2
+ \epsilon\|\nabla\cdot{\bf E}\|_{L^2}^2
+C_\epsilon\|e\|_{{\cal L}^2}^2
+ C_\epsilon\|{\bf E}\|_{{\bf L}^2}^2\Big)\d t ,\end{aligned}$$ where $\epsilon$ can be arbitrarily small. By choosing ${\bf a}(x,t)={\bf E}(x,t)1_{(0,t')}(t)$ in , we get $$\begin{aligned}
& \frac{1}{2}\|{\bf E}(\cdot,t')\|_{{\bf L}^2}^2
+\int_0^{t'}\Big(\|\nabla\times{\bf E} \|_{{\bf L}^2}^2
+\|\nabla\cdot{\bf E} \|_{{\bf L}^2}^2 \Big)\d t\\
&\leq \int_0^{t'}\Big(C \| e\|_{{\cal L}^{6-4\delta/(1+\delta)}}
\|\nabla \psi\|_{L^2}\| {\bf E}\|_{{\bf L}^{3+\delta}}
+C\|\nabla e \|_{{\cal L}^2} \| {\bf E}\|_{{\bf L}^2} \\
&\quad
+ (\|e\|_{L^{6-4\delta/(1+\delta)}}\| {\bf A}\|_{{\bf L}^{3+\delta}}
+\|{\bf E}\|_{{\bf L}^2})\|{\bf E}\|_{L^2}\Big)\d t\\
&\leq \int_0^{t'}\Big(C(C_\epsilon \| e\|_{{\cal L}^2}
+\epsilon\|\nabla e \|_{{\cal L}^2})
\| {\bf E}\|_{{\bf H}({\rm curl},{\rm div})}
+\|\nabla e \|_{{\cal L}^2} \| {\bf E}\|_{L^2} \\
&\quad + (\|e\|_{{\cal L}^2} +\|\nabla e\|_{{\cal L}^2}
+\|{\bf E}\|_{{\bf L}^2})\|{\bf E}\|_{{\bf L}^2}\Big)\d t\\
&\leq
\int_0^{t'}\Big(\epsilon\|\nabla e\|_{{\cal L}^2}^2
+\epsilon\|\nabla\times{\bf E}\|_{{\bf L}^2}
+\epsilon\|\nabla\cdot{\bf E}\|_{{\bf L}^2}
+C_\epsilon \|e\|_{{\cal L}^2}^2
+ C_\epsilon \|{\bf E}\|_{{\bf L}^2}^2\Big)\d t ,\end{aligned}$$ where $\epsilon$ can be arbitrarily small. By choosing $\epsilon<\frac{1}{4}
\min(1, \kappa^{-2} )$ and summing up the two inequalities above, we have $$\begin{aligned}
& \frac{\eta}{2}\|e(\cdot,t')\|_{L^2}^2
+\frac{1}{2}\|{\bf E}(\cdot,t')\|_{L^2}^2
\leq
\int_0^{t'}\Big(C\|e\|_{L^2}^2
+C\| {\bf E}\|_{L^2}^2\Big)\d t ,\end{aligned}$$ which implies $$\begin{aligned}
&\max_{t\in(0,T)}
\bigg(\frac{\eta}{2}\|e\|_{L^2}^2
+\frac{1}{2}\|{\bf E}\|_{L^2}^2\bigg)=0 \end{aligned}$$ via Gronwall’s inequality. Uniqueness of the weak solution is proved.
[**Acknowledgement.**]{}$\quad$ I would like to express my gratitude to Prof. Christian Lubich for the helpful discussions on the time discretization, and thank Prof. Weiwei Sun for the email communications on this topic. I also would like to thank Prof. Qiang Du for the communications in CSRC, Beijing, on the time-independency of the external magnetic field and the incompatibility of the initial data with the boundary conditions.
[99]{} R.A. Adams: [*Sobolev spaces*]{}. New York, Academic Press, 1975.
A.A. Abrikosov: Fundamentals of the Theory of Metals. (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1988).
C. Amrouche, C. Bernardi, M. Dauge and V. Girault: Vector potentials in three-dimensional non-smooth Domains. [*Math. Meth. Appl. Sci.*]{}, 21 (1998), pp. 823–864.
D.N. Arnold, R.S. Falk, and R. Winther: Finite element exterior calculus, homological techniques, and applications. [*Acta Numerica*]{} (2006), pp. 1–155.
T.S. Alstrøm, M.P. Sørensen, N.F. Pedersen, and F. Madsen: Magnetic flux lines in complex geometry type-II superconductors studied by the time dependent Ginzburg–Landau equation. [*Acta Appl. Math.*]{}, 115 (2011), pp. 63–74.
B.J. Baelus, K. Kadowaki, and F.M. Peeters: Influence of surface defects on vortex penetration and expulsion in mesoscopic superconductors. [*Phys. Rev. B*]{}, 71 (2005), 024514
S. Bartels, C. Lubich, and A. Prohl: Convergent discretization of heat and wave map flows to spheres using approximate discrete lagrange multipliers. [*Math. Comp.*]{}, 78 (2009), pp. 1269–1292.
J. Bergh and J. Löfström: [*Interpolation Spaces: An Introduction*]{}, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1976, Printed in Germany.
C. Bernardi, M. Dauge and Y. Maday: [*Polynomials in the Sobolev World*]{}, Preprint IRMAR 07-14, Rennes, March 2007.
M. Birman and M. Solomyak: $L^2$-theory of the Maxwell operator in arbitrary domains. [*Russ. Math. Surv.*]{}, 42 (1987), pp. 75–96.
S. Chapman, S. Howison, and J. Ockendon: Macroscopic models for superconductivity. [*SIAM Review*]{}, 34(1992), pp. 529–560.
Z. Chen. Mixed finite element methods for a dynamical Ginzburg–Landau model in superconductivity. [*Numer. Math.*]{}, 76 (1997), pp. 323–353.
Z. Chen and S. Dai: Adaptive Galerkin methods with error control for a dynamical Ginzburg–Landau model in superconductivity. [*SIAM J. Numer. Anal.*]{}, 38 (2001), pp. 1961–1985.
Z. Chen, K.H. Hoffmann, and J. Liang: On a non-stationary Ginzburg–Landau superconductivity model. [*Math. Methods Appl. Sci.*]{}, 16 (1993), pp. 855–875.
M. Dauge: [*Elliptic Boundary Value Problems in Corner Domains*]{}. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 1988.
M. Dauge: Neumann and mixed problems on curvilinear polyhedra. [*Integr. Equat. 0per. Th.*]{}, 15 (1992), pp. 227–261.
M. Dauge: [*Regularity and singularities in polyhedral domains. The case of Laplace and Maxwell equations.*]{} Slides d’un mini-cours de 3 heures, Karlsruhe, 7 avril 2008.\
<https://perso.univ-rennes1.fr/monique.dauge/publis/Talk_Karlsruhe08.html>
P.G. De Gennes: Superconductivity of Metal and Alloys. [*Advanced Books Classics*]{}, Westview Press, 1999.
Q. Du: Discrete gauge invariant approximations of a time dependent ginzburg-landau model of superconductivity. [*Math. Comp.*]{}, 67 (1998), pp. 965–986.
Q. Du: Numerical approximations of the Ginzburg–Landau models for superconductivity. [*J. Math. Phys.*]{}, 46 (2005), 095109.
Q. Du and L. Ju: Approximations of a Ginzburg–Landau model for superconducting hollow spheres based on spherical centroidal Voronoi tessellations. [*Math. Comp.*]{}, 74 (2005), pp. 1257–1280.
H. Frahm, S. Ullah, and A. Dorsey: Flux dynamics and the growth of the superconducting phase. [*Phys. Rev. Letters*]{}, 66 (1991), pp. 3067–3072. H. Gao, B. Li, and W. Sun: Optimal error estimates of linearized Crank–Nicolson–Galerkin FEMs for the time-dependent Ginzburg–Landau equations. [*SIAM J. Numer. Anal.*]{}, 52 (2014), pp. 1183–1202.
H. Gao and W. Sun: An efficient fully linearized semi-implicit Galerkin-mixed FEM for the dynamical Ginzburg–Landau equations of superconductivity. [*J. Comput. Physics*]{}, 294 (2015), pp. 329–345.
V. Ginzburg and L. Landau: Theory of Superconductivity. [*Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.*]{}, 20 (1950), pp. 1064–1082.
W.D. Gropp, H.G. Kaper, G.K. Leaf, D.M. Levine, M. Palumbo, and V.M. Vinokur: Numerical simulation of vortex dynamics in type-II superconductors. [*J. Comput. Phys.*]{}, 123 (1996), pp. 254–266.
L.P. Gor’kov and G.M. Eliashberg: Generalization of the Ginzburg–Landau equations for non-stationary problems in the case of alloys with paramagnetic impurities. [*Soviet Phys. JETP*]{}, 27 (1968), pp. 328–334.
D. Gunter, H. Kaper, and G. Leaf: Implicit integration of the time-dependent Ginzburg–Landau equations of superconductivity. [*SIAM J. Sci. Comput.*]{}, 23 (2002), pp. 1943–1958.
B. Kovács, B. Li, and Ch. Lubich: $A$-stable time discretizations preserve maximal parabolic regularity. Preprint, <https://na.uni-tuebingen.de/preprints.shtml>
H. Kozono and T. Yanagisawa: $L^r$-variational inequality for vector fields and the Helmholtz-Weyl decomposition in bounded domains. [*Indiana Univ. Math. J.*]{}, 58 (2009), pp. 1853–1920.
F. Liu, M. Mondello, and N. Goldenfeld: Kinetics of the superconducting transition. [*Phys. Rev. Letters*]{}, 66 (1991), pp. 3071–3074.
M. Mu: A linearized Crank–Nicolson–Galerkin method for the Ginzburg–Landau model. [*SIAM J. Sci. Comput.*]{}, 18 (1997), pp. 1028–1039.
M. Mu and Y. Huang: An alternating Crank–Nicolson method for decoupling the Ginzburg–Landau equations, [*SIAM J. Numer. Anal.*]{}, 35 (1998), pp. 1740–1761.
J.C. Nédélec: Mixed finite element in $\R^3$. [*Numer. Math.*]{}, 35 (1980), pp. 315–341.
J.C. Nédélec: A new family of mixed finite elements in $\R^3$. [*Numer. Math.*]{}, 50 (1986), pp. 57–81.
V.S. Rychkov: On restrictions and extensions of the Besov and Triebel–Lizorkin spaces with respect to Lipschitz domains. [*J. London Math. Soc.*]{}, 60 (1999), pp. 237–257.
R.E. Showalter: Monotone Operators in Banach Spaces and Nonlinear Partial Differential Equations. Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, volume 49, AMS 1997.
M. Tinkham: [*Introduction to Superconductivity*]{}. 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, 1994.
W. Richardson, A. Pardhanani, G. Carey, and A. Ardelea: Numerical effects in the simulation of Ginzburg–Landau models for superconductivity. [*Int. J. Numer. Engng.*]{}, 59 (2004), pp. 1251–1272.
D.Y. Vodolazov, I.L. Maksimov, and E.H. Brandt: Vortex entry conditions in type-II superconductors. Effect of surface defects. [*Physica C*]{}, 384 (2003), pp. 211–226.
T. Winiecki and C. Adams: A fast semi-implicit finite difference method for the TDGL equation. [*J. Comput. Phys.*]{}, 179 (2002), pp. 127–139.
L. Weis: A new approach to maximal $L^p$-regularity. in [*Evolution Equ. and Appl. Physical Life Sci.*]{}, Lecture Notes in Pure and Applied Mathematics 215, Marcel Dekker, New York (2001), pp. 195–214.
C. Yang: A linearized Crank–Nicolson–Galerkin FEM for the time-dependent Ginzburg–Landau equations under the temporal gauge. [*Numerical Methods for Partial Differential Equations*]{}, 30 (2014), pp. 1279–1290.
[^1]: Mathematisches Institut, Universität Tübingen, 72076 Tübingen, Germany. [li@na.uni-tuebingen.de]{}
[^2]: The research stay of the author at Universität Tübingen was supported by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. This work was supported in part by the NSFC (grant no. 11301262).
[^3]: Since implies $\partial_t{\bf A}\cdot{\bf n}=0$, and imply ${\rm Re}\big[\overline\psi\big(\frac{i}{\kappa} \nabla
+ \mathbf{A}\big) \psi\big]\cdot{\bf n}=0$ and implies $[\nabla\times(\nabla\times {\bf A}-{\bf H})]\cdot{\bf n}=0$ (if a vector field ${\bf u}$ satisfies ${\bf n} \times {\bf u} = 0$ on $\partial\Omega$, then $(\nabla\times{\bf u}) \cdot{\bf n}= 0$ on $\partial\Omega$), it follows from that $\nabla\phi\cdot{\bf n}=-\nabla(\nabla\cdot{\bf A})\cdot{\bf n}=0$ on each smooth piece of $\partial\Omega$. Hence, - imply .
[^4]: The monotonicity makes use of the fact that $(|{\mathscr S}_h|^{2}{\mathscr S}_h-|\widetilde{\mathscr S}_h|^{2}\widetilde{\mathscr S}_h,
{\mathscr S}_h-\widetilde{\mathscr S}_h)\geq 0$ for all ${\mathscr S}_h,\widetilde{\mathscr S}_h \in {\mathbb S}_{h}^r$.
[^5]: By identifying the vector fields with the 2-forms, in terms of the notation of [@AFW decomposition (2.18)], we have ${\bf C}(\Omega)\cong {\mathfrak Z}^{*2}$, ${\bf C}(\Omega)^\perp\cong \mathring{\mathfrak B}^2$, ${\bf G}(\Omega)\cong {\mathfrak B}^{*2}$ and ${\bf X}(\Omega)\cong \mathring{\mathfrak H}^2$.
[^6]: By identifying the vector fields with the 2-forms, in terms of the notation of [@AFW definition (2.12)], we have $\widetilde {\bf X}(\Omega)={\mathfrak H}^2$.
[^7]: By identifying the vector fields with the 2-forms, in terms of the notation of [@AFW definition (2.12)], we have $\widetilde {\bf X}(\Omega)\cong {\mathfrak H}^2$ and $\widetilde {\bf Y}(\Omega)\cong H\Lambda^2(\Omega)\cap
\mathring H^*\Lambda^2(\Omega)\cap {\mathfrak H}^{2\perp}$. Then, by using [@AFW Theorem 2.2 on page 23] and the Lax–Milgram lemma, one can show that the problem - has a unique weak solution in $\widetilde {\bf Y}(\Omega)$.
[^8]: \[FNbd\] If ${\bf v}\cdot{\bf n}$ is well defined on $\partial\Omega$, then the divergence-free part $\nabla\times{\bf u}$ satisfies $(\nabla\times{\bf u})\cdot{\bf n}=0$ on $\partial\Omega$, due to the boundary conditions in and .
[^9]: See - for the definition of the space $\widetilde {\bf Y}(\Omega)$.
[^10]: See footnote \[FNbd\] on this boundary condition.
[^11]: This is a immediate consequence of Lemma \[RegPoiss\] and the following decomposition proved in [@BS87]: $${\bf H}({\rm curl,div})=
{\bf H}^1+ \{\nabla\varphi:\varphi\in H^1,\,\,
\Delta \varphi\in L^2,\,\,\nabla\varphi\cdot{\bf n}
=0\,\,\mbox{on}\,\,\partial\Omega\}.$$
[^12]: By identifying the vector fields with the 1-forms, in terms of the notation of [@AFW Theorem 5.11 on page 74], we have ${\bf C}(\Omega)\cong {\mathfrak Z}^{1}$ and ${\bf C}(\Omega)^\perp\cong {\mathfrak Z}^{1\perp}$.
|
---
abstract: 'We consider the compatibility conditions for a $N$-particle $D$-dimensional Wigner quantum oscillator. These conditions can be rewritten as certain triple relations involving anticommutators, so it is natural to look for solutions in terms of Lie superalgebras. In the recent classification of “generalized quantum statistics” for the basic classical Lie superalgebras [@NJ], each such statistics is characterized by a set of creation and annihilation operators plus a set of triple relations. In the present letter, we investigate which cases of this classification also lead to solutions of the compatibility conditions. Our analysis yields some known solutions and several classes of new solutions.'
---
[**Solutions of the compatibility conditions\
for a Wigner quantum oscillator**]{}\
\[5mm\] [**N.I. Stoilova**]{}[^1] [**and J. Van der Jeugt**]{}[^2]\
Department of Applied Mathematics and Computer Science, University of Ghent,\
Krijgslaan 281-S9, B-9000 Gent, Belgium.
Short title: Wigner quantum oscillators
PACS numbers: 03.65.-w,03.65.Fd,02.20.-a
In a previous paper [@NJ] we made a classification of all generalized quantum statistics (GQS) associated with the basic classical Lie superalgebras $A(m|n)$, $B(m|n)$, $C(n)$ and $D(m|n)$. Each such statistics is determined by $M$ creation operators $x_i^+$ ($i=1,\ldots,M$) and $M$ annihilation operators $x_i^-$ ($i=1,\ldots,M$), which generate the corresponding superalgebra $G$ subject to certain triple relations ${\cal R}$. This leads to a $\mathbb{Z}$-grading of $G$ of the form $$G=G_{-2} \oplus G_{-1} \oplus G_0 \oplus G_{+1} \oplus G_{+2},
\label{5grading}$$ with $G_{\pm 1}= \hbox{span}\{x^\pm_i,\ i=1,\ldots,M\}$ and $G_{j+k}=[\![ G_j,G_k ]\!]$, where $[\![\cdot,\cdot]\!]$ is the Lie superalgebra bracket. The known cases, namely para-Bose and para-Fermi statistics [@Green], and $A$-(super)statistics [@Palev1]- appear as simple examples in the classification.
In the present letter we are dealing with a different problem, namely finding solutions of the compatibility conditions (CCs) of a Wigner quantum oscillator system. These compatibility conditions take the form of certain triple relations for operators. So formally the CCs appear as special triple relations among operators which resemble the creation and annihilation operators of a generalized quantum statistics. One can thus investigate which formal GQSs also provide solutions of the CCs. It turns out that the classification presented in [@NJ] yields new solutions of these compatibility conditions.
The concepts of Wigner quantization [@Palev2] and of a Wigner Quantum System (WQS) [@Palev3] were introduced by Palev, inspired by [@Wigner]. WQSs are noncanonical generalized quantum systems for which Hamilton’s equations are identical to the Heisenberg equations and for which certain additional properties, valid for any quantum system, are also fulfilled. For more examples of WQSs and physical aspects, see [@Yang]-[@Blasiak].
Let us briefly describe a WQS consisting of $N$ $D$-dimensional isotropic harmonic oscillators. The Hamiltonian of this $N$-particle $D$-dimensional ($D=1,2,3$) harmonic oscillator system is given by $$\hat{H}=\sum_{\alpha=1}^{N} \Big({ {\hat {\bf P}}_\alpha^2 \over 2m}
+{m\omega^2\over{2}}{{\hat {\bf R}}}_\alpha^2 \Big), \label{Ham0}$$ with $m$ the mass and $\omega$ the frequency of each oscillator. The Hamiltonian ${\hat H}$ depends on the $2DN$ variables ${\hat R}_{\alpha i}$ and ${\hat P}_{\alpha i}$, with $\alpha =1,\ldots,N$ and $i=1,\ldots,D$. In practice, the cases $D=1,2,3$ will be the most interesting, but we shall treat the general situation here.
In a Wigner quantum system, the operators ${\hat {\bf R}}_1,\ldots,{\hat {\bf R}}_N$ and ${\hat {\bf P}}_1,\ldots,{\hat {\bf P}}_N$ have to be defined in such a way that Hamilton’s equations $${\dot{{\hat {\bf P}}}}_\alpha=-m\omega^2{\hat {\bf R}}_\alpha, \ \ {\dot{{\hat {\bf R}}}}_\alpha = {1\over m}{\hat {\bf P}}_\alpha
\ ~ {\rm for} ~\ \alpha=1,2,\ldots,N,
\label{Ham}$$ and the Heisenberg equations $${\dot{{\hat {\bf P}}}}_\alpha = {i\over{\hbar}}[\hat{H},{\hat {\bf P}}_\alpha], \ \
{\dot{{\hat {\bf R}}}}_\alpha = {i\over{\hbar}}[\hat{H},{\hat {\bf R}}_\alpha]
\ ~ {\rm for} ~ \ \alpha=1,2\ldots,N,
\label{Heis}$$ are identical as operator equations. These compatibility conditions (CCs) are as follows $$[\hat{H},{\hat {\bf P}}_\alpha]=i\hbar m \omega^2{\hat {\bf R}}_\alpha ,\ \
[\hat{H},{\hat {\bf R}}_\alpha]=-{{i\hbar}\over{m}}{\hat {\bf P}}_\alpha
\ ~ {\rm for} ~ \ \alpha=1,2,\ldots,N.
\label{comp}$$ To make the connection with basic classical Lie superalgebras we write the operators ${\hat {\bf P}}_\alpha$ and ${\hat {\bf R}}_\alpha$ ($\alpha=1,2,\ldots,N$) in terms of new operators (or vice versa): $$a_{\alpha j}^\pm = \sqrt{cm \omega \over 4\hbar}
{\hat R}_{\alpha j} \pm i \mu
\sqrt {c\over 4m \omega \hbar} {\hat P}_{\alpha j}, \qquad \label{A}
(\alpha=1,\ldots,N;\ j=1,\ldots,D) \nonumber$$ where $\mu=+1$ or $-1$ and $c$ is an arbitrary positive constant (which can be chosen as an integer). The Hamiltonian $\hat{H}$ is then $$\hat{H} = {{\omega\hbar}\over{c}}\sum_{\alpha =1}^N \sum_{i=1}^D \{a_{\alpha i}^+,a_{\alpha i}^-\},
\label{Halpha}$$ with $\{\cdot,\cdot\}$ an anticommutator. The compatibility conditions (\[comp\]) take the form: $$\sum_{\alpha=1}^N \sum_{i=1}^D [ \{a_{\alpha i}^+,a_{\alpha i}^- \},a_{\beta j}^\pm]
=\mp \mu c\; a_{\beta j}^\pm , \qquad (\beta =1,\ldots,N;\ j=1,\ldots,D).
\label{comp1}$$ In the present form, the compatibility conditions are expressed as certain triple relations for a set of odd operators $a_{\alpha i}^\pm$. Thus it is natural to look for solutions of (\[comp1\]) in the framework of Lie superalgebras. The classification of GQSs [@NJ], also expressed by means of certain creation and annihilation operators (CAOs) $x_i^\pm$ ($i=1,\ldots,M$) satisfying triple relations ${\cal R}$, can thus be used to investigate solutions of (\[comp1\]). In the classification list of [@NJ], we should now restrict ourselves to cases where all CAO’s of ${\cal R}$ consist of odd elements only. Therefore $G_{-1}$ and $G_{+1}$ are odd subspaces, and the grading (\[5grading\]) is [*consistent*]{} with the $\mathbb{Z}_2$-grading of the Lie superalgebra. Then, after identifying the $x_i^\pm$ with the operators $a_{\alpha j}^\pm$ (eventually up to an overall constant), it remains to verify whether (\[comp1\]) is satisfied. We shall now perform this investigation for the basic classical Lie superalgebras.
For the Lie superalgebra $sl(m|n)=A(m-1|n-1)$ there are two GQSs with all CAOs odd elements [@NJ]. The first of these corresponds to a grading of length 3 (i.e. $G_{\pm2}=0$ in (\[5grading\])). In this case, the CAOs are given by: $$x_{rk}^- = e_{k, r+m+1}, \quad x_{rk}^+ = e_{r+m+1,k}, \qquad r=1,\ldots,n;\;
k=1,\ldots,m,$$ where $e_{ij}$ is a $(m+n)\times(m+n)$ matrix with zeros everywhere except a $1$ on the intersection of row $i$ and column $j$ (corresponding to the defining $sl(m|n)$ representation). These operators satisfy the triple relations (we write in this paper only the relations from ${\cal R}$ that are needed here; $r,s,t=1,\ldots,n$; $i,j,k=1,\ldots,m$) $$\begin{aligned}
&& [\{x_{ri}^+,x_{sj}^-\},x_{tk}^+]=
\delta_{ij}\delta_{st} x_{rk}^+ -\delta_{jk}\delta_{rs} x_{ti}^+, \nonumber\\
&& [\{x_{ri}^+,x_{sj}^-\},x_{tk}^-]=
-\delta_{ij}\delta_{rt} x_{sk}^- +\delta_{ik}\delta_{rs} x_{tj}^-, \label{sl}\end{aligned}$$ and thus $$\sum_{r=1}^n\sum_{k=1}^m [ \{x_{rk}^+,x_{rk}^- \},x_{sj}^\pm]
=\pm (m-n) x_{sj}^\pm. \label{slmnsolution}$$ It is clear that such systems provide solutions for the CCs (as long as $m\ne n$). First of all, taking $m=D$ and $n=N$ yields the $sl(D|N)$ solution of the CCs (\[comp1\]) for the $N$-particle $D$-dimensional oscillator, by taking $a_{\alpha j}^\pm = x_{\alpha j}^\pm$ ($\alpha=1,\ldots,N$; $j=1,\ldots,D$). This is (at least for $D=3$) a known solution: see [@PS1] for a discussion and some properties corresponding to this $sl(3|N)$ case.
Secondly, one can take $m=1$ and $n=DN$, yielding the $sl(1|DN)$ solution of the CCs. In this case, one takes $a_{\alpha j}^\pm = x_{j+(\alpha-1)D,1}^\pm$ ($\alpha=1,\ldots,N$; $j=1,\ldots,D$). This is again a known solution: see [@Palev2], [@PS]-[@K2] for an investigation of the physical properties of the $sl(1|3N)$ solution of the Wigner quantum oscillator.
Observe that one can always interchange the operators $a_{\alpha j}^+$ with $a_{\alpha j}^-$.
Note that the cases $(m=N,n=D)$ or $(m=DN,n=1)$ also provide solutions, but these are not considered because of the isomorphism of $sl(m|n)$ and $sl(n|m)$. More generally, it is clear that by repartitioning the $mn$ operators $x_{rk}^+$ ($r=1,\ldots,n$; $k=1,\ldots,m$) into $N$ sets of $D$ operators (and analogously for the $x_{rk}^-$), (\[slmnsolution\]) still yields a solution of (\[comp1\]). This means that all Lie superalgebras $sl(m|n)$ with $mn=DN$ provide a solution to the compatibility conditions for the $N$-particle $D$-dimensional Wigner quantum oscillator.
The second type of GQS for the Lie superalgebra $sl(m|n)$ with all CAOs odd elements corresponds to a grading of length 5 [@NJ]. In this situation there are several inequivalent GQSs, all of them leading to solutions of the CCs. Since the description is somewhat more complicated than the other cases, we shall give it in the Appendix.
Next, we turn our attention to the Lie superalgebras $B(m|n)=osp(2m+1|2n)$. We know from [@NJ] that there is one GQS with odd elements only. In terms of the defining $(2m+2n+1)$-dimensional representation of $B(m|n)$, the corresponding CAOs are given by: $$\begin{aligned}
x_{ri}^+ = e_{m+i, 2m+1+r}-e_{2m+1+n+r,i}, &&
x_{ri}^- = e_{i, 2m+1+n+r}+e_{2m+1+r,m+i},\nonumber \\
x_{r, -i}^+ = e_{i, 2m+1+r}-e_{2m+1+n+r,i+m}, &&
x_{r, -i}^- = e_{m+i, 2m+1+n+r}+e_{2m+1+r,i},\nonumber \\
x_{r 0}^+ = e_{2m+1, 2m+1+r}-e_{2m+1+n+r,2m+1}, &&
x_{r 0}^- = e_{2m+1, 2m+1+n+r}+e_{2m+1+r,2m+1},\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ with $r=1,\ldots,n$ and $i=1,\ldots,m$. If we introduce the notation $$\langle j\rangle = \left\{ \begin{array}{lll}
{\;\; 1} & \hbox{if} & j=1,\ldots ,m \\
{-1} & \hbox{if} & j=-m,\ldots ,-1 \nonumber \\
{\;\; 0} & \hbox{if} & j=0 \\
\end{array}\right.$$ the triple relations needed can be written as follows: $$[\{x_{rk}^+,x_{rk}^-\},x_{sj}^{\pm}]=
\pm \langle k\rangle \langle j\rangle \delta_{|k||j|}\; x_{sj}^{\pm}
\mp \delta_{rs}\; x_{sj}^{\pm},
\qquad(r,s =1,\ldots,n;\; k,j=-m,\ldots,m).$$ This implies $$\sum_{r =1}^{n} \sum_{k=-m}^{m}[\{x_{rk}^+,x_{rk}^-\},x_{sj}^{\pm}]=
\mp (2m+1)x_{sj}^{\pm}, \qquad (s=1,\ldots,n;\; j=-m,\ldots,m).
\label{osp-solution}$$ Again it is clear that this provides solutions for the CCs. For $D=2m+1$ and $N=n$, one obtains the $osp(D|2N)$ solution of the CCs (\[comp1\]) for the $N$-particle $D$-dimensional oscillator, by taking $a^\pm_{\alpha j} = x^\pm_{\alpha j}$ ($\alpha=1,\ldots,N$; $j=-m,\ldots,m$). This is a new class of solutions of WQSs. Note that even the simplest case ($D=3$ and $N=1$, or $osp(3|2)$) is different from the $osp(3|2)$ solution of [@osp32], since in the current case the operators $a^\pm_{\alpha j}$ correspond to root vectors of $osp(3|2)$ (which was not the case in [@osp32]).
Alternatively, one can also take $N=2m+1$ and $D=n$ in (\[osp-solution\]). This yields the $osp(N|2D)$ solution of the CCs for the $N$-particle $D$-dimensional oscillator, by taking $a^\pm_{\alpha j} = x^\pm_{j \alpha}$ ($\alpha=-m,\ldots,m$; $j=1,\ldots,D$). More generally, it is clear that by repartitioning the $(2m+1)n$ operators $x_{rk}^+$ ($r=1,\ldots,n$; $k=-m,\ldots,m$) into $N$ sets of $D$ operators (and analogously for the $x_{rk}^-$), (\[osp-solution\]) still yields a solution of (\[comp1\]). This means that all Lie superalgebras $osp(2m+1|2n)$ with $(2m+1)n=DN$ provide a solution to the compatibility conditions.
Finally, one can have $m=0$ and $n=DN$, yielding the $B(0|DN)=osp(1|2DN)$ solution of the CCs. In this case, one obtains a solution for the $N$-particle $D$-dimensional oscillator, by taking $a^\pm_{\alpha j} = x^\pm_{j+(\alpha-1)D,0}$ ($\alpha=1,\ldots,N$; $j=1,\ldots,D$). This solution is not new; in fact it is (up to a constant) the known para-Bose solution [@Palev2], [@GP]. Indeed, let us put $$b^+_r= \sqrt{2}\, x^+_{r0}, \qquad b^-_r= -\sqrt{2}\, x^-_{r0},$$ for $r=1,\ldots,DN$. Then these operators satisfy $$\begin{aligned}
&& [\{ b_r^{\xi}, b_s^{\eta}\} , b_t^{\epsilon}]=
(\epsilon -\xi) \delta_{rt} b_s^{\eta} + (\epsilon -\eta)\delta_{st}b_r^{\xi}, \label{pBose} \\
&& \qquad\qquad \xi, \eta, \epsilon =\pm\hbox{ or }\pm 1;\quad r,s,t=1,\ldots,DN. \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ These are the para-Bose operators of [@Green]. For $osp(1|6N)$, it was observed in [@PS1] that this yields a solution of the CCs for the $N$-particle 3-dimensional Wigner quantum oscillator.
Let us now consider the Lie superalgebras $D(m|n)=osp(2m|2n)$. From [@NJ] it follows that there are two GQSs with odd elements only. In terms of the defining $(2m+2n)$-dimensional representation of $D(m|n)$, the CAOs of the first system are given by: $$\begin{aligned}
x_{ri}^+ = e_{m+i, 2m+r}-e_{2m+n+r,i}, &&
x_{ri}^- = e_{i, 2m+n+r}+e_{2m+r,m+i},\nonumber \\
x_{r, -i}^+ = e_{i, 2m+r}-e_{2m+n+r,i+m}, &&
x_{r, -i}^- = e_{m+i, 2m+n+r}+e_{2m+r,i}\label{D1} ,\end{aligned}$$ with $r=1,\ldots,n$ and $i=1,\ldots,m$. It is easy to verify that these satisfy $$[\{x_{rk}^+,x_{rk}^-\},x_{sj}^{\pm}]=
\pm \langle k\rangle \langle j\rangle \delta_{|k||j|}\; x_{sj}^{\pm}
\mp \delta_{rs}\; x_{sj}^{\pm},
\qquad(r,s =1,\ldots,n;\; k,j=\pm 1,\ldots,\pm m).$$ Thus it follows that $$\sum_{r =1}^{n} \sum_{0\ne k=-m}^{m}[\{x_{rk}^+,x_{rk}^-\},x_{sj}^{\pm}]=
\mp 2m\; x_{sj}^{\pm}, \qquad (s=1,\ldots,n;\; j=\pm 1,\ldots,\pm m).
\label{osp2-solution}$$ For $D=2m$ and $N=n$, this yields the $osp(D|2N)$ solution of the CCs (\[comp1\]) for the $N$-particle $D$-dimensional oscillator, by taking $a^\pm_{\alpha j} = x^\pm_{\alpha j}$ ($\alpha=1,\ldots,N$; $j=\pm 1,\ldots,\pm m$). This is a new class of solutions for the WQSs.
Alternatively, one can take $N=2m$ and $D=n$ in (\[osp2-solution\]). This yields the $osp(N|2D)$ solution of the CCs (\[comp1\]), by taking $a^\pm_{\alpha j} = x^\pm_{j \alpha}$ ($j=1,\ldots,D$; $\alpha=\pm 1,\ldots,\pm m$). As before, one can more generally repartition the $2mn$ operators $x_{rk}^+$ ($r=1,\ldots,n$; $k=\pm 1,\ldots,\pm m$) into $N$ sets of $D$ operators (and analogously for the $x_{rk}^-$); then (\[osp2-solution\]) still yields a solution of (\[comp1\]). This means that all Lie superalgebras $osp(2m|2n)$ with $2mn=DN$ provide a solution to the compatibility conditions for the $N$-particle $D$-dimensional Wigner quantum oscillator.
The Lie superalgebra $D(m|n)=osp(2m|2n)$ also admits a different GQS with odd elements only [@NJ]. The CAOs of this second system are given by: $$\begin{aligned}
x_{ri}^+ = e_{2m+n+i,r}-e_{m+r,2m+i}, &&
x_{ri}^- = e_{r,2m+n+i}+e_{2m+i,m+r},\nonumber \\
x_{r, -i}^+ = e_{m+r,2m+n+i}+e_{2m+i,r}, &&
x_{r, -i}^- = e_{r,2m+i}-e_{2m+n+i,m+r}\label{D2} ,\end{aligned}$$ with $r=1,\ldots,m$ and $i=1,\ldots,n$. Although this looks similar to the first system, observe that it is essentially different. In (\[D1\]), the subalgebra $G_0=[\![ G_{-1}, G_{+1} ]\!]$ is $sl(n)\oplus so(2m)$, whereas in (\[D2\]), it is $sl(m)\oplus sp(2n)$ [@NJ]. In this case the operators (\[D2\]) satisfy $$[\{x_{rk}^+,x_{rk}^-\},x_{sj}^{\pm}]=
\pm \langle k\rangle \langle j\rangle \delta_{|k||j|}\; x_{sj}^{\pm}
\mp \delta_{rs}\; x_{sj}^{\pm},
\qquad(r,s =1,\ldots,m;\; k,j=\pm 1,\ldots,\pm n).$$ Now we have $$\sum_{r =1}^{m} \sum_{0\ne k=-n}^{n}[\{x_{rk}^+,x_{rk}^-\},x_{sj}^{\pm}]=
\mp 2n\; x_{sj}^{\pm}, \qquad (s=1,\ldots,m;\; j=\pm 1,\ldots,\pm n).
\label{osp3-solution}$$ For $N=2m$ and $D=n$, this yields the second $osp(N|2D)$ solution of the CCs (\[comp1\]), by taking $a^\pm_{\alpha j} = x^\pm_{\alpha j}$ ($j=1,\ldots,D$; $\alpha=\pm 1,\ldots,\pm m$). As for the other cases, one can more generally repartition the $2mn$ operators $x_{rk}^+$ ($r=1,\ldots,m$; $k=\pm 1,\ldots,\pm n$) into $N$ sets of $D$ operators (and analogously for the $x_{rk}^-$) and still obtain a solution of (\[comp1\]). Hence all Lie superalgebras $osp(2m|2n)$ with $2mn=DN$ provide a second type of solution to the compatibility conditions for the $N$-particle $D$-dimensional Wigner quantum oscillator.
The solutions presented here for $D(m|n)$ remain valid also when $m=1$. In that case, the Lie superalgebra is usually denoted by $C(n+1)$: $C(n+1)=D(1|n)=osp(2|2n)$. In particular, $C(N+1)$ yields solutions for the $N$-particle 2-dimensional Wigner quantum oscillator.
To conclude, our analysis of the compatibility conditions (\[comp1\]) using the formal classification of GQS in [@NJ] has given rise to several classes of new solutions for the $N$-particle $D$-dimensional Wigner quantum oscillator. The most interesting solutions are those with $D=1,2,3$. For example, for $D=1$ there are solutions in terms of the Lie superalgebras $sl(1|N)$ and $osp(1|2N)$; for $D=2$ there are solutions in terms of $sl(1|2N)$, $sl(2|N)$, $osp(2|2N)$ and $osp(2N|2)$; for $D=3$ there are solutions in terms of $sl(1|3N)$, $sl(3|N)$ and $osp(3|N)$ (apart from other types of partitioning).
In order to study physical properties of the new Wigner quantum systems (energy spectrum, position and momentum operators, etc.) one is lead to representation theory of the corresponding Lie superalgebra. The class of representations should be “unitary”, in the sense that $(a_{\alpha j}^\pm)^\dagger = a_{\alpha j}^\mp$ must hold (by the Hermiticity of the position and momentum operators, see (\[A\])). For interesting examples with intriguing physical properties, see the $sl(1|3)$ [@Palev2],[@K1] (or $sl(1|3N)$) solution for the ($N$-particle) 3-dimensional Wigner quantum oscillator [@K2]. With the current list of new solutions obtained in this letter, we hope to investigate the physical properties of some of these in the future.
[**Acknowledgments**]{}
N.I. Stoilova was supported by a project from the Fund for Scientific Research – Flanders (Belgium).
Appendix {#appendix .unnumbered}
========
We describe here the remaining GQSs for the Lie superalgebra $sl(m|n)$ with odd CAOs only. According to [@NJ], there are two classes. For the first class, $l$ can be any index between $1$ and $m-1$, so assume that $l$ is fixed ($1\leq l<m$). The CAOs are then described by the root vectors of [@NJ eq. (3.9)], but in order to deduce solutions for the CCs we need to multiply them by some overall constant. This gives, for $k=1,\ldots,m$ and $r=1,\ldots,n$: $$x^+_{rk} = \left\{
\begin{array}{lcc}
\sqrt{|2m-n-2l|}\; e_{m+r,k} & \hbox{for} & k\leq l \\
\sqrt{|n-2l|} \; e_{k,m+r} & \hbox{for} & k>l
\end{array} \right.$$ and $$x^-_{rk} = \left\{
\begin{array}{lcc}
\sqrt{|2m-n-2l|} \; e_{k,m+r} & \hbox{for} & k\leq l \\
\epsilon \sqrt{|n-2l|} \; e_{m+r,k} & \hbox{for} & k>l
\end{array} \right.$$ where $\epsilon=\hbox{sgn}((n-2l)(2m-n-2l))$. Of course, we have to assume that $l$ is such that these factors do not vanish, i.e. $(n-2l)(2m-n-2l)\ne 0$. Then, one can deduce that $$\sum_{r=1}^n\sum_{k=1}^m [ \{x_{rk}^+,x_{rk}^- \},x_{sj}^\pm]
=\mp \nu\; n(m-n) x_{sj}^\pm \label{slmn2solution}$$ where $\nu=\hbox{sgn}(2m-n-2l)$. Clearly, for $m\ne n$ such systems provide solutions for the CCs for the $N$-particle $D$-dimensional oscillator whenever $mn=DN$.
For the second class, $l$ can be any index between $1$ and $n-1$. Now the CAOs are described by the root vectors of [@NJ eq. (3.8)], again multiplied by some appropriate constant. This gives, for $k=1,\ldots,m$ and $r=1,\ldots,n$: $$x^+_{rk} = \left\{
\begin{array}{lcc}
\sqrt{|2n-m-2l|}\; e_{m+r,k} & \hbox{for} & r\leq l \\
\sqrt{|m-2l|} \; e_{k,m+r} & \hbox{for} & r>l
\end{array} \right.$$ and $$x^-_{rk} = \left\{
\begin{array}{lcc}
\sqrt{|2n-m-2l|} \; e_{k,m+r} & \hbox{for} & r\leq l \\
\epsilon \sqrt{|m-2l|} \; e_{m+r,k} & \hbox{for} & r>l
\end{array} \right.$$ where $\epsilon=\hbox{sgn}((m-2l)(2n-m-2l))$. Again we assume that $l$ is such that these factors do not vanish, i.e. $(m-2l)(2n-m-2l)\ne 0$. Now one can deduce that $$\sum_{r=1}^n\sum_{k=1}^m [ \{x_{rk}^+,x_{rk}^- \},x_{sj}^\pm]
=\mp \nu\; m(n-m) x_{sj}^\pm \label{slmn3solution}$$ where $\nu=\hbox{sgn}(2n-m-2l)$. For $m\ne n$ such systems provide another class of solutions for the CCs for the $N$-particle $D$-dimensional oscillator whenever $mn=DN$.
[99]{}
N.I. Stoilova and J. Van der Jeugt, “A classification of generalized quantum statistics associated with basic classical Lie superalgebras,” math-ph/0504013.
H.S. Green, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**90**]{}, 270 (1953).
T.D. Palev, Lie algebraic aspects of quantum statistics. Unitary quantization (A-quantization), Preprint JINR E17-10550 (1977) and hep-th/9705032.
T.D. Palev, J. Van der Jeugt, [*J. Math. Phys.*]{} [**43**]{}, 3850 (2002).
A. Jellal, T.D. Palev and J. Van der Jeugt, [*J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.*]{} [**34**]{}, 10179 (2001); preprint hep-th/0110276.
T.D. Palev, N.I. Stoilova and J. Van der Jeugt, [*J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.*]{} [**36**]{}, 7093 (2003).
T.D. Palev, [*J. Math. Phys.*]{} [**23**]{}, 1778 (1982).
A.H. Kamupingene, T.D. Palev and S.P. Tsaneva, [*J. Math. Phys.* ]{} [**27**]{}, 2067 (1986).
E.P. Wigner, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**77**]{}, 711 (1950).
L.M. Yang, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**84**]{}, 788 (1951).
L. O’Raifeartaigh and C. Ryan, [*Proc. Roy. Irish. Acad.*]{} [**62 A**]{}, 83 (1963).
S. Okubo, [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**22**]{}, 919 (1980).
V.I. Man’ko, G. Marmo, E.C.G. Sudarshan, and F. Zaccaria, [*Int. J. Mod. Phys. B*]{} [**11**]{}, 1281 (1997).
M. Arik, N.M. Atakishiyev and K.B. Wolf, [*J. Phys. A*]{} [**32**]{}, L371 (1999) .
E. Kapuscik, [*Czech. J. Phys.*]{} [**50**]{}, 1279 (2000).
A. Horzela, [*Czech. J. Phys.*]{} [**50**]{}, 1245 (2000).
N.M. Atakishiyev, G.S. Pogosyan, L.I. Vicent and K.B. Wolf, [*J. Phys. A*]{} [**34**]{}, 9381 (2001).
P. Blasiak, A. Horzela, E. Kapuscik, [*Journal of Optics B*]{} [**5**]{}, S245-S260, (2003).
T.D. Palev and N.I. Stoilova, [*Rep. Math. Phys.*]{} [**49**]{}, 395 (2002).
T.D. Palev and N.I. Stoilova, [*J. Math. Phys.*]{} [**38**]{}, 2506 (1997).
R.C. King, T.D. Palev, N.I. Stoilova and J. Van der Jeugt, [*J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.*]{} [**36**]{}, 4337 (2003).
R.C. King, T.D. Palev, N.I. Stoilova and J. Van der Jeugt, [*J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.*]{} [**36**]{}, 11999 (2003).
T.D. Palev and N.I. Stoilova, [*J. Phys. A*]{} [**27**]{}, 7387 (1994).
A.Ch. Ganchev and T.D. Palev, [*J. Math. Phys.*]{} [**21**]{}, 797 (1980).
[^1]: E-mail: Neli.Stoilova@UGent.be; Permanent address: Institute for Nuclear Research and Nuclear Energy, Boul. Tsarigradsko Chaussee 72, 1784 Sofia, Bulgaria
[^2]: E-mail: Joris.VanderJeugt@UGent.be
|
---
abstract: |
Compressed sensing (CS) demonstrates that sparse signals can be estimated from under-determined linear systems. Distributed CS (DCS) further reduces the number of measurements by considering joint sparsity within signal ensembles. DCS with jointly sparse signals has applications in multi-sensor acoustic sensing, magnetic resonance imaging with multiple coils, remote sensing, and array signal processing. Multi-measurement vector (MMV) problems consider the estimation of jointly sparse signals under the DCS framework. Two related MMV settings are studied. In the first setting, each signal vector is measured by a different independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) measurement matrix, while in the second setting, all signal vectors are measured by the same i.i.d. matrix. Replica analysis is performed for these two MMV settings, and the minimum mean squared error (MMSE), which turns out to be identical for both settings, is obtained as a function of the noise variance and number of measurements. To showcase the application of MMV models, the MMSE’s of complex CS problems with both real and complex measurement matrices are also analyzed. Multiple performance regions for MMV are identified where the MMSE behaves differently as a function of the noise variance and the number of measurements.
Belief propagation (BP) is a CS signal estimation framework that often achieves the MMSE asymptotically. A phase transition for BP is identified. This phase transition, verified by numerical results, separates the regions where BP achieves the MMSE and where it is suboptimal. Numerical results also illustrate that more signal vectors in the jointly sparse signal ensemble lead to a better phase transition.
author:
- 'Junan Zhu, , Dror Baron, , and Florent Krzakala [^1] [^2] [^3]'
title: |
Performance Limits\
for Noisy Multi-Measurement Vector Problems
---
[*Keywords*]{}:Approximate message passing, multi-measurement vector problem, replica analysis.
Introduction
============
Compressed sensing (CS) [@CandesRUP; @DonohoCS; @BaraniukCS2007] demonstrates that sparse signals can be estimated from under-determined linear measurements. Owing to the potential for radically reduced measurement rates, CS has become an active research area within signal processing. CS has many application areas including magnetic resonance imaging [@JuYeKi07; @JuSuNaKiYe09], communication [@Cotter2002scemp], and remote sensing [@Ma2009deblur].
Distributed CS (DCS) [@HN05; @DuarteWakinBaronSarvothamBaraniuk2013] is based on the premise that joint sparsity within signal ensembles enables a further reduction in the number of measurements. Motivated by sensor networks [@Pottie2000], preliminary work in DCS [@Duarte2006IPSN; @HN05; @DuarteWakinBaronSarvothamBaraniuk2013] showed that the number of measurements required per sensor must account for the minimum features unique to that sensor while features that are common to multiple sensors are amortized. DCS led to a proliferation of research on the multi-measurement vector (MMV) problem [@chen2006trs; @cotter2005ssl; @Mishali08rembo; @Berg09jrmm; @LeeKimBreslerYe2011; @LeeBreslerJunge2012; @YeKimBresler2015]. The MMV problem considers the estimation of a set of sparse signal vectors that share common supports, and has applications such as radar array signal processing, acoustic sensing with multiple speakers, magnetic resonance imaging with multiple coils [@JuYeKi07; @JuSuNaKiYe09], and diffuse optical tomography using multiple illumination patterns. In MMV, thanks to the common support, the number of sparse coefficients that can be successfully estimated increases with the number of measurements. This property was evaluated rigorously for noiseless measurements using $l_0$ minimization [@DuarteWakinBaronSarvothamBaraniuk2013]. To address measurement noise, estimation approaches for MMV problems have included greedy algorithms such as SOMP [@tropp2006ass; @chen2006trs], $l_1$ convex relaxation [@malioutov2005ssr; @tropp2006ass2], and M-FOCUSS [@cotter2005ssl]. REduce MMV and BOost (ReMBo) has been shown to outperform conventional methods [@Mishali08rembo], and subspace methods have also been used to solve MMV problems [@LeeBreslerJunge2012; @YeKimBresler2015]. Statistical approaches [@ZinielSchniter2011] often achieve the oracle minimum mean squared error (MMSE). However, the performance limits of MMV signal estimation in the presence of measurement noise have not been studied.
Replica analysis is a statistical physics method that can be used to analyze the MMSE and phase transition for inverse problems [@Tanaka2002; @GuoVerdu2005; @Montanari2006; @Krzakala2012probabilistic; @krzakala2012statistical; @MezardMontanariBook; @Barbier2015; @Lesieur2015]. Barbier and Krzakala [@Barbier2015] studied the MMSE for estimating superposition codes using replica analysis. In this paper, we extend the derivation in Barbier and Krzakala [@Barbier2015] to two related yet different MMV settings: ([*i*]{}) $J$ jointly sparse signals are measured by $J$ different dense matrices that are independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.), and ([*ii*]{}) $J$ jointly sparse signals are measured by $J$ identical i.i.d. matrices. We only consider dense i.i.d. Gaussian matrices in this work, while our analysis can be extended to other i.i.d. matrices easily.
We make several contributions in this paper. First, we obtain the information theoretic MMSE for the two MMV settings above under the Bayesian setting. Second, we show that in the large system limit the MMSE’s for these two settings are identical to the single measurement vector (SMV) problem with a dense measurement matrix and a block sparse signal with fixed length blocks. Third, we derive the MMSE for SMV complex CS problems by noticing that SMV complex CS is essentially an MMV problem. Fourth, we identify several performance regions for MMV, where the MMSE has different characteristics based on channel noise variance and measurement rate. Finally, we find a phase transition for belief propagation algorithms (BP) [@DMM2009; @CSBP2010; @Bayati2011; @Montanari2012; @Krzakala2012probabilistic; @krzakala2012statistical; @Barbier2015] applied to MMV problems, which separates regions where BP achieves the MMSE asymptotically and where it is suboptimal. BP simulation results confirm the phase transition results.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. We introduce our signal and measurement models in Section \[sec:model\], followed by replica analyses for two MMV settings as well as two SMV complex CS problems in Section \[sec:main\]. Section \[sec:proof\] proves the results of Section \[sec:main\]. Numerical results are discussed in Section \[sec:numeric\] and we conclude in Section \[sec:conclusion\].
[**Notations:**]{} In this paper, bold capital letters represent matrices, bold lower case letters represent vectors, and normal font lower case letters represent scalars. The entry (scalar) in the $\mu$-th row, $l$-th column of a matrix $\F$ is denoted by $F_{\mu,l}$, where the comma is often omitted. The $\mu$-th entry (scalar) in a vector $\z$ is denoted by $z_{\mu}$.
Signal and Measurement Models {#sec:model}
=============================
[**Signal model**]{}: We consider an ensemble of $J$ signal vectors, $\underline{\s}^j\in\mathbb{R}^N,\ j\in\{1,...,J\}$, where $j$ is the index of the signal. Consider a [*super symbol*]{} $\s_l=[\underline{s}_l^1,...,\underline{s}_l^J]^T,\ l\in\{1,...,N\}$, where $[\cdot]^T$ denotes the transpose. The super symbol $\s_l$ follows a $J$-dimensional Bernoulli-Gaussian distribution, $$\label{eq:jsm}
P(\s_l)=\rho \phi(\s_l)+(1-\rho)\delta(\s_l),$$ where $\rho$ is the sparsity rate, $\phi(\s_l)$ is a $J$-dimensional Gaussian distribution with zero mean and identity covariance matrix, and $\delta(\s_l)$ is the delta function for $J$-dimensional vectors.
\[def:jointly\_sparse\] [*Ensembles of signals that obey are called jointly sparse.*]{}
[**Measurement models**]{}: Each signal $\underline{\s}^j$ is measured by an i.i.d. Gaussian measurement matrix $\underline{\F}^j\in\mathbb{R}^{M\times N}$, $\underline{F}_{\mu l}^j \sim \mathcal{N}(0,1/N)$, where $\mu$ refers to the row index and $l$ is the column index. The measurements $\underline{\y}^j$ are corrupted by i.i.d. Gaussian noise $\underline{\z}^j$ consisting of entries $\underline{z}_{\mu}^j\sim \mathcal{N}(0,\Delta)$, $$\label{eq:MMVmodel}
\underline{\y}^j=\underline{\F}^j\underline{\s}^j+\underline{\z}^j,\quad j\in\{1,\cdots,J\}.$$ When the number of signal vectors $J=1$, this MMV model becomes an SMV problem. Our analyses in this paper are readily extended to other i.i.d. matrices, jointly sparse signals , and other i.i.d. noise distributions.
\[def:MMV\_set1\] [*The setting MMV-1 refers to the measurement model in with all matrices $\underline{F}^j$ being different.*]{}
\[def:MMV\_set2\] [*The setting MMV-2 refers to the measurement model in with all matrices $\underline{F}^j$ being equal.*]{}
In the signal model and measurement model , the sparsity rate $\rho$, channel noise variance $\Delta$, and number of channels $J$ are constant.
\[def:largeSystemLimit\] The signal length $N$ scales to infinity, and the number of measurements $M=M(N)$ depends on $N$ and also scales to infinity, where the ratio approaches a positive constant $R$ for practical problems, $$\label{eq:measurementRate}
\lim_{N\rightarrow\infty} \frac{M(N)}{N} = R>0.$$
We call $R$ the measurement rate.
Replica Analyses for MMV Settings {#sec:main}
=================================
Section \[sec:model\] discussed two MMV settings. Both settings have applications in real-world problems such as magnetic resonance imaging [@JuYeKi07; @JuSuNaKiYe09] and sensor networks [@Pottie2000]. Although numerous algorithms for MMV signal estimation have been proposed [@tropp2006ass; @chen2006trs; @malioutov2005ssr; @tropp2006ass2; @cotter2005ssl; @Mishali08rembo; @ZinielSchniter2011], what is missing is an information theoretic analysis of the best possible mean squared error (MSE) performance. Throughout this paper, we only consider the MSE as our performance metric.
Statistical physics background and replica method {#sec:set1}
-------------------------------------------------
![Illustration of MMV channel with $J=3$ signal vectors (left), and one of its possible SMV forms (right). Different background patterns differentiate entries from different channels, and blank space denotes zeros.[]{data-label="fig:channel"}](MMV_channel_v2.png){width="8.5cm"}
In order to express using a single channel, we transform it to an SMV form. One possible way to do so is illustrated in Fig. \[fig:channel\]. The equivalent SMV problem is $$\label{eq:MMVchannel}
\y=\F\s+\z,$$ where $\F\in\mathbb{R}^{MJ\times NJ}$ is the matrix, $\y\in\mathbb{R}^{MJ}$ are the measurements, and the noise is $\z\in\mathbb{R}^{MJ}$. Entries of the signal vectors $\underline{\s}^j$, measurement vectors $\underline{\y}^j$, and noise vectors $\underline{\z}^j$ form the SMV signal $\s$, measurements $\y$, and noise $\z$ with $$s_{(l-1)J+j}=\underline{s}^{j}_l,\ y_{(j-1)M+\mu}=\underline{y}^j_{\mu},\ \text{and}\ z_{(j-1)M+\mu}=\underline{z}^j_{\mu},$$ respectively. Entries of the matrix $\underline{\F}^j$ form the SMV matrix $\F$ with $F_{(j-1)M+\mu,(l-1)J+j}=\underline{F}^j_{\mu l}$; other entries of $\F$ are zeros. The posterior for the estimate $\x\in\mathbb{R}^{NJ}$, comprised of super symbols $\x_l=[x_{(l-1)J+1},...,x_{lJ}]^T,\ l\in\{1,...,N\}$, is $$\label{eq:pxy2}
P(\x|\y)=\frac{1}{Z}{\prod_{l=1}^{N}}P(\x_l){\prod_{\mu=1}^{MJ}}\l[\frac{\operatorname{e}^{-\frac{1}{2\Delta}(\\y_{\mu}-{\sum_{l=1}^{N}}\F_{\mu l}\x_l)^2}}{\sqrt{2\pi\Delta}}\r],$$ where $\F_{\mu l}=[F_{\mu,(l-1)J+1}, \ldots, F_{\mu,lJ}]$ is a super symbol highlighted by the dashed area in Fig. \[fig:channel\], and the denominator $Z$ is the partition function [@Tanaka2002; @GuoVerdu2005; @Krzakala2012probabilistic; @krzakala2012statistical; @MezardMontanariBook; @Barbier2015], $$\label{eq:partition}
Z=\int {\prod_{l=1}^{N}}P(\x_l){\prod_{\mu=1}^{MJ}}\l[\frac{\operatorname{e}^{-\frac{1}{2\Delta}(y_{\mu}-{\sum_{l=1}^{N}}\F_{\mu l}\x_l)^2}}{\sqrt{2\pi\Delta}}\r]{\prod_{l=1}^{N}}d\x_l.$$ Note that multi-dimensional integrations such as are denoted by a single $\int$ operator for brevity. Confining our attention to the Bayesian setting [@Krzakala2012probabilistic; @krzakala2012statistical; @Barbier2015], $P(\x_l)$ follows the true distribution , $P(\x_l)=\rho \phi(\x_l)+(1-\rho)\delta(\x_l)$.
By creating an analogy between the channel and a many-body thermodynamic system [@Tanaka2002; @GuoVerdu2005; @Krzakala2012probabilistic; @krzakala2012statistical; @MezardMontanariBook; @Barbier2015], the posterior can be interpreted as the Boltzmann measure on a disordered system with the following Hamiltonian, $$\label{eq:Hamiltonian}
H(\x)=\sum_{l=1}^N \log [P(\x_l)]+\sum_{\mu=1}^{MJ} \frac{1}{2\Delta}\l(y_{\mu}-\sum_{l=1}^N\F_{\mu l} \x_l\r)^2.$$
The averaged free energy of the disordered system given by characterizes the thermodynamic properties of the system. Evaluating the fixed points (local maxima) in the free energy expression provides the MMSE for the channel [@Tanaka2002; @GuoVerdu2005; @Krzakala2012probabilistic; @krzakala2012statistical; @MezardMontanariBook; @Barbier2015]. [*Under the assumption of self-averaging*]{} [@Tanaka2002; @GuoVerdu2005; @Krzakala2012probabilistic; @krzakala2012statistical; @MezardMontanariBook; @Barbier2015], the free energy is defined as[^4] $$\label{eq:free_energy}
\mathcal{F}=\lim_{N\rightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{N}\mathbb{E}_{\F,\s,\z}[\log (Z)],$$ which is difficult to evaluate. The replica method [@Tanaka2002; @GuoVerdu2005; @Krzakala2012probabilistic; @krzakala2012statistical; @MezardMontanariBook; @Barbier2015] introduces $n$ replicas of the estimate $\x$ as $\x^a,\ a\in\{1,...,n\}$, and the free energy can be approximated by the replica trick [@Krzakala2012probabilistic; @krzakala2012statistical; @MezardMontanariBook; @Barbier2015], $$\label{eq:replicaTrick}
\mathcal{F}=\lim_{N\rightarrow\infty}\lim_{n\rightarrow 0} \frac{\mathbb{E}_{\F,\s,\z}[ Z^n]-1}{Nn}.$$ Note that the self-averaging property that leads to and the replica trick , as well as the replica symmetry assumptions that appear in latter parts of this paper, are assumed to be valid in this work, and their rigorous justification is still an open problem in mathematical physics [@Tanaka2002; @GuoVerdu2005; @Krzakala2012probabilistic; @krzakala2012statistical; @MezardMontanariBook; @Barbier2015].[^5]
**Evaluating the free energy**: To evaluate the free energy , we calculate $\mathbb{E}_{\F,\s,\z}\l[Z^n\r]$, where $\cdot_{\F,\s,\z}$ denotes expectation with respect to (w.r.t.) $\F,\s$, and $\z$, and $Z$ is given in : $$\label{eq:EZn1}
\mathbb{E}_{\F,\s,\z}\l[Z^n\r]\!=\!\frac{\mathbb{E}_{\s}\!\l[\displaystyle{\int {\prod_{l=1}^{N}}{\prod_{a=1}^{n}}\! P(\x_l^a)\!{\prod_{\mu=1}^{M}}\!\mathbb{X}_{\mu}\!{\prod_{l=1}^{N}}{\prod_{a=1}^{n}}d\x_l^a}\r]}{(2\pi\Delta)^{\frac{nMJ}{2}}},$$ where $$\label{eq:Xmu}
\mathbb{X}_{\mu}=\mathbb{E}_{\F,\z}\l[\operatorname{e}^{-\frac{1}{2\Delta}{\sum_{j=1}^{J}}{\sum_{a=1}^{n}}(v_{\mu j}^a)^2}\r],$$ $a$ is the replica index, $\x^a_l$ is the $l$-th super symbol of $\x^a$, and $$\label{eq:v_mu_a}
v_{\mu j}^a={\sum_{l=1}^{N}}\F_{\mu+M(j-1),l}(\s_l-\x_l^a)+z_{\mu+M(j-1)}.$$
\[lemma:covIsSame\] In the large system limit, the quantity $\mathbb{X}_{\mu}$ is the same for both MMV-1 and MMV-2.
Lemma \[lemma:covIsSame\] is proved in Section \[sec:proof\]. Because of Lemma \[lemma:covIsSame\], the free energy expressions for MMV-1 and MMV-2 should be identical in the large system limit. We state the result as a theorem and the detailed derivations appear in the Appendix.
\[th:free\_energy\] For settings MMV-1 and MMV-2, the free energy expressions as functions of $E$ are identical in the large system limit and are given in .[^6]
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{F}(E)&=&-\frac{J}{2}R\l\{\log[2\pi(\Delta+E)]+\frac{\rho+\Delta}{E+\Delta}\r\}\!+\!\int\!P(\s_1)\! \int\! \log\! \l[ \int P(\x_1)\operatorname{e}^{-\frac{\widehat{Q}+\widehat{q}}{2}\x_1^T\x_1+\widehat{m}\x_1^T\s_1+
\sqrt{\widehat{q}}\h^T\x_1}\!d\x_1\!\r]\!\mathcal{D}\h \ d\s_1\label{eq:free_energy3}\\
&=&-\frac{J}{2}R\l\{\log[2\pi(\Delta+E)]+\frac{\Delta}{E+\Delta}\r\}+\frac{JR(1-\rho)}{2(R+E+\Delta)}+\rho\int \log \Bigg[ \rho \l(\frac{E+\Delta}{R+E+\Delta}\r)^{J/2}+\nonumber\\
&\ &(1-\rho)\operatorname{e}^{-\frac{R}{2(E+\Delta)}\g^T\g}\Bigg]\mathcal{D}\g+(1-\rho)\int \log \l[ \rho \l(\frac{E+\Delta}{R+E+\Delta}\r)^{J/2}+(1-\rho)\operatorname{e}^{-\frac{R}{2(R+E+\Delta)}\h^T\h}\r]\mathcal{D}\h.\label{eq:free_energy4}\end{aligned}$$
**MMSE**: The $E$ that maximizes the free energy the MMSE [@Krzakala2012probabilistic; @krzakala2012statistical; @Barbier2015]. After finding the $E_0$ that maximizes the free energy , we obtain the MMSE, $D_0=E_0$, in the large system limit.
The MMSE for MMV-1 and MMV-2 is the same for the same measurement rate $R$, noise variance $\Delta$, and number of signal vectors $J$.
[**Remark 1:**]{} As the reader can see from the proof of Lemma \[th:free\_energy\] in Section \[sec:proof\], the key reason that both MMV-1 and MMV-2 have an identical MMSE is that the entries in the super symbols $\s_l$ and $\x_l^{\cdot}$ are i.i.d. That said, we suspect that the MMSE for MMV-1 and MMV-2 could differ by some higher order terms. If the entries of these super symbols are not i.i.d., which is true in some practical MMV applications [@ZinielSchniter2013MMV], then it becomes more difficult to analyze the covariance matrix $\G_{\mu}$ as in Section \[sec:proof\]. Therefore, we do not have an analysis for non-i.i.d. entries within $\s_l$ and $\x_l^{\{\cdot\}}$. However, we speculate that MMV-1 might have lower MMSE than MMV-2 in that case.
[**Link to SMV with block sparse signal:**]{} The signal $\s$ in is a block sparse signal comprised of $N$ blocks of length $J$. We study a single measurement vector (SMV) problem by replacing the measurement matrix $\F$ in with an i.i.d. Gaussian matrix ${\mathbf A}\in\mathbb{R}^{MJ\times NJ}$, i.e., $\y={\mathbf A}\s+\z$. The entries of ${\mathbf A}$ follow the distribution, $A_{\mu l}\sim \mathcal{N}(0,\frac{1}{NJ})$. This SMV is similar to the setting in Barbier and Krzakala [@Barbier2015], except for the different priors and different $\ell_2$ norms in each row of ${\mathbf A}$. We consider these differences while following their derivation [@Barbier2015], and obtain the same free energy expression as . We have also shown that MMV-1 and MMV-2 have the same MMSE in the large system limit. Hence, the three settings have the same free energy expression and their MMSE’s are the same under the same noise variance $\Delta$ and measurement rate $R$ in the large system limit.
Extension to complex SMV {#sec:complex}
------------------------
MMV with jointly sparse signals is a versatile model that can be adapted to other problems. As an example, we show how the MMV model can be used to analyze the MMSE of a complex SMV.[^7] Consider the complex CS channel, $\y^{\mathcal{C}}=\F^{\mathcal{C}}\s^{\mathcal{C}}+\z^{\mathcal{C}}$, where $\s^{\mathcal{C}}=\s^{\mathcal{R}}+i\s^{\mathcal{I}}\in\mathbb{C}^N$, $\F^{\mathcal{C}}=\F^{\mathcal{R}}+i\F^{\mathcal{I}}\in\mathbb{C}^{M\times N}$, $\z^{\mathcal{C}}=\z^{\mathcal{R}}+i\z^{\mathcal{I}}\in\mathbb{C}^M$, $\y^{\mathcal{C}}=\y^{\mathcal{R}}+i\y^{\mathcal{I}}\in\mathbb{C}^M$, $i=\sqrt{-1}$, and $\mathcal{R}$ and $\mathcal{I}$ refer to the real and imaginary parts, respectively. The real and imaginary parts of the entries of $\z^{\mathcal{C}}$ both follow a Gaussian distribution, $z_l^{\mathcal{R}}, z_l^{\mathcal{I}}\sim\mathcal{N}(0,\Delta), l\in\{1,...,M\}$. Assume that the complex signal $\s^{\mathcal{C}}$ is comprised of two jointly sparse signals, $\s^{\mathcal{R}}$ and $\s^{\mathcal{I}}$, that satisfy the $J=2$ dimensional Bernoulli-Gaussian distribution . We can extend the analysis of Section \[sec:set1\] to two settings of complex CS: ([*i*]{}) the measurement matrix $\F^{\mathcal{C}}$ is real, and ([*ii*]{}) $\F^{\mathcal{C}}$ is complex.[^8]
[**Real measurement matrix:**]{} Suppose that $\F^{\mathcal{C}}$ is real, $\F^{\mathcal{C}}=\F^{\mathcal{R}}\in \mathbb{R}^{M\times N}$, and the entries of $\F^{\mathcal{R}}$ follow a Gaussian distribution, $F^{\mathcal{R}}_{\mu l}\sim \mathcal{N}(0,\frac{1}{N})$. Complex CS with a real measurement matrix can be written as real-valued MMV, $$\label{eq:complexRealMat}
\y^{\mathcal{R}}=\F^{\mathcal{R}}\s^{\mathcal{R}}+\z^{\mathcal{R}}\ \text{and}\ \y^{\mathcal{I}}=\F^{\mathcal{R}}\s^{\mathcal{I}}+\z^{\mathcal{I}},$$ where $\s^R$ and $\s^I$ are jointly sparse and follow . This formulation fits into MMV-2 for $J=2$. Hence, we can obtain the MMSE according to .[^9]
[**Complex measurement matrix:**]{} Consider a complex $\F^{\mathcal{C}}=\F^{\mathcal{R}}+i\F^{\mathcal{I}}\in\mathbb{C}^{M\times N}$ with entries $F_{\mu l}^{\mathcal{R}}, F_{\mu l}^{\mathcal{I}}\sim \mathcal{N}(0,\frac{1}{2N})$. Expanding out the complex channel, $\y^{\mathcal{C}}=\F^{\mathcal{C}}\s^{\mathcal{C}}+\z^{\mathcal{C}}$, we obtain the equivalent real-valued SMV channel, $$\label{eq.realComplexChannel}
\begin{bmatrix}
\y^{\mathcal{R}} \\
\y^{\mathcal{I}}
\end{bmatrix}
=
\begin{bmatrix}
\F^{\mathcal{R}} & -\F^{\mathcal{I}} \\
\F^{\mathcal{I}} & \F^{\mathcal{R}}
\end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
\s^{\mathcal{R}} \\
\s^{\mathcal{I}}
\end{bmatrix}
+
\begin{bmatrix}
\z^{\mathcal{R}} \\
\z^{\mathcal{I}}
\end{bmatrix}.$$
We re-arrange as follows, $$\label{eq:complexMatRearrange}
\underbrace{\begin{bmatrix}
\y^{\mathcal{R}} \\
\y^{\mathcal{I}}
\end{bmatrix}}_{\overline{\y}}
\!=\!
\underbrace{\begin{bmatrix}
\F_{:,1}^{\mathcal{R}},-\F_{:,1}^{\mathcal{I}},...,\F_{:,N}^{\mathcal{R}}, -\F_{:,N}^{\mathcal{I}} \\
\F_{:,1}^{\mathcal{I}},\ \ \F_{:,1}^{\mathcal{R}},...,\F_{:,N}^{\mathcal{I}},\ \ \F_{:,N}^{\mathcal{R}}
\end{bmatrix}}_{\overline{\F}}
\underbrace{\begin{bmatrix}
s_1^{\mathcal{R}}\\
s_1^{\mathcal{I}}\\
\vdots\\
s_N^{\mathcal{R}}\\
s_N^{\mathcal{I}}
\end{bmatrix}}_{\overline{\s}}
\!+\!
\underbrace{\begin{bmatrix}
\z^{\mathcal{R}} \\
\z^{\mathcal{I}}
\end{bmatrix}}_{\overline{\z}},$$ where $\{:\}$ refers to all the rows. In the re-arranged channel , the measurement matrix $\overline{\F}$ consists of super symbols, $$\label{eq:SMV_F}
\overline{\F}_{\mu l}=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
&[F_{\mu l}^{\mathcal{R}},-F_{\mu l}^{\mathcal{I}}],\ \mu\in\{1,...,M\}\\
&[F_{\mu l}^{\mathcal{I}}, F_{\mu l}^{\mathcal{R}}],\ \mu\in\{M+1,...,2M\}
\end{array}
\right.,\\$$ and the signal $\overline{\s}$ consists of $\overline{\s}_{l}=\begin{bmatrix}
s_l^{\mathcal{R}} \\
s_l^{\mathcal{I}}
\end{bmatrix},\ l\in\{1,...,N\}$. The measurements and noise are $\overline{\y}=\begin{bmatrix}
\y^{\mathcal{R}} \\
\y^{\mathcal{I}}
\end{bmatrix}$ and $\overline{\z}=\begin{bmatrix}
\z^{\mathcal{R}} \\
\z^{\mathcal{I}}
\end{bmatrix}$, respectively. Hence, $\overline{y}_{\mu}=\sum_{l=1}^N \overline{\F}_{\mu l}\overline{\s}_l+\overline{z}_{\mu},\ \mu\in\{1,...,2M\}$.
Section \[sec:proof\] shows that the free energy and MMSE for SMV complex CS with complex measurement matrices are the same as MMV-1 with $J=2$. Note that in the free energy expression of MMV-1, the MSE, $D=E$ , is the average MSE of the $J$ entries of $\s_l$. Therefore, in this complex CS setting, $D$ is the average MSE of the real and imaginary parts of the signal entries.
Proof of Lemma \[lemma:covIsSame\] {#sec:proof}
==================================
In this section, we show that the quantity $\mathbb{X_{\mu}}$ is the same for MMV-1 and MMV-2. Moreover, we show that complex SMV with a complex measurement matrix also yields the same $\mathbb{X_{\mu}}$ with $J=2$.
First, we re-write in the vector form $$\label{eq:XMuVector}
\mathbb{X}_{\mu}\!=\!\mathbb{E}_{\v_{\mu}}\!\left[\operatorname{e}^{-\frac{1}{2\Delta}{\sum_{j=1}^{J}}{\sum_{a=1}^{n}}(v_{\mu j}^a)^2}\right]\!
=\!\mathbb{E}_{\v_{\mu}}\!\left[\operatorname{e}^{-\frac{1}{2\Delta}\v_{\mu}^T\v_{\mu}}\right],$$ where $\v_{\mu}=[v_{\mu 1}^1,...,v_{\mu 1}^a,...,v_{\mu J}^1$, $...,v_{\mu J}^n]^T$ and $v_{\mu j}^a$ is given in . In order to calculate the expectation w.r.t. $\v_{\mu}$ in , we calculate the distribution of $\v_{\mu}$, which is approximated by a Gaussian distribution, due to the central limit theorem. The mean is $\mathbb{E}_{\F,\z}[v_{\mu j}^a]=0$.
We now calculate the covariance matrix, $\G_{\mu}=\mathbb{E}[\v_{\mu}\v_{\mu}^T]$. The matrix is separated into $J\times J$ blocks of size $n\times n$, as shown in Fig. \[fig.cov\]. The main diagonal of $\G_{\mu}$ consists of entries $w_1=\mathbb{E}_{\F,\z}[(v_{\mu j}^a)^2]$. The entries in the blocks along the main diagonal (other than entries along the main diagonal itself) are $w_3=\mathbb{E}_{\F,\z}[v_{\mu j}^a v_{\mu j}^b]$. The main diagonals of other blocks have entries $w_2=\mathbb{E}_{\F,\z}[v_{\mu j}^a v_{\mu\eta}^a]$, and other entries in these blocks are $w_4=\mathbb{E}_{\F,\z}[v_{\mu j}^a v_{\mu \eta}^b]$. We now calculate each of these values as follows for MMV-1, MMV-2, and complex SMV with a complex measurement matrix.
![Covariance matrix $\G_{\mu}\in\mathbb{R}^{nJ\times nJ}$. Each block in $\G_{\mu}$ has a size of $n\times n$. The entries in the heavily marked blocks take the value $w_3$, except that entries along the dashed diagonal are $w_1$. The entries in the lightly marked blocks take the value $w_4$, except that entries along the dotted diagonal are $w_2$.[]{data-label="fig.cov"}](MMV_cov_mat.png){width="3.5cm"}
[**MMV-1:**]{} We begin by calculating the diagonal entries of the covariance matrix $\G_{\mu}=\mathbb{E}[\v_{\mu}\v_{\mu}^T]$, $$\label{eq:vVar1}
\begin{split}
&w_1=\mathbb{E}_{\F,\z}\!\l[(v_{\mu j}^a)^2\r]\!=\!{\sum_{l,k=1}^{N,N}}\!\Bigg[(\s_l-\x_l^a)^T\times\\
& \mathbb{E}_{\F}\l\{\F_{\mu+M(j-1), l}^T\F_{\mu+M(j-1), k}\r\}(\s_k-\x_k^a)\Bigg]+\Delta.
\end{split}$$ In , $\mathbb{E}_{\F}\l\{\F_{\mu+M(j-1), l}^T\F_{\mu+M(j-1), k}\r\}=\frac{\delta_{k,l}}{N}\widetilde{\mathbf{I}}_J$ (cf. Fig. \[fig:channel\]), where $\widetilde{\mathbf{I}}_J$ is a $J\times J$ matrix with only one 1 located at row $j$ and column $j$, and $\delta_{k,l}=1$ when $k=l$, else zero. Hence, becomes $$\begin{aligned}
w_1&=& \mathbb{E}_{\F,\z}\l[(v_{\mu j}^a)^2\r]=\frac{1}{N}{\sum_{l=1}^{N}} (s_{l,j}-x_{l,j}^a)^2+\Delta\label{eq:vVar2}\\
&=&\!\frac{1}{NJ}\!{\sum_{l=1}^{N}} \!(\s_l-\x_l^a)^T (\s_l-\x_l^a)\!+\!\Delta,\label{eq:vVar2_1}\end{aligned}$$ where $s_{l,j}$ and $x_{l,j}^a$ denote the $j$-th entries in super symbols $\s_l$ and $\x_l^a$, respectively, and holds because all $J$ entries within the same super symbol ($\s_l$ or $\x_l^a$) are i.i.d.
Similarly, we obtain $$\begin{split}
w_2=&\mathbb{E}_{\F,\z}[v_{\mu j}^a v_{\mu\eta}^{a}] = \frac{1}{N}{\sum_{l=1}^{N}}(s_{l,j}-x_{l,j}^a)(s_{l,\eta}-x_{l,\eta}^{a})\\
&= \frac{1}{NJ}{\sum_{l=1}^{N}}(\s_l-\x_l^a)^T (\s_l^a-\x_l^b),\label{eq:sx_iid1}
\end{split}$$ where entries of $\s_l^a$ follow the same distribution as entries of $\s_l$ given $l$, and is due to ([*i*]{}) entries of $\s_l$ being i.i.d., ([*ii*]{}) entries of $\x_l^{\{\cdot\}}$ being i.i.d. for fixed $l$, and ([*iii*]{}) the replica symmetry assumption [@Krzakala2012probabilistic; @krzakala2012statistical]. We also obtain $$\label{eq:v_j_eta_a}
\begin{split}
w_3=\mathbb{E}_{\F,\z}[v_{\mu j}^a v_{\mu j}^b]\!&=\!\frac{1}{NJ}\!{\sum_{l=1}^{N}}(\s_l\!-\!\x_l^a)^T \!(\s_l-\x_l^b)+\Delta.\\
w_4=\mathbb{E}_{\F,\z}[v_{\mu j}^a v_{\mu\eta}^{b}]&=\frac{1}{NJ}{\sum_{l=1}^{N}}(\s_l-\x_l^a)^T (\s_l^a-\x_l^b),
\end{split}$$
We now define the following auxiliary parameters $$\label{eq:auxParamsSet1}
\begin{split}
m_a=\frac{\displaystyle{\sum_{l=1}^{N}} (\x_l^a)^T\s_l}{NJ},&\quad Q_a=\frac{\displaystyle{\sum_{l=1}^{N}} (\x_l^a)^T\x_l^a}{NJ}, \\
q_{ab}=\frac{\displaystyle{\sum_{l=1}^{N}} (\x_l^a)^T\x_l^b}{NJ},&\quad
q_0=\frac{1}{NJ}{\sum_{l=1}^{N}}(\s_l^a)^T \s_l,
\end{split}$$ which allow us to express – as $$w_1=\rho-2m_a+Q_a+\Delta,$$ $$\label{eq:ws2}
w_2=q_0-(m_a+m_b)+q_{ab},$$ $$w_3 = \rho-(m_a+m_b)+q_{ab}+\Delta,$$ $$\label{eq:ws4}
w_4=q_0-(m_a+m_b)+q_{ab}.$$
Plugging the distribution of $\v_{\mu}$, approximated by $P(\v_{\mu})=[(2\pi)^n\det (\G_{\mu})]^{-\frac{1}{2}}\exp(-\frac{1}{2}\v_{\mu}^T\G_{\mu}^{-1}\v_{\mu})$, into , we obtain $$\label{eq:Xmu2}
\mathbb{X}_{\mu}=\l[\det(\mathbb{I}_n+\frac{1}{\Delta}\G_{\mu})\r]^{-1/2}.$$
[**MMV-2:**]{} For the matrix $\F$ in this setting, rows $jM+1,...,(j+1)M,\ 2\leq j \leq J$, will be the right-shift of rows $(j-1)M+1,...,jM$. We express $v_{\mu j}^a$ as $$\label{eq:v_mu_j_a_mmv2}
v_{\mu j}^a={\sum_{l=1}^{N}}\F_{\mu l}{\bf T}_{j}(\s_l-\x_l^a)+z_{\mu+M(j-1)},\ \mu\in \{1,\cdots,M\},$$ where $\T_{j}$ is a $J\times J$ transform matrix with the $j$-th entry of the first row being one and all other entries in $\T_j$ being zeros. Using the same derivations as in MMV-1, it can be proved that the covariance matrix $\G_{\mu}=\mathbb{E}[\v_{\mu}\v_{\mu}^T]$ in MMV-2 is identical to that of MMV-1. Therefore, $\mathbb{X}_{\mu}$ in MMV-1 and MMV-2 are identical in the large system limit.
[**Complex SMV with complex measurement matrix:**]{} The derivations are the same as in MMV-2 above, except that we need to change $\F_{\mu l}$ in to $\overline{\F}_{\mu l}$ and replace $\T_j$ by $$\label{eq:TransMat}
{\bf T}=\begin{bmatrix}
0 & 1 \\
-1 & 0
\end{bmatrix},$$ because $\overline{\F}_{(\mu+M)l}=\overline{\F}_{\mu l}{\bf T},\ \mu\in\{1,...,M\}$. Using similar steps as above, we obtain that the covariance matrix $\G_{\mu}$ in this case, is also the same as that of MMV-1 with $J=2$.
**Solving $\mathbb{X}_{\mu}$**: For such a structured matrix $\G_{\mu}$ (Fig. \[fig.cov\]), elementary transforms show that the eigen-values (EV’s) are comprised of one EV equal to $\alpha_1=[w_1+(J-1)w_2]+(n-1)[w_3+(J-1)w_4],\ (J-1)$ EV’s equal to $\alpha_2=(w_1-w_2)+(n-1)(w_3-w_4),\ (n-1)$ EV’s equal to $\alpha_3=[w_1+(J-1)w_2]-[w_3+(J-1)w_4]$, and $(J-1)(n-1)$ EV’s equal to $\alpha_4=(w_1-w_2)-(w_3-w_4)$.
Owing to replica symmetry [@Krzakala2012probabilistic; @krzakala2012statistical], we have $m_a=m_b=m$, $Q_a=Q$, and $q_{ab}=q$. Also, in the Bayesian setting, we have $m=q_0=q$ and $Q=\rho$. Thus, $w_2=w_4=0$ ( and ), and $$\label{eq:detSet2}
\begin{split}
\det (\mathbb{I}_{nJ}+&\frac{1}{\Delta}\G_{\mu})= \l(1+\frac{\alpha_1}{\Delta}\r)\l(1+\frac{\alpha_2}{\Delta}\r)^{J-1}\times\\
&\quad \l(1+\frac{\alpha_1}{\Delta}\r)^{n-1}\l(1+\frac{\alpha_1}{\Delta}\r)^{(n-1)(J-1)}\\
&=\l(1+n\frac{w_3}{\Delta+\alpha_4}\r)^J\!\l(1+\frac{1}{\Delta}\alpha_4\r)^{Jn}\!.
\end{split}$$ Considering , we simplify , $$\label{eq:XmuNew}
\lim_{n\rightarrow 0}\mathbb{X}_{\mu}=\operatorname{e}^{-\frac{nJ}{2}\l[\frac{\rho-2m+\Delta+q}{Q-q+\Delta}+\log(Q-q+\Delta)-\log(\Delta)\r]},$$ where we rely on the following Taylor series, $$\label{eq:firstOrder1}
\operatorname{e}^{nk}\approx 1+nk\Rightarrow \operatorname{e}^{-\frac{n}{2}k}\approx (1+nk)^{-1/2},\ n\rightarrow 0.$$
Numerical Results {#sec:numeric}
=================
Given a free energy expression for a CS problem, the MMSE can be obtained by evaluating the largest free energy [@Tanaka2002; @GuoVerdu2005; @Krzakala2012probabilistic; @krzakala2012statistical; @MezardMontanariBook; @Barbier2015]. Having derived the free energy for the two MMV settings in Section \[sec:main\], this section calculates the MMSE under various cases. Different performance regions of MMV are identified, where the MMSE behaves differently as a function of the noise variance $\Delta$ and measurement rate $R$. We identify a phase transition of belief propagation (BP) that separates regions where BP is optimal asymptotically or not. Simulation results match the predicted performance of BP.
Performance regions: Definitions and numerical results {#sec:PerfRegion}
------------------------------------------------------
When calculating the MMSE for different settings from the free energy expression , four different [*performance regions*]{} will appear, as illustrated in Fig. \[fig:freeEnergyProf\] and discussed below.
![Free energy as a function of MSE for different measurement rates $R$ (number of jointly sparse signal vectors $J=3$ and noise variance $\Delta=-35$ dB). The black circles mark the largest free energy, and so they correspond to the MMSE.[]{data-label="fig:freeEnergyProf"}](freeEnergyProfiles_J3.pdf){width="8cm"}
[**Regions 1 and 4:**]{} The free energy has one local maximum point w.r.t. the MSE $D$ . This $D$ leads to the globally maximum free energy and is the MMSE.
[**Regions 2 and 3:**]{} There are 2 local maxima in the free energy, $D_1$ and $D_2$, where $D_1<D_2$. In Region 2, the smaller MSE, $D_1$, leads to the larger local maximum free energy (hence, $\mathcal{F}(D_1)$ is the global maximum), and is the MMSE. In Region 3, the larger MSE, $D_2$, is the MMSE.
[**Boundaries between regions:**]{} We denote the boundary separating regions 1 and 2 by the [*BP threshold*]{} $R_{BP}(\Delta)$, the boundary separating regions 2 and 3 by the [*low noise threshold*]{} $R_l(\Delta)$, and the boundary separating regions 3 and 4 by the [*critical threshold*]{} $R_c(\Delta)$.
[**Numerical results:**]{} Consider $J$-dimensional Bernoulli-Gaussian signals with sparsity rate $\rho=0.1$. Evaluating the free energy with the noise variance $\Delta$ from -20 dB to -50 dB and measurement rate $R$ from 0.11 to 0.24, we obtain the MMSE as a function of $\Delta$ and $R$ for $J=1,3$, and $5$, as shown in Fig. \[fig:PerformanceRegions\].[^10] The darkness of the shades represents the natural logarithm of the MMSE, $\ln$(MMSE). In all panels, the critical threshold $R_c(\Delta)$, low noise threshold $R_l(\Delta)$, and BP threshold $R_{BP}(\Delta)$, as well as Regions 1-4, are marked.
In Regions 3 and 4, the best-possible algorithm yields a large MMSE for all noise variances. In contrast, in Regions 1 and 2, the optimal algorithm yields an MMSE that decreases with the noise variance $\Delta$. To summarize, the optimal algorithm yields poor estimation performance below the low noise threshold $R_{l}(\Delta)$, and good performance above $R_{l}(\Delta)$.
We further examine the MMSE as a function of the number of jointly sparse signal vectors $J$ and the measurement rate $R$. We plotted the MMSE in dB scale in Fig. \[fig:MMSE\_R\_J\]. The noise variance is -35 dB. We can see that the MMSE decreases with more signal vectors $J$ and greater measurement rate $R$. However, the MMSE depends less on $J$ as $J$ is increased. Note that the discontinuity in the MMSE surface in Fig. \[fig:MMSE\_R\_J\] is a result of the different performance regions that the various settings (different $J$ and $R$) lie in.
BP phase transition {#sec:phaseTrans}
-------------------
Belief propagation (BP) [@DMM2009; @CSBP2010; @Montanari2012; @Bayati2011; @Krzakala2012probabilistic; @krzakala2012statistical; @Barbier2015] is an algorithmic framework motivated by statistical physics, which can often achieve the optimal estimation performance (MMSE). When there are multiple local maxima $D_1<D_2$ in the free energy , BP converges to the local maximum with the larger MSE, $D_2$ [@DMM2009; @Montanari2012; @Bayati2011; @Krzakala2012probabilistic; @krzakala2012statistical]. Hence, $D_2$ characterizes the [*predicted MSE*]{} for BP. Moving from Region 1 to Region 2 by decreasing the measurement rate $R$ with fixed noise variance $\Delta$, the number of local maxima increases from 1 to 2. Therefore, BP estimation performance experiences a sudden deterioration (increase in MSE) when the measurement rate $R$ drops such that the combination of the noise variance $\Delta$ and measurement rate $R$ moves from Region 1 to Region 2. The BP threshold, $R_{BP}(\Delta)$, is the boundary between Regions 1 and 2, and is where the BP phase transition happens. That is, BP achieves poor estimation performance below $R_{BP}(\Delta)$, and good performance above $R_{BP}(\Delta)$.
[**Remark 2**]{}: In Fig. \[fig:PerformanceRegions\], we see that increasing $J$ reduces the BP threshold $R_{BP}(\Delta)$. Since BP achieves the MMSE when $R>R_{BP}(\Delta)$, increasing $J$ is beneficial to applications that use BP as the estimation algorithm.
[**Remark 3**]{}: We further analyzed the low noise ($\Delta\rightarrow 0$) and zero noise ($\Delta=0$) cases. The critical threshold $R_c(\Delta)$ converges to $\rho$ as the noise variance $\Delta$ is decreased for $J=1,3$, and $5$. We believe that this numerical result holds for every $J$. Moreover, this result matches the theoretical robust threshold of Wu and Verd[ú]{} [@WuVerdu2012] for $J=1$ in the low noise limit. Our numerical results also show that the BP threshold $R_{BP}(\Delta)$ converges to some value for different $J$ as $\Delta\rightarrow 0$. Analyzing these observations rigorously is left for future work.
![MMSE in dB as a function of measurement rate $R$ and number of jointly sparse signal vectors $J$ (noise variance $\Delta=-35$ dB).[]{data-label="fig:MMSE_R_J"}](MMSE_vs_R_J.pdf){width="8cm"}
BP simulation {#sec:AMPsim}
-------------
After obtaining the theoretic MMSE for MMV, as well as the predicted MSE for BP, we run some simulations to estimate the $\underline{\s}^j$ of channel in a Bayesian setting. The algorithm we use is approximate message passing (AMP) [@DMM2009; @Montanari2012; @Bayati2011; @Krzakala2012probabilistic; @krzakala2012statistical; @Barbier2015], which is an approximation to the BP algorithm; related algorithms have been proposed by Ziniel and Schniter [@ZinielSchniter2013MMV] and Kim et al. [@KimChangJungBaronYe2011]. In the SMV case, when the measurement matrix and the signal have i.i.d. entries, AMP has the state-evolution (SE) property [@DMM2011; @Bayati2011; @JavanmardMontanari2012; @Donoho2013; @Bayati2015] that tracks the evolution of the MSE at each iteration. Recently, Javanmard and Montanari proved that SE tracks AMP rigorously in an SMV setting with a spatially coupled measurement matrix [@JavanmardMontanari2012]. According to our transform in Fig. \[fig:channel\], we can see that the proof [@JavanmardMontanari2012] could be extended to the MMV setting. Note that SE allows to compute the highest equilibrium of Gibbs free energy [@DMM2011; @Bayati2011; @JavanmardMontanari2012; @Donoho2013; @Bayati2015], which corresponds to the local optimum $D_2$ in Section \[sec:phaseTrans\]. Hence, AMP often achieves the same MSE as BP and we use AMP simulation results to demonstrate that the MMSE can often be achieved.[^11] Considering the structure of $\F$, we simplify the AMP algorithm in Barbier and Krzakala [@Barbier2015] to obtain Algorithm \[algo:AMP\_MMV\],[^12] where $\{\Sigma_j\}_{j=1}^J$, $\{R^j_l\}_{j=1}^J$, $\{a_l^j\}_{j=1}^J$ and $\{v_l^j\}_{j=1}^J$ refer to sets of all intermediate variables $\Sigma_j$, pseudodata $R^j_l$, estimates $a_l^j$, and variances $v^j_l,\ j\in\{1,...,J\},\ l\in\{1,...,N\}$, respectively. The current iteration $t$, change in the estimate $\delta$, and intermediate variables $\Theta_j,\ j\in\{1,...,J\}$, are scalars. The intermediate variables $\q^j$ and $\w^j$ are vectors of length $M$. The functions $f_{a_l}(\{\Sigma_j\}_{j=1}^J,\{R^j_l\}_{j=1}^J)$ and $f_{v_l}(\{\Sigma_j\}_{j=1}^J,\{R^j_l\}_{j=1}^J)$ are given by $$\begin{split}
&f_{a_l}(\{\Sigma_j\}_{j=1}^J,\{R^j_l\}_{j=1}^J)=\\
&\frac{\rho\frac{1}{\Sigma_j+1}\{R^j_l\}_{j=1}^J}{\rho+(1-\rho){\prod_{j=1}^{J}}\l\{\sqrt{1+\frac{1}{\Sigma_j}}\exp\l[-\frac{(R^j_l)^2}{2\Sigma_j(\Sigma_j+1)}\r]\r\}},
\end{split}$$ $$\begin{split}
&f_{v_l}(\{\Sigma_j\}_{j=1}^J,\{R^j_l\}_{j=1}^J)=-\l[f_{a_l}(\{\Sigma_j\}_{j=1}^J,\{R^j_l\}_{j=1}^J)\r]^2\\
&+\frac{\rho\frac{1}{\Sigma_j+1}\l[(\{R^j_l\}_{j=1}^J)^2\frac{1}{\Sigma_j+1}+\Sigma_j\r]}{\rho+(1-\rho){\prod_{j=1}^{J}}\l\{\sqrt{1+\frac{1}{\Sigma_j}}\exp\l[-\frac{(R^j_l)^2}{2\Sigma_j(\Sigma_j+1)}\r]\r\}},
\end{split}$$ for $J$-dimensional Bernoulli-Gaussian signals .
\
[**Inputs:**]{} Maximum number of iterations $t_{max}$, threshold $\epsilon$, sparsity rate $\rho$, noise variance $\Delta$, measurements $\y^j$, and measurement matrices $\F^j, \forall j$\
[**Initialize:**]{} $t=1,\delta=\infty,\w^j=\y^j,\Theta_j=0,v^j_l=\rho\Delta,a^j_l=0,\forall l,j$\
$\q^j=\frac{\y^j-\w^j}{\Delta+\Theta_j}$\
$\Theta_j=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{l=1}^N v^j_l$\
$\w^j=\F^j \a^j-\Theta_j \q^j$\
$\Sigma_j=\frac{N(\Delta+\Theta_j)}{M}$ // Scalar channel noise variance\
$\R^j=\a^j+\Sigma_j (\F^j)^T \frac{\y^j-\w^j}{\Delta+\Theta_j}$ // Pseudodata\
$\widehat{\a}^j=\a^j$ // Save current estimate\
$\{v^j_l\}_{j=1}^J=f_{v_l}(\{\Sigma_j\}_{j=1}^J,\{R^j_l\}_{j=1}^J)$ // Variance\
$\{a^j_l\}_{j=1}^J=f_{a_l}(\{\Sigma_j\}_{j=1}^J,\{R^j_l\}_{j=1}^J)$ // Estimate\
$t=t+1$ // Increment iteration index.\
$\delta=\frac{1}{NJ}\sum_{l=1}^N\sum_{j=1}^J(\widehat{a}^j_l-a^j_l)^2$ // Change in estimate\
[**Outputs:**]{} Estimate $\a^j,\forall j$
We simulated the signals in with $J=3$ signal vectors and sparsity rate $\rho=0.1$ measured by a channel with measurement rate $R\in[0.11,0.24]$ and noise variance $\Delta\in[-20,-50]$ dB. For each setting, we generated 50 signals of length $N=5000$, and the resulting MSE compared to the predicted BP MSE is shown in Fig. \[fig:AMPoverMSE\].[^13]
![AMP simulation results ($\text{MSE}_{\text{AMP}}$) compared to the predicted BP MSE ($\text{MSE}_{\text{BP}}$) with $J=3$ jointly sparse signal vectors. The dashed curve, solid curve, and the curve comprised of little circles correspond to thresholds $R_c(\Delta),\ R_l(\Delta)$, and $R_{BP}(\Delta)$, respectively. Regions 1-4 are also marked. The shade denotes $\ln \l(\frac{\text{MSE}_{\text{AMP}}}{\text{MSE}_{\text{BP}}}\r)$, which we expect to be 0 (completely dark shades) in the entire $R$ versus $\Delta$ plane. The narrow bright band above the BP threshold indicates the mismatch of AMP simulated MSE to the BP predicted MSE.[]{data-label="fig:AMPoverMSE"}](simMSE_over_predMSE_J3_TSP_v2.pdf){width="8cm"}
The labels of the thresholds are omitted for brevity. We can see that AMP simulation results match with the predicted MSE of BP and BP phase transition from the replica analysis of Section \[sec:phaseTrans\]. Note that there is a narrow band of light shades above the BP threshold, $R_{BP}(\Delta)$ (the top threshold), meaning that the simulated MSE is greater than the predicted MSE; this is due to randomness in our generated signals and channels. Note that we also compared the AMP simulation results to that of the M-SBL algorithm [@YeKimBresler2015], a widely used algorithm to solve the MMV problem. The M-SBL results were not as good. Indeed, because AMP is often an achievable to the MMSE, other algorithms are expected to provide greater MSE.
Conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
==========
We analyzed the minimum mean squared error (MMSE) for two settings of multi-measurement vector (MMV) problems, where the entries in the signal vectors are independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.), and share the same support. One MMV setting has i.i.d. Gaussian measurement matrices, while the other MMV setting has identical i.i.d. Gaussian measurement matrices. Replica analyses yield identical free energy expressions for these two settings in the large system limit when the signal length goes to infinity and the number of measurements scales with the signal length. Because of the identical free energy expressions, the MMSE’s for both MMV settings are identical. By numerically evaluating the free energy expression, we identified different performance regions for MMV where the MMSE as a function of the channel noise variance and the measurement rate behaves differently. We also identified a phase transition for belief propagation algorithms (BP) that separates regions where BP achieves the MMSE asymptotically and where it is suboptimal. Simulation results of an approximated version of BP matched with the MSE predicted by replica analysis. As a special case of MMV, we extended our replica analysis to single measurement vector (SMV) complex CS, so that we can calculate the MMSE for SMV complex CS with real or complex measurement matrices.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The work in this paper is based in part on preliminary work with Jong Min Kin, Woohyuk Chang, Bangchul Jung, and Jong Chul Ye [@KimChangJungBaronYe2011]. The authors thank Lenka Zdeborov[á]{} for useful discussions about replica analysis, and Yanting Ma and Ryan Pilgrim for helpful comments. Junan Zhu also thanks Shikai Luo for helpful discussions.
This appendix follows the derivation of Barbier and Krzakala [@Barbier2015], except for some nuances. Our compressed derivation makes the presentation self-contained.
Plugging and the following identity [@Barbier2015; @Krzakala2012probabilistic], $$\begin{split}
&1=\int \exp\Bigg\{-{\sum_{a=1}^{n}} \l[\widehat{m}_a\l(m_a NJ-{\sum_{l=1}^{N}}(\x_l^a)^T\s_l\r)\r]+{\sum_{a=1}^{n}}\Bigg[\\
&\widehat{Q}_a\!\l(Q_a\frac{NJ}{2}\!-\!\frac{1}{2}{\sum_{l=1}^{N}}(\x_l^a)^T\x_l^a\r)\Bigg]\!-\!{\sum_{1\leq a< b\leq n}^{}}\Bigg[\widehat{q}_{ab}\Bigg(q_{ab} NJ-\\
&{\sum_{l=1}^{N}}(\x_l^a)^T\x_l^b\Bigg)\Bigg]\!\Bigg\}\!{\prod_{a=1}^{n}}dQ_a\ d\widehat{Q}_{a}\ dm_a \ d\widehat{m}_{a}\! {\prod_{1\leq a<b\leq n}^{}}\! dq_{ab}\ d\widehat{q}_{ab},
\end{split}$$ into , we obtain $$\label{eq:EZn3}
\begin{split}
\mathbb{E}_{\F,\s,\z}&[Z^n]\!=\!(2\pi\Delta)^{-\frac{nMJ}{2}}\bigintsss\! \exp\Bigg[NJ\Bigg(\frac{1}{2}{\sum_{a=1}^{n}}\widehat{Q}_aQ_a\\
& -\frac{1}{2}{\sum_{\substack{1\leq a,b\leq n\\a\neq b}}^{}}\widehat{q}_{ab}q_{ab}-{\sum_{a=1}^{n}}\widehat{m}_am_a\Bigg)\Bigg]\l[{\prod_{\mu=1}^{M}} \mathbb{X}_{\mu}\!\r]\times\\
&\Gamma^N{\prod_{a=1}^{n}}dQ_a\ d\widehat{Q}_{a}\ dm_a\ d\widehat{m}_{a}\!{\prod_{\substack{1\leq a,b\leq n\\a\neq b}}^{}}\! dq_{ab}\ d\widehat{q}_{ab},
\end{split}$$ where $$\label{eq:Gamma_original}
\begin{split}
&\Gamma=\!\!\!\int\! P(\s_1)\! \l[{\prod_{a=1}^{n}}P(\x^a_1)\r]\!\exp\!\Bigg[\!-\frac{1}{2}{\sum_{a=1}^{n}}\widehat{Q}_a(\x^a_1)^T\x^a_1+\\
&\frac{1}{2}{\sum_{\substack{1\leq a,b\leq n\\a\neq b}}^{}}\widehat{q}_{ab}(\x^a_1)^T\x^b_1+{\sum_{a=1}^{n}}\widehat{m}_a(\x^a_1)^T\s_1\Bigg]d\s_1 {\prod_{a=1}^{n}}d\x^a_1.
\end{split}$$
$$\label{eq:PhiJ}
\begin{split}
\widetilde{\Phi}_J&(m,\widehat{m},q,\widehat{q},Q,\widehat{Q})=\frac{J}{2}(Q\widehat{Q}+q\widehat{q}-2m\widehat{m})-\frac{MJ}{2N}\l[\frac{\rho-2m+\Delta+q}{Q-q+\Delta}+\log(Q-q+\Delta)-\log(\Delta)\r]+\\
&\int P(\s_1) \l\{ \int \log \l\{ \int P(\x_1)\exp\l[-\frac{1}{2}(\widehat{Q}+\widehat{q})\x_1^T\x_1+\widehat{m}\x^T_1\s_1+
\sqrt{\widehat{q}}\h^T\x_1\r]d\x_1\r\} \mathcal{D}\h \r\} d\s_1-\frac{MJ}{2N}\log(2\pi\Delta).
\end{split}$$
**Further simplification of **: The Stratanovitch transform [@Stratanovitch-Wiki] in $J$ dimensions is given by $$\label{eq:strat}
\begin{split}
&\exp\!\l[\frac{\widehat{q}}{2}\!{\sum_{\substack{1\!\leq\! a,b\!\leq n\\a\neq b}}^{}}\!(\x^a_1)^T\!\x^b_1\!\r]\!=\!{\prod_{j=1}^{J}}\!\exp\!\l[\frac{\widehat{q}}{2}{\sum_{\substack{1\leq a,b\leq n\\a\neq b}}^{}}x^a_{1,j} x^b_{1,j}\r]\\
&={\prod_{j=1}^{J}}\int\exp\l[\sqrt{\widehat{q}}h_j{\sum_{a=1}^{n}}x^a_{1,j}-\frac{\widehat{q}}{2}{\sum_{a=1}^{n}}(x^a_{1,j})^2\r]\mathcal{D}h_j\\
&=\int\exp\l[\sqrt{\widehat{q}}\h^T{\sum_{a=1}^{n}}\x^a_1-\frac{\widehat{q}}{2}{\sum_{a=1}^{n}}(\x^a_1)^T\x^a_1\r]\mathcal{D}\h,
\end{split}$$ where $\h=[h_1,...,h_J]^T$, and the differential $\mathcal{D}h_j=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\operatorname{e}^{-h_j^2/2}d h_j$. With the Stratanovitch transform , we simplify $\Gamma$ as follows, $$\label{eq:Gamma}
\Gamma=\int P(\s_1)\int\l[f(\h)\r]^n \mathcal{D}\h\ d\s_1,$$ where $f(\h)=\int P(\x_1)\operatorname{e}^{-\frac{\widehat{Q}+\widehat{q}}{2}\x_1^T\x_1+\widehat{m}\x_1^T\s_1+\sqrt{\widehat{q}}\h^T\x_1}d\x_1$, and we drop the super-script $a$ of $\x_1^a$ owing to the replica symmetry assumption [@Krzakala2012probabilistic; @krzakala2012statistical]. In the limit of $n\rightarrow 0$, using another Taylor series $[f(\h)]^n\approx 1+n\log [f(\h)]$, we have $\int [f(\h)]^n \mathcal{D}\h\approx 1+n\int \log [f(\h)] \mathcal{D}\h\approx\operatorname{e}^{n\int \log [f(\h)]\mathcal{D}\h}$, so that $\mathbb{E}\{\int[f(\h)]^n\mathcal{D}\h\}\approx\mathbb{E}\{1+n\int \log [f(\h)] \mathcal{D}\h\}\approx\operatorname{e}^{\mathbb{E}\{n\int \log [f(\h)]\mathcal{D}\h\}}$. Hence, we can approximate as $$\label{eq:Gamma1}
\Gamma=\exp\l\{n\int P(\s_1) \int\log [f(\h)] \mathcal{D}\h \ d\s_1\r\}.$$ Considering , we rewrite as $$\label{eq:EZn4}
\mathbb{E}_{\F,\s,\z}[Z^n]=\int \operatorname{e}^{nN\widetilde{\Phi}_J(m,\widehat{m},q,\widehat{q},Q,\widehat{Q})}
dm\ d\widehat{m}\ dq\ d\widehat{q}\ dQ\ d\widehat{Q},$$ where $\widetilde{\Phi}_J(m,\widehat{m},q,\widehat{q},Q,\widehat{Q})$ is given in .
**Free energy expression**: We now substitute into . Assuming that the limits in commute and that we only evaluate at optimum points of $\widetilde{\Phi}_J$ [@Barbier2015; @Krzakala2012probabilistic; @krzakala2012statistical], we have $\mathcal{F}=\widetilde{\Phi}_J(m^*,\widehat{m}^*,q^*,\widehat{q}^*,Q^*,\widehat{Q}^*)$, where the asterisks denote stationary points. Next, we calculate the stationary points: $$\frac{\partial \widetilde{\Phi}_J }{\partial m}=0 \Rightarrow \widehat{m}^*=\frac{R}{Q^*-q^*+\Delta},$$ $$\frac{\partial \widetilde{\Phi}_J }{\partial q}=0 \Rightarrow \widehat{q}^*=R\frac{\Delta+\rho-2m^*+q^*}{(Q^*-q^*+\Delta)^2},$$ $$\frac{\partial \widetilde{\Phi}_J }{\partial Q}=0 \Rightarrow \widehat{Q}^*=R\frac{2m^*-\rho-2q^*+Q^*}{(Q^*-q^*+\Delta)^2},$$ where $R$ is the measurement rate. Because we are analyzing the MMSE, we must assume that the estimated prior matches the true underlying prior, which is a Bayesian setting. Thus, $q^*=m^*$ and $Q^*=\rho$ . Let $E=q^*-2m^*+Q^*=Q^*-q^*$, then we obtain $\widehat{q}^*=\widehat{m}^*=\frac{R}{E+\Delta}$ and $\widehat{Q}^*=0$. Therefore, we solve for the free energy as a function of $E$ in . Using a change of variables, we obtain , which is a function of $E$. Using , the MSE is $$\label{eq:DandE}
D=E+Q-q=E+\rho/N\overset{N\rightarrow \infty}{\longrightarrow} E.$$ Hence, in the large system limit, we can regard the free energy as a function of the MSE, $D$.
[10]{}
E. Candès, J. Romberg, and T. Tao, “Robust uncertainty principles: [E]{}xact signal reconstruction from highly incomplete frequency information,” , vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 489–509, Feb. 2006.
D. Donoho, “Compressed sensing,” , vol. 52, no. 4, pp. 1289–1306, Apr. 2006.
R. G. Baraniuk, “A lecture on compressive sensing,” , vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 118–121, July 2007.
H. Jung, J. C. Ye, and E. Y. Kim, “[Improved k-t [BLAST]{} and k-t [SENSE]{} using [FOCUSS]{}]{},” , vol. 52, no. 11, pp. 3201–3226, May 2007.
H. Jung, K. Sung, K. S. Nayak, E. Y. Kim, and J. C. Ye, “[k-t [FOCUSS]{}: a general compressed sensing framework for high resolution dynamic [MRI]{}]{},” , vol. 61, no. 1, pp. 103–116, Jan. 2009.
S. F. Cotter and B. D. Rao, “Sparse channel estimation via matching pursuit with application to equalization,” , vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 374–377, Mar. 2002.
J. Ma and F. X. Le Dimet, “[Deblurring from highly incomplete measurements for remote sensing]{},” , vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 792–802, Mar. 2009.
J. Haupt and R. Nowak, “[S]{}ignal reconstruction from noisy random projections,” , vol. 52, no. 9, pp. 4036–4048, Sept. 2006.
M. F. Duarte, M. B. Wakin, D. Baron, S. Sarvotham, and R. G. Baraniuk, “Measurement bounds for sparse signal ensembles via graphical models,” , vol. 59, no. 7, pp. 4280–4289, July 2013.
G. J. Pottie and W. J. Kaiser, “[Wireless integrated network sensors]{},” , vol. 43, no. 5, pp. 51–58, May 2000.
M. F. Duarte, M. B. Wakin, D. Baron, and R. G. Baraniuk, “[Universal distributed sensing via random projections]{},” in [*Proc. Inf. Process. Sensor Networks (IPSN)*]{}, Nashville, TN, Apr. 2006.
J. Chen and X. Huo, “Theoretical results on sparse representations of multiple measurement vectors,” , vol. 54, no. 12, pp. 4634–4643, Dec. 2006.
S. F. Cotter, B. D. Rao, K. Engan, and K. Kreutz-Delgado, “Sparse solutions to linear inverse problems with multiple measurement vectors,” , vol. 53, no. 7, pp. 2477–2488, July 2005.
M. Mishali and Y. C. Eldar, “Reduce and boost: recovering arbitrary sets of jointly sparse vectors,” , vol. 56, no. 10, pp. 4692–4702, Oct. 2009.
E. Berg and M. P. Friedlander, “Joint-sparse recovery from multiple measurements,” , Apr. 2009.
O. Lee, J. M. Kim, Y. Bresler, and J. C. Ye, “Compressive diffuse optical tomography: [N]{}oniterative exact reconstruction using joint sparsity,” , vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 1129–1142, May 2011.
K. Lee, Y. Bresler, and M. Junge, “Subspace methods for joint sparse recovery,” , vol. 58, no. 6, pp. 3613–3641, June 2012.
J. C. Ye, J. M. Kim, and Y. Bresler, “Improving [M-SBL]{} for joint sparse recovery using a subspace penalty,” , vol. 63, no. 24, pp. 6595–6605, Dec. 2015.
J. A. Tropp, A. C. Gilbert, and M. J. Strauss, “Algorithms for simultaneous sparse approximation. part [I]{}: Greedy pursuit.,” , vol. 86, no. 3, pp. 572–588, Mar. 2006.
D. Malioutov, M. Cetin, and A. S. Willsky, “A sparse signal reconstruction perspective for source localization with sensor arrays,” , vol. 53, no. 8, pp. 3010–3022, Aug. 2005.
J. A. Tropp, “Algorithms for simultaneous sparse approximation. part [II]{}: Convex relaxation,” , vol. 86, no. 3, pp. 589–602, Mar. 2006.
J. Ziniel and P. Schniter, “Efficient message passing-based inference in the multiple measurement vector problem,” in [*Proc. IEEE 45th Asilomar Conf. Signals, Syst., and Comput.*]{}, Nov. 2011, pp. 1447–1451.
T. Tanaka, “[A statistical-mechanics approach to large-system analysis of CDMA multiuser detectors]{},” , vol. 48, no. 11, pp. 2888–2910, Nov. 2002.
D. Guo and S. Verd[ú]{}, “Randomly spread [CDMA]{}: [A]{}symptotics via statistical physics,” , vol. 51, no. 6, pp. 1983–2010, June 2005.
A. Montanari and D. Tse, “Analysis of belief propagation for non-linear problems: The example of [CDMA]{} (or: How to prove [T]{}anaka’s formula),” in [*IEEE Inf. Theory Workshop*]{}, Mar. 2006, pp. 160–164.
F. Krzakala, M. M[é]{}zard, F. Sausset, Y. Sun, and L. Zdeborov[á]{}, “Probabilistic reconstruction in compressed sensing: [A]{}lgorithms, phase diagrams, and threshold achieving matrices,” , vol. 2012, no. 08, pp. P08009, Aug. 2012.
F. Krzakala, M. M[é]{}zard, F. Sausset, Y. Sun, and L. Zdeborov[á]{}, “Statistical-physics-based reconstruction in compressed sensing,” , vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 021005, May 2012.
M. M[é]{}zard and A. Montanari, , Oxford University press, 2009.
J. Barbier and F. Krzakala, “Approximate message-passing decoder and capacity-achieving sparse superposition codes,” , Mar. 2015.
T. Lesieur, F. Krzakala, and L. Zdeborov[á]{}, “Phase transitions in sparse [PCA]{},” in [*Proc. Int. Symp. Inf. Theory (ISIT)*]{}, July 2015, pp. 1635–1639.
D. L. Donoho, A. Maleki, and A. Montanari, “[Message passing algorithms for compressed sensing]{},” , vol. 106, no. 45, pp. 18914–18919, Nov. 2009.
D. Baron, S. Sarvotham, and R. G. Baraniuk, “Bayesian compressive sensing via belief propagation,” , vol. 58, pp. 269–280, Jan. 2010.
M. Bayati and A. Montanari, “The dynamics of message passing on dense graphs, with applications to compressed sensing,” , vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 764–785, Feb. 2011.
A. Montanari, “Graphical models concepts in compressed sensing,” , pp. 394–438, 2012.
D. Guo and C. C. Wang, “Multiuser detection of sparsely spread [CDMA]{},” , vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 421–431, Apr. 2008.
J. Barbier, M. Dia, N. Macris, and F. Krzakala, “The mutual information in random linear estimation,” , July 2016.
G. Reeves and H. D. Pfister, “The replica-symmetric prediction for compressed sensing with gaussian matrices is exact,” , July 2016.
J. Ziniel and P. Schniter, “Efficient high-dimensional inference in the multiple measurement vector problem,” , vol. 61, no. 2, pp. 340–354, Jan. 2013.
J. Zhu and D. Baron, “Performance regions in compressed sensing from noisy measurements,” in [*Proc. 2013 Conf. Inference Sci. Syst. (CISS)*]{}, Baltimore, MD, Mar. 2013.
Y. Wu and S. Verd[ú]{}, “Optimal phase transitions in compressed sensing,” , vol. 58, no. 10, pp. 6241 – 6263, Oct. 2012.
J. Kim, W. Chang, B. Jung, D. Baron, and J. C. Ye, “Belief propagation for jointly sparse recovery,” , Feb. 2011.
D. L. Donoho, A. Maleki, and A. Montanari, “The noise-sensitivity phase transition in compressed sensing,” , vol. 57, no. 10, pp. 6920–6941, Oct. 2011.
A. Javanmard and A. Montanari, “State evolution for general approximate message passing algorithms, with applications to spatial coupling,” , Dec. 2012.
D. Donoho, I. Johnstone, and A. Montanari, “Accurate prediction of phase transitions in compressed sensing via a connection to minimax denoising,” , vol. 59, no. 6, pp. 3396–3433, June 2013.
M. Bayati, M. Lelarge, and A. Montanari, “Universality in polytope phase transitions and message passing algorithms,” , vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 753–822, Feb. 2015.
“Hubbard–[S]{}tratonovich transformation,” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/\
Hubbard%E2%80%93Stratonovich\_transformation.
[^1]: The work was supported in part by the National Science Foundation under the Grant CCF-1217749, the U.S. Army Research Office under the Contract W911NF-14-1-0314, and the European Research Council under the European Union’s 7th Framework Programme (FP/2007- 2013)/ERC Grant Agreement 307087-SPARCS.
[^2]: Junan Zhu and Dror Baron are with the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, NC State University, Raleigh, NC 27695. E-mail: {jzhu9, barondror}@ncsu.edu.
[^3]: Florent Krzakala is with Sorbonne Universit[é]{}s, Universit[é]{} Pierre et Marie Curie Paris 6 and Ecole Normale Superieure, 75005 Paris, France. E-mail: florent.krzakala@ens.fr.
[^4]: Part of the literature [@Tanaka2002; @GuoVerdu2005] defines the free energy as the negative of , so that fixed points of the free energy correspond to local minima.
[^5]: Recently, the replica Gibbs free energy has been proven rigorously for the SMV case by Barbier et al. [@BDMK2016] and Reeves and Pfister [@ReevesPfister2016]. We conjecture that by generalizing these two works [@BDMK2016; @ReevesPfister2016], our MMV analysis can be made rigorous; we leave it for future work.
[^6]: The $J$-dimensional integrals in can be simplified to one-dimensional integrals using a change of coordinate to $J$-sphere coordinate. Note also that $E$ approaches the MSE in the large system limit; details appear in the appendix.
[^7]: In Section \[sec:complex\], we only deal with SMV CS, and omit the word “SMV."
[^8]: A replica analysis for complex CS with a real measurement matrix appears in Guo and Verd[ú]{} [@GuoVerdu2005]. Their derivation does not cover complex matrices.
[^9]: As a reminder, the free energy of MMV-2 is identical to that of MMV-1 in the large system limit.
[^10]: The MMV with $J=1$ becomes an SMV. The MMSE results in Fig. \[fig:MMV\_J1\] match with the SMV MMSE in Krzakala et. al. [@Krzakala2012probabilistic; @krzakala2012statistical] and Zhu and Baron [@ZhuBaronCISS2013].
[^11]: When the assumptions about the measurement matrix and signal [@DMM2009; @Montanari2012; @Bayati2011; @Krzakala2012probabilistic; @krzakala2012statistical; @Barbier2015] are violated, AMP might suffer from convergence issues.
[^12]: Note that Algorithm \[algo:AMP\_MMV\] is a straightforward simplification of the AMP algorithm in Barbier and Krzakala [@Barbier2015].
[^13]: We simulated both $J$ different measurement matrices $\underline{F}^j$ and $J$ identical $\underline{F}^j$. Both results match the predicted BP MSE, which support our conclusion that the MMSE’s of both settings are the same. Fig. \[fig:AMPoverMSE\] is with $J$ different $\underline{F}^j$.
|
=1
Introduction
============
Hirota difference equation was introduced in the bilinear form (HBDE) as equation on the $\tau$-function in [@Hirota1977; @Hirota1981], $$\begin{gathered}
\tau^{(1)}(n)\tau^{(2,3)}(n)+\tau^{(2)}(n)\tau^{(3,1)}(n)+\tau^{(3)}(n)\tau^{(1,2)}(n)=0,\label{hbde}\end{gathered}$$ where $\tau(n)=\tau(n_1,n_2,n_3)$ is a function of 3 numbers (independent variables) $n_1,n_2,n_3\in\mathbb{Z}$. Here and below upper indexes 1, 2, 3 in parenthesis denote unity shifts $\tau^{(i)}(n)=\tau(n)|_{n_i\to n_i+1}$, matrix $\tau^{(i,j)}$ is antisymmetric and $\tau^{(i,j)}(n)=\tau(n)_{n_i\to n_i+1, n_j\to n_j+1}$ for $1\leq{i}<{j}\leq3$. HBDE has a lot of literature since it is known to generate by means of special limiting procedures many discrete and continuous integrable equations, such as Kadomtsev–Petviashvili equation (KP), modified Kadomtsev–Petviashvili equation, two-dimensional Toda lattice, sine-Gordon equation, Benjamin–Ono equation, etc. Because of this HDE is often considered to be a fundamental integrable system. This equation also appears as the model-independent functional relation for eigenvalues of quantum transfer matrices. Detailed survey of the results referred to this equation is given in [@Zabrodin1997; @Zabrodin2008], see also citations therein. Octahedral structure of HDE is studied in [@Saito]. Its elliptic solutions were considered in [@Krichever/Wiegmann/Zabrodin]. In [@Bogdanov/Konopelchenko] Hirota difference equation is called the generalized KP hierarchy. Some Hirota-like equations are derived in [@Fioravanti/Nepomechie]. Here we use the form of the Hirota difference equation that is convenient and natural for the Inverse scattering transform, but that is different from HBDE in (\[hbde\]). We introduce a “field variable”, i.e., function $v(n)=v(n_1,n_2,n_3)$ defined by means of equalities $$\begin{gathered}
v^{(1)}(n)-v^{(3)}(n)=\frac{\tau^{(3,1)}(n)\tau(n)}{\tau^{(1)}(n)\tau^{(3)}(n)}, \qquad
v^{(2)}(n)-v^{(1)}(n)=\frac{\tau^{(1,2)}(n)\tau(n)}{\tau^{(2)}(n)\tau^{(1)}(n)},\label{vtau1}\end{gathered}$$ where in analogy to the above we use notations $$\begin{aligned}
{3}
& v^{(1)}(n)=v(n_1+1,n_2,n_3),\qquad && v^{(2)}(n)=v(n_1,n_2+1,n_3), \quad \text{etc.},& \label{5}\\
&v^{(11)}(n)=v(n_1+2,n_2,n_3),\qquad && v^{(12)}(n)=v(n_1+1,n_2+1,n_3), \quad \text{etc.}, & \label{6}\end{aligned}$$ but in contrast to the $\tau^{(i,j)}$ matrix $v^{(i,j)}$ is symmetric. Summing up equations in (\[vtau1\]) we get by (\[hbde\]) $$\begin{gathered}
v^{(3)}(n)-v^{(2)}(n)=\frac{\tau^{(2,3)}(n)\tau(n)}{\tau^{(2)}(n)\tau^{(3)}(n)}.\label{vtau2}\end{gathered}$$ Notice that all these three equations follow consequently by cyclic permutation of the indexes $\{1,2,3\}$. Now, by (\[vtau1\]) we have that $\big(v^{(2)}-v^{(1)}\big)^{(3)}\big(v^{(3)}-v^{(1)}\big)=\big(v^{(3)}-v^{(1)}\big)^{(2)}\big(v^{(2)}-v^{(1)}\big)$, or $$\begin{gathered}
v^{(12)}\big(v^{(2)}-v^{(1)}\big)+v^{(23)}\big(v^{(3)}-v^{(2)}\big)+v^{(31)}\big(v^{(1)}-v^{(3)}\big)=0,\label{n19}\end{gathered}$$ that is the form of the Hirota difference equation (HDE) used below. This equation is known (see, e.g., [@Zabrodin1997]) to be the compatibility condition for the Lax pair given by any pair of the equations $$\begin{gathered}
\varphi^{(i)}=\varphi^{(j)}+\big(v^{(i)}-v^{(j)}\big)\varphi,\qquad i,j=1,2,3.\label{59'}\end{gathered}$$ It is worth to mention that because of rational dependence on $\tau$ of the r.h.s.’s of (\[vtau1\]) and (\[vtau2\]) equations (\[hbde\]) and (\[n19\]) describe different classes of solutions, see [@Pogrebkov2011]. Say, the first one does not support solutions such that some of the differences in the l.h.s.’s annihilates at some $n$. On the other side, equation (\[n19\]) is ill posed as it is: any function $v(n)$ such that $$\begin{gathered}
v^{(i)}=v^{(j)} \qquad \text{for}\quad i\neq{j} \label{ill}\end{gathered}$$ obeys this equation. Below we derive additional conditions that resolve this problem.
Here we use the HDE to demonstrate a generic approach to construction of symmetries of integrable equations. In [@Pogrebkov2011] it was shown that the HDE can be derived by dressing of a commutator identity on an associative algebra. More exactly, let us have some associative algebra with unity over the complex space $\mathbb{C}$. Let us fix some complex mutually different parameters $a_1$, $a_2$ and $a_3$. It is easy to see, that for any pair $A$, $B$ of elements of this algebra, such that in this algebra there exist $(A-a_1)^{-1}$, $ (A-a_2)^{-1}$ and $(A-a_3)^{-1}$, we have the following identity: $$\begin{gathered}
a_{12} \big\{(A-a_1)(A-a_2)B(A-a_1)^{-1}(A-a_2)^{-1}+(A-a_3)B(A-a_3)^{-1}\big\}\nonumber\\
\qquad {}+\text{cycle}(1,2,3)=0,\label{1}\end{gathered}$$ where $$\begin{gathered}
a_{ij}=a_{i}-a_{j},\qquad a_{i}\neq a_{j}\qquad\text{for}\quad i\neq{j}.\label{8}\end{gathered}$$ Due to a mutual commutativity of elements $A-a_i$, we can introduce dependence of $B$ on discrete “times” $n_i\in\mathbb{Z}$, $i=1,2,3$, by means of equation $$\begin{gathered}
B(n_1,n_2,n_3)=\left(\prod_{i=1}^{3}(A-a_i)^{n_i}\right)B\left(\prod_{i=1}^{3}(A-a_i)^{n_i}\right)^{-1}.\label{4}\end{gathered}$$ Denoting for shortness $B(n)=B(n_1,n_2,n_3)$ we use notation of the kind (\[5\]) and (\[6\]). In these terms (\[1\]) proves that $B(n)$ obeys the following difference equation $$\begin{gathered}
a_{12}\big\{B^{(12)}+B^{(3)}\big\}+\text{cycle}(1,2,3)=0,\label{7}\end{gathered}$$ that is a linearized version of the HDE (\[n19\]), as we explain after (\[n18\]) below. The special dressing procedure that enables such “nonlinearization” of equation (\[7\]) was introduced in [@Pogrebkov2011], where we also described derivation of integrable differential and difference-differential equations from HDE in limiting cases. Direct and inverse problems for the HDE were considered in [@Pogrebkov2014]. Our construction here is based on the Abelian version of the HDE for simplicity. See [@Pogrebkov2016] for analogous treatment of the non-Abelian HDE.
The article is organized as follows. In Section \[dress\] we shortly present some steps of the dressing procedure necessary for our approach, see [@Pogrebkov2011] for details. The symmetries and their dressing are introduced and studied in Section \[symm\]. In Section \[eqs\] we list some integrable equations and corresponding Lax pairs that appear by consideration of the parameters of symmetries as independent variables. Additional symmetries and concluding remarks are presented in Section \[add\].
Dressing procedure {#dress}
==================
In order to introduce dressing procedure we fix representation of associative algebra. We realize it as set of operators $F$, $G$, etc., given by their symbols $\widetilde{F}(n_1,z)$, $\widetilde{G}(n_1,z)$, etc., being functions of the discrete variable $n_1\in\mathbb{Z}$ and $z\in\mathbb{C}$. We assume that these symbols have Fourier transform $$\begin{gathered}
\widetilde{F}(n_1,z)=\oint_{|\zeta|=1}\frac{d\zeta}{2\pi i\zeta}\zeta^{n_1}f(\zeta,z),\label{f1}\end{gathered}$$ where $f(\zeta,z)$ is a function (distribution) of its variables, $\zeta,z\in\mathbb{C}$, $|\zeta|=1$. Notation of the kind $f(\zeta,z)$ does not mean that any analyticity property of symbols with respect to $z$ are assumed. So there exists nontrivial operation of $\overline\partial$-differentiation on this set of operators, i.e., to any operator $F$ we associate operator $\overline\partial{F}$ with symbol $$\begin{gathered}
\widetilde{(\overline{\partial}F)}(n_1,z)=\frac{\partial \widetilde{F}(n_1,z)}{\partial\overline{z}},\label{38}\end{gathered}$$ where derivative is considered in the sense of distributions. As well on this set of operators we define composition $$\begin{gathered}
\widetilde{(FG)}(n_1,z)=\oint_{|\zeta|=1}\frac{d\zeta}{2\pi i\zeta}\widetilde{F}(n_1,z\zeta) \sum_{m_1\in\mathbb{Z}}\zeta^{n_1-m_1}\widetilde{G}(m_1,z),\label{fg}\end{gathered}$$ if it exists. It is easy to check associativity of this composition law.
As the simplest examples let us consider unity and shift operators. The symbol of the unity (with respect to composition ([\[fg\]]{})) operator is 1, and symbol of the operator $T$ that shifts variable $n_1$ equals $$\begin{gathered}
\widetilde{T}(n_1,z)=z,$$ so that by (\[fg\]) for any $F$: $$\begin{gathered}
\widetilde{(TF)}(n,z)=z\widetilde{F^{(1)}}(n,z),\qquad \widetilde{\big(FT^{-1}\big)}(n,z)=\frac{1}{z}\widetilde{F}(n,z),\nonumber\\
\widetilde{\big(TFT^{-1}\big)}(n,z)=\widetilde{F^{(1)}}(n,z),\label{41}\end{gathered}$$ where notation (\[5\]) was used. We see that symbol of operator $T$ is analytic, so that by (\[38\]) $$\begin{gathered}
\overline\partial{T}=0,\label{40}\end{gathered}$$ that is very essential for the following construction. It is easy to see that any operator $F$ with symbol $\widetilde{F}(n,z)=f(|z|)$, i.e., independent of $n_1$ and $\arg{z}$, commute with an arbitrary operator in the sense of composition (\[33\]).
Below we also use a multiplication operator $N_{1}$ with symbol $\widetilde{N_1}(n_1,z)=n_1$. Due to (\[fg\]) it is conjugate to operator $T$ in a sense that $$\begin{gathered}
[T,N_1]=T,\label{fg1}\end{gathered}$$ and for a generic $F$ $$\begin{gathered}
\widetilde{[N_1,F]}(n_1,z)=i\frac{\partial\widetilde{F}(n_1,z)}{\partial\arg{z}}.\label{fg2}\end{gathered}$$
We consider now element $B$ in (\[4\]) to be an operator of this class, i.e., given by the symbol $$\begin{gathered}
\widetilde{B}(n_1,z)=\oint_{|\zeta|=1}\frac{d\zeta}{2\pi i\zeta}\zeta^{n_1}b(\zeta,z),\label{f2}\end{gathered}$$ with some function $b(\zeta,z)$, cf. (\[f1\]). If compare (\[4\]) and (\[41\]) it is natural to set $$\begin{gathered}
A=T_1+a_1,\qquad\text{i.e.},\qquad \widetilde{A}(n,z)=z_1+a_1,\label{44}\end{gathered}$$ so that shift of $n_1$ in (\[4\]) (see notation (\[5\])) gives $$\begin{gathered}
B^{(1)}=TBT^{-1},\label{n8}\end{gathered}$$ that is valid for any operator due to (\[41\]). Specific for $B$ is that dependence on discrete variables $n_2$ and $n_3$ is given by (\[4\]) and (\[44\]): $$\begin{gathered}
B^{(2)}(n_2,n_3)\equiv B(n_2+1,n_3) =(T+a_{12})B(n_2,n_3)(T+a_{12})^{-1},\label{n9}\\
B^{(3)}(n_2,n_3)\equiv B(n_2,n_3+1)=(T+a_{13})B(n_2,n_3)(T+a_{13})^{-1}.\label{n10}\end{gathered}$$ that we denote below as $B(n)$ and the symbol as $\widetilde{B}(n_1,n_2,n_3,z)$ ($\widetilde{B}(n,z)$ for shortness). For operators which symbols depend on all three discrete variables the composition law (\[fg\]) takes the form $$\begin{gathered}
\widetilde{(FG)}(n,z)=\oint_{|\zeta|=1}\frac{d\zeta}{2\pi i\zeta}\widetilde{F}(n,z\zeta) \sum_{m_1\in\mathbb{Z}}\zeta^{n_1-m_1}\widetilde{G}(m_1,n_2,n_3,z).\label{33}\end{gathered}$$
Thanks to this equation, (\[f2\]), (\[n9\]) and (\[n10\]) the symbol of the operator $B(n)$ equals $$\begin{gathered}
\widetilde{B}(n,z)=\oint_{|\zeta|=1}\frac{d\zeta}{2\pi i\zeta}\zeta^{n_1}\left(\frac{z\zeta+a_{12}}{z+a_{12}}\right)^{n_2}
\left(\frac{z\zeta+a_{13}}{z+a_{13}}\right)^{n_3}b(\zeta,z).\label{b1}\end{gathered}$$ It is reasonable to exclude its exponential growth with respect to $n_2$ and $n_3$. So we impose conditions $|z\zeta+a_{12}|=|z+a_{12}|$, $|z\zeta+a_{13}|=|z+a_{13}|$, that are equivalent to either $\zeta=1$, or $\overline{z}/{z} =\zeta\overline{a}_{12}/a_{12} =\zeta\overline{a}_{13}/a_{13}$. The first condition leads to a trivial constant operator in (\[b1\]), so we consider the second one only. Because of it: $\overline{a}_{12}/a_{12}=\overline{a}_{13}/a_{13}$, and thus (shifting phase of $z$, if necessary) we can choose all $a_j$ to be real. This means that function $b(\zeta,z)$ has support on the surface $\zeta=\overline{z}/z$. In the simplest case $b(\zeta,z)= \delta_{c}(\zeta{z}/\bar{z})\widetilde{R}(z)$, where $\delta_{c}$ is the $\delta$-function on the unit circle and $\widetilde{R}(z)$ is an arbitrary function of $z\in\mathbb{C}$. Then representation (\[b1\]) for the symbol of $B$ becomes $$\begin{gathered}
\widetilde{B}(n,z)=\left(\frac{\overline{z}}{z}\right)^{n_1}\left(\frac{\overline{z}+a_{12}}{z+a_{12}}\right)^{n_2}
\left(\frac{\overline{z}+a_{13}}{z+a_{13}}\right)^{n_3}\widetilde{R}(z).\label{n11}\end{gathered}$$ Taking property of the $n$-dependent factor here into account, it is reasonable to input condition that $\widetilde{R}(\overline{z})= \overline{\widetilde{R}(z)}$. Then also $\widetilde{B}(n,\overline{z})=\overline{\widetilde{B}(n,z)}$. In generic situation $b(\zeta,z)$ in (\[b1\]) can be proportional to the finite sum of derivatives of $\delta_{c}(\zeta)$, that we do not consider here in order to avoid asymptotic growth of $\widetilde{B}(n,z)$ by $n$.
The dressing procedure is based on construction of the dressing operator $K(n)$ by means of the $\overline\partial$-problem $$\begin{gathered}
\overline\partial{K}(n)=K(n)B(n),\qquad \lim_{z\to\infty}\widetilde{K}(n,z)=1,\label{49}\end{gathered}$$ where $\widetilde{K}(n,z)$ is the symbol of operator $K(n)$. Evolutions (\[n8\])–(\[n10\]) generate evolutions of the dressing operator: $\overline\partial{K}^{(j)}(n)=K^{(j)}(n)B^{(j)}(n)$, where we use notation (\[5\]) for $K(n)$. In order to describe these shifts we need to specify asymptotic condition in (\[49\]) assuming decomposition $$\begin{gathered}
\widetilde{K}(n,z)=\sum_{j=0}^{M}k_{j}(n)z^{-j}+o\big(z^{-M}\big),\qquad z\to\infty,\qquad k_{0}(n)\equiv1,\label{n24}\end{gathered}$$ where $M$ is some finite positive number and functions $k_j(n)$ are independent of $z$, i.e., are operators that coincide with their symbols. By (\[40\]) and (\[n8\])–(\[n10\]) we have that $\overline\partial{K}^{(j)}(T+a_{1j})={K}^{(j)}(T+a_{1j})B$, $j=1,2,3$ and $a_{11}=0$ by (\[8\]). Thus ${K}^{(j)}(T+a_{1j})$ for any $j$ obeys the same equation as in (\[49\]) but its symbol grows linearly at $z$-infinity. Assuming unique solvability of the problem (\[49\]) we see that there exist operators $P_{j}$ with symbols being entire functions of $z$, such that ${K}^{(j)}(T+a_{1j})=P_{j}K$. Asymptotic decomposition (\[n24\]) shows that symbols $\widetilde{P_{j}}(n,z)$ are polynomials of the first order with respect to $z$. Their coefficients follow from the latter equality and (\[n24\]). Thus $P_{1}=T$, so that $K^{(1)}=TKT^{-1}$ as it must be for any operator under consideration. But results for shifts with respect to the second and third discrete variables are less trivial $$\begin{gathered}
K^{(2)}(T+a_{12})=K^{(1)}T+\bigl[u^{(2)}-u^{(1)}+a_{12}\bigr]K,\label{55}\\
K^{(3)}(T+a_{13})=K^{(1)}T+\bigl[u^{(3)}-u^{(1)}+a_{13}\bigr]K,\label{56}\end{gathered}$$ where we denoted for simplicity $$\begin{gathered}
u=k_1\label{54}\end{gathered}$$ (see (\[n24\])), so we consider $u$ as operator with symbol $\widetilde{u}(n,z)=u(n)$. Equations (\[55\]) and (\[56\]) are dressed versions of equations $$\begin{gathered}
B^{(2)}(T+a_{12})=B^{(1)}T+a_{12}B,\qquad B^{(3)}(T+a_{13})=B^{(1)}T+a_{13}B,\label{50}\end{gathered}$$ that follow from (\[n8\])–(\[n10\]). By construction, evolutions of $K$ with respect to the discrete “times” are compatible and compatibility of (\[55\]) and (\[56\]) gives $$\begin{gathered}
u^{(12)}(u^{(2)}-u^{(1)}+a_{12})+a_{12}u^{(3)}+\text{cycle}(1,2,3)=0,\label{57}\end{gathered}$$ that is the Hirota difference equation on the function $u=u(n_1,n_2,n_3)$. It is clear that (\[7\]) is a linearization of this equation.
Substituting decomposition (\[n24\]) in (\[55\]) and (\[56\]) one defines coefficients $k_{j}$ of this decomposition. In this way we get $$\begin{gathered}
\begin{split}
& k_{j+1}^{(2)}+a_{12}k_{j}^{(2)}=k_{j+1}^{(1)}+\big(u_{}^{(2)}-u_{}^{(1)}+a_{12}^{}\big)k_{j}^{},\\ & k_{j+1}^{(3)}+a_{13}k_{j}^{(3)}=k_{j+1}^{(1)}+\big(u_{}^{(3)}-u_{}^{(1)}+a_{13}^{}\big)k_{j}^{},\qquad j\geq0.\end{split}\end{gathered}$$ In particular, $$\begin{gathered}
k_{2}^{(2)}-k_{2}^{(1)}=\big(u_{}^{(2)}-u_{}^{(1)}\big)u-a_{12}^{}\big(u_{}^{(2)}-u\big),\label{n:30}\\
k_{2}^{(3)}-k_{2}^{(1)}=\big(u_{}^{(3)}-u_{}^{(1)}\big)u-a_{13}^{}\big(u_{}^{(3)}-u\big),\label{n:31}\\
k_{3}^{(2)}-k_{3}^{(1)}=-a_{12}^{}k_{2}^{(2)}+\big(u_{}^{(2)}-u_{}^{(1)}+a_{12}^{}\big)k_{2},\label{n:32}\\
k_{3}^{(3)}-k_{3}^{(1)}=-a_{13}^{}k_{2}^{(3)}+\big(u_{}^{(3)}-u_{}^{(1)}+a_{13}^{}\big)k_{2}.\label{n:33}\end{gathered}$$ These relations are nonlocal and need assumptions on asymptotic behavior of coefficients $k_{j}(n)$ to be uniquely solvable.
In order to simplify the above relations we introduce the Jost solution as $$\begin{gathered}
\varphi(n,z)=z^{n_1}(z+a_{12})^{n_2}(z+a_{13})^{n_3}\widetilde{K}(n,z),\label{58:1}\end{gathered}$$ Then equations (\[55\]) and (\[56\]) of the Lax pair take the form $$\begin{gathered}
\varphi^{(2)}=\varphi^{(1)}+\big(u^{(2)}-u^{(1)}+a_{12}\big)\varphi,\label{59} \\
\varphi^{(3)}=\varphi^{(1)}+\big(u^{(3)}-u^{(1)}+a_{13}\big)\varphi.\label{60}\end{gathered}$$ It is also worth to mention that the difference of these equations gives $$\begin{gathered}
\varphi^{(3)}=\varphi^{(2)}+\big(u^{(3)}-u^{(2)}+a_{23}\big)\varphi,\label{61}\end{gathered}$$ that is also symmetric with respect to the previous equations. Thus any two of these three equations can be taken as the Lax pair. Let us perform change of dependent variable $$\begin{gathered}
v(n)=u(n)-a_1n_1-a_2n_2-a_3n_3,\label{n18}\end{gathered}$$ where by construction $u(n)\to0$ when $n\to\infty$. Thus by (\[5\]) and (\[6\]) $v^{(i)}-v^{(j)}=u^{(i)}-u^{(j)}+a_{ji}$, so by (\[n18\]) we get HDE (\[n19\]) and its Lax pair (\[59’\]) from (\[57\]) and (\[59\])–(\[61\]). Moreover, the condition (\[8\]) and asymptotic behavior of $v(n)$ in (\[n18\]) resolve the ill posedness of (\[n19\]), see discussion of (\[ill\]) in Introduction.
Continuous symmetries of the Hirota difference equations {#symm}
========================================================
In the case where nonlinear equation under consideration is integrable, i.e., has nontrivial Lax pair, construction of symmetries of the equation is equivalent to construction of the Lax pair, here (\[59\]), (\[60\]). Because of existence of the inverse problem such direct procedure, being rather complicated by itself, can be substituted by the following two steps (see [@Zakharov/Manakov], where analogous approach was used for construction of integrable equations, and [@Pogrebkov2000]). Taking that the Lax pair (\[59\]), (\[60\]) (or, strictly speaking, (\[55\]), (\[56\])) appeared as dressing of the “bare” pair (\[50\]), we start with construction of symmetries of (\[50\]). Then symmetries of the HDE itself are given by the dressing procedure, i.e., by the inverse problem (\[49\]). Because of (\[n8\])–(\[n10\]) the simplest set of symmetries of the pair (\[50\]) is given by operators that commute with operator $T$, i.e., functions of operator $T$ itself. Explicitly, we introduce dependence of $B$ on a new (continuous) variable $t$ by means of relation $$\begin{gathered}
B_t(n,t)=[W,B(n,t)],\label{n200}\end{gathered}$$ where symbol of the operator $W$ equals $\widetilde{W}(n,z)=w(z)$, being a meromorphic function of $z$. Because of the composition law (\[33\]) any such operator commutes with operator $T$, thus thanks to (\[n8\])–(\[n10\]): $$\begin{gathered}
(B_{t})^{(j)}=\big(B^{(j)}\big)_{t},\label{n2010}\end{gathered}$$ where parenthesis denote order of operations. Moreover, let us have an operator $W'$ of the same kind and introduce dependence on $t'$ in analogy to (\[n200\]). Then $[W,W']=0$ and these symmetries commute: $\partial_{t'}\partial_{t}B(n,t,t')=\partial_{t'}\partial_{t}B(n,t,t')$. In terms of symbols we have thanks to (\[b1\]) that $$\begin{gathered}
\widetilde{B}(n,t,z)=\oint_{|\zeta|=1}\frac{d\zeta}{2\pi i\zeta}\zeta^{m_1}\left(\frac{z\zeta+a_{12}}{z+a_{12}}\right)^{m_2}
\left(\frac{z\zeta+a_{13}}{z+a_{13}}\right)^{m_3}e_{}^{t(w(z\zeta)-w(z))}b(\zeta,z),$$ that preserves form of $\widetilde{B}$, redefining $b(\zeta,z)$ only. Our next step is to define dressing operators by means of (\[49\]), so that $\overline\partial{K}_{t}(n,t)=K_{t}(n,t)B(n,t)+K(n,t)B_{t}(n,t)$, or thanks to (\[n200\]): $$\begin{gathered}
\overline\partial{K}_{t}(n,t)+K(n,t)B(n,t)W=\big(K_{t_n}(n,t)+K(n,t)W\big)B(n,t).\label{n202}\end{gathered}$$ Below we consider special cases of such symmetries that enables explicit integration of this equation due to (\[40\]).
Symmetries of the KP type
-------------------------
This set of symmetries is generated by the simplest choices of operator $W$ in (\[n200\]): $w(z)=z,z^{2},\ldots$. In other words, we introduce dependence of operator $B$ on the times $t_1,t_2,\ldots$ by means of the equations $B_{t_m}=[T^{m},B]$, $m=1,2,\ldots$, and define dependence of the dressing operator on these times by means of (\[n202\]): $\overline\partial{K}_{t_m}+KBT^{m}=(K_{t_m}+KT^{m})B$. Thanks to (\[40\]) this equation is equivalent to $$\begin{gathered}
\overline\partial\big({K}_{t_m}+KT^{m}\big)=\big({K}_{t_m}+KT^{m}\big)B.\label{n21}\end{gathered}$$ We see that the sum ${K}_{t_m}+KT^{m}$ obeys the same $\overline\partial$-equation as in (\[49\]), but with different (polynomial with respect to $z$) asymptotic of symbol at $z$-infinity. Thus for any $m$ there exists operator $P_{m}$ such that $\overline{\partial}P_{m}=0$ and $$\begin{gathered}
{K}_{t_m}+KT^{m}=P_{m}K.\label{n22}\end{gathered}$$ Assuming that asymptotic in (\[49\]) is differentiable, we see that symbol $\widetilde{P}_{m}(n,t,z)$ is polynomial of the $m$-th power with respect to $z$. Coefficients $p_{m,j}$ of this polynomial, $$\begin{gathered}
P_{m}=\sum_{j=0}^{m}p_{m,j}T^{j},\label{n:22}\end{gathered}$$ where symbols $\widetilde{p}_{m,j}(n,t)$ depend on $n$ and $t$, but not on $z$, are defined (in analogy to the standard Zakharov–Shabat dressing procedure, [@Zakharov/Shabat]) by equality $$\begin{gathered}
\big(\widetilde{K}(n,t,z)z^{m}\big)_{+}=\big((\widetilde{P_{m}K})(n,t,z)\big)_{+},\label{n23}\end{gathered}$$ where $+$ denotes polynomial by $z$ part of symbols of operators.
Under substitution of (\[n24\]), where now coefficients $k_{j}$ depend on $t_n$, in (\[n23\]) we get recursion relations for coefficients in (\[n:22\]): $$\begin{gathered}
k_{m-m'}=\sum_{i=m'}^{m}p_{m,i}k_{i-m'}^{(1\times{i})},$$ where $k_{m}^{(1\times{i})}(n_1,n_2,n_3,t)=k_{m}^{}(n_1+i,n_2,n_3,t)$ in correspondence to (\[5\]). In particular, $p_{m,m}(t,n,z)\equiv1$ and for the three lowest symmetries we have explicitly $$\begin{gathered}
P_{1}=T+k_{1}^{}-k_{1}^{(1)}\equiv T+u-u^{(1)},\label{n25}\\
P_{2}=T^{2}+\big(k_{1}^{}-k_{1}^{(11)}\big)T+k_{2}^{}-k_{2}^{(11)}-\big(k_{1}^{}-k_{1}^{(11)}\big)k_{1}^{(1)},\label{n26}\\
P_{3}=T^{3}+\big(k_{1}^{}-k_{1}^{(111)}\big)T^{2}+\big(k_{2}-k_{2}^{(111)}-\big(k_{1}^{}-k_{1}^{(111)}\big)k_{1}^{(11)}\big)T\nonumber\\
\hphantom{P_{3}=}{}
+k_{3}^{}-k_{3}^{(111)}-\big(k_{2}^{}-k_{2}^{(111)}-\big(k_{1}^{}-k_{1}^{(111)}\big) k_{1}^{(11)}\big)k_{1}^{(1)}+\big(k_{1}^{(111)}-k_{1}^{}\big)k_{2}^{(11)},\label{n27}\end{gathered}$$ where for the upper indexes in parenthesis we use notation in (\[5\]), (\[6\]).
Notice that action of the first symmetry on the dressing operator is given in terms of dependent variable $u$ of the HDE (\[57\]): $$\begin{gathered}
K_{t_1}=\big(K^{(1)}-K\big)T+\big(u-u^{(1)}\big)K,\label{n28}\end{gathered}$$ but action of this symmetry on the $u=k_{1}$ itself involves $k_{2}$. Indeed, by (\[n24\]) $1/z$ term of (\[n28\]) gives $$\begin{gathered}
u_{t_1}=k_{2}^{(1)}-k_{2}^{}-\big(u^{(1)}-u\big)u,\label{n29}\\
k_{2,t_1}=k_{3}^{(1)}-k_{3}^{}-\big(u^{(1)}-u\big)k_{2},\label{n291}\end{gathered}$$ and so on. Coefficient $k_{2}$ in (\[n24\]) is given by (\[n:30\]), (\[n:31\]), so that action of this symmetry on $u$ is nonlocal.
Coefficients of polynomials (\[n25\])–(\[n27\]) take a much simpler form if we write them in terms of $u$ and its derivatives with respect to $t_m$. Thus, for the second symmetry, i.e., (\[n22\]) for $m=2$, we get by (\[n26\]) and derivative of (\[n28\]) by $t_1$: $K_{t_2}-K_{t_1t_1}=\big(P_2^{}-P_{1}^{2}-P_{1,t_1}^{}\big)K+2K_{t_1}T$. But thanks to (\[n25\]) and (\[n26\]), (\[n29\]) $P_2^{}-P_{1}^{2}-P_{1,t_1}^{}=-2u_{t_1}$, so that $$\begin{gathered}
K_{t_2}-K_{t_1t_1}-2K_{t_1}T=-2u_{t_1}K.$$
Next, thanks to (\[n27\]) we derive that $$\begin{gathered}
K_{t_3}-K_{t_1t_1t_1}=\big(P_{3}-P_{1}^{3}-2P_{1,t_1}P_{1}-P_{1}P_{1,t_1}-P_{1,t_1t_1}\big)K +3(P_{1}K)_{t_1}T.\label{n314}\end{gathered}$$ In order to simplify the r.h.s. we use (\[n29\]) and (\[n291\]) to derive $$\begin{gathered}
k_{2}^{}-k_{2}^{(111)}-\big(k_{1}^{}-k_{1}^{(111)}\big)k_{1}^{(11)}\\
\qquad{} =-\big(u+u_{}^{(1)}+u_{}^{(11)}\big)_{t_1} +\big(u^{(11)}-u^{(1)}\big)^{ 2 } +\big(u^{(1)}-u\big)\big(u^{(11)}-u\big),\\ k_{3}^{(111)}-k_{3}^{}=\big(k_{2}^{}+k_{2}^{(1)}+k_{2}^{(11)}\big)_{t_1} \\
\hphantom{k_{3}^{(111)}-k_{3}^{}=}{} +\big(u^{(1)}-u\big)k_{2}^{}+\big(u^{(11)}-u^{(1)}\big)k_{2}^{(1)}+\big(u^{(111)}-u^{(11)}\big)k_{2}^{(11)},$$ that gives finally $$\begin{gathered}
P_{3}-P_{1}^{3}-2P_{1,t_1}P_{1}-P_{1}P_{1,t_1}-P_{1,t_1t_1}=-3u_{t_1}T-\frac{3}{2}u_{t_1t_1}- \frac{3}{2}u_{t_2}.\label{n315}\end{gathered}$$
It is clear that in the same way symmetries corresponding to the highest times $t_{m}$ can be studied. Specific property of all these symmetries is the analyticity (polynomiality) of operator $W$ that allowed us to rewrite (\[n202\]) in the form (\[n21\]) and to control asymptotic behavior of $P_{m}$ by means of (\[n22\]).
Singular symmetries
-------------------
Here we consider symmetries defined by operators $W$ with symbols $w(z)$ being meromorphic functions of $z$. Arbitrary symmetries of this kind need consideration based on the object more generic than the Jost solution, the so called Cauchy–Jost function, see [@Boiti/Pempinelli/Pogrebkov; @Grinevich/Orlov]. So here we consider only the simplest examples of such symmetries: those where $W$ is chosen to be one of operators $(T+a_{1j})^{-1}$, see notation (\[8\]) (in particular, $a_{11}=0$). We introduce dependence of operator $B$ on the set $t_{-}=\{t_{-1}, t_{-2}$, $t_{-3}\}$ of three continuous parameters by means of relations (cf. (\[n200\])) $$\begin{gathered}
B_{t_{-j}}(n,t_{-})=\big[(T+a_{1j})^{-1},B(n,t_{-})\big],\qquad j=1,2,3.\label{n35}\end{gathered}$$ Then (\[n202\]) gives $\overline\partial{K}_{t_{-j}}+KB(T+a_{1j})^{-1}=K_{t_{-j}}B+K(T+a_{1j})^{-1}B$. Multiplying this equation by $(T+a_{1j})$ from the right we get $$\begin{gathered}
\overline\partial\bigl(K_{t_{-j}}(T+a_{1j})+K\bigr)=\bigl(K_{t_{-j}}(T+a_{1j})+K\bigr)B^{(-j)},$$ where $B^{(-j)}=(T+a_{1j})^{-1}B(T+a_{1j})$, cf. (\[n8\]), i.e., $$\widetilde{B}^{(-j)}(n_1,n_2,n_3,t_{-},z)=\widetilde{B}(n_1,n_2,n_3,t_{-},z)\bigr|_{n_j\to n_j-1},\qquad j=1,2,3.$$ Taking now (\[49\]) into account, we see that there exist operators $V_{j}$, such that $$\begin{gathered}
K_{t_{-j}}(n,t_{-})(T+a_{1j})+K(n,t_{-})=V_{j}(n,t_{-})K^{(-j)}(n,t_{-}).\label{n37}\end{gathered}$$ In terms of the symbols this equation sounds as $$(z+a_{1j})\widetilde{K}_{t_{-j}}(n,t_{-},z)+\widetilde{K}(n,t_{-},z)=\big(\widetilde{V_{j}K}\big)^{(-j)}(n,t_{-},z),$$ and thanks to the asymptotic condition in (\[49\]) symbols of operators $V_{j}$ do not depend on $z$, so that $(\widetilde{V_{j}K})^{(-j)}(n,t_{-},z)=\widetilde{V_{j}}(n,t_{-})\widetilde{K}^{(-j)}(n,t_{-},z)$. In spite of the singular behavior of the symbols of operators $(T+a_{1j})^{-1}$, we are not interested here in transformations that change spectrum of the Lax operators, so the dressing operator $K$ and its derivative $K_{t_{-j}}$ have no pole singularities with respect to $z$. Thus setting $z=a_{j1}$ in the previous equality, we derive for the symbol of operator $V_{j}$: $$\begin{gathered}
\widetilde{V_{j}}(n,t_{-})=\frac{\widetilde{K}(n,t_{-},a_{j1})}{\widetilde{K}^{(-j)}_{}(n,t_{-},a_{j1})}.\label{n38}\end{gathered}$$ This relation is highly nonlocal in terms of coefficients $k_{j}$ of the expansion (\[n24\]). On the other side action of this symmetry on these coefficients is easily given by means of (\[n37\]). Say, thanks to (\[54\]) $$\begin{gathered}
u_{t_{-j}}=V_{j}-1.\label{n39}\end{gathered}$$ In the same way other “singular” symmetries can be introduced and their action on the dressing operator and solution of the HDE can be derived.
Formulation in terms of the Jost solutions
------------------------------------------
In order to simplify the above results, we redefine the Jost solution (cf. (\[58:1\])) as $$\begin{gathered}
\varphi(n,t, t_{-},z)=z^{n_1}(z+a_{12})^{n_2}(z+a_{13})^{n_3} \nonumber\\
\hphantom{\varphi(n,t, t_{-},z)=}{} \times e^{t_1z+t_2z^{2}+t_3z^{3}+t_{-1}z^{-1}+t_{-2}(z+a_ { 12 } )^ { -1 }+t_{-3}(z+a_{13})^{-1}} \widetilde{K}(n,t,t_{-},z).\label{n32}\end{gathered}$$ In this way we do not change equations (\[59\])–(\[61\]) and the above results read as follows. Instead of (\[n28\]) we have $$\begin{gathered}
\varphi_{t_1}=\varphi^{(1)}+\big(u-u^{(1)}\big)\varphi.\label{n33}\end{gathered}$$ Next, by (\[n22\]) for $n=2$ and (\[n25\]) we reduce (\[n26\]) to $$\begin{gathered}
\varphi_{t_2}=\varphi^{(11)}+\big(u-u^{(11)}\big)\varphi^{(1)}+\big(k_{2}^{}-k_{2}^{(11)}-\big(u-u^{(11)}\big)u^{(1)}\big)\varphi,\label{n331}\end{gathered}$$ where $k_2$ must be defined by (\[n:30\]). So in terms of the HDE variables $n_1$, $n_2$ and $n_3$ this symmetry is nonlocal. On the other side, taking $t_1$-dependence into account we derive by (\[n29\]) that $k_2^{}-k_2^{(11)}=-u^{}_{t_1}-u^{(1)}_{t_1}-\big(u^{(1)}-u\big) u-\big(u^{(11)}-u^{(1)}\big)u^{(1)}$, so that (\[n331\]) takes the form $$\begin{gathered}
\varphi_{t_2}=\varphi^{(11)}+\big(u-u^{(11)}\big)\varphi^{(1)}+\big(\big(u^{(1)}-u\big)^{2}-u^{}_{t_1}-u^{(1)}_{t_1}\big)\varphi.\label{n332}\end{gathered}$$ Finally, due to (\[n33\]) we reduce this equality to more simple and familiar form: $$\begin{gathered}
\varphi_{t_2}=\varphi_{t_1t_1}-2u_{t_1}\varphi.\label{n34}\end{gathered}$$ Analogously, action of the symmetry (\[n27\]) in terms of the shifts of the discrete variables is given by expression that involves $k_3$. But in terms of the $t_1$-derivatives equation (\[n314\]) reduces to $$\begin{gathered}
\varphi_{t_3}=\varphi_{t_1t_1t_1}-3u_{t_1}\varphi_{t_1}-\frac{3}{2}u_{t_1t_1}\varphi -\frac{3}{2}u_{t_2}\varphi\label{n40}\end{gathered}$$ due to (\[n315\]). It is necessary to mention that direct check that the above relations give symmetries of the HDE involves relations (\[54\]), (\[n:30\])–(\[n:33\]) and (\[n29\]), (\[n291\]), (and some their consequences) and is rather cumbersome. In our approach commutativity of these symmetries with the HDE evolution follows from simple relations of the linear case.
Notice also that under substitution (\[n32\]) symmetry (\[n37\]) reduces to $$\begin{gathered}
\varphi_{t_{-j}}=V_{j}\varphi^{(-j)},\label{n41}\end{gathered}$$ where $V_{j}=1+u_{t_{-j}}$ by (\[n39\]). Compatibility of this symmetry with the Lax pair (\[59\]) and (\[60\]) follows by (\[n38\]), (\[n39\]), if we take into account that due to (\[55\]) and (\[56\]) $$\begin{gathered}
a_{1j}\widetilde{K^{(j)}}(n,t,t_{-},0)=\big[u^{(j)}-u^{(1)}+a_{1j}\big]\widetilde{K}(n,t,t_{-},0),\qquad j=1,2,3.$$
Evolution equations generated by the standard symmetries {#eqs}
========================================================
All symmetries introduced above, see (\[n33\])–(\[n41\]), are compatible with HDE evolution, i.e., with any pair of equations (\[59\])–(\[61\]). Moreover, these symmetries mutually commute by construction. Thus it is natural to assume that the discrete variables $n_1$, $n_2$, $n_3$, and continuous ones $t_1$, $t_2$, $t_3$, $t_{-1}$, $t_{-2}$, $t_{-3}$, etc., can be considered equally in a sense that any three of them can be chosen as independent variables of a (differential, or differential-difference) nonlinear integrable equation, with a Lax pair given by a proper choice from the list of all equations and (\[n33\])–(\[n41\]). Then other variables serve as (discrete, or continuous) parameters of symmetries for this nonlinear equation. This assumption is obvious if the variable $n_1$ is taken as one of independent variables, while needs special proof of closeness in a generic case. Here we consider some equations that result from the derived above symmetries of the HDE.
=-1 Say, we see that (\[n34\]), (\[n40\]) is nothing but the Lax pair of the KPII equation (see [@Dryuma; @Kadomtsev/Petviashvili1970; @Zakharov/Shabat]) for $2u_{t_1}$, where $t_1$, $ t_2$ and $t_3$ are the standard KP times. Then relations and (\[n33\]), (\[n41\]) give the discrete and continuous symmetries of the KPII equation. The discrete symmetries are nothing but the B[ä]{}cklund transformations of the KPII. Some intermediate equations can be obtained in the following way. Let us choose variables $n_1$, $n_2$ and $t_1$, and correspondingly let the Lax pair be given by (\[59\]) and (\[n33\]). Compatibility of these two equations gives[$$\begin{gathered}
\frac{\partial}{\partial t_1}\log\big(u^{(2)}-u^{(1)}+a_{12}\big)+u^{(12)}-u^{(2)}-u^{(1)}+u=0,\label{n44}\end{gathered}$$ or $\partial_{t_1}\log\big(v^{(2)}-v^{(1)}\big)+v^{(12)}-v^{(2)}-v^{(1)}+v=0$ in notation (\[n18\]).]{}
Another possibility is to choose variables $n_1$, $n_2$ and $t_2$ and the Lax pair given by (\[59\]) and (\[n331\]). Then corresponding nonlinear integrable equation reads as $$\begin{gathered}
\frac{\partial}{\partial t_2}\log(u^{(2)}-u^{(1)}+a_{12}) +\big[k_{2}^{(11)}-k_{2}^{} -(u^{(11)}-u^{})u^{(1)}\big]^{(2)} \nonumber\\
\qquad {} -\big[k_{2}^{(11)}-k_{2}^{}-(u^{(11)}-u^{})u^{(1)}\big]=0,\label{n45}\end{gathered}$$ where $k_2$ is defined by (\[n:30\]). Thus this equation is nonlocal and it can be considered as the higher analog of the equation (\[n44\]). Both these equations give continuous symmetries of the HDE, while evolution with respect to $n_3$ due to HDE evolution gives B[ä]{}cklund transformation for both these nonlinear equations.
Let us consider now choice of variables $n_1$, $t_1$ and $t_2$ with Lax pair given by (\[n33\]) and (\[n332\]). It is easy to check that condition of compatibility of these two equations reads as $$\begin{gathered}
\big(u^{(1)}-u\big)_{t_2}-\big(u^{(1)}+u\big)_{t_1t_1}+\big(u^{(1)}-u\big)^{2}=0.\label{n46}\end{gathered}$$ These equation can be considered as continuous symmetry of the (\[n44\]) with respect to the variable $t_2$, or as continuous symmetry of (\[n45\]) with respect to the variable $t_1$. On the other side both (\[n44\]) and (\[n45\]) gives B[ä]{}cklund transformations of (\[n46\]), i.e., shift of the variable $n_2$.
The same is valid for the singular symmetries introduced in (\[n35\]). Taking (\[n41\]) as one of equations of the Lax pair we have in the r.h.s. shift of variable $n_j$. So we choose from the equation that gives a shift with respect to some other variable $n_i$, $i\neq{j}$, in terms of the $n_j$-shift: $$\begin{gathered}
\varphi^{(i)}=\varphi^{(j)}+\big(u^{(i)}-u^{(j)}+a_{ji}\big)\varphi,\qquad i,j=1,2,3,\qquad i\neq{j}.\label{n47}\end{gathered}$$ Compatibility of this equation with (\[n35\]) gives two conditions, one of which is identity due to (\[n39\]) and the another reduces to $$\begin{gathered}
\frac{(1+u_{t_{-j}})^{(i)}}{1+u_{t_{-j}}}=\frac{u^{(i)}-u^{(j)}+a_{ji}}{(u^{(i)}-u^{(j)}+a_{ji})^{(-j)}},\label{n48}\end{gathered}$$ that is action of the $t_{-j}$-symmetry on the dependent variable of HDE. On the other side, taking (\[n38\]) and (\[n39\]) into account we rewrite this equality as $$\begin{gathered}
\frac{u^{(i)}-u^{(j)}+a_{ji}}{(u^{(i)}-u^{(j)}+a_{ji})^{(-j)}}=
\frac{\widetilde{K}^{(i)}(a_{j1})\widetilde{K}^{(-j)}(a_{j1})}{\widetilde{K}^{(i,-j)}(a_{j1})\widetilde{K}(a_{j1})},$$ that proves independence of the ratio $\big(u^{(i)}-u^{(j)}+a_{ji}\big)\widetilde{K}(a_{j1})/\widetilde{K}^{(i)}(a_{j1})$ on $n_j$. Assuming that $u(n,t_{-})$ decays and $\widetilde{K}(n,t_{-},z)\to1$ when $n\to\infty$, we get $$\begin{gathered}
u^{(i)}(n,t_{-})-u^{(j)}(n,t_{-})+a_{ji}=a_{ji}\frac{\widetilde{K}^{(i)}(n,t_{-},a_{j1})}{\widetilde{K}(n,t_{-},a_{j1})},\label{n50}\end{gathered}$$ i.e., relation of $u$ with the nonlocal objects in the r.h.s. The antisymmetry of the l.h.s. with respect to $i$ and $j$ shows that $$\begin{gathered}
\frac{\widetilde{K}^{(i)}(n,t_{-},a_{j1})}{\widetilde{K}(n,t_{-},a_{j1})}=
\frac{\widetilde{K}^{(j)}(n,t_{-},a_{i1})}{\widetilde{K}(n,t_{-},a_{i1})},\qquad
\text{for any} \quad i,j=1,2,3.$$ Further on, differentiating (\[n50\]) with respect to $t_{-j}$ and denoting $\widetilde{K}(n,t_{-},a_{j1})=e^{\psi(n,t_{-})}$ we get by means of (\[n39\]) integrable equation $$\begin{gathered}
a_{ji}\big(\psi^{(i)}-\psi\big)_{t_{-j}}=e^{\psi-\psi^{(i,-j)}}-e^{\psi^{(j)}-\psi^{(i)}},$$ with respect to the independent variables $n_i$, $n_j$ and $t_{-j}$. Its Lax pair follows from (\[n41\]) and (\[n47\]) under above substitutions $$\begin{gathered}
\varphi^{(i)}=\varphi^{(j)}+a_{ji}e^{\psi^{(i)}-\psi}\varphi,\qquad \varphi_{t_{-j}}=e^{\psi-\psi^{(-j)}}\varphi^{(-j)}.$$
In analogy we can consider an equation with one discrete and two continuous variables from the set $t_{-}$. We choose $n_1$, $t_{-1}$ and $t_{-2}$ and start from (\[n41\]) for $j=1,2$. Let, for shortness, $v(n,t_-)=u(n,t_-)-a_{1}n_1-a_{2}n_2+t_{-1}+t_{-2}$, cf. (\[n18\]). Thanks to (\[n39\]) this enables us to rewrite (\[n41\]) as $$\begin{gathered}
\varphi^{(1)}_{t_{-1}}=v^{(1)}_{t_{-1}}\varphi,\qquad \varphi^{(2)}_{t_{-2}}=v^{(2)}_{t_{-2}}\varphi.\label{n55}\end{gathered}$$ The first equation here goes as one of equations of the corresponding Lax pair, and we have to exclude shift with respect to the variable $n_2$ in order to get the second equation. For this aim we differentiate (\[59\]) with respect to $t_{-2}$ and substituting $\varphi^{(2)}_{t_{-2}}$ by (\[n55\]) we get $$\begin{gathered}
\varphi^{(1)}_{t_{-2}}=w\varphi_{t_{-2}}+v^{(1)}_{t_{-2}}\varphi,$$ i.e., the second equation of the Lax pair. Here we denoted $w=v^{(1)}-v^{(2)}$. Compatibility condition now sounds as $$\begin{gathered}
\partial_{t_{-2}}\log{v}_{t_{-1}}=
\frac{v_{t_{-2}}}{w^{(-1)}}-\biggl(\frac{v_{t_{-2}}}{w^{(-1)}}\biggr)^{(1)},\qquad \partial_{t_{-1}}\log{w}=\biggl(\frac{v_{t_{-1}}}{w^{(-1)}}\biggr)^{(1)}-\frac{v_{t_{-1}}}{w^{(-1)}}, $$ where the first equation can be considered as the evolution one on the function $v(n,t_{-})$, while the second stands as definition of the auxiliary function $w(n,t_{-})$.
Finally, let us notice that symmetries of the set $t_{-}$ can be combined with the KP type symmetries due to their mutual commutativity. As an example we choose variables $t_{1}$, $n_j$ and $t_{-j}$ for some $j=1,2,3$. Taking that (\[n41\]) includes shift with respect to the $n_j$ (i.e., $\varphi^{(-j)}$) into account, we use (\[59\]), (\[60\]) to exclude $\varphi^{(1)}$ from (\[n33\]): $$\begin{gathered}
\varphi_{t_1}=\varphi^{(j)}+\big(u-u^{(j)}+a_{1j}\big)\varphi.$$ Then due to (\[n39\]) condition of compatibility of this equation with (\[n41\]) gives $$\begin{gathered}
\partial_{t_1}\log(1+u_{t_{-j}})=2u-u^{(j)}-u^{(-j)}.\label{n66}\end{gathered}$$ This nonlinear integrable equation can be considered also as continuous symmetry of (\[n48\]). Differentiating (\[n66\]) by $t_{-j}$ we use (\[n39\]) to write the result in the form $\partial_{t_1}\partial_{t_{-j}}\log{V}_{j}=2V_{j}^{}-V_{j}^{(j)}-V_{j}^{(-j)}$. Under substitution $V_{j}=e^{\psi^{(j)}-\psi}$ we conclude that difference $\partial_{t_1}\partial_{t_{-j}}\log\psi-e^{\psi^{(j)}-\psi}-e^{\psi-\psi^{(-j)}}$ is independent of $n_j$. Thus, under the same assumption as above on the asymptotic decay of $u$ (and then of $\psi$) with respect to $n_j$, we get equation of the 2-dimensional Toda chain, $$\begin{gathered}
\partial_{t_1}\partial_{t_{-j}}\psi=e^{\psi^{(j)}-\psi}-e^{\psi-\psi^{(-j)}}.$$ It is clear that this list of integrable equations that appear as obeying (\[n2010\]) symmetries of the HDE can be continued.
Additional symmetries {#add}
=====================
In Section \[symm\] we mentioned that symmetries of the HDE appear as dressing of symmetries that preserve the bare pair (\[50\]). In this sense symmetries considered above are too restrictive. Indeed, condition that operator $W$ in (\[n200\]) has symbol depending on the variable $z$ only leads to (\[n2010\]), i.e., to commutativity of these symmetries with shifts of the independent variables of the HDE. This condition is enough, but not necessary in order to preserve (\[n50\]). Notice, that if some operator $X$ obeys the same relations (\[50\]) as operator $B$, then thanks to (\[n8\]) also $BX$ and $[X,B]$ obey these relations. As an example of operator $X$ we take (\[n11\]) with $\widetilde{R}(z)\equiv1$. Thanks to (\[40\]) we have that $\overline\partial{X}$ also obeys (\[50\]). Finally, we introduce operator $N=(\overline\partial{X})X^{-1}T$, symbol of which equals $$\begin{gathered}
\widetilde{N}(n,z)=n_1+n_2+n_3-\frac{a_{12}n_2}{z+a_{12}}-\frac{a_{13}n_3}{z+a_{13}}. \end{gathered}$$ By (\[33\]) it is easy to check, that this operator can be written as $$\begin{gathered}
N(n_2,n_3)=(T+a_{12})^{n_2}(T+a_{13})^{n_3}N_{1}(T+a_{12})^{-n_2}(T+a_{13})^{-n_3}, \end{gathered}$$ where operator $N_1$ was considered in (\[fg1\]), (\[fg2\]). Thus, in analogy to (\[n200\]) we introduce dependence of operator $B$ on a new variable $s\in\mathbb{R}$ by means of equation $$\begin{gathered}
B(n,s)=e^{isN}B(n)e^{-isN},\qquad B(n,0)=B(n).\label{a2}\end{gathered}$$ Operator $N$ does not commute with shift operators in (\[n8\])–(\[n10\]): it is easy to see that $$\begin{gathered}
[T,N]=T,\qquad j=1,2,3,$$ and thanks to (\[b1\]) we get in terms of operator $B(0)=B(n_2,n_3)|_{n_2=n_3=0}$ $$\begin{gathered}
B(n,s)=(T+a_{12})^{n_2}(T+a_{13})^{n_3}e^{isN_1}B(0)e^{-isN_1}(T+a_{12})^{-n_2}(T+a_{13})^{-n_3},\label{a:4}\end{gathered}$$ or explicitly for the symbol of operator $B(n,s)$: $$\begin{gathered}
\widetilde{B}(n,s,z)=\oint_{|\zeta|=1}\frac{d\zeta}{2\pi i\zeta}\zeta^{n_1} \left(\frac{z\zeta+a_{12}}{z+a_{12}}\right)^{n_2}\left(\frac{z\zeta+a_{13}}{z+a_{13}}\right)^{n_3}b\big(\zeta,ze^{-is}\big).\label{a4}\end{gathered}$$ The above mentioned noncommutativity results in the following observation. Defining in analogy to (\[a2\]) $$\begin{gathered}
B^{(j)}(n,s)=e^{isN}B^{(j)}(n)e^{-isN},\label{a5}
\end{gathered}$$ we have $$\begin{gathered}
B^{(j)}(n,s)=\big(Te^{-is}+a_{1j}\big)B(n,s)\big(Te^{-is}+a_{1j}\big)^{-1},\label{a6}
\end{gathered}$$ while by (\[a:4\]), or (\[a4\]) $$\begin{gathered}
B(n,s)^{(j)}=(T+a_{1j})B(n,s)(T+a_{1j})^{-1},\label{a7}\end{gathered}$$ that coincides with (\[a6\]) for $j=1$ only ($a_{11}=0$ by (\[8\])). On the other side, multiplying (\[a7\]) by $(T+a_{1j})$ we get that operator $B(n,s)$ obeys (\[n8\])–(\[n10\]) for all $j=1,2,3$.
Thus we have an example of additional symmetry of the kind considered for the nonlinear Schrödinger equation in [@OS] and for the KPI in [@Pogrebkov2000]. Dependence of the corresponding dressing operator $K(n,s)$ on $s$ must be defined again by the $\overline\partial$-problem (\[49\]) with operator $B(n,s)$, but this consideration we postpone for the forthcoming article. Differential equations generated by this symmetry also deserve special consideration. It is interesting to mention that operator $N$ can be taken as operator $A$ in (\[4\]). So it also generate some discrete integrable equation, since identity (\[1\]) is valid for any operators $A$ and $B$. It is worth to mention that relation with HDE of some of equations obtained above is well known. Some of them appear as continuous limits of HDE, some as symmetries, see, e.g., [@Pogrebkov2011; @Zabrodin1997]. Here we used an example of the HDE to develop a generic scheme of construction of the symmetries, both ordinary and additional, that can be applied to any integrable nonlinear equation.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
----------------
This work has been funded by the Russian Academic Excellence Project ‘5-100’.
[99]{} =-0.5pt
Bogdanov L.V., Konopelchenko B.G., Generalized [KP]{} hierarchy: [M]{}öbius symmetry, symmetry constraints and [C]{}alogero–[M]{}oser system, [*Phys. D*](https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-2789(01)00161-0) **152/153** (2001), 85–96, [solv-int/9912005](https://arxiv.org/abs/solv-int/9912005).
Boiti M., Pempinelli F., Pogrebkov A.K., Cauchy–[J]{}ost function and hierarchy of integrable equations, [*Theoret. and Math. Phys.*](https://doi.org/10.1007/s11232-015-0367-y) **185** (2015), 1599–1613, [arXiv:1508.02229](https://arxiv.org/abs/1508.02229).
Dryuma V.S., Analytic solution of the two-dimensional [K]{}orteweg–de [V]{}ries [(KdV)]{} equation, *JETP Lett.* **19** (1974), 387–388.
Fioravanti D., Nepomechie R.I., An inhomogeneous [L]{}ax representation for the [H]{}irota equation, [*J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.*](https://doi.org/10.1088/1751-8121/aa5303) **50** (2017), 054001, 14 pages, [arXiv:1609.06761](https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.06761).
Grinevich P.G., Orlov A.Yu., Virasoro action on [R]{}iemann surfaces, [G]{}rassmannians, [$\det \overline\partial_J$]{} and [S]{}egal–[W]{}ilson [$\tau$]{}-function, in Problems of Modern Quantum Field Theory ([A]{}lushta, 1989), [*Res. Rep. Phys.*](https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-84000-5_7), Springer, Berlin, 1989, 86–106.
Hirota R., Nonlinear partial difference equations. [II]{}. [D]{}iscrete-time [T]{}oda equation, [*J. Phys. Soc. Japan*](https://doi.org/10.1143/JPSJ.43.2074) **43** (1977), 2074–2078.
Hirota R., Discrete analogue of a generalized [T]{}oda equation, [*J. Phys. Soc. Japan*](https://doi.org/10.1143/JPSJ.50.3785) **50** (1981), 3785–3791.
Kadomtsev B.B., Petviashvili V.I., On the stability of solitary waves in weakly dispersive media, *Sov. Phys. Dokl.* **192** (1970), 539–541.
Krichever I., Wiegmann P., Zabrodin A., Elliptic solutions to difference non-linear equations and related many-body problems, [*Comm. Math. Phys.*](https://doi.org/10.1007/s002200050333) **193** (1998), 373–396, [hep-th/9704090](https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9704090).
Orlov A.Yu., Shul’man E.I., Additional symmetries of the nonlinear Schrödinger equation, [*Theoret. and Math. Phys.*](https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01017968) **64** (1985), 862–866.
Pogrebkov A.K., On time evolutions associated with the nonstationary [S]{}chrödinger equation, in L.[D]{}. [F]{}addeev’s [S]{}eminar on [M]{}athematical [P]{}hysics, [*Amer. Math. Soc. Transl. Ser. 2*](https://doi.org/10.1090/trans2/201/13), Vol. 201, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2000, 239–255, [math-ph/9902014](https://arxiv.org/abs/math-ph/9902014).
Pogrebkov A.K., Hirota difference equation and a commutator identity on an associative algebra, [*St. Petersburg Math. J.*](https://doi.org/10.1090/S1061-0022-2011-01153-7) **22** (2011), 473–483.
Pogrebkov A.K., Hirota difference equation: inverse scattering transform, [D]{}arboux transformation, and solitons, [*Theoret. and Math. Phys.*](https://doi.org/10.1007/s11232-014-0237-z) **181** (2014), 1585–1598, [arXiv:1407.0677](https://arxiv.org/abs/1407.0677).
Pogrebkov A.K., Commutator identities on associative algebras, the non-[A]{}belian [H]{}irota difference equation and its reductions, [*Theoret. and Math. Phys.*](https://doi.org/10.1134/S0040577916060039) **187** (2016), 823–834.
Saito S., Octahedral structure of the [H]{}irota–[M]{}iwa equation, *J. Nonlinear Math. Phys.* **19** (2012), 539–550.
Zabrodin A.V., Hirota difference equations, [*Theoret. and Math. Phys.*](https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02634165) **113** (1997), 1347–1392, .
Zabrodin A.V., Bäcklund transformation for the [H]{}irota difference equation, and the supersymmetric [B]{}ethe ansatz, [*Theoret. and Math. Phys.*](https://doi.org/10.1007/s11232-008-0047-2) **155** (2008), 567–584.
Zakharov V.E., Manakov S.V., Construction of multidimensional nonlinear integrable systems and their solutions, [*Funct. Anal. Appl.*](https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01078388) **19** (1985), 89–101.
Zakharov V.E., Shabat A.B., A scheme for integrating the nonlinear equations of mathematical physics by the method of the inverse scattering problem. I, [*Funct. Anal. Appl.*](https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01075696) **8** (1977), 226–235.
|
---
abstract: 'The problem of computing the edit-distance between a string and a finite automaton arises in a variety of applications in computational biology, text processing, and speech recognition. This paper presents linear-space algorithms for computing the edit-distance between a string and an arbitrary weighted automaton over the tropical semiring, or an unambiguous weighted automaton over an arbitrary semiring. It also gives an efficient linear-space algorithm for finding an optimal alignment of a string and such a weighted automaton.'
author:
- Cyril Allauzen
- Mehryar Mohri
bibliography:
- 'lse.bib'
title: 'Linear-Space Computation of the Edit-Distance between a String and a Finite Automaton'
---
Introduction
============
The problem of computing the edit-distance between a string and a finite automaton arises in a variety of applications in computational biology, text processing, and speech recognition [@durbin; @gusfield; @navarro-raffinot; @pevzner; @edit]. This may be to compute the edit-distance between a protein sequence and a family of protein sequences compactly represented by a finite automaton [@durbin; @gusfield; @pevzner], or to compute the error rate of a word lattice output by a speech recognition with respect to a reference transcription [@edit]. A word lattice is a weighted automaton, thus this further motivates the need for computing the edit-distance between a string and a weighted automaton. In all these cases, an optimal alignment is also typically sought. In computational biology, this may be to infer the function and various properties of the original protein sequence from the one it is best aligned with. In speech recognition, this determines the best transcription hypothesis contained in the lattice.
This paper presents linear-space algorithms for computing the edit-distance between a string and an arbitrary weighted automaton over the tropical semiring, or an unambiguous weighted automaton over an arbitrary semiring. It also gives an efficient linear-space algorithm for finding an optimal alignment of a string and such a weighted automaton. Our linear-space algorithms are obtained by using the same generic shortest-distance algorithm but by carefully defining different queue disciplines. More precisely, our meta-queue disciplines are derived in the same way from an underling queue discipline defined over states with the same level.
The connection between the edit-distance and the shortest distance in a directed graph was made very early on (see [@gusfield; @crochemore-hancart-lecroq; @crochemore-rytter; @crochemore-rytter02] for a survey of string algorithms). This paper revisits some of these algorithms and shows that they are all special instances of the same generic shortest-distance algorithm using different queue disciplines. We also show that the linear-space algorithms all correspond to using the same meta-queue discipline using different underlying queues. Our approach thus provides a better understanding of these classical algorithms and makes it possible to easily generalize them, in particular to weighted automata.
The first algorithm to compute the edit-distance between a string $x$ and a finite automaton $A$ as well as their alignment was due to Wagner [@wagner] (see also [@wagner-seiferas]). Its time complexity was in $O(|x| |A|_Q^2)$ and its space complexity in $O(|A|_Q^2 |\Sigma| + |x| |A|_Q)$, where $\Sigma$ denotes the alphabet and $|A|_Q$ the number of states of $A$. Sankoff and Kruskal [@sankoff] pointed out that the time and space complexity $O(|x| |A|)$ can be achieved when the automaton $A$ is acyclic. Myers and Miller [@myers-miller89] significantly improved on previous results. They showed that when $A$ is acyclic or when it is a *Thompson automaton*, that is an automaton obtained from a regular expression using Thompson’s construction [@thompson], the edit-distance between $x$ and $A$ can be computed in $O(|x| |A|)$ time and $O(|x| + |A|)$ space. They also showed, using a technique due to Hirschberg [@hirschberg], that the optimal alignment between $x$ and $A$ can be obtained in $O(|x| + |A|)$ space, and in $O(|x| |A|)$ time if $A$ is acyclic, and in $O(|x| |A| \log |x|)$ time when $A$ is a Thompson automaton.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. Section \[sec:preliminaries\] introduces the definition of semirings, and weighted automata and transducers. In Section \[sec:edit-distance\], we give a formal definition of the edit-distance between a string and a finite automaton, or a weighted automaton. Section \[sec:algo\] presents our linear-space algorithms, including the proof of their space and time complexity and a discussion of an improvement of the time complexity for automata with some favorable graph structure property.
Preliminaries {#sec:preliminaries}
=============
This section gives the standard definition and specifies the notation used for weighted transducers and automata which we use in our computation of the edit-distance.
*Finite-state transducers* are finite automata [@perrin] in which each transition is augmented with an output label in addition to the familiar input label [@berstel; @eilenberg]. Output labels are concatenated along a path to form an output sequence and similarly input labels define an input sequence. *Weighted transducers* are finite-state transducers in which each transition carries some weight in addition to the input and output labels [@soittola; @kuich]. Similarly, *weighted automata* are finite automata in which each transition carries some weight in addition to the input label. A path from an initial state to a final state is called an *accepting path*. A weighted transducer or weighted automaton is said to be *unambiguous* if it admits no two accepting paths with the same input sequence.
The weights are elements of a semiring ${(\Kset, {\oplus}, {\otimes}, {\overline{0}}, {\overline{1}})}$, that is a ring that may lack negation [@kuich]. Some familiar semirings are the tropical semiring ${(\Rset_+ \cup {\{\infty\}}, \min, +, \infty, 0)}$ and the probability semiring ${(\Rset_+ \cup {\{\infty\}}, +, \times, 0, 1)}$, where $\Rset_+$ denotes the set of non-negative real numbers. In the following, we will only consider weighted automata and transducers over the tropical semiring. However, all the results of section \[sec:algo:edit\] hold for an unambiguous weighted automaton $A$ over an arbitrary semiring.
The following gives a formal definition of weighted transducers.
A [*weighted finite-state transducer*]{} $T$ over the tropical semiring ${(\Rset_+ \cup {\{\infty\}}, \min, +, \infty, 0)}$ is an 8-tuple ${T = (\Sigma, \Delta, Q, I, F, E, \lambda, \rho)}$ where $\Sigma$ is the finite input alphabet of the transducer, $\Delta$ its finite output alphabet, $Q$ is a finite set of states, $I \subseteq Q$ the set of initial states, $F \subseteq Q$ the set of final states, $E
\subseteq Q \times (\Sigma \cup {\{\epsilon\}}) \times (\Delta \cup
{\{\epsilon\}}) \times (\Tset) \times Q$ a finite set of transitions, $\lambda: I \rightarrow \Tset$ the initial weight function, and $\rho: F \rightarrow \Tset$ the final weight function mapping $F$ to $\Tset$.
We define the [*size*]{} of $T$ as $|T| = |T|_Q + |T|_E$ where $|T|_Q
= |Q|$ is the number of states and $|T|_E = |E|$ the number of transitions of $T$.
The weight of a path $\pi$ in $T$ is obtained by summing the weights of its constituent transitions and is denoted by $w[\pi]$. The weight of a pair of input and output strings $(x, y)$ is obtained by taking the minimum of the weights of the paths labeled with $(x, y)$ from an initial state to a final state.
For a path $\pi$, we denote by $p[\pi]$ its origin state and by $n[\pi]$ its destination state. We also denote by $P(I, x, y, F)$ the set of paths from the initial states $I$ to the final states $F$ labeled with input string $x$ and output string $y$. The weight $T(x,
y)$ associated by $T$ to a pair of strings $(x, y)$ is defined by: $$T(x, y) = \min_{\pi \in P(I, x, y, F)} \lambda(p[\pi])
+ w[\pi] + \rho(n[\pi]).$$ Figure \[fig:examples\](a) shows an example of weighted transducer over the tropical semiring.
----- -----
(a) (b)
----- -----
*Weighted automata* can be defined as weighted transducers $A$ with identical input and output labels, for any transition. Thus, only pairs of the form $(x, x)$ can have a non-zero weight by $A$, which is why the weight associated by $A$ to $(x, x)$ is abusively denoted by $A(x)$ and identified with the *weight associated by $A$ to $x$*. Similarly, in the graph representation of weighted automata, the output (or input) label is omitted. Figure \[fig:examples\](b) shows an example.
Edit-distance {#sec:edit-distance}
=============
We first give the definition of the edit-distance between a string and a finite automaton.
Let $\Sigma$ be a finite alphabet, and let $\Omega$ be defined by $\Omega = (\Sigma \cup {\{\epsilon\}}) \times (\Sigma \cup
{\{\epsilon\}}) - {\{(\epsilon, \epsilon)\}}$. An element of $\Omega$ can be seen as a symbol edit operation: $(a,\epsilon)$ is a deletion, $(\epsilon, a)$ an insertion, and $(a, b)$ with $a \neq b$ a substitution. We will denote by $h$ the natural morphism between $\Omega^*$ and $\Sigma^* \times \Sigma^*$ defined by $h((a_1, b_1)
\cdots (a_n, b_n)) = (a_1 \cdots a_n, b_1 \cdots b_n)$. An [ *alignment*]{} $\omega$ between two strings $x$ and $y$ is an element of $\Omega^*$ such that $h(\omega) = (x,y)$.
Let $c : \Omega \rightarrow \Rset_+$ be a function associating a non-negative cost to each edit operation. The cost of an alignment $\omega = \omega_1 \cdots \omega_n$ is defined as $c(\omega) =
\sum_{i=1}^n c(\omega_i)$.
The [*edit-distance*]{} $d(x, y)$ of two strings $x$ and $y$ is the minimal cost of a sequence of symbols insertions, deletions or substitutions transforming one string into the other: $$d(x, y) = \min_{h(\omega) = (x, y)} c(\omega).$$ When $c$ is the function defined by $c(a, a) = 0$ and $c(a,
\epsilon) = c(\epsilon, a) = c(a,b) = 1$ for all $a$, $b$ in $\Sigma$ such that $a \not= b$, the edit-distance is also known as the Levenshtein distance. The [*edit-distance $d(x, A)$ between a string $x$ and a finite automaton $A$*]{} can then be defined as $$d(x, A) = \min_{y \in L(A)} d(x, y),$$ where $L(A)$ denotes the regular language accepted by $A$. The [ *edit-distance $d(x,A)$ between a string $x$ and a weighted automaton $A$ over the tropical semiring*]{} is defined as: $$d(x,A) = \min_{y \in \Sigma^*} \bigl(A(y) + d(x, y)\bigr).$$
Algorithms {#sec:algo}
==========
In this section, we present linear-space algorithms both for computing the edit-distance $d(x, A)$ between an arbitrary string $x$ and an automaton $A$, and an optimal alignment between $x$ and $A$, that is an alignment $\omega$ such that $c(\omega) = d(x, A)$.
We first briefly describe two general algorithms that we will use as subroutines.
General algorithms
------------------
### Composition. {#sec:composition}
The [*composition*]{} of two weighted transducers $T_1$ and $T_2$ over the tropical semiring with matching input and output alphabets $\Sigma$, is a weighted transducer denoted by $T_1 \circ
T_2$ defined by: $$(T_1 \circ T_2)(x, y) = \min_{z \in \Sigma^*}\ T_1(x,z) + T_2(z, y).$$ $T_1 \circ T_2$ can be computed from $T_1$ and $T_2$ using the composition algorithm for weighted transducers [@pereira-riley; @ecai]. States in the composition $T_1 \circ T_2$ are identified with pairs of a state of $T_1$ and a state of $T_2$. In the absence of transitions with ${\epsilon}$ inputs or outputs, the transitions of $T_1 \circ T_2$ are obtained as a result of the following matching operation applied to the transitions of $T_1$ and $T_2$: $$(q_1, a, b, w_1, q_1') \mbox{ and } (q_2, b, c, w_2, q'_2)
\to ((q_1,q_2), a, c, w_1 + w_2, (q'_1,q'_2)).$$ A state $(q_1,q_2)$ of $T_1 \circ T_2$ is initial (resp. final) iff $q_1$ and $q_2$ are initial (resp. final) and, when it is final, its initial (resp.final) weight is the sum of the initial (resp. final) weights of $q_1$ and $q_2$. In the worst case, all transitions of $T_1$ leaving a state $q_1$ match all those of $T_2$ leaving state $q_2$, thus the space and time complexity of composition is quadratic, that is $O(|T_1||T_2|)$.
### Shortest distance. {#sec:sd}
Let $A$ be a weighted automaton over the tropical semiring. The [*shortest distance*]{} from $p$ to $q$ is defined as $$d[p, q] = \min_{\pi \in P(p, q)} w[\pi].$$ It can be computed using the generic single-source shortest-distance algorithm of [@shortest-distance], a generalization of the classical shortest-distance algorithms. This generic shortest-distance algorithm works with an arbitrary *queue discipline*, that is the order according to which elements are extracted from a queue. We shall make use of this key property in our algorithms. The pseudocode of a simplified version of the generic algorithm for the tropical semiring is given in Figure \[fig:alg:shortest\].
[ $\mbox{\sc Shortest-Distance}(A,s)$ $p \in Q$\
$d[p] \EQ \infty$\
$d[s] \EQ 0$\
$S \EQ {\{s\}}$\
$S \not= \emptyset$\
$q \EQ \HEAD(S)$\
$\DEQUEUE(S)$\
$e \in E[q]$\
$(d[s] + w[e] < d[n[e]])$\
$d[n[e]] \EQ d[s] + w[e]$\
$(n[e] \not\in S)$\
$\ENQUEUE(S,n[e])$\
]{}
The complexity of the algorithm depends on the queue discipline selected for $S$. Its general expression is $$\label{eq:gen_exp}
O(|Q|+ \mathsf{C(A)} \max_{q \in Q} \mathsf{N(q)} |E| + (\mathsf{C(I)} +
\mathsf{C(X)}) \sum_{q\in Q} \mathsf{N(q)}),$$ where $\mathsf{N(q)}$ denotes the number of times state $q$ is extracted from queue $S$, $\mathsf{C(X)}$ the cost of extracting a state from $S$, $\mathsf{C(I)}$ the cost of inserting a state in $S$, and $\mathsf{C(A)}$ the cost of an assignment.
With a shortest-first queue discipline implemented using a heap, the algorithm coincides with Dijkstra’s algorithm [@dijkstra] and its complexity is $O((|E|+|Q|)\log |Q|)$. For an acyclic automaton and with the topological order queue discipline, the algorithm coincides with the standard linear-time ($O(|Q|+|E|)$) shortest-distance algorithm [@rivest].
Edit-distance algorithms {#sec:algo:edit}
------------------------
The edit cost function $c$ can be naturally represented by a one-state weighted transducer over the tropical semiring $T_c = (\Sigma, \Sigma,
{\{0\}}, {\{0\}}, {\{0\}}, E_c, {\overline{1}}, {\overline{1}})$, or $T$ in the absence of ambiguity, with each transition corresponding to an edit operation: $E_c = {\{ (0, a, b, c(a, b), 0) | (a, b) \in \Omega\}}$.
\[lem:edit\] Let $A$ be a weighted automaton over the tropical semiring and let $X$ be the finite automaton representing a string $x$. Then, the edit-distance between $x$ and $A$ is the shortest-distance from the initial state to a final state in the weighted transducer $U = X
\circ T \circ A$.
Each transition $e$ in $T$ corresponds to an edit operation $(i[e],
o[e]) \in \Omega$, and each path $\pi$ corresponds to an alignment $\omega$ between $i[\pi]$ and $o[\pi]$. The cost of that alignment is, by definition of $T$, $c(\omega) = w[\pi]$. Thus, $T$ defines the function: $$T(u,v) = \min_{\omega \in \Omega^*} {\{ c(\omega)\colon h(\omega) = (u,v)\}}
= d(u,v),$$ for any strings $u$, $v$ in $\Sigma^*$. Since $A$ is an automaton and $x$ is the only string accepted by $X$, it follows from the definition of composition that $U(x,y) = T(x,y) + A(y) = d(x,y) + A(y)$. The shortest-distance from the initial state to a final state in $U$ is then: $$\begin{aligned}
\min_{\pi \in P_U(I, F)} w[\pi] &= \min_{y \in \Sigma^*}
\min_{\pi \in P_U(I, x, y, F)} w[\pi]
= \min_{y \in \Sigma^*} U(x,y) \\
&= \min_{y \in \Sigma^*} \bigl( d(x,y) + A(y) \bigr) = d(x, A),\end{aligned}$$ that is the edit-distance between $x$ and $A$.
----- ----- --
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
----- ----- --
Figure \[fig:edit\] shows an example illustrating Lemma \[lem:edit\]. Using the lateral strategy of the 3-way composition algorithm of [@3way] or an *ad hoc* algorithm exploiting the structure of $T$, $U = X \circ T \circ A$ can be computed in $O(|x| |A|)$ time. The shortest-distance algorithm presented in Section \[sec:sd\] can then be used to compute the shortest distance from an initial state of $U$ to a final state and thus the edit distance of $x$ and $A$. Let us point out that different queue disciplines in the computation of that shortest distance lead to different algorithms and complexities. In the next section, we shall give a queue discipline enabling us to achieve a linear-space complexity.
Edit-distance computation in linear space
-----------------------------------------
Using the shortest-distance algorithm described in Section \[sec:sd\] leads to an algorithm with space complexity linear in the size of $U$, i.e. in $O(|x| |A|)$. However, taking advantage of the topology of $U$, it is possible to design a queue discipline that leads to a linear space complexity $O(|x| + |A|)$.
We assume that the finite automaton $X$ representing the string $x$ is topologically sorted. A state $q$ in the composition $U = X \circ T
\circ A$ can be identified with a triplet $(i, 0, j)$ where $i$ is a state of $X$, 0 the unique state of $T$, and $j$ a state of $A$. Since $T$ has a unique state, we further simplify the notation by identifying each state $q$ with a pair $(i, j)$. For a state $q = (i,
j)$ of $U$, we will refer to $i$ by the *level of $q$*. A key property of the levels is that there is a transition in $U$ from $q$ to $q'$ iff ${\textrm{level}}(q') = {\textrm{level}}(q)$ or ${\textrm{level}}(q') = {\textrm{level}}(q) + 1$. Indeed, a transition from $(i,j)$ to $(i',j')$ in $U$ corresponds to taking a transition in $X$ (in that case $i' = i + 1$ since $X$ is topologically sorted) or staying at the same state in $X$ and taking an input-$\epsilon$ transition in $T$ (in that case $i' = i$).
From any queue discipline $\prec$ on the states of $U$, we can derive a new queue discipline $\prec_l$ over $U$ defined for all $q, q'$ in $U$ as follows: $$\label{eq:queue}
q \prec_l q' \text{ iff $\bigl({\textrm{level}}(q) < {\textrm{level}}(q')\bigr)$ or
$\bigl({\textrm{level}}(q) = {\textrm{level}}(q')$ and $q \prec q'\bigr)$}.$$
\[prop:algo\] Let $\prec$ be a queue discipline that requires at most $O(|V|)$ space to maintain a queue over any set of states $V$. Then, the edit-distance between $x$ and $A$ can be computed in linear space, $O(|x|+|A|)$, using the queue discipline $\prec_l$.
The benefit of the queue discipline $\prec_l$ is that when computing the shortest distance to $q = (i,j)$ in $U$, only the shortest distances to the states in $U$ of level $i$ and $i-1$ need to be stored in memory. The shortest distances to the states of level strictly less than $i - 1$ can be safely discarded. Thus, the space required to store the shortest distances is in $O(|A|_Q)$.
Similarly, there is no need to store in memory the full transducer $U$. Instead, we can keep in memory the last two levels active in the shortest-distance algorithm. This is possible because the computation of the outgoing transitions of a state with level $i$ only requires knowledge about the states with level $i$ and $i +
1$. Therefore, the space used to store the active part of $U$ is in $O(|A|_E + |A|_Q) = O(|A|)$. Thus, it follows that the space required to compute the edit-distance of $x$ and $A$ is linear, that is in $O(|x| + |A|)$.
The time complexity of the algorithm depends on the underlying queue discipline $\prec$. A natural choice is for $\prec$ is the shortest-first queue discipline, that is the queue discipline used in Dijkstra’s algorithm. This yields the following corollary.
\[cor:cyclic\] The edit-distance between a string $x$ and an automaton $A$ can be computed in time $O(|x| |A| \log |A|_Q)$ and space $O(|x| + |A|)$ using the queue discipline $\prec_l$.
A shortest-first queue is maintained for each level and contains at most $|A|_Q$ states. The cost for the global queue of an insertion, $\mathsf{C(I)}$, or an assignment, $\mathsf{C(A)}$, is in $O(\log
|A|_Q)$ since it corresponds to inserting in or updating one of the underlying level queues. Since $\mathsf{N(q)} = 1$, the general expression of the complexity (\[eq:gen\_exp\]) leads to an overall time complexity of $O(|x| |A| \log |A|_Q)$ for the shortest-distance algorithm.
When the automaton $A$ is acyclic, the time complexity can be further improved by using for $\prec$ the topological order queue discipline.
\[cor:acyclic\] If the automaton $A$ is acyclic, the edit-distance between $x$ and $A$ can be computed in time $O(|x| |A|)$ and space $O(|x| + |A|)$ using the queue discipline $\prec_l$ with the topological order queue discipline for $\prec$.
Computing the topological order for $U$ would require $O(|U|)$ space. Instead, we use the topological order on $A$, which can be computed in $O(|A|)$, to define the underlying queue discipline. The order inferred by (\[eq:queue\]) is then a topological order on $U$.
Myers and Miller [@myers-miller89] showed that when $A$ is a Thompson automaton, the time complexity can be reduced to $O(|x| |A|)$ even when $A$ is not acyclic. This is possible because of the following observation: in a weighted automaton over the tropical semiring, there exists always a shortest path that is *simple*, that is with no cycle, since cycle weights cannot decrease path weight.
In general, it is not clear how to take advantage of this observation. However, a Thompson automaton has additionally the following structural property: a *loop-connectedness* of one. The *loop-connectedness* of $A$ is $k$ if in any depth-first search of $A$, a simple path goes through at most $k$ back edges. [@myers-miller89] showed that this property, combined with the observation made previously, can be used to improve the time complexity of the algorithm. The results of [@myers-miller89] can be generalized as follows.
If the loop-connectedness of $A$ is $k$, then the edit-distance between $x$ and $A$ can be computed in $O(|x| |A| k)$ time and $O(|x| + |A|)$ space.
We first use a depth-first search of $A$, identify back edges, and mark them as such. We then compute the topological order for $A$, ignoring these back edges. Our underlying queue discipline $\prec$ is defined such that a state $q = (i,j)$ is ordered first based on the number of times it has been enqueued and secondly based on the order of $j$ in the topological order ignoring back edges. This underlying queue can be implemented in $O(|A|_Q)$ space with constant time costs for the insertion, extraction and updating operations. The order $\prec_l$ derived from $\prec$ is then not topological for a transition $e$ iff $e$ was obtained by matching a back edge in $A$ and ${\textrm{level}}(p[e]) = {\textrm{level}}(n[e])$. When such a transition $e$ is visited, $n[e]$ is reinserted in the queue.
When state $q$ is dequeued for the $l$th time, the value of $d[q]$ is the weight of the shortest path from the initial state to $q$ that goes through at most $l - 1$ back edges. Thus, the inequality $\mathsf{N(q)} \le k + 1$ holds for all $q$ and, since the costs for managing the queue, $\mathsf{C(I)}$, $\mathsf{C(A)}$, and $\mathsf{C(X)}$, are constant, the time complexity of the algorithm is in $O(|x| |A| k)$.
Optimal alignment computation in linear space
---------------------------------------------
The algorithm presented in the previous section can also be used to compute an optimal alignment by storing a back pointer at each state in $U$. However, this can increase the space complexity up to $O(|x|
|A|_Q)$. The use of back pointers to compute the best alignment can be avoided by using a technique due to Hirschberg [@hirschberg], also used by [@myers-miller88; @myers-miller89].
As pointed out in previous sections, an optimal alignment between $x$ and $A$ corresponds to a shortest path in $U = X \circ T \circ A$. We will say that a state $q$ in $U$ is a [*midpoint*]{} of an optimal alignment between $x$ and $A$ if $q$ belongs to a shortest path in $U$ and ${\textrm{level}}(q) = {\lfloor |x|/2 \rfloor}$.
Given a pair $(x, A)$, a midpoint of the optimal alignment between $x$ and $A$ can be computed in $O(|x| + |A|)$ space with a time complexity in $O(|x| |A|)$ if $A$ is acyclic and in $O(|x| |A| \log |A|_Q)$ otherwise.
Let us consider $U = X \circ T \circ A$. For a state $q$ in $U$ let $d[q]$ denote the shortest distance from the initial state to $q$, and by $d^R[q]$ the shortest distance from $q$ to a final state. For a given state $q = (i,j)$ in $U$, $d[(i,j)] + d^R[(i,j)]$ is the cost of the shortest path going through $(i,j)$. Thus, for any $i$, the edit-distance between $x$ and $A$ is $d(x, A) = \min_{j}
(d[(i,j)] + d^R[(i,j)])$.
For a fixed $i_0$, we can compute both $d[(i_0, j)]$ and $d^R[(i_0,j)]$ for all $j$ in $O(|x| |A| \log |A|_Q)$ time (or $O(|x| |A|$ time if $A$ is acyclic) and in linear space $O(|x|+|A|)$ using the algorithm from the previous section forward and backward and stopping at level $i_0$ in each case. Running the algorithm backward (exchanging initial and final states and permuting the origin and destination of every transition) can be seen as computing the edit-distance between $x^R$ and $A^R$, the [*mirror images*]{} of $x$ and $A$.
Let us now set $i_0 = {\lfloor |x|/2 \rfloor}$ and $j_0 = \argmin_j (d[(i_0,j)]
+ d^R[(i_0,j)])$. It then follows that $(i_0, j_0)$ is a midpoint of the optimal alignment. Hence, for a pair $(x, A)$, the running-time complexity of determining the midpoint of the alignment is in $O(|x|
|A|)$ if $A$ is acyclic and $O(|x| |A| \log |A|_Q)$ otherwise.
The algorithm proceeds recursively by first determining the midpoint of the optimal alignment. At step 0 of the recursion, we first find the midpoint $(i_0,j_0)$ between $x$ and $A$. Let $x^1$ and $x^2$ be such that $x = x^1 x^2$ and $|x^1| = i_0$, and let $A^1$ and $A^2$ be the automaton obtained from $A$ by respectively changing the final state to $j_0$ in $A^1$ and the initial state to $j_0$ in $A^2$. We can now recursively find the alignment between $x^1$ and $A^1$ and between $x^2$ and $A^2$.
An optimal alignment between a string $x$ and an automaton $A$ can be computed in linear space $O(|x| + |A|)$ and in time $O(|x||A|)$ if $A$ is acyclic, $O(|x||A| \log |x| \log |A|_Q)$ otherwise.
We can assume without loss of generality that the length of $x$ is a power of 2. At step $k$ of the recursion, we need to compute the midpoints for $2^k$ string-automaton pairs $(x^i_k, A^i_k)_{1 \le i
\le 2^k}$. Thus, the complexity of step $k$ is in $O(\sum_{i=1}^{2^k} |x^i_k| |A^i_k| \log |A^i_k|_Q) = O(
\frac{|x|}{2^k} \sum_{i=1}^{2^k} |A^i_k| \log |A^i_k|_Q)$ since $|x^i_k| = |x|/2^k$ for all $i$. When $A$ is acyclic, the $\log$ factor can be avoided and the equality $\sum_{i=1}^{2^k} |A^i_k| =
O(|A|)$ holds, thus the time complexity of step $k$ is in $O(|x||A|/2^k)$. In the general case, each $|A^i_k|$ can be in the order of $|A|$, thus the complexity of step $k$ is in $O(|x||A| \log
|A|_Q)$.
Since there are at most $\log |x|$ steps in the recursion, this leads to an overall time complexity in $O(|x| |A|)$ if $A$ is acyclic and $O(|x| |A| \log |A|_Q \log |x|)$ in general.
When the loop-connectedness of $A$ is $k$, the time complexity can be improved to $O(k |x| |A| \log |x|)$ in the general case.
Conclusion
==========
We presented general algorithms for computing in linear space both the edit-distance between a string and a finite automaton and their optimal alignment. Our algorithms are conceptually simple and make use of existing generic algorithms. Our results further provide a better understanding of previous algorithms for more restricted automata by relating them to shortest-distance algorithms and general queue disciplines.
|
---
abstract: 'We calculated profiles of CIV1550, SiIV 1400, NV1240 and OVI1035 doublet lines using results of 3D MHD simulations of disc accretion onto young stars with dipole magnetic field. It appeared that our calculations can not reproduce profiles of these lines observed (HST/GHRS-STIS and FUSE) in CTTSs’s spectra. We also found that the theory predicts much larger CIV 1550 line flux than observed (up to two orders of magnitude in some cases) and argue that the main portion of accretion energy in CTTSs is liberated outside accretion shock. We conclude that the reason of disagreement between the theory and observation is strongly non-dipole character of CTTS’s magnetic field near its surface. [^1]'
author:
- 'S.A. Lamzin$^1$, M.M. Romanova$^2,$ A.S. Kravtsova$^1$'
date: |
$^1$ Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Universitetskij prospect 13, Moscow, 119991, Russia; [*lamzin@sai.msu.ru, kravts@sai.msu.ru*]{}\
$^2$ Department of Astronomy, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853-6801, USA; [*romanova@astro.cornell.edu*]{}\
title: On the origin of continuum and line emission in CTTSs
---
Introduction
============
Since the beginning of the 1990s, there has been a consensus that the line and continuum emission observed in the spectra of classical T Tauri stars (CTTSs) results from the magnetospheric accretion of circumstellar material. More precisely, the magnetic field of the star is believed to stop the accretion disk from reaching the stellar surface. In some way the disk material becomes frozen in the magnetospheric field lines and slides along them toward the stellar surface, eventually being accelerated to velocities $V_0 \sim 300$ km/s. The gas is then decelerated in an accretion shock (AS), whose radiation presumbly gives rise to the observed line and continuum emission.
Radial extention of pre- and post-shock radiating regions of CTTS’s AS is much smaller than stellar radius – $Z_{pre}, Z_{pst} \ll R_*$ in figure \[fig:as-scheme\], – making it possible to calculate the structure and spectrum of the AS in 1-D approximation (Lamzin, 1995). Calculations of Lamzin (1998) and Calvet & Gullbring (1998) indicated that the structure of the flow can be specified nearly unambiguously by two parameters: the velocity $V_0$ and density $\rho_0$ (or particle number density $N_0)$ of the gas far in front of the shock.
![Schematic structure of CTTS’s AS.[]{data-label="fig:as-scheme"}](fig1.epsi){height="7cm"}
Calvet & Gullbring (1998) used results of their calculations to derive the parameters of the accretion shock via modeling of the continuum spectral energy distributions of classical T Tauri stars. However, they did not took into account limb darkening effect and what is more the agreement between the calculated and observed spectra of the veiling continuum cannot be considered as a decisive support for the magnetospheric model, since boundary-layer models provide equally good agreement – see e.g. Basri & Bertout (1989). The line spectrum is far more informative, and comparisons of the calculated and observed intensities and profiles of emission lines enable detailed studies of the accretion processes.
Optically thin lines are best suited for this purpose: their intensity ratios can be used to derive physical conditions independent of the geometry of the region where they are formed, and the line profiles provide information about both the velocity field and geometry of this region. The calculations of Lamzin & Gomez de Castro (1999) demonstrated that the OIII\] 1663, SiIII\] 1892 and CIII\] 1909 lines should display the highest intensities among the optically thin lines, and just these lines were used to determine the accretion-shock parameters for several young stars in that paper. However, Gomez de Castro & Verdugo (2001, 2007) questioned whether these lines form in the AS. Spectral lines of neutral or singly ionized atoms apparantly form not only in AS but in magnetospheric flow and wind as well – see e.g. Edwards (2007) – and thus likewise cannot be used for diagnostic of AS.
Resonant UV lines of the CIV, SiIV, NV and OVI uv1 doublets looks as the most suitable lines for diagnostic of CTTSs’s AS, especially lines of CIV 1550 doublet: they are strong in CTTS’s spectra and calculation of their intensities is relatively simple.
Intensities of CIV 1550 doublet lines: theory vs. observations {#sec:c4relint}
==============================================================
Generally speaking, lines of C$^{+3},$ Si$^{+3},$ N$^{+4}$ and O$^{+5}$ ions form before and behind the shock front. Gas temperature in the pre-shock (precursor) zone of CTTSs does not exceed 20.000 K, but ions up to O$^{+5}$ (at $200 <V_0<400$ km/s) exist here due to photoionization of accreted matter by X-ray and UV quanta from post-shock cooling zone. When infalling gas crosses the shock front its temperature raises up to 1-3 MK and for example C$^{+3}$ ions almost complitely transform to C$^{+6}$ ions. Then gas cools and ions of interest appeares again but at that moment gas velocity is very close to zero – see Lamzin (1998) for details.
Lamzin (2003a) carried out non-LTE calculations of profiles of CIV 1550, SiIV 1400, NV 1240 and OVI 1035 doublet lines for a plane-parallel shock viewed at various angles. Calculations were performed for the range of preshock gas parameters $V_0,$ $N_0$ appropriate for CTTSs. Intensities of CIV 1548+1551 lines, normalized to ${\cal F}=\rho_0 V_0^4/4$ value, as a function of cosine $\mu$ of an angle between the normal to the shock front and the line of site are presented in figure \[fig:delta-c4\]. The ratio is expressed in percent, such as different lines in fugure respect to different infall gas velocities $(V_0=200,$ 300 and 400 km/s). Presented results were calculated for gas particle density $N_0=10^{11}$ cm$^{-3}$ (left panel) and $10^{12}$ cm$^{-3}$ (right panel).
![Relative intensities of CIV 1550 doublet lines expressed in %. See text for details. []{data-label="fig:delta-c4"}](fig2.epsi){height="7cm"}
The value ${\cal F}$ was chosen for normalisation because just this value expected to be equal to the bolometric flux of veiling continuum emission produced by AS. Indeed, according to current paradigm a half of X-ray and UV quanta from post-shock cooling zone moves to the stellar surface. These quanta are absorbed in upper layers of stellar atmosphere and then should be reradiated predominantly in the continuum – see Calvet & Gullbring (1998) for details. Thus the ratio $\delta,$ depicted in figure \[fig:delta-c4\], is theoretical prediction for ratio of CIV 1550 doublet line flux to bolometric flux of veiling continuum. Thus this ratio expected to be $\simeq 1\,\%$ almost independenly on $V_0, N_0$ parameters of AS.
Meanwile it was found that observed ratio is much smaller – see table \[tab:AS-delta\] in which we summarised results of our analyses of CTTSs UV spectra observed from Hubble Space Telescope (Kravtsova & Lamzin, 2002a,b; Kravtsova, 2003; Lamzin et al., 2004). The descripancy between the theory and observation is significant – more than two orders of magnitude in the case of RY Tau and DR Tau, such as this conclusion does not depend on current uncertainty of value and law of interstellar extinction in the direction to investigated stars.
Star: RY Tau DR Tau T Tau DS Tau BP Tau DG Tau Theory
--------------- -------- -------- ------- -------- -------- -------- -------------
$\delta,\,\%$ 0.002 0.003 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.07 $\sim 1.0$
: Relative contribution of CIV lines in emission of AS[]{data-label="tab:AS-delta"}
We suppose that this discrepancy means that the main portion of veiling continuum (up to 99 % in some cases juging from table \[tab:AS-delta\]) originates outside CIV 1550 line formation region, i.e. outside [*strong*]{} (Mach number $M_{sh} \gg 1)$ AS. In other words we conclude that the main portion of accreted matter does not pass throught the AS and falls to the star almost parallel to the stellar surface. In this part of accretion flow transformation of kinetic energy of infalling gas into the heat and then into radiation should occur in the same way(s) as in a boundary layer, i.e in a series of [*weak*]{} ($M_{sh} \simeq 1)$ oblique shocks. One can estimate the maximal possible angle $\gamma_{sh}$ between front of the weak oblique shocks and stellar surface as follows.
In the coronal equlibrium approximation C$^{+3}$ ions forms at $T\simeq
10^5$ K. Such temperature can be reached immediately behind the shock front if accreted gas velocity component $V_r$ normal to stellar surface is $\simeq 70$ km/s. Therefore oblique ASs with $V_r$ less than this value can not contribute to CIV 1550 line emission of accretion flow but produce veiling continuum and emission in lines of neutral, singly or twice ionized atoms. If typical infall gas velocity $V_0$ is $\simeq 300$ km/s, then $\gamma_{sh} = \sin^{-1}(V_r/V_0) < 15^o,$ i.e. gas producing such weak shocks indeed falls to the star almost parallel to its surface.
Profiles of CIV 1550 doublet lines: theory vs. observations {#sec:c4prof}
===========================================================
As was mentioned above CIV1550 doublet lines form in two spatially distinct regions of strong AS: in the radiative precursor and in the post-shock zone. Gas velocity in these regions are different: $V\simeq
V_0 \sim 300$ km/s in the pre-shock zone and $\sim 5-10$ km/s in the post-shock line formation region. As a result profile of e.g. CIV1548 line in the spectrum of plane-parallel shock, viewed from the direction perpendicular to the surface of shock front, should have two components: the first one is almost at zero-velocity position and the second is redshifted to $V_0.$ As follows from our calculations (Lamzin 2003a), both components are optically thick, resulting in FWHM of each componet $\sim 20-30$ km/s, with relative strength depending on $V_0:$ at $V_0<300$ km/s “zero-velocity” component is stronger than “high-velocity” one and vice versa at $V_0>300$ km/s. If the shock is viewed from the direction, that makes an angle $\theta$ with the perpendicular to the shock’s surface, then “zero-velocity” component should be seen practically at the same position but the redshift of “high-velocity” peak should be now $V_0\,\mu,$ where $\mu=\cos \theta.$ The same is true (in a qualitative way) for lines of SiIV 1400, NV1240 and OVI1035 doublets.
![Profiles of CIV 1550 doublet lines in spectra of some CTTSs.[]{data-label="fig:c4-obsprof-1"}](fig3.epsi){height="8cm"}
Consider now a part of CTTS’s surface occupied with strong AS (accretion zone). Observed profile of e.g. CIV1548 line emitted by AS is a sum (an integral) of double-peaked profiles from all elementary area $\Delta S$ of the accretion zone (multiplied to $\mu\,\Delta S$ factor). All elementary areas are viewed at different angles due to curvature of stellar surface and these angles varies with time due to stellar rotation. One can expect that intensities of “zero-velocity” components from all parts of accretion zone will be summarised and the (weighted) sum of high-velocity components will results in more or less wide red wing or separated redshifted component depending on distribution of $V_0,$ $N_0$ parameters in accretion zone and on its geometry. Obviously the profile should vary with time due to stellar rotation and non-stationary accretion as well.
Lamzin (2003b) calculated profiles of CIV 1550 doublet lines from strong AS assuming that: 1) matter falls to the star in radial direction; 2) $V_0$ and $N_0$ parameters of the shock are constant within accretion zone; 3) the zone has the shape of circular spot or sperical belt. Results of the calculations were compared with profiles of the lines in UV spectra of CTTSs observed with Goddard High Resolution Spectrograph (GHRS) and Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph (STIS). Observational data were extracted from Scientific Archive of Hubble Space Telescope (http://archive.stsci.edu/hst/\
target\_descriptions.html). Calculated profiles differs significantly from observed ones presumbly because our assumptions about the character of accretion flow near stellar surface were not realistic enough.
![Profiles of CIV 1550 and OVI 1035 doublet’s components in spectra of T Tau (left panel) and TW Hya (right panel).[]{data-label="fig:c4-obsprof-2"}](fig4.epsi){height="8cm"}
One can expect better agreement if to use parameters of accretion flow derived from 3D MHD simulations of disc accretion to a slowly rotating magnetized young star with its dipole moment inclined at an angle $\alpha$ to the stellar rotation axis. Accretion rate $\dot M_{ac},$ polar magnetic field strength $B$ as well as mass and radius of the central star are free parameters of these simulations in addition to the angle $0 \le \alpha \le 90^o$ – see Romanova et al. (2003) for details. Velocity field ${\bf V}_0$ and gas density $\rho_0$ at stellar surface, adopted from the simulations, we used as input parameters to calculate profiles of CIV1550, SiIV 1400, NV1240 and OVI1035 doublet lines. For all models we adopted $M_*= 0.8$ M$_\odot,$ $R_* = 1.8$ R$_\odot,$ $B=1-3$ kG and varied $\alpha,$ $\dot M_{ac}$ parameters in the $0^o-90^o$ and $10^{-8}-3\cdot 10^{-7}$ M$_\odot$/yr intervals respectively. Profiles were calculated for each accretion zone’s model with different values of an angle between stellar rotation axis and the line of sight $(0^o \le i \le 90^o)$ as well as for a set of phases of stellar rotation periods, i.e. for different angles $\psi$ (in $2\pi$ units) between magnetic dipole axis and the plane, which contains rotation axis and the line of sight $(0\le \psi \le 1).$
Observed profiles of CIV 1550 doublet lines in DS Tau, BP Tau, DF Tau and DR Tau spectra are shown in figure \[fig:c4-obsprof-1\]. Solid and dashed lines depicts CIV 1548 and CIV 1551 componens of the doublet. Profiles of CIV 1550 doublet’s components in spectra of T Tau are shown in figure \[fig:c4-obsprof-2\] (left column). T Tau is the only star where there is more than one high resolution UV spectrum and one can observe variability of CIV doublet lines profiles. Only in the case of TW Hya (right panel of the figure) there is possibility to obtain information about lines of OVI 1035 doublet – see Ardila (2007) for reference and details.
![Theoretical profiles of CIV1548 line calculated for CTTS with dipole magnetic field, axis of which inclined at $\alpha=30^o$ angle to the rotation axis of the star. See text for details.[]{data-label="fig:c4-a30i10i70"}](fig5.epsi){height="12cm"}
We plot in figure \[fig:c4-a30i10i70\] results of our calculations for the model with $\alpha=30^o,$ $\dot M_{ac}\simeq 4\cdot 10^{-8}$ M$_\odot$/yr, $i=10^o$ (left panel) and $i=70^o$ (right panel). Vertical row of profiles in each panel corresponds to the following set of rotation period phases (from top to bottom): $\psi=0,$ 0.25, 0.5, 0.75. Profiles were normalized to maximal intensity of the line at $\psi=0$ phase. It was assumed that accretion disk does not prevent to observe the part of the star that situated below disk’s midplane – this is the reason why some profiles have extended blue wing.
Matter falls to the star with dipole magnetic field at the angle $\theta <90^o$ relative to its surface. In the absence of magnetic field oblique shock should arise in such situation, what means that: 1) the shock front is parallel to stellar surface; 2) velocity component $V_r$ which parallel to stellar radius is the pre-shock velocity $V_0.$ But bear in mind that accreted gas moves along magnetic field lines it also seems resonable to suppose that shock front is perpendicular to the magnetic field lines and therefore $V_0=V.$ To avoid discussion of this problem we calculated profiles for both cases: solid lines in figure \[fig:c4-a30i10i70\] corresponds to profiles calculated for $V_0=V_r$ case and dashed – for $V_0=V$ case.
Such approach looks resonable at the moment because both types of theoretical profiles differs from profiles of CIV1548 line in spectra of CTTS presented in figures \[fig:c4-obsprof-1\], \[fig:c4-obsprof-2\]. Observed profiles have only one peak, maximum of which is almost at zero velocity position. The only exception is DR Tau: profile its CIV1548 line consists of two redshifted components but intensity of “high-velocity” component is larger than “low-velocity” one. Theoretical profiles calculated for models with another values of $\alpha,$ $\dot M_{ac}$ and $i$ parameters have qulitatively the same shape as in figure \[fig:c4-a30i10i70\], i.e. also can not reproduce observations.
We suppose that the reason of the descripancy is too small divergency of accreted gas stream lines within accretion zone that itself occupies only $\sim 5\,\%$ of stellar surface (Romanova et al., 2003). If divergency of the stream (and therefore magnetic field) lines within accretion zone would be larger then it seems possible to obtain single-peak profile with extended red wing similar to observed ones. Anyway our results indicate that magnetic field of CTTSs is signifificantly non-dipole near stellar surface in agreement with direct magnetic field measurements (Johns-Krull, 2007).
Conclusion
==========
We demonstrated that observed intensity and profiles of CIV 1550 doublet lines significantly differ from theoretical predictions based on the assumption that magnetic field of CTTSs near stellar surface is close to dipole. We conclude therefore that geometry of CTTS’s magnetic field near stellar surface is strongly non-dipole. Multipole components of global magnetic field of young star or/and small-scale magnetic fields of active regions probably produce large divergency of accreted gas stream lines within accretion zone that presumbly can explain disagreement between the theory and observations.
[*We thank the LOC of the Symposium for the invitation, financial support and hospitality.*]{}
Ardila D., 2007, this volume, p.103.\
Basri G. & Bertout C., 1989, *ApJ* 341, 340.\
Calvet N. & Gullbring E., 1998, *ApJ* 509, 802.\
Edwards S., 2007, this volume, p.171.\
Gómez de Castro A.I. & Lamzin S.A., 1999, *MNRAS* 304, 41.\
Gómez de Castro A.I. & Verdugo E., 2001, *ApJ* 548, 976.\
Gómez de Castro A.I. & Verdugo E., 2007, *ApJ* 654, 91.\
Johns-Krull C., 2007, this volume, p.31.\
Kravtsova A.S., 2003, *Astron. Lett.* 29, 463.\
Kravtsova A.S. & Lamzin S.A., 2002a, *Astron. Lett.* 28, 676.\
Kravtsova A.S. & Lamzin S.A., 2002b, *Astron. Lett.* 28, 835.\
Lamzin S.A., 1995, *A$\&$A* 295, L20.\
Lamzin S.A., 1998, *Astron. Rep.* 42, 322.\
Lamzin S.A. & Gomez de Castro A.I., 1999, *Astron. Lett.* 24, 748 .\
Lamzin S.A., 2003, *Astron. Rep.* 47, 498.\
Lamzin S.A., 2003, *Astron. Rep.* 47, 540.\
Lamzin S.A., Kravtsova A.S., Romanova M.M., Batalha C., 2004, *Astron. Lett.* 30, 413.\
Romanova M.M., Ustyugova G.V., Koldoba A.V., Wick J.V., Lovelace R.V.E., 2003, *ApJ* 595, 1009.\
Romanova M.M., Long M., Kulkarni A.K., Kurosawa R., Ustyugova G.V., Koldoba A.K. & Lovelace R.V.E., 2007, this volume, p.277.\
Zeldovich Ya.B. & Raizer Yu.P., 1966, W.D. Hayes, R.F. Probstein, (eds.), *Elements of gasdynamics and the classical theory of shock waves* (New York: Academic Press).\
[^1]: Published in Proc. of IAU Symp. 243: “Star-Disk Interaction in Young Stars”, Grenoble, France, 2007, Eds. J. Bouvier & I. Appenzeller, p.115
|
---
abstract: 'The metallicity of a star strongly effects both its evolution and the properties of the stellar remnant that results from its demise. It is generally accepted that stars with initial masses below $\sim 8\,M_\odot$ leave behind white dwarfs and that some sub-population of these lead to Type Ia supernovae. However, it is often tacitly assumed that metallicity has no effect on the rate of SNe Ia. We propose that a natural consequence of the effects of metallicity is to significantly increase the SN Ia rate in lower-metallicity galaxies. This is because lower-metallicity stars leave behind higher-mass white dwarfs, which should generally be easier to bring to an explosion. Using a simple model to relate the SN rate to galaxy age and metallicity, we find that the elevation in the rate of SNe Ia in lower-mass galaxies measured by LOSS is readily explained. We also find that models using the same parameters agree well with cosmic SN Ia rates up to $z\approx2$. We discuss additional implications of metallicity, including for inferences of the SN Ia delay time distribution and super-Chandrasekhar SNe.'
author:
- 'Matthew D. Kistler, K. Z. Stanek, Christopher S. Kochanek, Jos[é]{} L. Prieto, and Todd A. Thompson'
title: The Impact of Metallicity on the Rate of Type Ia Supernovae
---
Introduction {#section:introduction}
============
The end result of the evolution of stars that produce white dwarfs is often a Type Ia supernova explosion, through a single-degenerate channel (e.g., @Whelan73), double-degenerate channel (e.g., @Iben:1984iz [@Webbink:1984ti]), or both. Since stellar evolution is obviously affected by metallicity, there is no a priori reason why the rate of SNe Ia should not significantly depend on metallicity. From a theoretical standpoint, a preference for high metallicity was proposed by @Kobayashi:1998ii, whose single-degenerate model required a minimum metallicity of $\sim 0.1\,Z_\odot$ in order to produce Type Ia SNe. A similar preference for higher metallicity was seen in the single degenerate models of @Langer:2000fs. However, the strong predictions offered by these models, such as no Type Ia SNe in dwarf galaxies and the outskirts of spirals, were not confirmed observationally (e.g., @Prieto). The viability of the single-degenerate channel to produce the majority of Type Ia SNe has been debated from both observational (e.g., @Leonard:2007nh [@Simon:2009hk; @Gilfanov:2010ip]) and theoretical viewpoints [@Ruiter:2009dk; @Kasen; @Hachisu], while simulations of double-degenerate mergers still do not yield normal SNe Ia [@Pakmor:2009yx; @Fryer:2010jx].
From the viewpoint of stellar evolution, we expect an opposite sign for the dependence of the rate of Type Ia SNe on metallicity. Stars of lower metallicity at a given mass generally produce more massive white dwarfs according to stellar evolution calculations (e.g., @Umeda:1998ij [@Marigo:2007xq; @Meng:2007ni]), which should make it easier for them to reach the Chandrasekhar mass and explode. For example, according to @Marigo:2007xq, a single star with an initial mass of $3\,M_{\odot}$ will leave behind a $\simeq 0.7\,M_{\odot}$ white dwarf when evolved at solar metallicity ($Z_\odot=0.019$), while a star with the same initial mass at much lower metallicity ($Z=0.001$) will leave behind a $>0.8\,M_{\odot}$ white dwarf. Due to the steepness of the stellar initial mass function (IMF), this leads to a larger number of possible SN Ia progenitors. Obviously, producing a Type Ia SN explosion is a more complicated process than just evolving single stars (for example, see the discussion of common envelope phase treatment in @Ruiter:2009dk). However, the observed rate of Type Ia SNe implies that a large fraction ($\sim 2-40$%) of all $3\lesssim M \lesssim 8\,M_{\odot}$ stars will explode as one (e.g., @Maoz:2007xw), which suggests that the binary evolution leading to SN Ia production cannot be “fragile”.
In this paper, we propose that the Type Ia supernova rate has a strong dependence on stellar metallicity and examine the resulting observational implications. This is motivated by measurements of the nearby Type Ia supernova rates reported by the Lick Observatory SN Search (LOSS: @Leaman [@Li:2010ii; @Li:2010iii]). These measurements and their interpretation are discussed in Section \[section:ii\]. In Section \[section:iii\], we present a simple model that examines the SN Ia rate as a function of galaxy mass/age, and incorporate the effects of metallicity in Section \[section:iv\]. In Section \[section:v\], we extend this into a treatment of the cosmic SN Ia rate, including the relative effects on “prompt” and “delayed” SNe. We summarize our arguments and include further discussion on analogous observations, SNe Ia in galactic halos, galactic chemical evolution, and super-Chandrasekhar SNe in Section \[section:vi\].
The Type Ia Supernova Rate in Galaxies {#section:ii}
======================================
At present, the most complete and systematic search for nearby supernovae was conducted over the past decade by the Lick Observatory SN Search, with results recently detailed in @Leaman and @Li:2010ii [@Li:2010iii]. Here, we briefly discuss the implications of the LOSS findings for our present study. Of particular interest are the results pertaining to Type Ia supernovae.
In Fig. \[Iarate\], we display the specific SN Ia rate (rate per unit mass) versus galaxy mass as measured by LOSS [@Li:2010iii]. One is first struck by the steep dependence of this specific rate on galaxy mass. This variation of over an order of magnitude demands a physical explanation. The cause should be distinct from the origin of a similar pattern seen in the specific core-collapse supernova rate by LOSS, which likely arises mainly from the dependence of the specific star formation rate on galaxy mass [@Li:2010iii].
![The specific rate of Type Ia supernovae versus host galaxy mass. Shown are data from LOSS for galaxies grouped by Hubble type [@Li:2010iii]. Our models are also displayed, which assume either a $\Delta t^{-1}$ delay time distribution alone ([*solid line*]{}) or an additional dependence on stellar metallicity ([*dashed, dotted lines*]{}; see text).\
\[Iarate\]](Iarate){width="3.38in"}
Importantly, we also see that at a fixed mass the SN Ia rate does not vary greatly between galaxies of different Hubble type. This suggests that by examining a large set of galaxies one can arrive at the global behavior of SNe Ia. We proceed by translating the LOSS measured specific SN Ia rates in galaxies of various Hubble types from a function of galactic mass into one of galactic [*metallicity*]{}. To do this, we convert between galactic mass and median metallicity using the relation derived from SDSS data in @Gallazzi:2005df, as shown by the upper axis of Fig. \[Iarate\]. This technique effectively averages over a large representative galaxy population similar to that sampled by LOSS.
Since there is a delay from stellar birth to SN Ia explosion, a galaxy’s SN Ia rate depends upon the age of its white dwarf population. This is typically quantified by an empirical or theoretical delay-time distribution (DTD), which results in a SN Ia rate that can be simply written as $$\dot{N}_{\rm Ia}(t) = \int_{t_0}^{t} dt^\prime \, \phi(t-t^\prime) \, \dot{\rho}_*(t^\prime),
\label{eq:rate}$$ where $t_0$ is the age of the universe when SN Ia progenitor stars first formed and $\phi(t-t^\prime)$ is the DTD, which maps between the rate of star formation at time $t^\prime$, $\dot{\rho}_*(t^\prime)$, and the SN Ia rate at a later time $t=t^\prime+\Delta t$. Eq. (\[eq:rate\]) can be used to calculate the expected SN Ia rate of an individual galaxy or the universe as a whole, given a properly normalized $\dot{\rho}_*(t)$ (for the cosmic SN Ia rate, we will use the star formation rate density). Recent studies have suggested that $\phi$ roughly takes a $\Delta t^{-1}=(t-t^\prime)^{-1}$ form (e.g., @Totani:2008by [@Maoz:2010qm; @Maoz:2010dw]). The physics behind this relation remains unclear, although such a distribution may naturally result from binary mergers (see, e.g., @Ruiter:2009dk) or a single-degenerate scenario [@Hachisu:2008zw].
@Gallazzi:2005df also derive $r$-band light-weighted galaxy ages, which vary from $\sim 10^9$ yr at $10^9\,M_\odot$ to $\sim 10^{10}$ yr at $10^{12}\,M_\odot$ (see their Fig. 8), using galactic models with an exponentially declining star formation history from a time $t_{\rm form}$ with subsequent random bursts. Ideally, one would have at hand the detailed history of star formation in every galaxy. This is understandably difficult to achieve with any certainty. Attempts have been made in this direction (e.g., @Brandt:2010jn [@Maoz:2010dw]); however, using what amounts to an average over the galaxy population should be suitable for comparison with global rates. We will use both of the @Gallazzi:2005df relations in estimating the expected SN Ia rate in galaxies of varying mass.
A Simple Galactic Rate Model {#section:iii}
============================
We first attempt to explain the rate variations in galaxies of different mass as due to an age effect alone. If the @Gallazzi:2005df ages corresponded to a single-age stellar population at a given galactic mass, deriving the expected SN Ia rate for a given DTD would be rather straightforward. For example, using a DTD for each galaxy of the form $$\phi(\Delta t) = \phi_* \, \Delta t_{\rm Gyr}^{-\gamma}\,,
\label{dtd}$$ with $t_{\rm Gyr}=t/$(1 Gyr), and assuming that the entire galactic stellar mass, $M_g$, arose at a single time, $t_g$, in Eq. (\[eq:rate\]) would lead to a galactic specific SN Ia rate at time $t$ of $$\frac{\dot{N}_g(t)}{M_g} = \phi(t_{\rm Gyr}-t_{g,\,{\rm Gyr}}) = \frac{\phi_*}{(t_{\rm Gyr}-t_{g,\,{\rm Gyr}})^\gamma}\,.
\label{grate}$$ This description is incomplete, though. First, the SN Ia rate at present reflects the galactic mass at the time of formation, as opposed to that measured today after stellar mass loss has occurred. We correct for this using the results of @Bruzual:2003tq for a Chabrier IMF (as used in the SDSS galaxy sample) by including a term of the form $M(t_g)/M(t)$.
Additionally, the ages are more accurately galactic averages, so that an assumption of instantaneous formation at $t_g$ will not properly reflect the effect of a DTD. To allow for a finite duration of star formation, we use a declining history of the form $e^{-t/\tau}$, with $\tau = 1$ Gyr, occurring since the time $t_g$ for each galaxy. We further make use of the 16/84% ranges in log $t_g$ reported in @Gallazzi:2005df in order to weight the galaxy population with the DTD at fixed mass (rather than using only the median value). These should alleviate the effect of average ages by giving greater weight to the low-age tail of their derived distribution and by allowing for a non-negligible rate of star formation today, particularly for lower-mass galaxies, that is in rough agreement with the specific star formation rates measured by @Schiminovich:2007kw.
This leaves the issue of the efficiency of converting a stellar population into SNe Ia (see, e.g., @Maoz:2007xw). As we will discuss in Section \[section:iv\], the DTD is also involved in shaping the cosmic SN Ia history, with $\phi_*$ again setting the overall normalization. Rather than attempting to incorporate theoretical models of the DTD (see, e.g., @Greggio:2010en), we use a DTD with a pure power law of the form $\Delta t^{-\gamma}$, with a lower cutoff $t_c$ to account for the minimum amount of time needed to produce CO WDs. Evidence for delay times as short as $\lesssim\,$100 Myr has been reported from, e.g., the study of SN remnants in the Magellanic Clouds [@Badenes:2009bs; @Maoz:2010pz], and we simply use $t_c=50$ Myr (see also the discussion in Section \[section:v\]).
The results of using this approach are shown as the solid line in Fig. \[Iarate\], where we have used a $\Delta t_{\rm Gyr}^{-1}$ DTD with $\phi_*=1.4\times 10^{-3}\,(10^{10}\,M_\odot)^{-1}\,$yr$^{-1}$. A parametrization for this model is given in the Appendix. We see that the saturation in age at high masses results in a plateau, which should be a rather robust feature due to the relatively small scatter in estimated ages around $\lesssim 10$ Gyr in this range, while the decrease in age at lower mass results in a rise in the SN Ia rate. Overall, this simplified model agrees rather well with the LOSS data.
Incorporating Metallicity Dependence {#section:iv}
====================================
Historically, studies have focussed upon deriving the DTD without taking into account the possible effects of stellar metallicity on the SN Ia rate in a galaxy, as we have done above. As we next show, this assumption may not be sufficient to determine the actual DTD and to extract its astrophysical origins. We distinguish here between metallicity effects as primary (those involved in the rate of explosions) and secondary (those affecting the detailed properties of individual explosions; e.g., @Timmes:2003xx), with our interest being in the former.
We now examine a plausible scenario for including a SN Ia rate that varies with stellar metallicity. We propose that this arises from the effect of metallicity on the white dwarf produced. In general, it is expected that, for the same initial stellar mass, the white dwarf from a star of lower metallicity should be more massive. This may be due to decreased mass loss and/or opacity resulting in hotter burning over the lifetime of the star (e.g., @Umeda:1998ij [@Willson:2000kb; @Marigo:2007xq; @Meng:2007ni]). The simplest interpretation of this is that it should be easier to reach the requisite Chandrasekhar mass for explosion through the addition of mass via binary evolution or a double white dwarf merger.
To obtain a semi-quantitative estimate of the resulting change in the SN Ia rate with metallicity, we must consider the effect of a varying WD mass over the range of metallicities for the galaxies in the LOSS sample. One may hope for guidance from the initial-final WD mass relation determined from young star clusters. However, the clusters in which detailed studies are possible are nearby and formed recently, which necessarily limits them to single, $\sim\,$solar metallicity stars (e.g., @Kalirai:2007tq [@Williams:2008ms]). We utilize the theoretical results of @Umeda:1998ij in combination with the empirical metallicity estimates in @Gallazzi:2005df. In decreasing the initial stellar metallicity from $Z=0.03$ to 0.004, roughly the range spanned in Fig. \[Iarate\], @Umeda:1998ij determined that an additional $\sim 0.05-0.15\,M_\odot$ is added to the CO remnant at fixed initial mass (see their Fig. 6).
Fig. 8 of @Umeda:1998ij displays the relative number of SN Ia progenitors obtained from their stellar evolution model as a function of metallicity after integrating over a Salpeter IMF from a lower initial stellar mass (which varies with $Z$) corresponding to fixed final WD mass to an upper mass at which point ONeMg WDs were expected to be produced (varying with $Z$ from $\sim 7-8.5\, M_\odot$). Using a threshold WD mass of $0.85\,M_\odot$ yields a dependence on the rate with metallicity that can be approximately parametrized as $$N_{\rm Ia}(Z) \propto \left(Z+0.003\right)^{-0.5}
\label{umfit}$$ over the range $Z=0.004-0.03$. Using a lower threshold mass of $0.7\,M_\odot$ yields a slightly weaker dependence, due to the larger mass range, of approximately $$N_{\rm Ia}(Z) \propto \left(Z+0.0015\right)^{-0.3}.
\label{umfit2}$$ To derive galactic rates, we again use a SN Ia rate for each galaxy $\propto \Delta t^{-\gamma}$ and scale directly to the @Umeda:1998ij results, normalizing these relations to unity at $Z=0.025$, the metallicity of a characteristic $\sim 10^{11}\,M_\odot$ galaxy in the LOSS sample. Assuming $Z_g$ and $t_g$ to be separable, we use the 16/84% ranges in log $Z_g$ from @Gallazzi:2005df to again weight the galaxy distribution at fixed mass and introduce an overall term to account for the effect of metallicity in Eq. (\[eq:rate\]), either $f_{0.85}(Z)$ or $f_{0.70}(Z)$.
![The total masses of known WD-WD systems along with their calculated merger times due to gravitational wave losses. Shown are the three systems from the collection in @Nelemans:2005qb in which both WDs have masses exceeding 0.5 $M_\odot$: two with firm masses ([*circles*]{}) and one with only a lower limit on the mass of the secondary ([*triangles*]{}). Assuming these to have all resulted from stars with $Z\sim0.02$, we show the “expected” total masses for a range of metallicities (as labeled) using the final masses derived in @Umeda:1998ij. The resulting merger times assume initial orbital separations as presently inferred for each. \[masses\]](masstime){width="3.35in"}
The specific SN Ia rates resulting from using the two metallicity scalings are shown in Fig. \[Iarate\]. For the $f_{0.85}$ model, $\phi_* = 1.1\times 10^{-3}\,$$(10^{10}\,M_\odot)^{-1}\,$yr$^{-1}$ with $\Delta t_{\rm Gyr}^{-0.8}$ (dashed line), while the $f_{0.70}$ model has $\phi_* = 1.3\times 10^{-3}\,(10^{10}\,M_\odot)^{-1}\,$yr$^{-1}$ and $\Delta t_{\rm Gyr}^{-0.9}$ (dotted line). After accounting for the weaker effects of the DTDs used, the rate does indeed rise more steeply at lower galactic masses than by taking into account age alone. This can be interpreted as a relative change in efficiency, an effect at the factor of $\sim\,$2 level over the mass range of Fig. \[Iarate\] for the $f_{0.85}$ model and slightly less for the $f_{0.70}$ case.
Because galaxy mass is strongly correlated with both age and metallicity, it is inevitable that the models are relatively degenerate and that inferences about the DTD from galaxy populations may err without accounting for metallicity. Our simplified treatment of galactic star formation histories may somewhat underpredict SN Ia rates at intermediate masses. This may be refined through more detailed modeling, although, given the uncertainties in our inputs, we will not attempt to do so here. It is encouraging that such broad agreement with data is already seen using quite general assumptions.
We note here that the normalization of these models can be scaled up or down, although this will directly affect the normalization of the expected cosmic SN Ia rates through the DTD, as we will discuss in the following Section. Note also that care should be taken in comparing these results, which examine the galaxy population as a whole, to those that distinguish between “passive” and “star-forming” galaxies (e.g., @Sullivan:2006ah).
The above is essentially based on an assumption of a single-degenerate scenario. While the full effects of metallicity on a double-degenerate scenario are likely more complicated, if we consider binaries with a uniform mass ratio distribution, the number that will exceed the Chandrasekhar limit depends on metallicity as $$N_{\rm Ia} \propto Z^{(x-1)\,b/a} \sim Z^{-0.4}\,,
\label{binz}$$ where $x=2.35$ is the slope of the IMF, $a=0.5$ approximates the slope of the white dwarf initial-final mass relation of @Kalirai:2007tq, and $b \simeq -0.08$ is the dependence of the final mass on metallicity, estimated from @Umeda:1998ij. The magnitude of the effect is very similar to the case already considered, so we do not repeat the calculations. This model does not include any effect of the higher implied masses on the rate of binary evolution or possible effects in triple systems based on the Kozai mechanism [@Thompson:2010dp].
To illustrate the above effect, we begin with the three known double WD binaries in which each component has a mass of at least $0.5\,M_\odot$ from @Nelemans:2005qb. These have primary/secondary masses of $0.71+0.55\, M_\odot$, $0.58+0.58\, M_\odot$, and $0.51\,+ $ $>$$0.59\, M_\odot$, the last being a single-lined system with only a lower limit for the secondary. We assume that each WD arose from a solar-metallicity star and map from the WD masses to the initial stellar masses using the results of @Umeda:1998ij, mapping then to the WD masses calculated for these stellar masses at other metallicities. The $0.5\,M_\odot$ cut allows a straightforward translation without regards to systems with low-mass He WDs, etc. Keeping the initial binary separations fixed, we calculate the merger time due to gravitational wave losses for each system (see, e.g., @Thompson:2010dp). Fig. \[masses\] displays the effect on these systems using this prescription, where it is seen that the total masses of all three systems would have been pushed beyond the Chandrasekhar mass limit and the merger time would have been significantly reduced at lower metallicities.
There is hope for new tests to reduce the uncertainty in the overall effect of metallicity. For example, in observations of SN Ia host galaxies we would expect the hosts of SN Ia to be slightly less metal-rich than the galaxy population as a whole for fixed galaxy mass. This effect would not be as marked as in the case of gamma-ray bursts (see @Stanek:2006gc), since no hard upper metallicity threshold prohibiting the production of a SN Ia progenitor system is known to exist. An exception to this may be found at very high metallicity, as evidenced by the abundance of He rather than CO WDs in the metal-rich cluster NGC 6791 (see @Kilic:2007yk) – very massive, metal-rich galaxies may show an additional deficit of SNe Ia beyond that of our simple model. This may even be evident in the data at the high-mass end of Fig. \[Iarate\], although it is difficult to draw a strong conclusion at present.
We also note that the model that we have used only results in a rather modest rate change with metallicity. It does not attempt to account for changes in the remnant mass that occur during the AGB phase of an isolated star (see, e.g., @Vassiliadis1993 [@Bird:2010yz; @Renedo:2010vb]), which could result in a larger metallicity effect. Since both SN Ia scenarios require binary evolution at some step in their evolution, this model should be adequate in this respect. We also have not attempted to vary the binary fraction with stellar mass or metallicity. This is not yet well understood either theoretically or empirically (see, e.g., @Mazeh:2006vh), particularly in the mass range of the progenitors of SNe Ia, suggesting that substantial room for improvement exists on both fronts in this regime.
![The cosmic rate of Type Ia supernovae. Shown are recent measurements from LOSS [@Li:2010iii], SDSS [@Dilday:2010qk], SCP [@Kuznetsova:2007ew], HST [@Dahlen:2008uj], SNLS [@Gonzalez] and Subaru Deep Field [@Graur]. A model assuming only a fixed $\Delta t^{-1}$ delay time distribution and the cosmic SFR from @Kistler09 ([*thick solid line*]{}) can be compared to our models incorporating metallicity dependence (see text), which use either a $\Delta t^{-0.9}$ DTD ([*thick dotted line*]{}) or $\Delta t^{-0.8}$ DTD ([*thick dashed line*]{}). The components of these models with delays from stellar birth to explosion of less than 1 Gyr (“prompt”) and greater than 1 Gyr (“delayed”) are also shown ([*thin lines*]{}; as labelled).\
\[Iahist\]](Iahist){width="3.38in"}
The Cosmic Type Ia Supernova Rate {#section:v}
=================================
We next examine the expectations for the cosmic rate of SNe Ia by first considering a case without explicit metallicity dependence. We proceed by returning to Eq. (\[eq:rate\]) with the comoving star formation rate density $\dot{\rho}_*(z)$ inferred up to $z \sim 8$, using the @Yuksel:2008cu parametrization of the star formation history (SFH), $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{\rho}_*(z)
& = & \dot\rho_0 \left[(1 + z)^{{a}{\eta} } + \left(\frac{1 + z}{B}\right)^{{b}{\eta}} + \left(\frac{1 + z}{C}\right)^{{c}{\eta} } \, \right]^{1/\eta}
\label{fit}\end{aligned}$$ where $a = 3.4$, $b = -0.3$, and $c = -2$, with breaks at $z_1= 1$ and $z_2 = 4$ corresponding to $B = (1 + z_1)^{1-a/b} \simeq 5100$ and $C =(1 + z_1)^{(b-a)/c} (1 + z_2)^{1-b/c}\simeq 14$, which reflect the updated high-$z$ data from @Kistler09, and we use $\eta \simeq -10$ to smooth the transitions. The normalization is $\dot{\rho}_{0} = 0.014 \,M_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-3}$, which we have scaled down by a factor of 0.7 from the Salpeter IMF normalization of @Hopkins:2006bw to be in better agreement with the galactic mass estimates in the previous Sections. In Eq. (\[eq:rate\]), we set $t_0\sim 0.4$ Gyr corresponding to $z\approx 10$.[^1]
Since we must consider the shortest possible delay times in constructing the cosmic rate from the SFH, we again assume a power law DTD with a cutoff at $t_c=50$ Myr. We note that the results of @Umeda:1998ij (see also @Siess2007 [@Meng:2007ni]) suggest a maximum CO WD mass of $\sim 1.1\,M_\odot$ that is nearly independent of metallicity. Since the effect of decreasing the metallicity is similar to increasing the stellar mass, we take this cutoff to be independent of $Z$ (and thus $z$) since the lifetimes of the stars giving the most massive CO WDs should be similar.
We use the same $\phi_*$ and $\Delta t_{\rm Gyr}^{-1}$ DTD as in Section \[section:iii\], with the resulting SN Ia rate history shown in Fig. \[Iahist\] (thick solid line). To compare with prior results (e.g., @Mannucci:2005xh [@Scannapieco:2005uh; @Sullivan:2006ah]), this history is broken down into the components with delay less than 1 Gyr (thin solid lines labelled as “prompt”) and greater than 1 Gyr (labelled as “delayed”). We see that the “prompt” component is subdominant at $z=0$, in agreement with the rates in Fig. \[Iarate\]. Altering either the form of the DTD or $t_c$ can make the “prompt” component relatively more or less important (see, e.g., @Horiuchi for related discussion); however, this would in turn affect the specific SN Ia rate models in Sections \[section:iii\] and \[section:iv\].
Since the universe as whole had a lower metallicity in the past, a relative enhancement should also be effected in the cosmic SN Ia rate. As existing rate measurements average over the entirety of the galaxy population, this effect should not be dramatic at the present epoch, but, as for the specific rate, can be important in deriving the DTD. At low $z$, the gas-phase metallicity is typically higher than that of the stellar population [@Gallazzi:2005df]. The relation between galaxy mass and gas-phase metallicity is well determined at low $z$ [@Tremonti:2004et] and has been measured to evolve at higher redshifts, so that the typical metallicity decreases by $\sim0.15$ dex per $z$ up to at least $z\approx2$ (e.g., @Kewley [@Savaglio:2005hi; @Erb:2006qy; @Maiolino:2008gh]). We use $$Z(z) = 0.03 \times 10^{-0.15\,z}
\label{Zztop}$$ to account for stars forming from gas that is increasingly metal poor at higher $z$, with a resulting change in rate arising through either the relation approximated by Eq. (\[umfit\]) for the $\dot{n}_{0.85}$ model or Eq. (\[umfit2\]) for the $\dot{n}_{0.70}$ model, again normalizing each to unity at $Z=0.025$ to be consistent with our specific rate models. We also use the same values of $\phi_*$ and DTD slopes as in the corresponding specific rate models.
Fig. \[Iahist\] shows the resulting cosmic rates for the $\dot{n}_{0.85}$ (with $\Delta t_{\rm Gyr}^{-0.8}$; thick dashed line) and $\dot{n}_{0.70}$ ($\Delta t_{\rm Gyr}^{-0.9}$; thick dotted line) models. Both models yield similar histories as the metallicity-independent case, with parametrizations for all three included in the Appendix. This is due to the relative increase of the rates with $z$ as compared to models with the same DTD without a metallicity enhancement. This is similar in spirit, but less dramatic, than the relative evolution likely due to stellar metallicity seen in the cosmic GRB rate (e.g., @Kistler). Both models are also broken down by delay time in Fig. \[Iahist\] (thin dotted, dashed lines), which illustrates the underlying effect of altering the DTD.
As discussed for the specific SN Ia rate, there is again a degeneracy between altering the DTD and including the effect of metallicity, although not quite as strong. That the metallicity effect works in the same direction as decreasing the index in the DTD in both cases, as seen in Fig. \[Iarate\] and Fig. \[Iahist\], is something of a coincidence, owing to the fact that galaxy ages and metallicities both decrease with decreasing mass and the cosmic SFR rises with increasing $z$. This didn’t have to be the case, though. We thus reiterate that an estimate of one component must account for the other until this degeneracy is broken. It is possible to perform a more elaborate study by varying all the parameters involved (see, e.g., @Horiuchi and @Graur for the metallicity-independent DTD); however, the qualitative effects of the models that we have considered are already sufficiently evident.
Discussion and Conclusions {#section:vi}
==========================
The rate of Type Ia supernovae should be affected at some level by the effects of metallicity on stellar evolution. There may be various complications involved, such as the largely unresolved effects of binary evolution, but our simple model for the effects of metallicity should be broadly relevant. There has been significant effort devoted to investigating Type Ia SN properties as a function of metallicity (e.g., @Hamuy:2000ya [@Gallagher:2008zi; @Howell:2008jv; @Neill:2009tr; @Sullivan:2010mg; @Konishi:2011ct]). Since the properties of SN Ia have been seen to depend on metallicity, why not the rate?
The simple models that we have considered explain fairly well both the specific SN Ia rates measured in nearby galaxies by LOSS and the observed normalization and evolution of the cosmic SN Ia rate. Further progress can certainly be made with data that can break the degeneracy between decreasing metallicity and decreasing age. Indeed, evidence in this direction has been found in a comparison of SN Ia host galaxies in SDSS by @Cooper:2009vk, who found that SNe Ia in blue, star-forming hosts have a preference for lower-density environments, which they interpreted as being the effect of lower gas-phase metallicities.
As previously mentioned, the results of @Umeda:1998ij indicate that the maximum CO WD mass remains close to $\sim 1.1\,M_\odot$ over a wide range of metallicities. If this is true, and binary evolution effects are neglected, then we would expect the relative rates of super-Chandrasekhar SNe Ia arising from mergers to increase with lower metallicity in proportion to the normal SNe Ia due to the power law form of the IMF (note that instabilities prohibit the necessary growth of even rapidly-rotating single WDs; @Piro:2008pr). However, recent observations of host galaxies may indicate an even stronger preference for low-metallicity hosts for super-Chandrasekhar SNe Ia (e.g., @Taubenberger:2010qv [@Childress:2011hg]). Moreover, the maximum mass resulting from a merger under these assumptions is $\sim 2.2\,M_\odot$, well below that inferred from SN 2007if [@Scalzo:2010xd].
An explanation for both effects may arise from binary evolution. To achieve a higher total merger mass, without resorting to an ONeMg WD, at least one WD should gain mass while maintaining a CO composition. If the effect of inhibiting single degenerate SN Ia production at $Z \lesssim 0.1\,Z_\odot$ [@Kobayashi:1998ii; @Kobayashi:2008se] does hold, then the primary WD may instead be pushed close to, but not above, the threshold for explosion, so that the rate of massive mergers is further enhanced. The end state of the secondary resulting in a massive CO WD could then lead to a merger with total mass upwards of $\sim 2.5\,M_\odot$.
If, contrary to @Umeda:1998ij, the CO WD mass limit actually increases modestly for lower metallicities, then the rate of such extreme super-Chandrasekhar mergers rises dramatically at lower metallicities without a need to turn to binary evolution for a solution. This is due to the presence of the threshold in reaching the requisite total merger mass, which would lead to a large relative difference between low/high-$Z$ galaxies. The stars giving rise to these massive white dwarfs would also evolve more rapidly and could thus lead to “prompter” explosions in low-$Z$ environments. Whether this scenario occurs is a question left for stellar evolutionary modeling and observations of host galaxies.
Additionally, observations of Milky Way dwarf spheroidal galaxies have revealed decreasing values of \[$\alpha$/Fe\] with increasing \[Fe/H\], indicating the influence of Type Ia supernovae down to metallicities of \[Fe/H\] $\approx -2.5$ [@Kirby:2010dc]. Since model fits to these measurements are naturally sensitive to the SN Ia rate over a range of metallicities, we urge exploration of the implications of an increased rate at low $Z$, including super-Chandrasekhar mergers, on galactic chemical evolution.
In the category of interesting, but more anecdotal, evidence that low metallicity might be of significance for Type Ia supernovae, @Tovmassian:2010uq recently presented strong evidence that SBS1150+599A, a close binary star inside a metal-poor, Galactic halo planetary nebula PN G135.9+55.9 consists of two white dwarfs that will merge within a Hubble time. The estimated total mass of the binary is very close to the Chandrasekhar limit, making it a likely SN Ia progenitor.
It is also interesting to note that the normalized rate of planetary nebulae in elliptical galaxies [@Buzzoni:2006ei] shows a very similar trend with metallicity to that discussed in our Fig. 1. Indeed, their Figs. 11 and 12 show about 10 times fewer planetary nebulae per unit luminosity in metal-rich, massive ellipticals compared to metal-poor, low-mass ellipticals. The mapping between PN production and SN Ia explosion is of course uncertain; however, both involve the production of a white dwarf, and @Buzzoni:2006ei attribute finding fewer PNe in more metal rich ellipticals to a dependence of the initial-to-final mass relation on metallicity.
Substantial observational progress has been made in the study of SNe Ia in the last decade and new data can be expected to better determine the extent to which metallicity affects the SN Ia rate. Possible directions include detailed measurements of rates as a function of galaxy mass. Related to this is the expectation of a relatively higher SN Ia rate in galactic halos, for a given stellar population age and total mass, due to the lower average metallicity. Such a bias may already be seen in the number of cases in which a SN Ia occurred in the outer halo of a star-forming galaxy [@Prieto; @Khan:2010kj]. Elevated rates of other transients potentially involving a WD (e.g., @Thompson:2009km) should also be expected. Improved measurements of the cosmic SN Ia rate, in combination with independent determinations of the DTD at constant metallicity, can determine whether the rate is larger than otherwise expected. Along with this, if the intrinsic properties of SNe Ia vary with metallicity, we would expect an evolution in the Type Ia luminosity function as the lower-$Z$ component becomes prominent at higher redshifts.
\[section:app\]
The models that we have discussed are the result of combining several unrelated functions and thus are not necessarily amenable to convenient parametrization. Nonetheless, we find that a sigmoid function provides an adequate fit to our metallicity-independent model of the specific SN Ia rate, $\zeta_{\rm Ia}$, with $$\frac{\zeta_{\rm Ia}(M)}{(10^{10}\,M_\odot)^{-1}\,{\rm yr}^{-1}} = \alpha \, \left[1+\exp\left(\frac{\log (M/M_\odot)-M_*}{\omega}\right)\right]^{-1}+\beta\,,
\label{zfit}$$ where $\alpha=5\times10^{-3}$, $\beta=4.2\times10^{-4}$, $M_*=10$, and $\omega=0.33$ agrees with the model to within $<10\%$ over the mass range displayed in Fig. \[Iarate\]. The metallicity-dependent models can be fit with similar parameters.
Using the smoothly-broken piecewise form of Eq. (\[fit\]), with $\dot{\rho}_0$ replaced by $\dot{n}_0$, our cosmic rate models can be fit to within a few percent over the range $z=0-4$. The parameters used for the metallicity-independent model and the metallicity-dependent $\dot{n}_{0.85}$ and $\dot{n}_{0.70}$ models are given below in Table \[tab:params\]. All three use $\eta \simeq -10$ to smooth the transitions.
Model $\dot{n}_0$ \[yr$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-3}$\] $a$ $b$ $c$ $z_1$ $z_2$ $B$ $C$
------------------ -------------------------------------- ------- -------- -------- ------- ------- -------- -------
$Z$-free $2.5\times10^{-5}$ $1.8$ $-0.8$ $-2.3$ $0.9$ $2.9$ $8.1$ $5.0$
$\dot{n}_{0.85}$ $2.9\times10^{-5}$ $1.4$ $-0.5$ $-2.0$ $0.9$ $2.9$ $11.5$ $5.1$
$\dot{n}_{0.70}$ $2.8\times10^{-5}$ $1.6$ $-0.7$ $-2.0$ $0.9$ $3.0$ $8.2$ $5.2$
: Parameters used in the fits of our three cosmic SN Ia rate scenarios.[]{data-label="tab:params"}
We thank John Beacom, Jonathan Bird, Shunsaku Horiuchi, Rubab Khan, Marc Pinsonneault, and Hasan Yuksel for helpful discussions and Weidong Li for providing us with the data in Fig. 1. M.D.K. acknowledges support provided by NASA through the Einstein Fellowship Program, grant PF0-110074. K.Z.S., C.S.K. and T.A.T. are supported in part by NSF grant AST-0908816. J.L.P. acknowledges support from NASA through Hubble Fellowship grant HF-51261.01-A awarded by the STScI, which is operated by AURA, Inc. for NASA, under contract NAS 5-26555. T.A.T. is supported in part by an Alfred P. Sloan Foundation Fellowship.
Badenes, C., Harris, J., Zaritsky, D., & Prieto, J. L. 2009, , 700, 727 Bird, J. C. & Pinsonneault, M. H. 2011, , 733, 81 Brandt, T. D., Tojeiro, R., Aubourg, E., Heavens, A., Jimenez, R., & Strauss, M. A. 2010, , 140, 804 Bruzual, G. & Charlot, S. 2003, , 344, 1000 Buzzoni, A., Arnaboldi, M. & Corradi, R. L. M. 2006, , 368, 877 Childress, M., et al. 2011, , 733, 3 Cooper, M. C., Newman, J. A. & Yan, R. 2009, , 704, 687 Dahlen, T., Strolger, L. G. & Riess, A. G. 2008, , 681, 462 Dilday, B., et al. 2010, , 713, 1026 Erb, D. K., et al. 2006, , 644, 813 Fryer, C. L., et al. 2010, , 725, 296 Gallazzi, A., Charlot, S., Brinchmann, J., White, S. D. M. & Tremonti, C. A. 2005, , 362, 41 Gallagher, J. S., et al. 2008, , 685, 752 Gilfanov, M. & Bogdan, A. 2010, Nature, 463, 924 Gonz[á]{}lez-Gait[á]{}n, S., et al. 2011, , 727, 107 Graur, O., et al. arXiv:1102.0005 Greggio, L. 2010, , 406, 22 Hachisu, I., Kato, M. & Nomoto, K. 2008, , 683, L127 Hachisu, I., Kato, M. & Nomoto, K. 2010, , 724, L212 Hamuy, M., et al. 2000, , 120, 1479 Hopkins, A. M. & Beacom, J. F. 2006, , 651, 142 Horiuchi, S. & Beacom, J. F. 2010, , 723, 329 Howell, D. A., et al. 2009, , 691, 661 Iben, I. J. & Tutukov, A. V. 1984, , 54, 335 Kalirai, J. S., et al. 2008, , 676, 594 Kasen, D., R[ö]{}pke, F. K. & Woosley, S. E. 2009, Nature, 460, 869 Kewley, L., & Kobulnicky, H. A. 2005, in Starburst: From 30 Doradus to Lyman Break Galaxies, ed. R. de Grijs & R. M. Gonzalez Delgado (Dordrecht: Springer), 307 Khan, R., et al. 2011, , 726, 106 Kilic, M., Stanek, K. Z. & Pinsonneault, M. H. 2007, , 671, 761 Kirby, E. N., Cohen, J. G., Smith, G. H., Majewski, S. R., Sohn, S. T. & Guhathakurta, P. 2011, , 727, 79 Kistler, M. D., Yüksel, H., Beacom, J. F., & Stanek, K. Z. 2008, , 673, L119 Kistler, M. D., Yüksel, H., Beacom, J. F., Hopkins, A. M. & Wyithe, J. S. B. 2009, , 705, L104 Kobayashi, C., Tsujimoto, T., Nomoto, K., Hachisu, I. & Kato, M. 1998, , 503, L155 Kobayashi, C. & Nomoto, K. 2009, , 707, 1466 Konishi, K., et al. arXiv:1101.4269 Kuznetsova, N., et al. 2008, , 673, 981 Langer, N., Deutschmann, A., Wellstein, S. & Hoeflich, P. 2000, å, 362, 1046 Leaman, J., Li, W., Chornock, R. & Filippenko, A. V. 2011, , 412, 1419 Leonard, D. C. 2007, , 670, 1275 Li, W., et al. 2011a, , 412, 1441 Li, W., et al. 2011b, , 412, 1473 Maiolino, R., et al. 2008, , 488, 463 Mannucci, F., Della Valle, M. & Panagia, N. 2006, , 370, 773 Maoz, D. 2008, , 384, 267 Maoz, D. & Badenes, C. 2010, , 407, 1314 Maoz, D., Sharon, K., & Gal-Yam, A. 2010, , 722, 1879 Maoz, D., Mannucci, F., Li, W., Filippenko, A. V., Della Valle, M. & Panagia, N. 2011, , 412, 1508 Marigo, P. & Girardi, L. 2007, , 469, 239 Mazeh, T., Tamuz, O. & North, P. 2006, , 367, 1531 Meng, X., Chen, X. & Han, Z. 2008, , 487, 625 Meng, X., Li, Z. & Yang, W. arXiv:1105.5265 Neill, J. D., et al. 2009, , 707, 1449 Nelemans, G., et al. 2005, , 440, 1087 Pakmor, R., Kromer, M., R[ö]{}pke, F. K., Sim, S. A., Ruiter, A. J. & Hillebrandt, W. 2010, Nature, 463, 61 Piro, A. L. 2008, , 679, 616 Prieto, J. L., Stanek, K. Z. & Beacom, J. F. 2008, , 673, 999 Renedo, I., et al. 2010, , 717, 183 Ruiter, A. J., Belczynski, K. & Fryer, C. L. 2009, , 699, 2026 Savaglio, S., et al. 2005, , 635, 260 Scalzo, R. A., et al. 2010, , 713, 1073 Scannapieco, E. & Bildsten, L. 2006, , 629, L85 Schiminovich, D., et al. 2007, , 173, 315 Siess, L. 2007, , 476, 893 Simon, J. D., et al. 2009, , 702, 1157 Stanek, K. Z., et al. 2006, Acta Astron., 56, 333 Sullivan, M., et al. 2006, , 648, 868 Sullivan, M., et al. 2010, , 406, 782 Taubenberger, S., et al. 2011, , 412, 2735 Timmes, F. X., Brown, E. F. & Truran, J. W. 2003, , 590, L83 Thompson, T. A. arXiv:1011.4322 Thompson, T. A., Kistler, M. D. & Stanek, K. Z. arXiv:0912.0009 Totani, T., Morokuma, T., Oda, T., Doi, M. & Yasuda, N. 2008, , 60, 1327 Tovmassian, G., et al. 2010, , 714, 178 Tremonti, C. A., et al. 2004, , 613, 898 Umeda, H., Nomoto, K., Yamaoka, H. & Wanajo, S. 1999, , 513, 861 Vassiliadis, E. & Wood, P. R. 1993, , 413, 641 Webbink, R. F. 1984, , 277, 355 Whelan, J. & Iben, I. 1973, , 186, 1007 Williams, K. A., Bolte, M. & Koester, D. 2009, , 693, 355 Willson, L. A. 2000, , 38, 573 Yuksel, H., Kistler, M. D., Beacom, J. F., & Hopkins, A. M. 2008, , 683, L5
[^1]: We use $\Omega_{\rm m} = 0.3$, $\Omega_\Lambda = 0.7$, and $H_0 = 70$ km/s/Mpc where needed, e.g., in converting $z\leftrightarrow t$ and in rescaling the data in Fig. \[Iahist\] using a common value of $H_0$.
|
---
abstract: 'Via nonlocality distillation, a number of copies of a given nonlocal correlation can be turned into a new correlation displaying a higher degree of nonlocality. Apart from its clear relevance in situations where nonlocality is a resource, distillation protocols also play an important role in the understanding of information-theoretical principles for quantum theory. Here, we derive a necessary condition for nonlocality distillation from two copies and apply it, among other results, to show that $1$D and $2$D quantum voids –faces of the nonlocal simplex set with no quantum realization– can be distilled up to PR-boxes. With that, we generalize previous results in the literature. For instance, showing a broad class of post-quantum correlations that make communication complexity trivial and violate the information causality principle.'
author:
- 'S. G. A. Brito'
- 'M. G. M. Moreno'
- 'A. Rai'
- 'R. Chaves'
bibliography:
- 'Ref.bib'
title: Nonlocality Distillation and Quantum Voids
---
Introduction
============
Quantum correlations lie at the core of quantum enhanced information processing. Most prominently, entanglement [@RevModPhys.81.865] is a key ingredient in a variety of relevant applications, ranging from quantum computation [@nielsen2002quantum] to quantum metrology [@giovannetti2011advances] and quantum communication [@gisin2007quantum]. In the more recent years, another cornerstone in the foundations of quantum mechanics, Bell nonlocal [@RevModPhys.86.419] correlations have also been brought to the spotlight. As proved by John Bell in 1964 [@PhysicsPhysiqueFizika.1.195], local measurements on distant entangled particles can generate correlations incompatible with any local realistic model, a result confirmed experimentally over and over [@hensen2015loophole; @PhysRevLett.115.250402; @PhysRevLett.115.250401] and of fundamental implication to our understanding of quantum theory. However, only more recently nonlocality has started to be seen as a resource. In a seminal paper [@PhysRevLett.67.661], Ekert showed that the violation of a Bell inequality can be employed in quantum cryptography. This result has been brought to its extreme with the emergence of the device-independent framework to quantum information where the success of protocols is achieved without the need of a precise description of the underlying physical apparatuses. Within this context, nonlocality is now seen as resource in a number of applications beyond cryptography such as entanglement [@PhysRevLett.111.030501] and randomness [@acin2016certified] certification, self-testing [@Mayers:2004:STQ:2011827.2011830] and communication complexity problems [@PhysRevLett.92.127901].
As it happens to entanglement, nonlocal correlations typically become more useful the stronger they get. For instance, the more the paradigmatic CHSH inequality [@PhysRevLett.23.880] is violated the better is the bound we can put in the amount of randomness of a given measurement outcome [@acin2016certified], the maximum being achieved exactly by maximum entangled states. In practice, however, due to noise and other uncontrollable source of errors, we often might have weak or not maximum entanglement or nonlocal correlations [@PhysRevA.89.042106; @PhysRevA.86.012108]. To circumvent that, one has to rely on a distillation protocol: starting from two or more copies of a given resource, one can through a set of free operations extract a smaller number of copies but with more of the resource of interest. In the case of entanglement, these free operations are local operations and classical communication (since they cannot create or increase entanglement) [@RevModPhys.81.865]. In turn, the resource theory of nonlocality [@de_Vicente_2014] implies that such free operations are the so-called wirings [@PhysRevA.73.012101] (see Figure \[wiring\]).
The first nonlocality distillation protocol has been introduced in [@forster] and, since then, a number of results have been obtained [@brunner; @hoyer; @PhysRevLett.106.020402; @PhysRevA.80.062107; @Lang_2014; @PhysRevA.83.062114], for instance showing the existence of bound nonlocality [@PhysRevLett.106.020402] and the fact that post-quantum correlations with a negligible amount of nonlocality can make communication complexity trivial [@brunner]. In spite of that, it is fair to say that few general conclusions have been obtained, typically referring to very specific classes of correlations. The difficulty relies on the fact that the number of possible wirings involved in a nonlocality distillation protocol increases very fast. As proven in [@PhysRevA.73.012101], the set of possible protocols define a convex set, the extremal points of which are finitely many deterministic wirings. However, already at simplest possible Bell scenario, the CHSH scenario with two parties and two dichotomic measurements per party [@PhysRevA.89.042106], there are $82^4 = 45.212.176$ deterministic wirings, reason why we have seen slow progress in this research direction.
On the more fundamental side, nonlocality distillation also plays a key role in the search for information-theoretical principles able to characterize the set of quantum correlations. It is known that special relativity alone cannot single out the quantum set, as there are correlation compatible with the non-signalling principle but beyond what can be achieved with quantum theory [@popescu1994quantum]. This has motivated the introduction of several new principles [@pawlowski2009information; @chaves2015information; @navascues2009glance; @fritz2013local; @navascues2015almost; @van2013implausible; @PhysRevLett.96.250401]. However, as noticed in [@PhysRevA.80.062107], whatever principle a physical theory fulfills, the set of correlations it generates should be closed under wirings, implying non trivial constraints on the search for physical principles and the axiomatization of quantum theory [@Lang_2014].
In this paper we aim to provide somewhat more general statements on nonlocality distillation and their implications for information theoretical principles. Because of the difficulty mentioned above, we focus here on the CHSH scenario and distillation protocols involving two copies of the nonlocal correlations. Within this context, we first obtain a general necessary condition for nonlocality distillation with two copies. Then we employ it to analyze faces of the nonlocal simplex of correlations with no quantum realization, the so called quantum voids [@PhysRevA.99.032106] (if the dimension of the face is $k$ then the quantum void is said to be $k$-dimensional. Using our necessary condition we prove that correlations in all $1$D and some of the $2$D quantum voids are distillable to maximal nonlocality. This allows us to generalize previous results in the literature. First, we show that there are whole faces of the non-signalling set violating the principle of non-trivial communication complexity. Finally, we show how a large class of correlations not violating Uffink’s inequality (a necessary condition for a correlation to be compatible with the principle of information causality) can do so after a distillation protocol.
![Illustration of a wiring protocol between two probability distributions (represented as boxes).[]{data-label="wiring"}](wiring_schem.pdf)
The paper is organized as follows. In Section \[sec:tool\] we introduce the basic concepts and tools necessary to state our results. In Section \[sec:NLdist\] we propose a necessary condition for nonlocality distillation, that is then employed in Section \[sec:NLqvoid\] to prove that all $1$D quantum voids and some $2$D and $3$D quantum voids correlations are distillable. In Sections \[sec:CC\] and \[sec:IC\] we look for the consequences of distillation protocols in the non-trivial communication complexity [@van2013implausible] and information causality principles [@pawlowski2009information]. Finally, in Section \[sec:discussion\] we present our conclusions.
Toolbox {#sec:tool}
=======
We will restrict our attention here to the simplest possible Bell scenario, also known as the Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt (CHSH) scenario [@PhysRevLett.23.880]. It refers to two spatially separated parties, Alice and Bob, which upon receiving their shares of a joint physical system randomly and independently choose one of two possible dichotomic measurements to perform. Their measurement choices are labelled by the random variables $X$ and $Y$ and the measurement outcomes as $A$ and $B$, for Alice and Bob respectively. In the CHSH scenario all these variables are binary, that is, $x,y,a,b=0,1$. The results of a Bell experiment are encoded in a probability distribution of these variables $p(a,b,x,y)$ and since typically we do have control over the input distribution $p(x,y)$ it has become customary to work with the conditional probability distribution $p(a,b \vert x,y)$. Within this context, the fundamental question is to understand what are the constraints implied by different kind of theories on the possible correlations that can be observed in a Bell experiment.
Under the assumption known as local realism, the probability distribution should be decomposable as $$\label{pc}
p(a,b \vert x,y) = \sum_{\lambda}p(\lambda) p(a \vert x, \lambda) p(b \vert y, \lambda),$$ defining a set of correlation $\mathcal{L}$ where we have explicitly imposed the following conditions. First, the “realism” condition implying the existence of a hidden variable $\Lambda$ determining the probabilities of measurement outcomes even of measurement choices that have not been performed. Second, the locality condition stating that only variables in the causal past of the measurement outcomes might have a causal influence over their statistics, that is, $p(a\vert x,y,b,\lambda)= p(a\vert x,\lambda)$ (similarly for Bob). Finally, we also have to impose the measurement independence assumption (also known as “free will”) implying that $p(x,y,\lambda)=p(x,y)p(\lambda)$.
In turn, the quantum description for this experiment, implies via the Born rule that the distribution should be written as $$\label{pq}
p(a,b \vert x,y) = \mathrm{Tr}\left[\left(M_a^x \otimes M_b^y \right) \rho \right],$$ defining a set of correlations $\mathcal{Q}$ where $M_a^x$ and $M_b^y $ describe measurement operators and $\rho$ is the density operator describing the joint physical system shared by Alice and Bob. Bell’s theorem [@PhysicsPhysiqueFizika.1.195] shows that there are quantum distributions of the form incompatible with the classical description given by , the phenomenon known as quantum nonlocality that can be witnessed by the violation of the CHSH inequality [@PhysRevLett.23.880] $$\label{chsh}
\mathrm{CHSH}= E_{00}+E_{01}+E_{10}-E_{11} \leq 2$$ that in quantum case can achieve $\mathrm{CHSH}= 2 \sqrt{2}$ where $E_{xy}=P(a=b \vert xy)-P(a \neq b \vert xy)$.
A third possible description is to wonder what are the implications on the correlation arising from imposing special relativity to this Bell experiment. Because of the space-like separation between the parties, we see that the statistics observed locally by one of the parties should be completely independent of whatever choice of measurement the other party is doing, otherwise they could communicate superluminally. Mathematically, this is described by following set of linear constraints on the probabilities, known as non-signalling (NS) conditions: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pns}
& & p(a\vert x) = \sum_{b} p(a,b\vert x,y) = \sum_{b} p(a,b\vert x,y^{\prime}) \\ \nonumber
& & p(b\vert y) = \sum_{a} p(a,b\vert x,y) = \sum_{a} p(a,b\vert x^{\prime},y),\end{aligned}$$ defining a set of correlations $\mathcal{NS}$. Strikingly, there are non-signalling correlation beyond what can be achieved with quantum theory [@popescu1994quantum]. In short, we know that these $3$ sets of correlations respect the following strict inclusion relation: $\mathcal{L} \subsetneq \mathcal{Q} \subsetneq \mathcal{NS}$.
The sets $\mathcal{L}$ and $\mathcal{NS}$ are polytopes, convex sets described by a finite number of extremal points or equivalently a finitely many facets (linear inequalities). In the CHSH scenario, the extremal points of the $\mathcal{NS}$ set have been fully characterized [@PhysRevA.71.022101], consisting of 8 extreme nonlocal points and 16 extreme local points described below. In a Bell scenario we restrict our attention to the probability distribution, regardless of the internal working of the measurement and state preparation devices. For this reason, it is typical to refer to correlations (alternatively, probability distributions) simply as boxes.
- **PR-box $PR(ab|xy)$**: a no-signaling correlation that maximally violates the CHSH inequality or one of its symmetries. There are 8 of such boxes: $$\nonumber
PR^{\mu\nu\sigma}(ab|xy)=\frac{1}{2}\delta_{a\oplus b,xy\oplus\mu x\oplus\nu y\oplus \sigma},$$ where $\delta_{[.],[.]}$ representing the Dirac’s delta.
- **Local-box $L_{\alpha\beta\gamma\theta}$**: there are 16 deterministic local boxes that can be parametrized as: $$\nonumber
L_{\alpha\beta\gamma\theta}(ab|xy)=\delta_{a,\alpha x\oplus\beta}\delta_{b,\gamma y\oplus \theta}.$$
In the CHSH scenario, any nonlocal distribution can be decomposed as the convex sum of a single PR-box plus up to eight more local deterministic strategies. For instance, any correlation violating the CHSH inequality can be written as $$\label{defbox}
p(ab|xy)=c_0 PR(ab|xy) + \sum_{\alpha,\beta,\gamma=0}^{1} c_{\alpha\beta\gamma} L_{\alpha\beta\gamma}(ab|xy),$$ where $$\label{defPR}
PR(ab|xy)=PR^{000}(ab,xy),$$ $$\label{deflocal}
L_{\alpha\beta\gamma}(ab|xy)=L_{\alpha\beta\gamma(\alpha \gamma\oplus \beta)}(ab|xy),$$ and $c_0 + \sum_{\alpha,\beta,\gamma=0}^{1} c_{\alpha\beta\gamma}=1$, $0\leq c_0\leq 1$ and $0\leq c_{\alpha\beta\gamma}\leq 1$ $\forall$ $\alpha$, $\beta$, and $\gamma$. In this case $\mathrm{CHSH}(PR)=4$ (maximal violation) and $\mathrm{CHSH}(L_{\alpha\beta\gamma})=2$ (these local points saturate the local bound of the inequality). Furthermore, any other nonlocal distribution can be achieved via local reversible transformations (relabelings) over such distribution. In this sense, in the CHSH scenario it is thus sufficient to consider only and we will do so in what follows. To simplify the notation, from now on we will refer to the local deterministic strategies as $L_i$ (where might assume eight different values $i=1,\dots,8$). Here, we follow the notation in [@PhysRevA.99.032106], as shown in Table \[Li\_Labg\].
$\begin{array}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
L_i & L_1 & L_2 & L_3 &L_4 & L_5 & L_6 & L_7& L_8 \\
\hline
L_{\alpha\beta\gamma} & L_{101} & L_{111} & L_{001} & L_{011} & L_{110} & L_{100} & L_{000} & L_{010} \\
\hline
\end{array}$
As will be described in more details below, we are interested here in nonlocality distillation. That is, starting with two copies with a certain degree of nonlocality we want that the final wired correlation has a higher nonlocality degree. For that, we first have to define a quantifier. Different measures have been considered before, the violation of the CHSH inequality itself [@forster] and the so called EPR-$2$ decomposition [@PhysRevLett.106.020402]. Here we employ the trace distance measure introduced in [@PhysRevA.97.022111], basically quantifying the minimum distance of the nonlocal point in question to the set of local correlations. In the CHSH scenario the trace distance quantifier has been shown to be equivalent to the CHSH inequality violation (up to a constant factor), reason why we consider here as a quantifier $NL(p)$ of the nonlocality of a given distribution $p=p(ab\vert xy)$ the following quantity: $$NL(p)=
\max\left[ \frac{\Pi(\mathrm{CHSH})-2}{2}, 0 \right]$$ where $\Pi(CHSH)$ stand for all eight simmetries of the CHSH inequality, thus bounding $NL=0$ for local points and $NL=1$ for the PR-box and its symmetries (maximal nonlocality).
Faces of the nonlocal set and quantum voids {#nlsimplex .unnumbered}
-------------------------------------------
Following [@PhysRevA.99.032106], we represent a probability distribution $p(ab\vert xy)$ as a vector $(p_1,p_2,...,p_{16})$, where the ordering of probabilities is as shown in Table \[tab2\].
On considering the probabilities $p_2$, $p_3$, $p_6$, $p_7$, $ p_{10}$, $p_{11}$, $p_{13}$ and $p_{16}$ as free variables, the remaining eight probabilities can be expressed in terms of the free variables by using no-signaling and normalization conditions. Notice that the free variables corresponds to probabilities taking value zero in PR-box $(PR^{000})$ correlation, and for the local box $L_i$ the free variable probabilities are such that $p_k = 1$ for the correspondent free variable and zero for the other seven, where $k$ is the index of the correspondent free variable. In this way, we related $L_1\rightarrow p_2$, $L_2\rightarrow p_3$, $L_3\rightarrow p_6$, $L_4\rightarrow p_7$, $L_5\rightarrow p_{10}$, $L_6\rightarrow p_{11}$, $L_7\rightarrow p_{13}$ and $L_8\rightarrow p_{16}$.
We are interested in the region which is convex hull of the PR-box and eight local vertices $\{L_i: 1\leq i\leq 8\}$, which forms an eight dimensional simplex that we refer as the nonlocal simplex ($NLS$). In particular, we will consider the faces of $NLS$, where given a convex set $C\subseteq R^n$ and a supporting hyperplane $H$ of $C$, the set of points in $H \cap C$ defines a face of $C$ [@boyd2004convex]. Further, we will consider nonlocal faces of the region $NLS$, and all such faces can be derived by setting some of the free variable probabilities to zero.
As shown in [@PhysRevA.99.032106], nonlocal faces can give rise to quantum voids, faces where all nonlocal points are of a postquantum nature. Non-signalling faces of dimension four and smaller are all quantum voids, as well as some of the faces of dimension five and six. These are the sets we will focus throughout out the paper.
Nonlocality distillation and wirings {#sec:NLdist}
====================================
Representing the correlations as a box with inputs and outputs, a nonlocality distillation protocol can be basically understood as a wiring among two boxes, where for instance the outcomes of the first box can be used as the input for the second one. If we wire two distant distributions as $W(p(ab|xy),p^{\prime}(ab|xy))$ we obtain a new distribution $q(ab|xy)$ given by: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{defwiring}
& & q(ab|xy) = W(p(ab|xy),p^{\prime}(ab|xy))\\
\nonumber
& & =\sum_{a_1,a_2,x_1,x_2,b_1,b_2,y_1,y_2=0}^{1} \chi_x(a,a_1,a_2,x_1,x_2)\chi_y(b,b_1,b_2,y_1,y_2)\cdot \\ \nonumber
& &\cdot p(a_1b_1|x_1y_1)p^{\prime}(a_2b_2|x_2y_2)
\end{aligned}$$ where $\chi_x(a,a_1,a_2,x_1,x_2)$ represents the wiring performed locally by Alice and $\chi_y(b,b_1,b_2,y_1,y_2)$ the wiring performed by Bob. Here $x_i$ and $y_j$ are respectively $i$th and $j$th inputs to Alice and Bob’s boxes, and $a_i$ and $b_j$ are the outcomes from respective boxes, $a$ and $b$ are the final respective outputs of Alice and Bob; since two boxes are wired, $i,j \in\{1,2\}$. All possible wirings for boxes with possible inputs and outputs have been characterized [@PhysRevA.73.012101] and form a convex set whose vertices are described according to five different classes in the Table below.
Potential couplers classes $\chi(a,a_1,a_2,x_1,x_2)=1$ ($0$ otherwise)
--------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\chi_{\mu}^D$ $x_1=x_2$ and $a=\mu$
$\chi_{\mu\nu\sigma}^O$ $x_1=x_2=\mu$ and $a=a_{\nu+1}\oplus\sigma$
$\chi_{\mu\nu\sigma}^X$ $x_1=\mu$, $x_2=\nu$, and $a=a_1\oplus a_2\oplus\gamma$
$\chi_{\mu\nu\sigma\delta\epsilon}^A$ $x_1=\mu$, $x_2=\nu$, and $a=(a_1\oplus\sigma)(a_2\oplus\delta)\oplus\epsilon$
$\chi_{\mu\nu\sigma\delta\epsilon}^S$ $x_{\mu+1}=\nu$, $x_{(\mu\oplus 1)+1}=a_{\mu+1}\oplus\sigma$, and $a=a_{(\mu\oplus 1)+1}\oplus\delta a_{\mu+1}\oplus\epsilon$
Before moving on to derive a necessary criterion for nonlocality distillation, let us mention that in the CHSH scenario [@PhysRevLett.23.880], some examples of sets closed under wirings are known. The set of local correlations, quantum correlations, and no-signaling correlations as well as several sets of correlations between local and quantum sets as well as all sets of correlations generated by different levels of the NPA hierarchy [@NPA]. See Ref. [@Lang_2014] for a discussion about sets of correlations closed under wirings. Now since some of these sets are very closely spaced (for example, NPA hierarchies), for points in these regions it is very hard to come up with distillation protocols; the only viable option is to find the wirings which generates a flow gazing on the boundary of the sets closed under wirings, which turns out to be a difficult task [@Lang_2014].
Considering two copies of an initial box $p(ab\vert xy)$ given by , after the wiring we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
W(p,p)&=c_0^2 B_0^0+c_0\sum_{i=1}^{8}c_{i}(B^0_{i}+B_0^{i})\\
&+\sum_{i,j=1}^{8}c_{i}c_{j}B^{i}_{j},\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Bs}
B_0^0(ab|xy)= & & W(PR(ab|xy),PR(ab|xy)) \\ \nonumber
B_{i}^0(ab|xy)= & & W(PR(ab|xy),L_{i}(ab|xy)) \\ \nonumber
B_0^{i}(ab|xy)= & &W(L_{i}(ab|xy),PR(ab|xy)) \\ \nonumber
B^{i}_{j}(ab|xy)= & &W(L_{i}(ab|xy),L_{j}(ab|xy))\end{aligned}$$
The nonlocality of the initial distribution is $NL(p)=c_0$, since $NL$ is linear for the distribution and $NL(PR)=1$ and $NL(L_{i})=0$ for all $i$. For the wired distribution we obtain directly an upper bound for its nonlocality, given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{NLwired}
& &NL(W(p,p)) \leq c_0^2 NL(B^0_0) \\ \nonumber & & +c_0\sum_{i=1}^{8}c_{i}(NL(B^0_{i})+NL(B_0^{i})).\end{aligned}$$ Clearly, to have nonlocality distillation we need $NL(W(p,p)) > NL(p)$ thus implying that $$\begin{aligned}
& & c_0NL(B^0_0) \\ \nonumber
& & +\sum_{i=1}^{8}c_{i}(NL(B^0_{i})+NL(B_0^{i})) > 1. \end{aligned}$$
Since $c_0+\sum_{i=1}^{8}c_{i}=1$, the condition for distillation becomes $$c_0(NL(B_0 ^0)-1)+\sum_{i=1}^{8}c_{i}(NL(B^0_{i})+NL(B^{i}_0)-1)>0$$ As hinted by the expression above, looking at the nonlocality of the wired terms in can provide us with the necessary information to decide whether a given correlation is distilablle or not, something we will explore in what follows.
By testing all $82^4$ possible deterministic wirings on the wired distributions $B^0_0$, $B^{i}_0$ and $B_{i}^0$ one can prove that $NL(B^0_0)=\left\{0,1/2,1 \right\}$ and $NL(B^{i}_0)=\left\{0,1 \right\}$ as well as $NL(B_{i}^0)=\left\{0,1 \right\}$. The necessary condition above then reduces to $$\label{necessary}
c_0(NL(B_0^0)-1)+\sum_{i=0}^{2}\tilde{c}_{i}(i-1)>0$$ where $\sum_{i=0}^{2}\tilde{c}_{i}=\sum_{k=1}^{8} c_{k}$ and $\tilde{c}_i$ is the sum of all coefficients $c_{k}$ for which $NL(B^0_{k})+NL(B^{k}_0)=i$. Notice that this necessary condition can be raised to a sufficient one if one can guarantee that every term in the initial distribution is being mapped under the wiring to a distribution of the same form .
Nonlocality distillation in quantum voids {#sec:NLqvoid}
=========================================
In what follows we are going to consider whether entire faces of the nonlocal simplex (in particular, quantum voids) are distillable or not. In this case, since the coefficient $c_0$ in can vary as $0 < c_0 < 1$, a necessary condition for distillation is that $NL(B_0 ^0)=1$ (remember that only assume 3 possible values $NL(B_0 ^0)=\left\{0,1/2 ,1 \right\}$). Furthermore, without loss of generality, we can restrict to those wirings such that $B_0 ^0=PR(ab \vert xy)$. Making this restriction, reduces the number of wirings from $82^4$ to $3152$, making a complete analysis of the wirings amenable. Furthermore, in this case, the necessary condition for distillation is then simply given by $$\label{face_condition}
\tilde{c}_2>\tilde{c}_0.$$
All correlations in a $1$D quantum void can be distilled to a PR-box
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Consider a generic $1$D quantum void described by the distribution $$p=c_0 PR+ (1-c_0)L_{i}.$$ In this case, the condition simply states that there should exist at least one wiring for which $\tilde{c}_2=1$. Furthermore, this becomes a sufficient condition as well if the terms $B_{i}^{0}$ and $B_{0}^{i}$ are indeed mapped to $PR$. By searching over the $3152$ wirings, we found that for every local point $L_{i}$ there is a strategy doing that (see Table \[1dvoid\_strategies\]). That is, every point in a $1$D quantum void is distillable and the nonlocality of the wired correlation is raised from $NL(p)=c_0$ to $NL(W(p,p))=c_0(2-c_0)$.
$\begin{array}{ |c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
L_i & x=0 & x=1 & y=0 & y=1 \\
\hline
L_1 & \chi ^S{}_{0,0,0,0,0} & \chi ^X{}_{1,1,1} & \chi ^S{}_{0,0,1,0,0} & \chi ^X{}_{1,1,0} \\
L_2 & \chi ^S{}_{0,0,1,0,0} & \chi ^X{}_{1,1,0} & \chi ^S{}_{0,0,0,0,0} & \chi ^X{}_{1,1,1} \\
L_3 & \chi ^S{}_{0,0,0,1,0} & \chi ^X{}_{1,1,0} & \chi ^X{}_{0,0,0} & \chi ^S{}_{0,1,0,0,0} \\
L_4 & \chi ^S{}_{0,0,1,1,1} & \chi ^X{}_{1,1,1} & \chi ^X{}_{0,0,1} & \chi ^S{}_{0,1,1,0,0} \\
L_5 & \chi ^X{}_{0,0,1} & \chi ^S{}_{0,1,1,0,0} & \chi ^S{}_{0,0,1,1,1} & \chi ^X{}_{1,1,1} \\
L_6 & \chi ^X{}_{0,0,0} & \chi ^S{}_{0,1,0,0,0} & \chi ^S{}_{0,0,0,1,0} & \chi ^X{}_{1,1,0} \\
L_7 & \chi ^X{}_{0,0,0} & \chi ^S{}_{0,1,1,1,0} & \chi ^X{}_{0,0,0} & \chi ^S{}_{0,1,1,1,0} \\
L_8 & \chi ^X{}_{0,0,1} & \chi ^S{}_{0,1,0,1,1} & \chi ^X{}_{0,0,1} & \chi ^S{}_{0,1,0,1,1} \\
\hline
\end{array}$
Furthermore, as we will show below, not only every $1$D quantum void is distillable, but can as well be asymtotically distilled (by the iterative application of the same wiring) to a PR-box. Notice, that this does not follow directly from the fact that every nonlocal correlation in a $1$D quantum void is distillable. For instance, there are wirings that distill the nonlocality of the correlations but map them out of the $1$D void. However, if we can find a wiring that distill nonlocality keeping the correlation in the $1$D quantum void then we can guarantee violation up to a PR-box.
For example, for the one-dimensional face associated with $L_7$, using the wiring described in table \[1dvoid\_strategies\] we have that $B_0^0=PR$, $B_0^7=PR$, $B_7^0=PR$ and $B_7^7=L_7$. Thus, $$\begin{aligned}
W(p,p)=(1-(1-c_0)^2)PR + (1-c_0)^2L_7\end{aligned}$$ Now, if we wire two boxes of the form $p_m=(1-(1-c_0)^{2^{m-1}})PR + (1-c_0)^{2^{m-1}} L_7$ we get:
$$\begin{aligned}
q=(1-(1-c_0)^{2^m})PR+(1-c_0)^{2^m}L_7\end{aligned}$$
So we can use the principle of induction, to assure that, starting with a box $p=c_0PR+(1-c_0)L_7$, after $n$ interactions of wirings, we have the box $Q_n$: $$\begin{aligned}
q_n=(1-(1-c_0)^{2^n})PR + (1-c_0)^{2^n}L_7\end{aligned}$$ From that, we have that $q_n\rightarrow PR$ as $n\rightarrow\infty.$
All correlations in some $2$D quantum voids can be distilled to a PR-box
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consider a generic $2$D quantum void described by the distribution $$p=c_0 PR+ (1-c_0)\left( c_{i}L_{i} +c_{j}L_{j} \right) .$$ where we can order the coefficients as $c_i \geq c_j$. By searching over the $3152$ wirings such that $B^0_0=PR$ we found that there is always at most one value of $i$ (for all $i$) such that $B^0_{i}=B_0^{i}=PR$. Furthermore, there always exist a wiring such that $B^0_{j}$ and $B_0^j$ are mapped to a distribution of the form , that is, the condition becomes a sufficient condition for distillation. Thus, choosing a wiring such that $\tilde{c}_2=c_i$ we always will distill the nonlocality of the distribution, unless $\tilde{c_0}=c_j$ and $c_i=c_j$ (that is, we are at the isotropic line defined by the non-signalling facet). If $c_i=c_j$ we have to guarantee that $\tilde{c_0}=0$, what only happen at a subset of $2$D quantum voids given by the sets consisting of the following pairs of local points: $(L_1L_2)$, $(L_1L_3)$, $(L_1L_5)$, $(L_2L_4)$, $(L_2L_6)$, $(L_3L_4)$, $(L_3L_8)$, $(L_4L_7)$, $(L_5L_6)$, $(L_5L_7)$, $(L_6L_8)$ and $(L_7L_8)$. All the other $2$D quantum voids are distillable but not at the isotropic line (see Fig. \[2d\_voids\_distillable\]).
![Schematic representation of the $2$D quantum voids that are distillable up to a PR-box. If there exists one edge between two local vertices, then this set is completely distillable and there is at least one single strategy that can distill the entire void. For instance, the set $\{PR,L_1,L_2\}$ is completely distillable, however the set $\{PR,L_1, L_7\}$ is not.[]{data-label="2d_voids_distillable"}](2Ddistillable.pdf)
As a matter of fact, not only all these $2$D quantum voids are fully distillable but can as well be distilled up to a PR-box. In Table \[2dvoid\_strategies\] we show the example of a wiring strategy for each $2$D quantum void that being applied iteratively can bring any nonlocal correlation up to the PR-box.
$\begin{array}{ |c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
L_iL_{j} & x=0 & x=1 & y=0 & y=1 \\
\hline
L_1L_2 & \chi ^S{}_{0,0,0,0,0} & \chi ^X{}_{1,1,1} & \chi ^S{}_{0,0,1,0,0} & \chi ^X{}_{1,1,0} \\
L_1L_3 & \chi ^S{}_{0,0,0,0,0} & \chi ^X{}_{1,1,0} & \chi ^S{}_{0,1,1,0,0} & \chi ^S{}_{0,0,1,0,0} \\
L_1L_5 & \chi ^S{}_{0,0,0,0,0} & \chi ^S{}_{0,1,0,0,0} & \chi ^S{}_{0,0,1,0,0} & \chi ^X{}_{1,1,0} \\
L_2L_4& \chi ^S{}_{0,0,1,0,0} & \chi ^X{}_{1,1,0} & \chi ^S{}_{0,0,0,0,0} & \chi ^S{}_{0,1,0,0,0} \\
L_2L_6 & \chi ^S{}_{0,0,1,0,0} & \chi ^S{}_{0,1,1,0,0} & \chi ^S{}_{0,0,0,0,0} & \chi ^X{}_{1,1,1} \\
L_3L_4 & \chi ^S{}_{0,0,0,1,0} & \chi ^X{}_{1,1,0} & \chi ^X{}_{0,0,0} & \chi ^S{}_{0,1,0,0,0} \\
L_3L_8 & \chi ^S{}_{0,0,0,1,0} & \chi ^S{}_{0,1,1,1,0} & \chi ^X{}_{0,0,0} & \chi ^S{}_{0,1,0,0,0} \\
L_4L_7& \chi ^S{}_{0,0,1,1,1} & \chi ^S{}_{0,1,0,1,1} & \chi ^X{}_{0,0,1} & \chi ^S{}_{0,1,1,0,0} \\
L_5L_6 & \chi ^X{}_{0,0,0} & \chi ^S{}_{0,1,1,0,1} & \chi ^S{}_{0,0,1,1,0} & \chi ^X{}_{1,1,0} \\
L_5L_7 & \chi ^X{}_{0,0,0} & \chi ^S{}_{0,1,1,0,0} & \chi ^S{}_{0,1,0,1,0} & \chi ^S{}_{0,0,1,1,0} \\
L_6L_8 & \chi ^X{}_{0,0,0} & \chi ^S{}_{0,1,0,0,0} & \chi ^S{}_{0,0,0,1,0} & \chi ^S{}_{0,1,1,1,0} \\
L_7L_8 & \chi ^X{}_{0,0,0} & \chi ^S{}_{0,1,1,1,0} & \chi ^X{}_{0,0,0} & \chi ^S{}_{0,1,1,1,0} \\
\hline
\end{array}$
To illustrate (see Fig. \[flow\_map\]) that we choose the two-dimension face given by the local points $L_7$ and $L_8$ and employ the wiring presented in table \[2dvoid\_strategies\] (which is the same as the example shown for the one-dimensional scenario). In this case we have $B_0^0=B_0^7=B_7^0=B_0^8=PR$, $B_7^7=B_8^8=L_7$, $B_8^7=B_7^8=L_8$, and $B_8^0=\frac{1}{2}(L_7+L_8)$.
Given a box $p=c_{0}^{(0)} PR + c_7^{(0)}L_7+c_8^{(0)}L_8$, let $c_0^{(n)}$, $c_7^{(n)}$, and $c_8^{(n)}$ be the coefficients of $PR$, $L_7$, and $L_8$ respectively, after applying $n$ wirings. We have that the output $Q_n$ of the $n$-th wiring is: $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
& & q_n=\left[2-c_0^{(n-1)}-c_8^{(n-1)}\right]c_0^{(n-1)}PR+ \\ \nonumber
& & \frac{1}{2}\left[c^{(n-1)}_0c^{(n-1)}_8+ 2\left(c_7^{(n-1)}\right)^{2}+2\left(c_8^{(n-1)}\right)^{2}\right]L_7+ \\ \nonumber
& & \frac{1}{2}\left[c_0^{(n-1)}+4c_7^{(n-1)}\right]c_8^{(n-1)}L_8.\end{aligned}$$ Notice that $c_0^{(n)}>c_0^{(n-1)}$ for all values of $c_8^{(n-1)}\neq 1$ and $c_0^{(n-1)}\neq 1$, and $\frac{c_0^{(n)}}{c_0^{(n-1)}}=2-c_0^{(n-1)}-c_8^{(n-1)}\rightarrow1$ only when $c_0^{(n-1)}\rightarrow 1$ or $c_8^{(n-1)}\rightarrow 1$, the last one cannot happen by hypothesis. Hence $c_0$ increases monotonically with $n$ implying that $q_n\rightarrow PR$ as $n\rightarrow\infty$.
![Flow map for the distillation in the $2$D quantum void $\{PR,L_1,L_3\}$. By applying successively the wiring strategy shown in Table \[1dvoid\_strategies\] any point in this set is distilled to PR-box. Interestingly, the flow map shows that the wiring always moves the points up to the isotropic line (dashed red line) and then go up to the PR-box following that line. The dark region shows the region of correlations that do not violate Uffink’s inequality (but do so after the distillation protocol). As well, it follows that all correlations in this void trivialize communication complexity.[]{data-label="flow_map"}](2D_L1L3_flow_map_uffink.pdf)
Some $3$D quantum voids are fully distillable
---------------------------------------------
Consider a generic $3$D quantum void described by the distribution $$p=c_0 PR+ (1-c_0)\left( c_{i}L_{i} +c_{j}L_{j} +c_{k}L_{k} \right) .$$ where we can order the coefficients as $c_i \geq c_j \geq c_k$. Considering the $3152$ wirings such that $B^0_0=PR$ we have that there is at most one value of $i$ such that $B^0_{i}=B_0^{i}=PR$. The best one can do is to choose a wiring such that $\tilde{c}_2= c_i$. To have distillation in whole $3$D void we should have $\tilde{c}_1= c_j+c_k$ thus implying that $\tilde{c}_0= 0$. However, this is achieved only for a subset of the possible $3$D voids given by $(L_1L_2L_3)$, $(L_1L_2L_4)$, $(L_1L_2L_5)$, $(L_1L_2L_6)$, $(L_1L_3L_4)$, $(L_1L_5L_6)$, $(L_2L_3L_4)$, $(L_2L_5L_6)$, $(L_3L_4L_7)$, $(L_3L_4L_8)$, $(L_3L_7L_8)$, $(L_4L_7L_8)$, $(L_5L_6L_7)$, $(L_5L_6L_8)$, $(L_5L_7L_8)$ and $(L_6L_7L_8)$. For all other cases it follows that $\tilde{c}_2= c_i$, $\tilde{c}_1= c_j$ thus implying that $\tilde{c}_0= c_k$, case in which the necessary condition implies that at least the isotropic line where $c_i=c_j=c_k=1/3$ will not be distillable.
A natural question is then whether distillable $3$D voids can all be distilled up to a PR-box. As mentioned before, a sufficient condition to achieve that is that the wiring maps the $3$D void to the same $3$D void. However, by searching over the $3152$ wirings we could not find any with this property. It could be, however, that searching over all wirings (not necessarily maping the $3$D void to another $3$D void) or considering a distillation protocols based on a higher number of copies would achieve that.
No non-signalling face of dimension $4$ or higher is fully distillable
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The argument given above showing that not every $3$D quantum void can be fully distilled can also be extended to non-signalling faces of dimension $4$ or higher. Consider the isotropic line of a $4$-dimensional NS face $$p=c_0 PR+ (1-c_0)/4\left(L_{i} +L_{j} +L_{k}+L_{m} \right) ,$$ where the $4$ coefficients of the local part are the same and equal to $c_i=1/4$. The necessary criterion for distillation implies that $\tilde{c}_2 > \tilde{c}_0$. However, by restricting to the wirings such that $B^0_0=PR$ and making $\tilde{c}_2=c_i$, the best we can have for this scenario is $\tilde{c}_1 = c_j + c_k$, so necessarily $\tilde{c}_0=c_m$. That is, there is no wiring satisfying the necessary condition for distillation. Clearly, the argument extends to dimensions higher than $4$, thus showing that in any non-signalling face with dimension $4$ or more, at least the isotropic line of that face will not be entirely distillable.
Interestingly, the set $Q^{1}$ (the first level of the NPA hierarchy) can successfully reproduce some of the $4$D voids. At the same time, to our knowledge, there is no known closed set of correlations between $Q^{1}$ and NS-polytope, which may be an indication that the voids reproduced by $Q^{1}$ may be asymptotically distillable to the PR-box, if more than two copies are considered in the distillation protocol. However, for five dimensions and beyond, no asymptotic distillation to PR-box will be possible for all correlation in the quantum void. This follows from the fact that in these cases there is always a gap between the set of quantum correlations and $Q^{1}$.
nonlocality distillation and trivial communication complexity {#sec:CC}
=============================================================
Among the several principles introduced to try to explain why correlations beyond quantum mechanics are unlikely we have the so called non-trivial communication complexity. The basic setup involves two distant parties which locally receive bit strings $\vec{x}$ and $\vec{y}$ respectively and by exchanging a limited amount of information should compute function $f(\vec{x},\vec{y})$ depending on both bit strings. It seems natural that the amount of communication required should increase with the size of the bit strings. Quantum theory is compatible with that but, as shown by Van Dam [@van2013implausible], PR-boxes can make such communication complexity trivial, since their use with a single bit of exchanged information is enough to make such nonlocal computations. Later on, this result has been extended to show that any correlation achieving the value of $\mathrm{CHSH} \geq 4\sqrt{2/3} \approx 3.266$ would also trivialize communication complexity [@PhysRevLett.96.250401].
Afterwards, by considering nonlocality distillation it has been shown that postquantum correlations arbitrarily close to the local set also can trivialize communication complexity [@brunner]. Considering the isotropic line of a $2$D quantum void given by $$c_0PR+(1-c_0)/2(L_7+L_8),$$ it has been shown in [@PhysRevLett.96.250401] a wiring protocol capable of distilling this distribution (after asymptotically many iterations) to a PR-box. Since a PR-box violates makes communication complexity trivial, so does this correlation. The results presented in the previous section, can thus be seen as a generalization of that. As we showed, not only the isotropic line of some $2$D quantum voids but the whole quantum void can be distilled to a PR-box, thus showing their incompatibility with the principle of non-trivial communication complexity.
Tightening Information Causality with nonlocality distillation {#sec:IC}
==============================================================
Another information-theoretical principle that has attracted considerable interest is information causality [@pawlowski2009information]. As in the communication complexity scenario, we have two distant parties, Alice and Bob. Alice receives a N-bit string $\vec{x} = (x_1,x_2, . . . ,x_{N})$, can send a M bits of information to Bob (where $M<N$, that is, there is bounded communication) in a message $m$ and Bob is asked to make a guess $\beta_i$ of Alice’s $i$-th bit. The information causality principle basically states that $\sum_{i=1}^{N} I (x_i : \beta_i )\leq H(M)$ ($H(M)$ being the Shannon entropy of the message and $I (x_i : \beta_i )$ the mutual information between Alice’s input and Bob’s guess). In other terms, the total potential information about Alice’s bit string that is accessible to Bob cannot exceed the amount of information contained in the message. Quantum correlations are in accordance with information causality but the PR-box can be shown to violate it. This can be witnessed by the violation of the Uffink’s inequality, a necessary condition for a given correlation to respect information causality and given by [@PhysRevLett.88.230406] $$(E_{00}+ E_{10})^2 +(E_{01}- E_{11})^2 \leq 4
\label{ufink}$$
Interestingly, it is known that the set of correlations defined by Uffink’s inequality is convex but it is not closed under wirings [@PhysRevA.80.062107]. That is, some correlations which do not violate Uffink’s inequality can do so by nonlocality distillation [@PhysRevA.80.062107]. For instance, in [@PhysRevA.80.062107] this has been shown by considering a specific section of the non-signalling polytope and over a very small region of it. Our results can be used to extend that. As shown in [@PhysRevA.99.032106], some correlations of the $2$D quantum voids do not violate Uffink’s inequality (see Fig. \[flow\_map\]). From $28$ $2$D-voids, $16$ of them has some correlations that do not violate Uffink’s inequality which are: $(L_1L_3)$, $(L_1L_4)$, $(L_1L_7)$, $(L_1L_8)$, $(L_2L_3)$, $(L_2L_4)$, $(L_2L_7)$, $(L_2L_8)$, $(L_3L_5)$, $(L_3L_6)$, $(L_4L_5)$, $(L_4L_6)$, $(L_5L_7)$, $(L_5L_8)$, $(L_6L_7)$ and $(L_6L_8)$. From these $16$ sets, $4$ of them are distillable up to a PR-box, which are: $(L_1L_3)$, $(L_2L_4)$, $(L_5L_7)$ and $(L_6L_8)$. That is, by nonlocality distillation one can prove that all the correlations in these $2$D quantum voids indeed violate information causality.
Discussion {#sec:discussion}
==========
In this paper we have derived a necessary condition for the nonlocality distillation of correlations in the CHSH scenario. By considering quantum voids –faces of the non-signalling set – we have used this criterion to prove that all $1$D and some $2$D quantum voids can be distilled up to a the maximal nonlocal correlation, a PR-box. Also, we have proven that some $3$D quantum voids are fully distillable, that is, all correlations can have its nonlocality increased by wirings. However, we could not find any wirings capable of distilling correlation in $3$D void up to a PR-box, something that remains as an interesting open question. For quantum voids of dimension four or higher that is no longer possible, as the isotropic line in these voids is not distillable (at least with two copies). Interestingly, for $4D$ quantum voids and beyond, the isotropic line of these sets (defined by summing the local deterministic strategies with equal coefficients) cannot be distilled with two copies. A similar result has been proven also in the limit of infinitely many copies [@beigi2015monotone] for the so called isotropic-box and that can be understood as a particular case of the isotropic lines we consider here.
Building up on these results, we show the relevance of nonlocality distillation on the understanding of information-theoretical principles for quantum theory. First, we provide a generalization of the results in [@brunner], showing that a large class of postquantum correlations (in $1$D and $2$D quantum voids) can make communication complexity trivial. Finally, we have shown how a distillation protocol can help understanding the set of correlations compatible with the information causality principle. More precisely, $2$D quantum void correlations that do not violate a necessary condition to respect information causality can do so after a distillation protocol. In view of all that, it would be interesting to analyze further the use of distillation protocols and in particular correlations in quantum voids to understand and characterize closed sets under wirings, in particular considering multipartite scenarios [@fritz2013local; @PhysRevLett.107.210403; @Chaves2017causalhierarchyof] to which very few principles have been introduced so far.
We acknowledge support from the Brazilian ministries MCTIC, MEC, and the CNPq (PQ Grant No. 307172$/$2017-1 and INCT-IQ and PDJ grant No. 154354$/$2018-0), the Serrapilheira Institute (Grant No. Serra-1708-15763), and from John Templeton Foundation via Grant Q-CAUSAL No. 61084.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.